Letter to a young "white supremacist"

"Try just showing it to girls instead—a lot of girls actually love to go to the range."

Why are you here? You’re here because you want to go shoot up a grocery store or something. But first, you have to finish your manifesto. (I always read all of these manifestos. This time I skimmed a little of the /k/ stuff. Guns don’t make me hard—could just be my age.)

You have to finish your manifesto. And you read somewhere that I “wasn’t allergic to white nationalism,” also that I once compared Anders Breivik to Nelson Mandela. So you came here hoping for some inspiration… some text to crib… a quote, at least.. maybe a link or two to drop in… real favor you’re doing everybody out here.

It is true that I said these things, and also that I have been reading the racist Internet since South Africa Sucks was a thing. Or, I guess, as the Beastie Boys put it, “since you were sucking your mother’s dick.” Let me tell you how to not be an Internet racist, and maybe even how not to shoot up any (more) grocery stores.

TLDR: you are suffering from what we Jews call “false consciousness.” Your ideas are not your ideas. They are your enemy’s ideas, twisted around backward. They are not worthy of your courage and innocence. They are weapons made to work against you.

Put them all in the recycling and then scrub your hands thoroughly. You’ll probably be fine. The Western world may or may not be fine—but you’re sure not helping. Please let me try to show you how to do this right.

You must not chimp

First, you have to define racist as the right thing. I long resisted this paragon of 20th century newspeak—but even newspeak has its uses. The trick is to use the definition that everyone uses, but make it work for you. Then, don’t be a “racist.”

A racist is a social race warrior—a person emotionally committed to the “huwhyte” side of the race war. (Black folks cannot be racist—only passionate.) A racist is someone who thinks about the white race the way a Dodgers fan thinks about the Dodgers. Or a Japanese soldier in WWII thinks about the Emperor. A racist is pro-white. Right?

For better or for worse, the human mind has a military module—which is inseparable from its model of politics. Chimps make war; the military mind is at least as old as the chimp-human split.

When we say that the essential political distinction is the distinction between friend and enemy, we say that the military and the political are one. The political war is a cold war in which certain weapons and tactics are restricted—not always rationally, and not always symmetrically.

One of my strongest beliefs is that everyone should turn their military emotions off—whether or not they are at war. You probably are at war—still, turn them off. This is not just the best thing for you—not even just the best thing for some poor schmuck who picked the wrong moment to buy groceries. It is even the best thing for your war.

Politics is war and, as Trotsky said, whether or not you are interested in war, war is interested in you—so you are at war, whether you like it or not. But even when at war, you should turn your military sense way down. Mostly it wants you to run screaming at the enemy, waving your hand-ax. This is not how humans fight—not at least for long.

You should not make war emotionally because you are not a chimpanzee. Actually you are something much more deadly than a chimpanzee: a man. As the gom-jabbar scene in Dune reminds us, the test of humanity is the power to overcome animal emotion.

A chimp is lethal in unarmed combat. A chimp would not make much of a sniper. A chimp could shoot up a grocery store. But there would be more wounded than dead.

When you and everyone like you is ready to practice unemotional politics, human politics—ironic, counterintuitive, Machiavellian politics—you will brush your real enemies (who are not who you think they are) aside like straw. You will be so much stronger than them that you can defeat them completely without harming them at all. You may even deserve to defeat them.

Neutrality

Civilization, regardless of whatever races did or did not invent it, introduced a third category into Schmittian chimp politics: neutrality. For the first time, between human individuals or groups, it became possible to escape the friend-enemy distinction.

Neutrality made it possible to address the outsider civilly, as neither friend nor enemy, but united under law—owing the due duties and respects due to a stranger under law. Neutrality is the source of all true peace—universal friendship is universal conquest.

For example, if you believe in the “great replacement,” by definition you believe that these replacing populations are not the cause of the replacement. They are not your friends. They are also not your enemies. Therefore you should be neutral toward them.

Neutrality lets you focus on the actual cause, which is your actual enemy. Moreover, this enemy may be abstract rather than personal—it may be a system or structure, not a set of human beings large or small. (Note that even if the problem was the Jews, even in this utterly retarded strawman philosophy, fragging their clients just excites them.)

The problem may in fact be a regime—and even the humans who operate this machine may be (and I believe are) entirely innocent and even well-meaning. They are just cogs in it. On the day after it breaks, they will be harmless—like former Stasi officers.

