Rules for R*cists: A Codex of My Thought on How to Save the White Race

This brief activist manifesto was written for the NPI conference; its perspective and framing is therefore tailored to alt-right, white ethnonationalist audiences. To readers who do not fall into this ideological demographic, please realize that I am in fact striving for political equality between races, not reactionary pro-white structures such as immigration restriction or (not necessarily, at least) ‘white identity’; for antiracist audiences, I have a separate document tailored for your paradigm here. Also, I’ve linked to a plethora of my YouTube videos and other blog articles; feel free to ignore those if you want.

Ignore the non-critical. Focus only on the root of the problem—the dogma of racial sameness. Realize that all of the evils we seek to eradicate are predicated on this fallacy. Thus, we must concern ourselves solely with the task of weaning the masses off of this dogma, to the exclusion of all else (including feminism, radical Islamet c). Once this is achieved, all else will fall into place.

Realize that logical argument and appeal to empirical observation are not the determinants of belief. Rather, social utility is the presiding determinant, and people’s ‘beliefs’ are more akin to lines read from a script of ‘what you’re supposed to say’ than they are genuinely held beliefs.

Realize that the falsity of racial sameness is the open secret of our era. Almost nobody, regardless of how loudly they cry out that race is a meaningless category and that we all have the same innate capabilities (and that ‘white racism’ is the culprit) actually believes this dogma in any functional sense.

Therefore, do not try to ‘convince’ others that the theory of racial blank slatism is pseudoscientific and probably false. There is an overwhelming consilience of evidence of this; by letting them shift the burden of proof on your shoulders, you are already conceding defeat by playing into their narrative.

Therefore, do not get dragged down into futile scientistic debates. Express skepticism not about their claims regarding racial sameness but, rather, that they even believe their claims. Respond by asserting that the white lie they are perpetuating has long since become grotesquely misguided, and is doomed to fail. (Employ a universalist moral argument for dumping the dogma of racial sameness, as elaborated further on in this document.)

If naysayers insist that they wholeheartedly believe in the dogma of racial sameness, still do not get dragged into dialectic. Rather, tell them that they must first open their hearts to the possibility that they are complicit in something seriously deranged, unsustainable, and deleterious to the welfare of all peoples.

Realize that the moral high ground has long since been vacated by the early proponents of Antiracism. It has been left uninhabited, open for the taking. Only once we choose to seize it will the winds shift in our favor. This is so because to occupy the moral high ground is to project an awesome, game-changing ethos and credibility.

Realize that if we want to be effective, we must see ourselves as working on behalf of all mankind, not just the white race. The only way we can win the race war is by ending it for all. Therefore, do not conflate kindness with weakness, and do not conflate conditional cooperation with unconditional ‘pathological’ altruism. If you embrace the ‘zero sum game’ view of race relations, then you are actively courting the annihilation of the white race. Forget about ‘saving the white race’, and instead think about being a poet-warrior of righteousness who is fighting on behalf of all mankind. After all, a clean conscience will make you inviolable.

Recognize the primacy and urgency of universalist moral arguments for dumping the dogma of racial sameness. For example, realize that the dogma of racial sameness not only scapegoats and mandates discrimination against whites, but also needlessly fans the flames of human suffering by attempting to preserve maladaptive, antisocial traits that are ultimately fated to vanish from the human genepool, one way or another, as we as a species drifts irrevocably toward our evolutionary horizon. Therefore, so it seems, Antiracism is guilty of needlessly stoking the evolutionary furnace by pursuing an inefficient, unsustainable evolutionary trajectory. Simply stated, those you wish to win over must consider the ramifications of subscribing to Antiracism were it the case that Antiracism’s foundational premise stood on loose soil.

Do not make positive claims about the nuance of human biodiversity; rather, advocate that all public policy be predicated on a decidedly agnostic stance on the differences, or lack thereof, between human races. (Think: Colorblindness.) Advocate that evolutionary pressures be applied uniformly across the racial boundaries such that the peoples of the world do converge into one race. (More explained here. This will erode anti-white cultural and political structures without risking a morally untenable backslide into Nazi-like totalitarian eugenics policies.

