3,005 words

In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.

                                                                                    —Sun Tzu, The Art of War

I’ve been quietly reading Counter-Currents for years now, and the position for most of that time seemed to be that success entailed the entire political spectrum agreeing on the idea of preserving Europeans as people – taking white extinction off the table. But in Greg Johnson’s recent article on Whitopia, the discussion takes a different turn when he argues that “White Nationalism by its very nature is statist rather than libertarian, collectivist rather than individualist, illiberal rather than liberal.”

When I read this, what I immediately heard is, “We want to lose.”

This explicit desire to lose is not entirely new. Only a few months ago on Counter-Currents, you were considering the issue of Christianity, and how exactly Christians should be approached. The “purest” or most hard-core White Nationalist is probably atheist or pagan rather than Christian, but it was obvious that the big-tent approach to Christians was widely agreed upon. With libertarians, there’s more ambivalence – your articles on restoring Prohibition and paternalism are both thought-provoking, though the general attitude of recent works might give the impression that libertarianism doesn’t really belong. (Maybe big-L Libertarianism doesn’t, but libertarian realism provides quite a lot of pro-European content.) But with Leftists, there is a deep, longstanding problem in assuming that they are de facto against you. That is simply not true, any more than the notion that cuckservatives are de facto on your side.

American Renaissance has an article that you should read, if you haven’t yet. The Asian author claims to be conservative, which is very interesting given the way she supports abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage, and has “concerns” about Donald Trump. She believes, as most people do, that race realism is intrinsically conservative, but frankly, I see nothing conservative about her. And being honest, her nature could change, as she implies it did when she talks about how she “became conservative.” The readers at AmRen could tell that she really wasn’t one of them; the way they treated her in the comments probably robbed her article of most of its ability to persuade Leftists that it might otherwise have had.

This is quite typical for white advocates. There is an assumption that, as the movement gains ground, liberals will become conservative with time, or else be passively swept aside. But liberals are constitutionally different from conservatives, with the heritability of political attitudes standing near fifty percent; leopards don’t change their spots. But if roughly a quarter of Americans identify as liberal – with white women being even more likely to be committed liberals than men – then how do you ever expect to muster the will necessary to achieve a white homeland?

So this article is about how to lose, but nationalists don’t really seem to need any advice on that. Just keep going as you have been, defining your cause as conservative, and fighting against your liberal brethren, and you’ll lose just fine. If, however, your real interest is not in losing, but actually winning, then it will behoove you to know your enemies. In particular, you will need to differentiate between enemies who can be won over, and enemies who are genuinely your enemies, so that you can break their resistance without fighting.

This will be difficult for many of you who act and identify as quite conservative. My advice for those of you who are genuinely conservative (as a quick test, if you’re a pro-Christian White Nationalist, you’re conservative) is to not try to win anyone over from the Left. You won’t enjoy it, and you definitely won’t be successful, because you won’t relate to Leftists. Just redpill the cuckservatives as best you can. But those of you who are more moderate will find that there are ways of reaching liberals by thinking the way that they think.

Many of the ways Leftists are different are highly publicized: Leftists don’t like to rely on common wisdom, so they gravitate naturally to skeptical movements and higher education. They have deeper empathy for other living things, higher environmental consciousness, and more overall openness. Leftists care about being cerebral – about knowing things that common people don’t. They care about being fair, tolerant, and virtuous. And they are all very well aware that this is what makes a liberal a liberal. You could of course try to point out the virtues of conservatives to them, but this should not be your goal. Rather, you need to work with their psychology by patiently showing them that no, they aren’t actually any of the things that they think they are.

Before we get into that, let me be clear on what not to do. When you approach people on the Left, don’t attack liberalism or liberal causes. Liberals run in liberal circles, and live liberal lives, and don’t like conservatives. They’ve noticed conservatives being wrong about evolution, global warming, weapons of mass destruction, and many other things, and they have no desire to become something they aren’t. So don’t try to make them conservative. Liberals won’t suddenly start caring about tradition or stereotypical gender roles or safe places to take their kids to play soccer, but they very well may tune in to the higher level of consciousness that comes with racial and ethnic awareness.

I realize this may sound surreal. Nationalists are accustomed to seeing liberals as being alien to themselves, and the writers at Counter-Currents such as Jonathan Bowden like to posit that the essence of conservatism is hierarchy, while “the Left, at its core, is the belief that equality is morally good, and almost everything that can be done in order to sanction and achieve equality is morally efficacious.” But I believe that history will reveal this egalitarianism to be no more than a single aspect of one side of the Left. Was the essence of 1960s exploration of consciousness-raising through psychedelics equality? Is the essence of secular atheism equality? Is opposition to the destruction of the natural environment about equality? Liberalism is about much more than equality.