So in a sense you actually have no human enemies at all. Your Bushmaster is designed to kill humans. It is useless—far worse than useless, in fact—against systems. Sorry. Try just showing it to girls instead—a lot of girls actually love to go to the range.

Come with me if you want to win

Whereas—when you chimp, you are doing exactly what they want you to do. Everyone will call you some kind of spy, agent, “glowie”—this is all wrong. You are just a chump. Dude: please don’t be a chump.

There is in fact a Machiavellian sense in which Nelson Mandela, who did terrorism, is better than Anders Breivik, who did terrorism. The sense is that Mandela’s terrorism worked. It led toward political victory. Breivik’s terrorism led away from victory. (This is because there is actually no symmetry between left and right.)

The laws of war have always smiled on effective bloodshed, and frowned on gratuitous or even counterproductive bloodshed. To ban an effective military approach calls the concept of law itself into question, because the ban will simply be ignored—like the Pope trying to ban the crossbow.

Restricting unnecessary carnage is the best that any system of rules can do—and unnecessary carnage is inefficient carnage. Military efficiency hates anything chaotic. If the law is on the same side as the generals, it stands some chance of being obeyed. The original purpose of the law of war was to help generals keep their own soldiers from sacking and pillaging like Huns.

But even to want to chimp—even to have the emotion of a race warrior—even to be a racist—even this is wrong. It is wrong not because it is evil, but because it can’t work. It does not show the proper style; it is not cutting the universe at its joints; its soul is bad and erroneous, which is why it creates bad and erroneous results.

What is going on is not right. You sense that. You also have a will to prevail. This, too, is good. But you cannot prevail in the race war—since the race war is fake and lame. You can only prevail over this idea of a race war. You are neither a Dodgers fan nor a Giants fan; you do not follow baseball at all; you doubt baseball should even exist.

You do not see any essential conflicts between Americans today. You do not believe there is any essential conflict between black and white, red and blue, rich and poor, male and female, etc, etc, etc. You deny the whole framework that sets up these wars, hot or cold, and makes them feel like they make sense in the first place.

All these cold civil wars are epiphenomena of a broken political system. The founders were convinced that their republic would not have political “factions.” Every republic ever, modern or ancient, has had political “factions.” While factionalism in democracy was soon accepted as inevitable, it took Karl Marx to suggest that it was actually good.

Factionalism is not good. The first sign of a healthy regime will be that it disappears. Ideally there is no collective public action at all, whether along cultural fracture lines or not. No one is part of any Marxian army of the crowd—there is no army of Blacks, of women, of Christians, etc, etc, etc. I know—it sounds completely unrealistic. Sigh.

How to not have a race war

Here are two ideas that aren’t racist—or at least don’t have to be racist. One is that homogeneous communities work best by most measures of social health. Two is that there is no evidence for the global uniformity of any variable human biological trait, including socially and economically meaningful traits. These ideas are not racist (in the sense that they imply a race war), nor are any deductive derivations from them.

Yes, both these ideas can be and have been used as weapons of race war. This does not affect their truth. Obviously, true ideas make better weapons than false ideas. The way to handle a dangerous true idea, inherently a weapon, is not have a war to use it in. The way not to have a war is to figure out how everyone can live in peace and harmony.

Let us suppose that we live in an imaginary empire populated by 1/3 Somalis, 1/3 Jews from Jersey or Long Island, and 1/3 Mormons. If this empire is ruled by a deranged 12-year-old emperor, he may try to homogenize these populations—forcibly mixing them up geographically, making sure their kids learn the same lessons in the same schools, creating a new national religion which is Mormon-Jewish-Islamic, etc, etc—for much the same reason the same 12-year-old wants to mix all the sodas from the dispenser.

Whereas a normal, sane regime accepts that anyone who wants to be Mormon, Jewish, Somali, etc, prefers to experience a social environment consisting of other Mormons, Jews, Somalis, etc. Some people do not want a traditional cultural identity at all. These people are globalists. Unsurprisingly, globalists prefer the company of other globalists. And absolutely no one wants to be an Islamic-Mormon Jew—just like no one wants to drink the 12-year-old’s multi-soda.