Realize that humans are only capable of seeing labels and reading from pre-existent discourses. Therefore, elude categorization and force them to come knocking at the door of our new discourse. This is more important than ostensible ‘respectability’. Do not be a conservative, and do not be a bigot. Do not harbor a guilty conscience. Trip on LSD, and familiarize yourself with the thoughtspace that gave rise to Antiracism.Force them to see you as an entirely new breed of human thought rather than as some adherent to a tired, old ideology that has long since lost all credibility. We are not embittered, and we do not cling to antiquated sentiments and sensibilities. We are objective and dispassionate, aware that the enemy is ideas and not people or peoples.

Similarly, realize that all conflict is reducible to inadequate communication. Yes, you have escaped the fetters of Plato’s cave, but you have since chained yourself to one perspective. Step out from your self and your ethnic-egoic perspective, and learn how to communicate across paradigmic gap and the semiotic gap.

Accept that the post-war hegemonic Antiracist morality was inevitable–that it was fabricated with the best of intentions of all mankind in mind, and that we merely seek to correct it, and build upon it, rather than turn back the clock. We do have legitimate grievances that can be expressed within the tradition of the West’s liberal humanism. Until we do so, we are speaking in tongues, locked out of all mainstream discussion.

Be a champion of human empathy. Refuse to play the villain in their narrative; to play the villain who thinks there ‘is not enough to go around’ is to concede defeat. Similarly, do not retreat into the comforts of subculture.

Ablate all racial egoism lest people think your universalist moral position is mere subterfuge. Our task is simply to establish the preconditions for white nationalist structures to emerge, not to build those structures ourselves. Therefore, attach your ego to this God-mandated revolutionary movement, and to the iconoclasts of history of all colors.

Exude heartfelt sincerity and earnestness. In doing so, people will realize that we are not joking, and we are not misguided. By engaging in nonviolent direct action, this heartfelt sincerity and earnestness is articulated.

Those of us on the moral high ground desire the same outcomes for all humanity as did the liberal humanist theorists of yesteryear, only we desire it all the more fervently, and realize that we cannot bring about paradise on Earth by ignoring inconvenient truths about race. We are not trying to improve the situation for whites to the detriment of non-whites; rather, we are trying to achieve justice and equality, harmony between peoples, and the amelioration of suffering for all sentient beings.

And, lastly, realize that the ‘sit and wait’ strategy that we on the alt-right currently subscribe to is not a strategy at all—it is the absence of a strategy. We cannot count on Donald Trump or some year-zero economic collapse to do our work for us.

To win the race war, we must end the race war.

More on the art of disrupting the narrative can be found here.

For the interested, a manifesto that I wrote a couple years ago, directed at the alt-right and mainstream white nationalists, can be found here.

4 thoughts on “Rules for R*cists: A Codex of My Thought on How to Save the White Race

  1. The problem is that you are essentially a complete utilitarian, and you think everyone else is also, allies and opponents.

    Regardless of maximizing happiness* perhaps there are some things you just don’t do. This accords to moral theories of deontology and (my favorite) virtue ethics, a la Alasdair MacIntyre. For example it may be a virtue to treat people fairly, to not sort them using the heuristic of a skin-color phenotype.

    (*And here your measurements must be different from mine because sadly for you the majority of people on this planet aren’t white … perhaps you want to maximize white-only infrastructure and space programs, which is different.)

    “If naysayers insist that they wholeheartedly believe in the dogma of racial sameness”

    I believe that there are population groups, and to believe that the population groups can directly correspond to cultural perceptions of a person’s shading is weak, but anyway …

    “still do not get dragged into dialectic. Rather tell them that they must first open their hearts to the possibility that they are complicit in something seriously deranged, unsustainable, and deleterious to the welfare of all peoples.”