And it’s on all those other issues where you have the ability to reach them. The increasingly vapid milieu in which we live, where education and the arts are foundering beneath the expectation that low-IQ groups shall succeed and that the correct message needs to be broadcast to the drones in an effort to make all think alike, is hardly a liberal dream. The slowing of technological and creative output isn’t progressive in any sense. Accepting science where it reveals the nature and effects of climate change, but then turning around and denying science where it reveals ethnic differences, is hardly broad-minded. And the violent conflicts taking place in Europe, and the increasing unrest in America, isn’t what liberals want at all. But then, what do liberals really want?

What liberals want is what you want.

Liberals care about peace, and separation reduces conflict. Liberals care about the arts; imagine a media freed from the dogmatic constraints of the multiculturalists and their need to inject the same tired, tepid preaching about diversity into everything they touch. Liberals care about the environment. White nations limit their own birthrates, but the booming population of Africa threatens catastrophic environmental damage. Liberals care about animal welfare, and Western nations are strong there. Liberals care about science, and there’s an absolutely fascinating world of psychological and genetic studies out there to soak up – but only after facing hard facts. Liberals care about welfare, but the welfare state can’t carry all those immigrants and low-IQ minorities on its shoulders. And on, and on, and on.

There is absolutely nothing about the nationalist position which is inconsistent with a Leftist mindset or liberal goals. Though conservatives may be accustomed to seeing surging Muslim populations as threatening law, order, safety, and the cultural character of the European societies they invade, think like a liberal and you’ll see that there is no upside from that perspective, either: Muslims are among the least happy and most religious people on Earth. Does it even benefit them to increase their numbers as they swamp the world and strain the overburdened resources of the biosphere?

You have the opportunity not only to push the arguments where you are strong but in a way that resonates with the Left when you point out the ignorance of most anti-racists concerning the science of IQ, the brainwashed adoration heaped on Martin Luther King, Jr., the disgraceful opposition to free thinking in universities, the destruction of ethnic diversity, or the dearth of liberal values in the black, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern communities. The exact same position you take on everything you care about can be very easily derived from a liberal perspective. In short, the sense that “Our enemies on the Left will not attack our statism, they will attack our aims,” is only true of your real enemies. There are many Leftists for whom white survival is a means to their own ends.

There is even more to be considered in this vein – much more. Specifically, if you ask yourself what makes white people unique, it shouldn’t take long before you come across the claim that liberal, individualist values are indelibly stamped on the character of the European peoples. I don’t think white advocacy needs to turn on liberal values, but ask yourself this question seriously: Are Europeans really a conservative people? If not, then it should be quite natural to explore, refine, and build a liberal White Nationalist position to undermine the liberal anti-white position and draw more people into your movement.

One Leftist who could be extremely helpful in this regard runs a Website called AltLeft.com, posting under the handle of Rabbit. (He was actually featured in a Counter-Currents article, where many Leftists chimed in their support.) Rabbit summarizes much of the position of the present article in an essay of his own, where he writes, “You can be pro-white without being in the AltRight and having to entertain their pet add-on issues or be constantly weighed down by all their psychological baggage.” This latter article is well worth reading, as it summarizes much of the Leftist attitude toward conservative nationalists – and shows how poorly even most white advocates understand how far the movement has come in terms of its ideological variation. Rabbit advises Tara McCarthy to give up on the Alt Right, because “If you market your content to radical traditionalists and uptight sexual puritans that want ‘white sharia’ (or a slightly milder version) and guys that don’t believe women should be involved in politics or speak in public without a male chaperone, then ultimately you can expect to clash with your audience as they inevitably begin to scrutinize you according to those same standards.” But many on the Right have no sympathy for white sharia, as evidenced by the overwhelming support for Tara on this very Website. I don’t advise some sort of ideological purge; let people who support white sharia push it as they like. But if you can simply make it clear that not every nationalist is on the Right, you may find allies you’d never known you had.

Whether or not you can find liberal nationalists to move forward in this direction, if you want to succeed, you should generally avoid painting liberals with a broad brush. I won’t say that they don’t deserve it for the way they treat you; often, they do. Still, many of them are opposing you because you set yourself in opposition to them, rather than merely in opposition to one of the things that they believe – and does that opposition really make them different from every religious cuckservative around? Put another way, the sensible response to “If I wanted to share this otherwise excellent post with liberals . . . I could do without the dismissive tone” may not have been “Come back when you grow a pair.” The way to win liberals over is to keep them talking to you long enough for you to force them to see the contradictions inherent in their positions. If you can get them to listen to you, then they won’t be able to simply roll their eyes as you point out that people who chant superstitious mantras about racial equality show all the respect for nature, peace, women’s rights, and progress of religious fundamentalists.

