You Have a Mission
Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, October 11, 2019
Adapted from recent remarks.
“What if we rounded up all suspected white domestic supremacist terrorists and took their kids from them and put them in camps and molested and starved them? Just curious.” This was a recent tweet from former Democrat congressional candidate Dayne Steele.
“The Founding Fathers were white nationalist terrorists,” tweeted Professor Nelson Flores.
Popular author Joanna Schroeder urged mothers to “stalk” their sons’ social media to make sure they aren’t sucked into white nationalism. She also warned mothers about worrying “red flags,” such as using the word “triggered.”
Finally, nearly one thousand people “liked” a tweet from user @coastalelite22, a “mom of two white boys.” She complained it was so hard to get her sons to see how “entitled” they are that she wondered if this wasn’t a “genetic defect.”
In the “Satanic Panic” of the 1980s, Christian mothers supposedly were afraid that playing “Dungeons & Dragons” lead to demonic possession. Pastors burned heavy metal paraphernalia, and tabloids and television spread lurid tales of occult rituals. This is easy to mock in retrospect.
Geraldo Rivera produced a 2-hour special for NBC called “Devil Worship: Exposing Satan’s Underground” in 1988.
Today, many journalists, artists and “satirists” are more credulous than the most paranoid church lady. They describe the 2017 Unite the Right protest in Charlottesville as if it was a pogrom. The independent report confirming police deliberately provoked violence had almost no impact. Incredibly, in Newsweek’s August 9 cover story, former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe brags about how he handled the rally. If the Department of Justice cared about the rule of law, it would investigate him.
Foreign Policy claims “white supremacists” want a nuclear weapon, “and the Trump Administration is letting them get dangerously close to acquiring one.” Of course, many journalists think President Trump himself is a white supremacist, so I guess it’s too late.
“Radicalization” is the enemy. Websites, videos, and even books must be banned or deplatformed lest whites “radicalize.”
It’s true that media affect behavior. One small example: a suicide scene in the Netflix program “Thirteen Seasons Why” aired at the same time as a dramatic spike in teen suicides. We can’t be sure, but the program probably had an impact.
Yet who is really radicalizing? More importantly, who controls the corporate media? White advocates certainly don’t. American Renaissance can’t even have a Twitter account.
Hateful attacks against whites because of our inherent characteristics are common. “White men” is almost an insult. Who is inciting hatred based on race? Who has the power to do it? If “white privilege” were real, Sarah Jeong would have been punished for her vulgar comments, not promoted to the New York Times Editorial Board.
Radicalization has taken place, but on the other side. Researcher Zach Goldberg found that the number of news articles about “white privilege,” “unconscious bias,” “whiteness” and other terms shot up around the time of the 2014 Ferguson “protests.” White liberals’ views on race and immigration shifted dramatically leftward even before Donald Trump was elected. Matthew Yglesias calls it “The Great Awokening.”
The term captures its essentially religious nature. Most people don’t approach politics rationally. For example, we know that the catalytic event, Michael Brown’s death, was a justified case of self-defense. Yet the truth doesn’t matter — recently, several Democratic presidential candidates said he was “murdered.”
Mr. Goldberg noted that white liberals have an “out-group” bias, meaning they prefer groups other than themselves. They have higher levels of “white privilege awareness.” However, a recent study also revealed that white liberals, unlike white conservatives, speak patronizingly to people of color.
This suggests a savior complex. “Anti-racism” offers intoxicating feelings of righteousness and self-worth. It is a status symbol, a “luxury belief.” It is also a modern equivalent to an indulgence: A rich person can justify his wealth because he reads a sacred text (Ta-Nehisi Coates) and opposes the white privilege of Appalachian coal miners.
In 2015, a scholarly paper on campus “microaggressions” argued America is moving to a “victim-based” morality instead of a “rights-based” morality. In such a system, the person who decides who is “victim” and who is “oppressor” has the most power.
Who governs? Journalists, educators, and, ultimately, their paymasters. If you doubt that, just remember that it is “impossible” to be racist against white people. White people hold institutional power by definition. If you deny any of this, it is proof of your “fragility.” Some elites profit from trapping us in this verbal prison.
By preaching egalitarianism, one can escape its consequences. Robin DiAngelo, who is white, reportedly got $12,000 from the University of Kentucky for a two-hour speech on “white privilege.” Perhaps she means what she says. Perhaps not. She profits either way.
America is arguably defined by racial hypocrisy. It’s easy to be cynical when you see where liberal whites live and send their children to school.
Yet the doctrine of white privilege is poison for anyone who truly believe it. Anti-racism is a church with no salvation. All whites, no matter what they do or say, are forever racist. Whites must constantly struggle against their very nature.
This isn’t new — there were Christian sects now extinct because they taught that reproduction was inherently sinful. Even that’s less fanatical than the collective suicide/murders of Jim Jones’s pseudo-Christian “Peoples Temple.”