    That’s certainly possible, but perhaps we can find a better way to sort people than race. You think race is the way to go because it’s easy. That’s it, it’s easier and that’s why you want to do it that way: people have a natural way of glomming onto these differences, it’s intuitive, and there are already ethnonationalists, and there are already people who want to separate. The violence that you want to exclude from your movement cannot be excluded. Because, for one, you ARE accepting it when you want to benefit from the advantages of having a movement that has already laid some groundwork.

    Virtue is difficult, not easy.

    Like

    1. And I’m sorry, but I have to call bullshit on “The violence that you want to exclude from your movement cannot be excluded.”

      A) This is like calling Martin Luther King irredeemably violent for, say, trying to convert militant Black Panthers over to his side.

      B) As with most humans, you’re reading more from the image of past realities than you are our current reality. The early Christians abused by the Jews 2000 years ago later evolved into the medieval Christians who abused the exiled Jews. The final extant semblance of T-Rex survived in the genes of the chickens we eat. Despite how much we talk about the violence of ‘racists’, this is about as inverted a picture as could possibly be had. ‘racist hate crimes’ are reported ad nauseum–random swastikas drawn onto bathroom stalls–while violence against whites has become normalized to the point of being an invisible backdrop. Antifa activists commit egregious acts of intimidation and violence with impunity. Yes, Alt-Righters and white nationalists make constant allusions to the havoc they will wreak when they (think they) will be in power–but is this really any different from a horribly abused 8 year-old child talking about how he/she is going to kill his/her abusive parents when he/she grows up?

      I appreciate your comment/criticism, but think you do not grasp all of the nuance of my position, and are relying heavily on assumptions you have about the inherent nature of critiques of Antiracism. Not to push my wares on you, but you should check out some of my YouTube videos, particularly one about the “moral risk” of overthrowing Antiracism.

      Like

  2. (This is Nick “Understudy” Keller?)

    I don’t believe that everybody else is a complete utilitarian. I believe that dispassionate appeals on behalf of the welfare of all people and peoples–this is the language of influence. I believe that the people who change history are motivated by this, and that they, in turn, will influence everybody else, even the (yes, perhaps a vast majority) of people who are simply engaged in a tug-of-war with each other over the world’s material and psychosocial resources.

    “Almost always the creative, dedicated minority has made the world better. ”

    Looked at a different way, generosity is a very attractive virtue, isn’t it? By advocating for what, by my best reckoning, is an optimal arrangement for society, I am beautifying myself and projecting a timeless ethos. This is akin to the way that to turn the other cheek projects power, and why he/she who throws the first punch loses the war in the public’s eye.

    (And this universalist argument against Antiracism is mere garnishing on the powerful arguments against unfair treatment of people and peoples based on their phenotypes, such as anti-white discrimination a la quotas and disparate impact logic.)

    Yes, I am aware of the things to consider that transcend ‘minimizing net suffering’, such as those which might be roughly correspond with ‘dignity’ or ‘self-determination’. Thus, I would not suggest we seek to ‘maximize happiness’ if it comes at the expense of straying from these virtues. I believe that these considerations also point to dumping the hegemony of the Antiracist morality and ending the war on ‘white racism’. I mostly invoke the universalist moral argument against Antiracism in order to basically say “Hey guys, if ‘people of all races are the same blank slates’ is false but we aggressively pull the wool over our eyes by penalizing whites, then we are complicit in some seriously negative unintended consequences that will affect all peoples”. IE: I’m trying to argue that we should not be such uncritical accomplices in genuflecting before the altar of Antiracist dogma.

    I’m not so sure you understand what I’m getting at when I discuss ‘happiness’. I’m not defining ‘happiness’ in some necessarily white-centric manner. I think there is little room to dispute that to be culled from the genepool usually implies some sort of misery although the fine texture of that ‘becoming unuseful to society and therefore unattractive’ is less certain. Remember, what I’m suggesting is that Antiracism attempts to put on a pedestal, or at least apologize for, traits that are in some way antisocial or maladaptive; it identifies these traits by color and says “this color of human is being unfairly oppressed by that color!” and goes on to construct sociocultural and legal scaffolding which champions the ‘oppressed’ color of human being. ‘Race’ is just a proxy for trait frequencies.

