Why Do We Always Lose?

A Method for the Madness

Of all the dissident material I've consumed, George Lincoln Rockwell's speeches stand out. Despite disliking his villain persona, I can't help but love his old-timey voice and clever wit. He discovered dark truths which shook him to his core, and he became consumed with desire to right those wrongs, to expose the devils ruling us from the shadows (a passion I share). I've listened to every speech and discussion of his I can find, and one thing that haunts me from those low-quality tape recordings is a simple question:

"Why do we always lose?"

The late, great GLR asked this damning question to a living room of concerned White folks gathered at a single dissident's house. This clandestine meeting reminds me of the baskets we weave today, 60 years later. The 'we' in this question meant nationalists, specifically the American nationalists who were aware of the Cthulian pull of Liberalism (which they rightly viewed as Marxism) but rejected the impotent mess of Conservatism (which they also rightly viewed as materialist cancer). The 'lose' in this question meant the constant failure to win public debates against Liberals paired with the failure to capture public influence despite their arguments being far more in-line with the common man, and reality, than their 'progressive' opposition.

The consensus of that meeting was what we have all learned in the modern era; that factoids, reason, and sensible arguments are only effective when the people debating share the fundaments of belief, of ethos. Public debates between those of conflicting ethea are only spectacles to display power over the opponent, aiming to sway the audience towards the dominant side's moral order (or immoral order as the case happens to be).

A contemporary work explored the same question, a book called Hammer of the Patriot, written by Charles Chapel and published in 2014. The first third of this book I find to be the most useful, the most actionable. It explains the difference between dominant and submissive posturing via language, the importance of the Schmittian Distinction (determining friend from foe) in any discussion/debate, and the value of putting yourself in the right mindset to claim social victory (realizing whether you're having a civil discussion with friends or going to war with the enemy).

Chapel astutely spells out the two types of opponents we face in the social arena. The 'enemies' are those who actively hate Westernkind and seek to destroy the pillars of our civilization (traditions, morals, masculinity, hierarchy, etc). The 'friends' are those who don't hate the people of the West and who wish to uphold said pillars. An important part of this section is the grey area between the two, and how to determine if someone only vaguely aware of things is capable of being influenced or becoming part of the ‘friend’ group.

The remainder of Hammer of the Patriot isn't without merit, however. Broken up by topic (Politics, Race, and Immigration to name a few), Chapel presents multiple question-and-answer examples of what to say in both 'friend' and 'enemy' discussions, such as:

"Argument: Human rights are given by God and cannot be taken away by man's laws.

Rebuttal: God does not give rights, He only gives duties. And our duty is first to our family and people."

and

"Argument: Violent revolution never results in good government.

Rebuttal: The natural response to being victimized by infiltrators and parasites is to violently shake them off."

I learned some valuable things from this book, but my testing of its rhetorical tactics revealed certain flaws. The vast majority of our people are weak; cowed from decades of comfort and demoralization. Forceful talk about conflict, survival, punishment, and a God-given duty to combat evil makes most of our folk recoil, even Christians. Despite how much I agree with the majority of the rebuttals and overall sentiment of Chapel's book, the intended effect only 'lands' with a small percentage of 'friends' who possess the mental and spiritual fortitude to take on the mantle of a righteous warrior.

Chapel’s rhetorical tactics seemed to be designed with 'enemy' arguments and discussions in mind. His method definitely works better for mocking/shaming antiwhites, and I used them to great effect on social media (I almost never engage with 'enemy' people in meat space). Though I was able to shift conversations towards abstractions I could control while also building support from others participating in the conversations, I wasn't presenting a positive, cohesive narrative that others could take away from the spectacle. Also, this method often resulted in 'enemies' having the fuel they needed to brand me a 'racist', a 'conspiracy theorist', or guilty of 'hate speech', which they used to get my accounts suspended/banned.

While this vein of rhetoric can inspire most regular people internally, the general weakness of our folk in the modern era keeps them from acting upon such feelings. The social skein just isn't there. The moral order which would allow them to act has eroded, and the ethnic identity they need for collective strength has atrophied.

So there it is. There is the answer to the titular question. It came to me slowly after years of reflection and experience with public speaking/debating. We lose because our people are barely a people. We lose because our folk are weak and lack a healthy identity. We've been beaten down and crippled by generations of harmful propaganda, pathologizing, medication, consumerism, and deracination. We lose because our people have been hollowed out and cursed with White guilt. We are trapped in a truly antiwhite narrative.

This was the point which I decided to start a YouTube channel and build a public persona to go with the wisdom I had cultivated. I wanted to see who else out there saw the problems I did, if anyone could help me, and if I could help others who were motivated to fix this critical problem. A friend and follower of mine recommended I check out a content creator called NoWhiteGuilt and his methodology book called Go Free.