Most of the managerial class’s grassroots “disciples” probably believe the egalitarian creed. It is the orthodox faith. It structures their lives. Most people can live with flagrant contradictions.
Sometimes when people tell lies, they can convince themselves the lies are true. In the psychological disease Munchausen by proxy, a parent intentionally harms his child for attention and sympathy. A “mommy blogger” who killed her child in 2014 may have suffered from this. Yet from what I’ve read about the case, the woman denies her guilt. Perhaps she really believes someone else killed her son. This may be true of some who stage “hate hoaxes.” Perhaps, in their own minds, they really think these things happened.
Why not? They are participating in a cosmic drama of good and evil, the same one they see on television shows, movies, magazines, and online. The drama is more real to them than actual relationships with family members or friends. If you see demons and angels waging an invisible battle, you could be institutionalized. If you see Adolf Hitler behind every bush, Klansmen meeting in every forest, and fascist conspiracies in the halls of power, you get a verified account on Twitter. No wonder “Nazi zombies” are a media trope — even after you kill them, they won’t die.
“The future is brown,” we hear. “The future is queer.” “The future is female.” Yet few pretend the future will be good for us.
The media say we are to eat bugs. Andrew Yang muses about shipping-container apartments. Environmentalists suggest pet ownership must be limited to protect the environment. The media urge whites to stop having children (to save the planet), but also claim we need mass immigration because we aren’t having enough children. They mostly ignore the African population boom, which will render every environmental sacrifice useless.
In a recent study, 89 percent of British young people said their lives lack purpose or meaning. They’re right. If your ancestors are evil, your existence is a “genetic defect,” and your moral obligation is racial suicide, why shouldn’t you be depressed? Why be alive at all?
The cure we are prescribed for this disease of the soul is the very thing making us sick. We are told we need to rededicate ourselves to “equality,” something impossible and undesirable. We are told to wage war against “hate,” an emotion. What’s more, those who tell us these things have a vested interest in defining “hate” in broad terms.
I can’t help but notice the same people who demand we fight an emotion are often the same people who mocked the “war on terrorism,” a tactic.
Anarcho-tyranny will get worse, but people will still rebel any way they can. Professor Thomas Main wrote recently that the “Alt-Right” is “stronger than ever.” In response, he wants more censorship. He also wants “better civic education and a government that can effectively address the economic and social issues that underlie alt-right support.”
Progressives think everything can be solved with “education,” but leave that aside. What kind of “civic education?” The New York Times’s 1619 Project tells us that America was defined by slavery. Max Boot at the Washington Post says America is defined by immigration. Thus, the country’s two most powerful newspapers suggest the country is either evil or a meaningless geographic expression. What kind of “civic” identity can emerge from this?
There’s also no likelihood of “economic and social issues” being resolved. To take one small example, NBC celebrates Miley Cyrus divorcing her husband because “heterosexuality isn’t working.” Forget the sexual orientation angle — study after study confirms that broken families are terrible for children. Yet this is what the media is pushing.
Just having families and reproducing is almost offensive now, even if it has nothing to do with race. When Hungary implemented pro-natalist policies, a Swedish government official compared it to Nazi Germany. A Washington Post columnist accused Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance of racism, even though he married a non-white woman and has a biracial son. Mr. Vance had said at the recent National Conservatism Conference that America should be concerned that “our people aren’t having enough children to replace themselves.” We can all remember how the media piled on Congressman Steve King when he said, “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”
Progressives think immigration is a moral necessity and President Trump wants legal immigrants “in the largest numbers ever” even though mass immigration reduces wages, wears out infrastructure, and creates cultural tension. Most American families now need two incomes, something progressives cheer when it’s called “female empowerment.” Is there any chance of a government “addressing” these problems anytime soon? What we’ll probably get instead are new welfare programs, probably targeted at non-whites, funded by a wealth tax falling mostly on whites.
“Alt-Right” issues aren’t going away. Unfortunately, when it comes to predictive power, the “far-right” has a good track record. Barry Goldwater, no friend to state-mandated segregation, was prescient about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the creation of an “informer psychology.” “Neighbors spying on neighbors,” he predicted of the law’s effects, “workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen, where those who would harass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so.”
The critics were right: The 1965 Immigration Act transformed America’s population.
Within the conservative movement, Peter Brimelow was right about the political consequences of mass immigration, not that National Review will ever apologize.
(Of course, in the United Kingdom, Enoch Was Right.)
Conservatism is a racket. It won’t help. There’s work to do both philosophically and practically if our people are to survive.
Philosophically, something new is emerging. Identitarianism can become not just a political movement, but a way of looking at the world, a system of analysis. In “The Other Side of Modernism,” Sam Francis argued that James Burnham “offered a theoretical framework and a practical application of modernist political ideas” that could be more dangerous to the Left than American conservatism’s pro-capitalist sloganeering and incoherent nostalgia. Unfortunately, Francis died before he could fully complete his mission of uniting Burnham’s analysis of class and society with his own insights on racial and ethnic politics. Leviathan and Its Enemies is the closest thing we have to what would have been Francis’s magnum opus.
