On my way to my first Counter-Currents retreat, I passed a large sign immediately before the airport exit: the exit to Peoria. I kept going, symbolically committing myself to personally and publicly sticking to a radical position instead of exhaustively attempting to reconcile what I actually believe with “Will it play in Peoria?”
Admittedly, this decision was partially a simple response to failure. No matter how carefully I attempted to craft my message, or how dutifully I attempted to distance myself from what’s vilified and taboo, any position which amounted to actually reversing our fatal trajectory, rather than merely slowing it down, made me a Klansman, a neo-Nazi, and a racist. I objected, but the smears pretty much stuck. My principles and motives are, after all, closer to those of a marauding Klansman or a barking Nazi than they are to anything within the “respectable” spectrum of mainstream American politics.
I’m no Klansman, and I honestly find very little to emulate in Southern heritage. I think slaveholding was immoral, a grave insult to both the slaves themselves and the White underclass which were driven into starvation and humiliation by their presence. I’m certainly no partisan of either the Yankee industrialists or the proto-liberal abolitionists of the time, sympathizing primarily with my own Copperhead ancestors. Ironically, the most admiration I have for Southern culture lies in the Klan’s spontaneous uprising against Black criminality and carpetbagger domination. I don’t approve of their excesses, don’t care for their style, and consider them a spent force, but the love of their people and willingness to defend them in the depths of a hostile age is the same thing that drives me.
I’m no Nazi. I have no German heritage. I don’t have much use for their pagan revivalist undertones or their dehumanizing “cattle-breeding” perspective on heritage and genetics. I think their relentless persecution of Jewish rag merchants while allowing the Jewish oligarchs to slip off and regroup is the very model of how not to handle the Jewish Question. I can’t justify or defend everything they did because I don’t agree with everything they did. That being said, Mein Kampf is certainly closer to my heart than anything to be found on a mainstream conservative’s bookshelf.
I’m really not even a racist, at least not in the way it’s implied when it’s hurled at me as an epithet. I have plenty of non-White friends, find much to admire and emulate in non-White cultures the world over, and relish learning more about and from other peoples. I get along just fine in a multicultural context, and I’ve been blessed with a skill set which empowers me to hold my own in the borderless and post-industrial economy. I honestly do find much to admire and respect in contemporary Black American, Latin American, and Jewish culture. I took that Harvard racism test a while back and scored disappointingly low, apparently being less racist than average.
But I define my ethnic family in explicitly racial terms. I “discriminate” along racial lines, favoring my own kind. I am therefore a racist.
The local antifa’s hit piece on me is littered with misinformation, but the misinformation that really sticks in my craw is embedded in the premise that I object to being called a racist, an antisemite, and a “heterosexist bigot.” It frames me as this dissembling weasel who’s trying to pull one over on his audience. It frames me as attempting to run the same angle attempted over and over again on a million times over by my comrades. According to the article, I’m pretending like my position is not a radical departure from mainstream attitudes and positions on racial, Jewish, and moral questions.
This isn’t the case and hasn’t been the case for several years. I’m more welcome at and at home at the table with Nathan Bedford Forrest, Adolf Hitler, and George Lincoln Rockwell than at the table with Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and Rand Paul in the ideological cafeteria. My position is utterly incompatible with anything in contemporary mainstream American politics, and absolutely any effort on my part to pretend otherwise could be easily unmasked by anybody who cared to do so, even if they didn’t know to google my extensive collection of essays in support of a panoply of taboo positions.
Initially, I fell for all the “serious” people explaining that I must incrementally advance my positions from within the current ideological matrix, to “meet people where they’re at.” According to them, directly promoting your actual position would “alienate” you from your audience and wasn’t “realistic.” After considering it for a while, I’ve concluded that what’s unrealistic is attempting to build a movement in favor of heritage, faith, and tradition on a foundation of individualism, mercantile morality, moral relativism, and universal egalitarianism.
