‘My suggested approach [regarding the anti-white system] is generally fairly mild, nonviolent, and legal’. —a phrase from the feminized piece that has just been published, today, as a featured article on The Occidental Observer.
Generally I would only recommend the Counter-Currents (CC) webzine to a little normie who wants to take his first baby steps when crossing the psychological Rubicon. Like The Occidental Observer and American Renaissance, CC is an online publication for racially conscious American conservatives, not for Nietzschean revolutionaries. They don’t deserve to be called ‘white nationalists’, the term some of them use, since creating a White Nation would obviously require revolutionary violence. God forbid!
I would go as far as claim that almost all the racialist sites that use the term White Nationalism lie, as they are not promoting revolutionary ideals to reclaim their nations. What they are actually doing is complaining, as women have complained throughout history. If the alt-right sites were run by women I would not criticise them at all. But they are administered by males, which makes these men intellectually cowards, at least compared to the author of Toward the White Republic.
Although Michael O’Meara’s last chapter is a ‘Call to Arms’, in the sense that he was not advocating mere armchair speculation or complaining, this is not the time to start a revolution as the zeitgeist is at the exact opposite pole. However, an ideology must be created that takes antichristianism to its ultimate consequences—see for example what I said this morning to a commenter—always keeping in mind that the final goal is the fulfilment of the fourteen words.
This said, and independently of the baby steps, sometimes Counter-Currents contributors say interesting things. Yesterday for example CC published a piece by Spencer Quinn, ‘Black Lives Matter is Black Supremacy’, which is worth reading. But I was more interested in what a couple of commenters said in the comments section. The first wrote:
As others have said, these riots were about black honour and power. A white policeman kills a black criminal. But blacks see only ‘white man kills black man’ and respond through vengeance upon white society.
Another one commented:
What is cited regarding people getting fired over mildly criticizing BLM doesn’t really have much to do with the organization per se so much as the extravagant social currency connected to BLM; companies are firing people because we live in a capitalist economy; criticizing BLM is equated with criticizing blacks; criticizing blacks is taboo; and a company that associates with people who commit a taboo will lose social credibility and thus money. It is really capitalism that has given the abundance of soft power to BLM— BLM just happens to be the “moral truth” at this moment in time. In the past, I’m sure in certain places you could lose your job and social capital for supporting blacks. Same system, different truth.
This second comment is important, as it was difficult to understand why companies are taking sides with vandals, rioters, and those who pull down once-respected statues in the US. But what both Quinn and his commenters omit is that the moral grammar that Christianity engendered is behind today’s taboo of criticising blacks, or other minorities, throughout the West.
The gospel commands us to love the weak, and even more so those groups who are at the bottom in society. The Enlightenment, the American Revolution and the French Revolution only started the process to secularise these axiological standards, but the background always was Christian standards of morality. As I tried to explain in my post yesterday, pulling down from the pedestal the handsome sculptures of classical culture was nothing more than degrading ancient civilisation in Rome after a cult of Semitic origin took over the empire. And what is at issue today is replacing white supremacism with ‘black supremacism’, to use Quinn’s expression. The first step to achieve this is degrading modern white civilisation through its very symbols.
It is up to the men who are now deceptively calling themselves white nationalists to leave their femininity behind and start thinking like real men. The first step in that direction would be a return to pre-Christian values, for example, beginning to love once again the handsome statues that the Semites destroyed so many centuries ago. The rest follows from there.
Down with the cross, up with Apollo!
7 replies on “Apollo and the cross”
Regarding premature revolution, is what the BBC now saying about Norman Spear false (Spear was a 2018 guest of our podcast before we were deplatformed from SoundCloud)?
Unfortunately I don’t believe it’s false. They use such groups as a façade to incriminate callow and jejune dissidents. BCC has reported many similar stories as of recent and even did a brief documentary on it.
What irritates me is the WN’s constant pointing out of double standards existing in society in relation to the treatment of white people and decrying the hypocrisy of their enemies with their whining of “that’s not fair!”. Well munchkins life is not fair! Life is unjust, unfair, unequal and full of pain, suffering and misery. Justice doesn’t exist, it’s a delusional error of Man. Once someone has wronged and abused you, no amount of Eye for an Eye retaliatory revenge can ever change what was done to you. The whole justice system is a fraud. Fairness and Justice are concepts of the civilized White Man at odds with Nature. In actual operation Nature is completely unfair.
Why should our enemies hold themselves back by playing fair? Double standards exist for a reason, sometimes they are justified IMO. Our enemies want white genocide therefore it is logical for them to hold whites to a different standard to non-whites and Jews. As James Mason once wrote “Let there be no more talk of injustice, only war!”