This may seem like a casual insult, but what it truly is, is an appeal to their nature. When liberals act like religious fundamentalists, they’re not acting liberal. When they sacrifice the natural environment, the arts, secular humanism, and the expansion of emotional and aesthetic experience to the conventional beliefs of the day, they’re not acting liberal. They may not be acting conservative, but their opposition to white survival is quite illiberal: narrow, robotic, and unenlightened, a hollow reenactment of grade-school programming. So take Leftists to task. Demand that they be who they really are, and you may be able to win over half the liberals in the country. You need every one you can get.

Now, this word “half” is purposefully inexact. I use it to point out that you are right in your understanding that you do have genuine enemies on the Left. These are not usually white liberals, but a great many whites do have this attitude: antifa lunatics who truly do care about nothing but equality. Some of them could yet be won over, though I make no promises about them. My advice is only that you learn to separate the wheat from the chaff in this regard.

So who are the chaff? The chaff includes university professors with a vested interest in the status quo; gender-confused, pink-haired blobs who can’t face reality; hedonists who are content to enjoy life at the expense of the future; and diversicrats who truly care more about multiculturalism than anything else. This latter group isn’t only comprised of social justice warriors – a small group overall – but of numerous liberal Christians. You will not have any luck with these people.

But pacifists, eco-warriors, supporters of marijuana legalization, homosexuals and their sympathizers, yoga enthusiasts, socialists, vegetarians, animal rights activists, feminists, and proponents of organic food and sustainable living are fair game. All you need to do is point out that all of those issues are better protected and pursued in whitopia than in a racially-integrated society. These groups may be sensitive to the treatment of minorities as a nation-state is formed, especially if they work or live alongside non-whites and have formed friendships among them. However, that could also make them keen to see peaceful separation that avoids bloodshed on all sides.

You may be surprised that I describe feminists as fair game. Yet, feminists who genuinely care about women may be won over by pointing out to them what they already know: Western nations treat women well. Muslims want them in burqas, Hispanics want them to stay quietly at home (while their men visit prostitutes), and rappers want to use them without their consent. Liberals who genuinely care about women oppose multiculturalism.

There is even another group of liberals who are already friendly to you: anti-establishment metalheads, lovers of science, evolutionists, and atheists. For many, these venues provide a very obvious doorway into racial realism, and while this doesn’t necessarily imply white preservationism, the race question (which will be the biggest hurdle for most people today, regardless of their political persuasion) will be much easier with these kinds of liberals. So, you may want to concentrate on them in the beginning, because at least some of them will be easy to reach.

In fact, your greatest challenge may not even lie in winning liberals over to your cause, but in preventing an acrimonious fallout between them and your Christian contingent. It’s the secular, evolutionist, biologically-minded Left that will most easily adapt to racial realism, and Christianity for such people is a non-starter. You might find it easy to win them over to explicitly atheist wings of your movement, but to integrate them together with your Christian members will require everyone to appreciate the overriding importance of themselves as a people, and set aside other issues that they may care about more in the long term for the sake of attaining what is necessary for the near future.

As a final piece of advice, making your movement accessible to liberals may be impossible without minor rebranding. If you were known as “secular conservatives,” that would easily confound your efforts to integrate Christians into your group. Likewise, not only do the labels conservative, far Right, radical Right, or Alt Right inaccurately represent a group of people which in fact contains many moderates, but it may also be difficult to stop reflexively bashing liberals, even friendly liberals, as long as you explicitly identify your movement with the Right. Much wiser would be to refer to yourselves as white advocates, nationalists, realists, red-pilled, racially aware, anti-globalist, or simply not insane, because no one wants to be insane, and frankly, ninety-nine percent of those who object to white advocacy will do so on no other basis than sheer madness.

In summary:

• You need psychological liberals for your movement to succeed;


• liberal values are incompatible with multiculturalism;


• forcing liberals to choose between multiculturalism and everything else they value is a way many of them can be won over; and


• it may be helpful to reconceptualize your movement as realist, red-pilled, or anti-globalist, rather than as being explicitly on the Right.

That’s it. I’d like to thank all of you for reading this, and for writing so many thought-provoking articles and comments over the years.