The book's full title is Go Free: A Guide to Aligning with the Archetype of Westernkind, written by Jason Köhne (the NoWhiteGuilt guy) and first published in 2017. Similar to Chapel's book, Go Free aims to equip the reader with knowledge and tactics which will help them combat and cure the infectious, hostile ideas (which Köhne cleverly calls 'meme pathogens') in our society. What struck me about this method was how well-conceived it is. Go Free was specifically designed to combat the problems I discovered on my own journey.

Go Free lays out an assessment of the problem and provides knowledge about the 'why' of the method first, then walks the reader through how 'meme pathogens' (or MPs) in both themselves and society have lead Western people into a weakened condition. The bulk of the book focuses on question-and-answer style examples of how to cure the MPs with 'meme curatives' (or MCs), which are phrases and questions designed to win arguments with hostile 'enemy' people (which the Go Free method succinctly labels as ‘antiwhites’) as well as help everyone (not just White people) thwart the MPs within themselves and the MPs they encounter in society.

Here are two examples of the Go Free method's 'meme curatives' for common 'meme pathogens'.

"MP: There are no White countries, nation of immigrants, and/or non-Whites built the West.

MC: There is no Western civilization without Westernkind."

and

"MP: Affirmative action, reparations for slavery, and/or welfare for non-Whites.

MC: Atonement cannot be given for a grievance never committed."

What I like most about this method is the focused framing. The Go Free method correctly points out the core issue of why the West is in such a sorry state, which is the erosion of our racial/ethnic identities and those in power perpetuating a hostile narrative to keep us that way. It calls the core issue 'antiwhitism' and the narrative of lies, gaslighting, and propaganda the 'antiwhite narrative'. At first I scoffed and thought it was too simplified, too boiled-down, but once I tried the method myself I quickly discovered how perfect said simplicity is.

We've all discovered that facts don't care about feelings. Köhne understands that, and designed his method as an intelligent, modern solution to this abysmal modern problem. He understands most Western people are at least subconsciously aware of the blatant and hostile mind war against us, and also that we are too disempowered and atomized to collectively resist it. More importantly, he understands ending our victimization is the necessary fulcrum. The single goal of this method is to help as many people as possible (even non-Whites) break free of the 'antiwhite narrative', or to 'go free' (hence the name of the method).

The beauty of this method is its simplicity, its hyper-focus on one thing: stopping the victimization of Westernkind. The lexicon of the Go Free method does this by labeling all of the hostile narrative elements (political things like Marxism and GAE war machine propaganda, social movements like Feminism and Transgenderism, legal things like Affirmative Action and Mass Migration, etc) as 'antiwhite' or 'antiwhitism'. So a 'feminist professor' is called an 'antiwhite professor', a 'victim of transgenderism' is called a 'victim of antiwhitism', and so on.

Paired with this simplified labeling system is the using of only two terms to talk about the racial and ethnic groups of humanity. When talking about Western people or countries, Go Free uses the the word White; when talking about non-Western people or countries, the method uses the word non-White. The genius of this simple dichotomy not only makes the focus of the conversation about our people or countries, but fortifies a shared Western identity in the minds of those who are a part of the West (the very thing we've had stripped from us and need to reforge).

I think the true power of the Go Free method is placing the healing and well-being of White people at the forefront of our own narrative, while also making an emotional appeal to the subconscious minds of all people, both White and non-White, to end the unjust harm being done to White people. Köhne hit it out of the park with this approach, because he created an entire method to not just answer GLR's haunting question, but to annul it.

I've been using the Go Free method for over 2 years now, and the difference between this approach and what I've tried before is night-and-day. I have healed relations with my loved ones. I positively reach and affect people in my personal life. I not only better win arguments with 'enemies' now, but I plant much healthier seeds in 'friends' as well. Furthermore, using the Go Free method on social media doesn't set me up to be easily cancelled for 'hate speech' or 'bigotry'. Since the lexicon and dialectics in the Go Free toolbox focus on pointing out antiwhitism and demanding an end to the victimization of White people, I do not take on the mantle of the hateful villain the detractors want me to, so they are deprived of their main method of success, which is pulling the levers of the machine to silence me.

We don't have to be trapped in the shadows of the past. We are in a debilitated state, but we are healing. The more of us who adapt to the current cultural climate and act accordingly, the better chance we have for thriving after the storm. I encourage all readers to check out the Go Free method, but even more important than that is to not give up hope. We don't have to always lose, but the one thing which will assure our loss is allowing the flame of hope go out.

Not only have I discovered an answer to the question that's haunted me for years, but I've proven to myself the question is not eternal. We don't always have to lose. We can take back our destiny, we can heal the damage done to us. We can be the heroes of our story. We can win. We can Go Free.

Keep heart.