These helpful people eager to offer free advice are ever-present, but they’re rarely active themselves and they’re even more rarely achieving quantifiable goals with their incremental strategies. There are several tactical problems with what they’re proposing, and the lack of results relative to more strident tactics of yesteryear calls into question the supposed “realism” of these angles. But, more importantly, these strategies are dishonorable and shortsighted. They fail to account for the deep and generational element of our struggle, and are ultimately symptomatic of the myopia and cowardice at the root of our political impotence.
Let’s assume that Counter-Currents will fail at its objectives, falling into the same black hole of awful and taboo things as Hitler, the Klan, George Lincoln Rockwell, the Silver Shirts, Italian Fascism, and Southern segregationism. Perhaps keeping the attention of a milquetoast, brainwashed, and vegetative audience of the future will require an obligatory “I find Greg Johnson and his work as despicable as you do, but . . .”
Superficially, it seems like abandoning a vilified comrade is the more pragmatic choice. He is, after all, something of a liability. Yet, every martial culture and every effective vanguard does exactly the opposite. They never leave a fallen comrade. Even our own decadent and derelict military tradition clings to this in its soldier’s creed, “I will never leave a fallen comrade.”
Barack Obama didn’t denounce Bill Ayers when his radical past came to light. He didn’t throw Rev. Wright under the bus when his opponents cried for him to do so. Eric Holder smirks derisively at those who try to turn the tables and enforce the taboo against racial bias on him. Hell, the U.S. Department of Education’s Marxist radicals happily quote mass murderer and ruthless strongman Chairman Mao in their “Kid’s Zone Website.” The drip torture of Jewish journalists pumping out articles in support of freeing Jon Pollard carries on unabated, despite how tactically foolish it appears.
You see these articles from baffled American conservatives from time to time, lamenting the foolishness of championing a convicted agent of foreign espionage against the United States government. Maybe these smarmy faileocons whose entire careers are a humiliating march from one defeat to the next could pause to wonder if perhaps the Jews might be playing a game at a level they lack the vision to grasp. Zionists are certainly playing the game more honorably, and maybe . . . just maybe . . . honor and principle actually work better than angles and postures in the long run.
It’s sort of analogous to lying. Throughout the course of any given day, there are numerous opportunities to gain an advantage in a variety of situations by not telling the truth. Yet, in the aggregate, pathological liars tend to trail those who are rigorously honest. And what is pretending that we have any place within the Republican Party or among constitutionalist conservatives, if not deception? Being clever isn’t all that clever, especially when your enemies are more intelligent, detail-oriented, and organized than yourself. Jews are clever in the details and fine print, but are surprisingly honest and direct about their goals and consistent in their core message. We’ve modeled the opposite, being habitually honest in details and daily interactions, while pretending to be something we’re not and stand for something we despise.
I don’t bring up Hitler, the Klan, Southern segregation, or these countless other bygone movements all that often because they’re not especially relevant. I don’t wish to dwell in or resurrect the past. But I also refuse to treat my ideological progenitors and fallen forefathers like shit. My work doesn’t exist in a vacuum, devoid of historical context. I’m opposed to usurious Jewish bankers, just like Hitler. I’m fed up with negro criminality, just like the first Klan. I’m proud of my racial identity, just like Dr. William Pierce. I share Anders Breivik’s commitment to push the Muslim invaders out of our Western homelands.
I believe Breivik’s actions were indefensible. I’m sure there were Klan lynchings which amounted to mob violence against innocent Black people. I’ve got all sorts of opinions about this or that decision by Hitler, most of which don’t settle well with neo-Nazis and historical revisionists. I can’t answer for every excess, error, or atrocity of his. I don’t stand behind everything he did. But I do stand firmly in solidarity with him in an overarching metapolitical sense.
The North American New Right speaks with its own voice and it exists to address the future, not apologize for the past. It’s not beholden to any particular movement, symbols, or strategies of yesteryear, but it’s not obligated to apologize for those influences and forerunners who preceded us. I find Hitler more of an influence and an inspiration than any living American. If my audience can’t abide that, then they likely can’t abide any of the other radical transformations they would need to undergo in order to be a credible threat to Modernity, Global Jewry, and the multicultural dissolution of our heritage and traditions.