    I don’t understand what you mean by this paragraph, “I believe that there are population groups…”

    “perhaps we can find a better way to sort people than race” DING DING DING. Exactly! I’m the one arguing for (a) a colorblind society, one which affords people the (b) dignity of being able to freely associate with whomever they like.

    You’re mistaken in thinking that I’m saying ‘race is the way to go’. I’m mostly arguing for colorblindness, though think that whites should have the right to be ethnocentric if everyone is so adamant that people who aren’t white have the right to ethnocentrism. This is especially true if whites have long since become a tiny minority in the world, and are fast becoming a minority in the US.

    Nevertheless, I am arguing that by Antiracism putting race seemingly above all else, this is especially bad because, between you and me, it seems that ‘race’ is the consensus reached by all of us humans on how best to divide ourselves into a handful of genetic blocs. As I stated a few paragraphs ago, I interpret Antiracism as an effort to identify the most maladaptive traits–or loose expressions of traits–by color, and then grant special privileges, ‘benefits of doubts’, and laurels to that color.

    IE: I advocate for colorblindness, and do so by challenging the racial categories used by Antiracism within their language of ‘black’ and ‘white’.

    “The violence that you want to exclude from your movement cannot be excluded.” I’m not sure you know what ‘my movement’ is. To be fair, I occupy a small plot of land smack dab in the middle of no man’s land. I am just as excluded from the Alt-Right for my views as I am excluded from the mainstream hegemonic morality for my views.

    I wouldn’t say I want to “benefit from [the Alt-Right”]. I want to poach people from the Alt-Right because it is a movement that is at an ideological bottleneck. I would just as well try to port into the mainstream hegemonic Antiracist morality, but that is harder to crack into for numerous reasons which you’re probably aware of.

    You know all those adages about how you ‘become your enemy’? Antiracism is no different from this. It will be remembered as something egregiously dystopic. It will be remembered for its central dogma which stood like a naked emperor. It will be remembered for children being taken from their ‘racist’ parents on trumped up charges and for its vast institutional and cultural double standards based on race. It will be remembered for its scapegoating of those who ‘seem like they are ‘racists’. It will be remembered for all those who were denied their dignity as humans because they fought the good fight. I think it’s more or less an open secret that Antiracism is built on extremely loose soil, despite however noble its original purpose was, giving the benefit of out to the possibility we are all blank slates (though this has long since ossified into religious dogma). Everybody knows that it’s going to come crashing down. The question is whether it is dismantled/corrected earlier and by people who do so in a conciliatory manner, or if it comes crashing down in some terrible cataclysmic conflict.

    Like

  3. Your entire problem is that you still think western liberalism is feasible or even a good thing, when it is responsible for all of this.

    The waiting strategy is actually sound, for the sole reason that blacks and other races cannot even maintain what whites built. If you actually do realize that race is real, then you already know this.

    As society crumbles around them, even the most deluded of white liberals will either get out of the way, or be stepped on by those whites who are now fixing things that open border fools like the ones on this website caused, with violence and expulsions. There is no ideological bottleneck on the alt-right like there is for conservatives or deluded civic nationalists like Bannon, idiotically who think, contrary to all evidence, that non-whites are just as capable as whites, because that is not the reality we live in. The alt-right recognizes reality, which is why we will win. We base our views on how things are, not on how we wish things were.

    Pacifistic delusions are exactly that, delusions. This is only going to end in one way, and it isn’t going to be a very nice thing to behold. When the blood finally does flow through the streets, it would behoove you to look in the mirror when you finally try to decide who’s to blame for it all.

    I’d love to solve things peacefully. Create a white ethno-state tomorrow and me and people like me will flock to it and you’ll never have to hear from us “evil racists” again. But as the people on this website are so fond of saying – that will never happen. Which is precisely why we’ll be forced to MAKE it happen, through any means necessary.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s