We have made previously unimaginable strides in the past year. “Anti-white” and “anti-white-ism” are well on their ways to becoming English vernacular. It’s becoming OK to be white. Even the skeptic community is beginning to come around. On college campuses, to be a pro-white advocate is to rise above the crowd as an impenetrable enigma. We defy their logic, and they hang on our every move, mesmerized by what they cannot understand yet know to be coming.
At this point, our legitimacy as a movement is limited only by our anonymity. When most of our creative energy is devoted to venting amongst each other online, the public impression is that we are uncommitted edgelords rather than passionate revolutionaries with legitimate grievances.
In 2018, the only thing holding us back is our irrational fear of publicly standing by our beliefs. We are held hostage by this irrational fear because we know that, if we flinch, we will be tarred and feathered as straw men – as grist in the mill of the dominant narrative. However, if we adopt the right mindsets and frame our arguments correctly, de-anonymization is not only painless, but exhilarating and game-changing.
At Rutgers University, a professor of mine recently used a turn of phrase that gave flesh to something I’ve been trying to put my finger on for some time – the “look in the eye” test. If you can’t gaze without wincing into the eyes of those who hate you, and whom you fear, then you are not speaking truth to power. You will be eaten alive by the jeering crowd.
We must vanquish our guilty consciences if we are to pass this “look in the eye” test. This is how giants are felled, and this is how the heavenly chorus is roused on the behalf of the righteous. This is the way it’s always been, and the way it always will be.
What is holding us back is the emotional trauma we have endured as the result of our years of humiliation, repression and atomization. We have been cajoled into believing that we are merely advocating on behalf of our interests – the interests of whiteness, white society and white people. This is a distortion. In reality, what is good for white people is good for the world. The truth is that we are, in 2018, the sole advocates for all that is good in the world. Do not mistake this for uncritical universalism. And do not mistake this for a pessimistic zero-sum view of race relations, either. We seek not to eradicate “pathological altruism”, but to preserve the conditions which make altruism possible. Internalize this, and you will be well on your way to passing the “look in the eye” test.
Internalize this, and people will begin seeking out the truth of our convictions.
If we must jettison some of our non-essential reactive attitudes and sentiments, then so be it. We don’t even need to argue affirmatively for race-realism and bio-determinism. In fact, it’s wiser that we not. Instead, we have only to assert an unyielding strain of skepticism regarding the reigning blank slate orthodoxy — the loose soil upon which stands the whole edifice of anti-white-ism.
To do otherwise is to fall into the Jared Taylor trap of shouldering the full burden of proof. If we play fetch the instant race-deniers lift their fingers to throw the bait, we have already ceded the argumentative high ground in their favor. The truth is that we must force them onto our terrain and force them to shoulder the burden of proof for their ludicrous assertions. It is then and only then that the reigning orthodoxy will be compromised and white ethnonationalism will fall out of the sky and onto the table of permissible discussion.
You may be tempted to say I am proposing a lethal dilution of our already incredibly fragile ideological ecosystem. You might accuse me of retreating into respectability politics, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But you’d be wrong. This is not a wimpy defense of our first amendment rights to express belief in race-realism and human biodiversity, only to be scoffed at. Quite to the contrary, I am saying that that we must no longer tolerate our subjugation on the basis of pseudoscientific claims.
Enjoining the few percent of embittered, marginalized white males to our side, which is all we’ve ever really been capable of, is dwarfed by the greater strategic importance of weakening the commitments of the other 95% of society, including the iceberg of implicit white identity that waits to be reawakened but does not want to be associated with the pessimism and angst of the alt-right. If we can weaken their facile espousals of anti-white-ism, we make possible the erosion of the levee preventing our ideas from becoming permissible topics of discussion.
To do this is to turn the key we have already put in the door.
As it stands, we are woefully unprepared for the day when our ongoing internet de-platforming and ghettoization culminates in our wholesale ejection from the comforts of internet anonymity. We will be forced offline and above ground sooner than you may think.
The unavoidable necessity of de-anonymization is without doubt a bitter pill to swallow. To de-anonymize is to take the plunge into pale, icy waters. But it is also the only way to confront and vanquish the unknown. It is something we must do in spite of our every inclination to the contrary. This is why we must get our convictions in order and take this plunge together, all at once.
Anybody who says the time isn’t right or that their anonymity is strategic is a liar. The SPLC itself has recently begun to change it’s tune with regards to how we are to be repressed, emphasizing the importance of ignoring us rather than confronting us. This is an open invitation for us to start making it harder for them to ignore us.
The doors are wide open. As soon as the temperature rises above 70°, hit the streets in some form or another and discover just how close we really are to the tipping point.