Regarding Black Supremacy, the behaviour of whites since 1945 has brought into being in the black community the doctrine of white inferiority and Black Supremacy. I can’t say I blame blacks for coming to this conclusion. Many whites now cringe and cower before their Black Masters, scared of getting a beating and always ready to apologize for the actions of their ancestors whom they hate (and I’m certain if our white ancestors could see what became of their descendants they would be ashamed and not recognize them as their own flesh and blood). Whites have been defeated in the most humiliating way possible, not through honest warfare but through psychological warfare via Christianity. They willingly give themselves up for slavery and embrace their own genocide without a fight. If I lived in the 1930s I would believe in White Supremacy. But the behaviour of whites since the 1940s has seriously brought into question the notion of White Supremacy. We were superior in nearly all aspects, now we are inferior in many aspects (but still superior in some aspects). Is this present inferiority temporary? It certainly will be if our race survives and recovers from its present malaise. But if our race goes extinct in the near future then this inferiority is just the behaviour of a dying species. A herd of imbecilic dysfunctional degenerates who have become biologically obselete since their defeat in 1945.
Despite the negative present there are still examples of manly and courageous White Men in the present dark age. One example is Jeremy Christian who, after committing a racist killing, remained unrepentant and celebrated the death of George Floyd in front of one of his black victims’ family members in court. I’d recommend watching the footage of the court proceedings on YouTube.
I don’t know if I’d call Nature unfair. That makes it sound like Nature is actively working against you. Nature is completely indifferent and could care less if we live or die. You can do absolutely everything Right and Nature will still sometimes kill you. Just the way it is for everything alive. There are no favorites.
Anyway, this nonsense of whining about the enemy not being fair irritates me to no end. They still think this is a game with rules and they can appeal to some sort of referee if someone “cheats.” I want to grab them be the lapels and shake some sense into them, but I’d probably just shake out whatever brains they had.
Right now, the state has the monopoly on force ( and that includes BLM, ANTIFA, etc. who are protected by the system) but if that changes for any reason, our fortunes could change. I have a suspicion a lot of people are watching the situation closely, but no one wants to present themselves as the nail for the system to hammer. Just so we’re clear I’m not talking about the fear of “Optics.” I keep getting this feeling they’re trying to draw the “revolutionary types” out to eliminate them first, but no one is taking the bait. Perhaps I’m wrong, and there is no more strength left in the White race. I’m not exactly optimistic, but only time will tell. It’s just that we have so very little of that left.
@Adit
You stated: “Nature is completely indifferent and could care less if we live or die.”
And you go on to state that even doing all things right will sometimes kill you.
I respectfully disagree.
Nature is not completely indifferent. It is not even ‘just’ indifferent. If you do all things right, you increase your (and your genes) chance of survival manyfold.
Nature, as you indirectly stated, operates very much on probabilities. So nature tells us in no uncertain terms that she will provide us with a much greater chance of survival if we live in accordance with her rules.
Today we do not.
For whatever it is worth, researchers har carried out several computer simulations as to the probability of survival given a set of behaviour, versus other types of behaviour. University of Surrey did it to mention one.
The overwhelming conclusion from all this computer simulations are: The cultures that nurture etnosentricity and ‘give it all’ for their ethnic group and at the same time exclude outsiders, are the ones that wins (survives) in the long run. Every time.
We’re talking at cross purposes. You’re talking about violating the “rules” of nature vs Nature consciously picking a winner. Here’s an example: A species is succeeding well in its tropical environment. It’s doing everything right and is out competing others and expanding its territory. Suddenly there is a climactic shift, and the nice tropical environment is turned into a desert withIn a few generations ( too few to evolve adaptions) and they all die out. They did everything right, right up to the point they didn’t. Nature didn’t decide it hated these creatures and changed the environment to kill them, nor did these creatures violate any rules of nature. Things just changed impossibly fast, they couldn’t keep up, they died. No big mystery.
Now, as to violating the rules of nature, Whites have been doing it in spades and the chickens have now come home to roost. If you want your group to survive you don’t help your competitors survive and prosper. That’s a fast track to extinction if I ever heard one. Whites have been doing nothing but that for literally centuries. Christianity is one cause and just sheer unadulterated greed is another ( there are others but those two top the list) . White Technology has sped up the process so much that what would have taken centuries to occur now is compressed into a decade.
Some years ago I used to talk about a witches’ brew of several causative factors. Not anymore.
Christianity is the main culprit.
The Chinese have imitated whites in both capitalism and technology, but they aren’t facing extinction because their moral grammar was not corrupted with a Levantine infection.
It’s just that simple. Reductionist explanations work per Occam’s razor.