I wouldn’t dare compare myself to Francis, but I’d like to suggest a few premises for Identitarianism as a philosophy.
First, Marxists are wrong because man is not shaped exclusively by his environment. Man’s biological makeup informs his conduct and identity. This is true of individuals and groups. Man cannot be perfected through “education,” “training,” or “reform.” He is not a blank slate.
Second, hierarchy is inevitable. “Egalitarianism” itself is a strategy for pursuing power. Politics is defined by the competition to acquire and keep power. History is cyclical and people and civilizations go through broad patterns of Order and Chaos as different elites rise and fall. There’s no “end” to history and nothing is inevitable except competition and change.
Finally, what drives history is man’s understanding of himself and his relationship to his community, his people. Though I disagree with his conclusion, I think Francis Fukuyama was partially right in The End of History and the Last Man when he spoke about the importance of man’s quest for “recognition.” Yet that “recognition” is best achieved by being part of a people and a social order, not some universal, rationalistic legal framework.
This is just a starting point and maybe you think I’m wrong. However, I think all of us recognize one thing about our egalitarian opponents: They are insatiable. I mean this literally. There is no society that ever existed or could exist that they would recognize as just. To paraphrase Joe Sobran, there’s no society in which they would be conservative. Nihilism is inherent to their movement.
You sense this. You’ve resisted the corporate media’s false gospel of self-hatred and neurosis. You know you’re being manipulated and used for the gain of others. You’ve shown mental independence. You know you are something more than an economic input, a data point, a consumer. You see that there’s a meaning to life.
In some ways, we have it harder than anyone who has come before us. Our battle is psychological, maybe spiritual. The warriors at Thermopylae, at Lepanto, or at Vienna had a sense of themselves. Even if they died, they knew what they were defending.
We don’t even know who we are. That’s unique in history. That’s why we must begin with philosophy.
In more practical terms, I offer three suggestions.
First, if you must vent online, make sure it is truly anonymous, not even pseudo-anonymous.
Not long ago, the Daily Caller published a piece (significantly, since deleted) arguing that Americans face tyranny worse than what existed in the 1980s Eastern Bloc. After all, in most cases they didn’t shoot you in East Germany for political incorrectness. They would just destroy your career or use selective law enforcement. Here, you get that, plus physical violence, plus unfathomably powerful and unaccountable corporations working against you.
Unless you want to live the life of a dissident, don’t talk politics on email, social media, or discussion forums, and don’t communicate on apps that don’t auto-delete messages. We aren’t in a free country. What’s needed now are revolutionaries of the mind who are self-disciplined. Certainly, there are things I’ve written that I’ve since changed my mind about, or things I would have expressed differently. Venting can make you feel better but won’t improve our situation. Speak wise words or remain silent.
Second, young people need to plan their careers now. Pursue something that will make you “anti-fragile.” In the long-term, I am an optimist, but in the short-term, an extreme pessimist. South Africa, with its non-white majority and draconian anti-white employment laws, is a glimpse of our future.
You must develop skills that will allow you to earn an independent living. RamZPaul is correct that there should be a hard division between activists and those completely “underground,” who go along with what the corporate media demands. Of course, the great irony of “doxing” is that if everyone were doxed at once, we’d win because we’d realize our numbers.
Ultimately, we need institutions, communities, and businesses of our own. Necessity will force us to create them. If you are in a career where journalists can get you fired, remain silent and fund the activists already out there. There are people all around this country who give 10 percent of their income every month to their church. If we had even one percent of the people in this country who already agreed with our views give at that level, we’d be far stronger, and more people could work openly. A “white tithe” would transform the situation overnight.
A great number of people are planning or theorizing about the very long term. Everyone should be planning for the medium term — the next five years. What I hope to see are local communities of activists working openly, sustaining themselves and their families.
Finally, what we are really talking about is surviving for our people. Psychologically, resolve to embrace that struggle.
We are talking about creating a people. I don’t know if America can be saved. Donald Trump was probably our last chance to preserve the historic American nation, and he is failing.
We are either the last of a people or the first of a new one. Either way, we don’t have to give in. We have a life that means something. We have something to go towards. If there’s a chance for greatness, glory, or heroism in this world, we’re the ones who will achieve it.
It’s challenging, but it’s better to be alive now than at a time when you could take everything for granted. Rejoice that you are here at the single most important time in the entire history of our people.
Nietzsche said the state is the coldest of the cold monsters. The creators who “hang a faith and a love over them” create peoples.
You can be creators. In your limited time on Earth, you can carry forward that torch which lights the way for our people. It’s an incredible thing to be a part of. That’s our mission. That’s your mission.
Consider it your white privilege.