To the extent that Mormons live in Utah and Somalis live in Somalia, there is no need to work out rules for how Mormons and Somalis can share one geographical space. To the extent that Somalia has been infiltrated by Mormons or vice versa, there is such a need. This problem is not actually all that hard—even the Dutch have solved it. And they are hardly alone in history.

Such rules are strictly practical and assume a rigid neutrality. There is no need to dust off the old skull-calipers and compare the sizes of Mormon and Somali brains. Either of these groups might be better than the other in any way—the law does not care. No regime has any sound reason to merge its tribes or nourish frictions between them. Sometimes their geographical distribution is very discrete, sometimes very mixed—either way, a capable regime can handle it.

The principle of neutrality between tribes does not admit any concept of superiority or inferiority, just as it does not admit any concept of sympathy or animosity. Between neutral groups there are no friends and no enemies—only peace and good manners. Ideally, trade between communities is financially balanced, so that they do not end up in each others’ debt. And the globalists (people like me!) are a people of their own.

The strawman heel

If the narrative is true, why are you here? If it is kayfabe, it needs its “heel”—its designated enemy. When a narrative can suppress all high-quality opponents, it is free to promote low-quality opponents. Giving them narrative oxygen does not feel dangerous—it feels essential. No narrative can be compelling without a villain.

(There is actually no such thing as a “white supremacist.” Scientists have identified the last serious person who used that term seriously to describe himself. His name was “Vernon.” Vernon won a Bronze Star in the Korean War and was 94 when he died in 2019 in a nursing home near Nashville. You ain’t reminding me much of Vernon.)

Especially when there is no obvious high-quality dissident narrative, the villainous narrative is often the most compelling and obtainable counternarrative around. It also includes large quantities of DNA from the winning narrative—right-wing terror is always a historical response to left-wing terror and tends to borrow its methods. In the war between Hitler and Stalin, Hitler is the student and Stalin is the master. This hybridization of heel rhetoric and the bizarre worship of revolutionary violence is the germ of right-wing terror from the OAS in Algeria to lone-wolf teen spergs in Buffalo. Everything declines over time, especially when it goes from France to Buffalo.

Here is an interesting fact about 20th-century history: the Holocaust was not part of Allied propaganda in WWII. War crimes featured prominently, but not death camps. There were two practical reasons for this. One, the idea that the Allies were fighting on behalf of the Jews was part of the Nazi narrative. Two, this type of propaganda was reminiscent of the widely-discredited “corpse factory” British WWI narrative.

But the death camps were actually a thing (even if human soap wasn’t). So in WWII, Germany actually becomes the Germany it was falsely accused of being in WWI. But at the time, when it matters, the Allied press cannot accuse it of doing the awful thing it is in fact doing—because the boy has already cried wolf. (Also, Jews were not yet super popular among all corners of the Anglo-American elite.)

Meanwhile, the power of the Anglo-American narrative is so strong that it can even compel its enemy—to the point where said enemy carries out an enormous project that without advantage to its war effort will blacken its name for literally millennia, seemingly only out of a psychological compulsion to assume the image of liberalism’s devil. To fit the dominant story is to be on stage—and everyone wants to be on stage.

TLDR: like, everyone wants to be a tool of power. Often in fucked-up backward reverse psychology ways. Just don’t be a tool, man.

Conclusion

It is true that importing populations as a long-term votebank is a terrible way to hack a democracy. It is true that populations have collective externalities on each other—especially when it is considered acceptable for some populations to inflict collective externalities on each other. It is true that one such externality is a shift in voting patterns, creating a shift in political power. It is true that this has happened here.

It is especially galling that the narrative insists on a total lack of purpose or intention in these systematic demographic changes—“a purely natural phenomenon, like the swallows returning to Capistrano.” Nothing could be more symptomatic of a ruling class that cannot see itself from the outside—its delight in this victory is obvious.

(The same governing narrative, including a young Senator Biden, tried to keep out Vietnamese refugees in 1975—either to protect American jobs in a difficult time of high unemployment, or because the Saigonese might turn out to be anticommunist rabid Neanderthuglicans. Future historians will have to make this tough call.)

All these issues point to fatal constitutional flaws which need to be fixed in the next iteration of the American political experiment. But first, there will have to be a next iteration of the American political experiment.

Unfortunately, my son, all your little terrorism spree will do is to shore up the current iteration—besides ruining your life, and your family’s life, and ending a few others if you actually know how to use that thing. Which, unfortunately, you usually do.