On this episode of Counter-Currents Radio, the regular roundtable of Greg Johnson, Millennial Woes, and Fróði Midjord discuss current events and answer listener questions. Topics discussed include the Derek Chauvin trial, Prince Philip’s funeral, places in the non-white world we’d like to visit, thoughts on the Roman Empire, the Decameron Film Festival, Jonathan Bowden, Sam Francis, and thoughts on pornography.

To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”

Follow Millennial Woes:

Website: https://www.millennialwoes.com/
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/millennialwoes
Telegram: https://t.me/millennialwoes

Follow Fróði Midjord:

Decameron: https://guidetokulchur.org/decameron
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/guidetokulchur
Telegram: https://t.me/guidetokulchur

There’s a kind of conservative article which is by now very predictable.

Leftists are doing something outrageous. Where before they did it in the shadows, they are now doing it with impunity, which is causing dissatisfaction not only among conservatives, but also among normal, law-abiding, hard-working, and otherwise platitudinal people. This dissatisfaction will soon boil over, resulting in a much-dreaded conservative backlash against the Latest Excess of Librulism™. The liberals had better heed the mild-mannered, moderate conservative’s well-intentioned warning — otherwise, they might awaken Backlash Hitler, which liberals obviously do not want to happen, right? 

Now, this sort of article serves several purposes. On its face, it is a friendly warning to Leftists that they’re overstepping their bounds, but these articles are usually found in conservative publications. Their intended audience isn’t the Leftists they’re supposed to warn, but other conservatives, usually more plebeian conservatives. The real message isn’t a warning to liberals, but a reassurance of plebeian conservatives that if the liberals transgress too egregiously, there’s always the scary Hitler Backlash option, in effect convincing the plebeian conservatives that they hold reserve powers that can be accessed at any given time. There’s also the bonus of painting the conservative writer as someone who defends the social compact from Backlash Hitler, therefore making him a good guy who is safe to invite to cocktail parties or even serve as the token conservative at a liberal publication.

Of course, at the bare bones game-theoretical level, this type of conservative article frames political life as an iterative prisoner’s dilemma, where the optimal strategy is mutual cooperation between Left and Right. Now, in the golden beforetimes, there was cooperation, although recently, the Left has begun defecting while the Right still cooperates. The warning is, of course, that further defection from the Left will result in a defection from the Right — and nobody defects quite like the Right (hence, Hitler). So this dilemma is asymmetrical. Defection from the Right results in catastrophic loss for the Left and possibly for the Right as well, given that they summoned Yog-Hitleroth who’ll soon devour their souls. 

Reality, however, doesn’t bear out this version of the game. 

Let’s first engage in a purely theoretical discussion of the classical prisoner’s dilemma. The standard game is such: two crooks are caught by the police. They’re given the option to testify against the other. If both refuse to testify (cooperate/cooperate), they each get a year in prison. If one testifies against the other, he is set free, but his buddy will get 3 years in prison. If both testify against the other, then each gets 2 years in prison.

On its face, the best outcome is to spill the beans while the other guy chooses to remain silent — the defect/cooperate result for maximum payoff, especially if there’s a stash of stolen money to be claimed once the prisoner is out. 

However, adding iteration (more games in the future) allows the chump, the guy who cooperated while the other guy defected, to defect in the next iteration and punish the other guy, even at his own expense, a behavior which in evolutionary psychology is known as altruistic punishment and is disturbingly common among whites, especially Northwestern Europeans and their colonial descendants. So, when the element of iterative games — having to live in a society with the people you fucked over — is added, people choose to cooperate out of their rational self-interest, fearing retribution. Problem solved, right? 

Let us now consider the possibility of playing the prisoner’s dilemma with someone who just will not defect, no matter how hard, how often, how egregiously, or how shamelessly you defect on him. 

But before we can do that, we must find this elusive person who just will not defect. To that, we will make a foray into personality psychology. 

We know from the research of Johnathan Haidt, Anonymous Conservative, and others that disagreements between what we call conservatives and liberals aren’t caused by differing convictions so much as different neurotypes, brain structure, and neurochemistry. I won’t go into the neurological science — suffice to say that the difference between liberals and conservatives can be spotted when comparing their split results on the Big Five personality traits test. Specifically, the dominant conservative trait seems to be conscientiousness, which has the two aspects of industriousness and orderliness, whereas liberals seem to be more defined by their openness to experience. An image emerges of the stalwart, disciplined, hard-working conservative and the freewheeling, head-in-the-clouds liberal. Indeed, the existence of such stereotypes shows us that folk wisdom comports with the scientific findings. 

This is nice and informative and tells us that the conservatives like order and work hard, while liberals like new experiences and are more intellectually inclined (though not necessarily more intelligent). It tells us what people like to do, but personality psychology also tells us what deeply wounds and psychologically destroys people. As I painfully learned during the coronavirus lockdowns, denying a highly extroverted person the opportunity to mingle with people and frolic in the sun causes severe depression, sometimes leading to indulgence in the few hedonic pleasures left with devastating consequences. If you want to see what highly agreeable people act like when they have nobody and nothing to care for, look no further than your nearest refugee-welcoming, pitbull-keeping white woman. Leave open people without new experiences, and they wither on the vine, going slowly insane out of boredom. And if you really want to drive a conscientious person crazy, disrupt the order of their surroundings and deny them the opportunity to contribute to their societies. The opioid crisis in America is fueled by a sense of purposelessness in the highly conscientious white Americans who’ve lost their jobs to globalization and diversity. 

You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.

Now, I mentioned that the conservative is highly conscientious and conscientiousness fragments into the aspects of orderliness, which describes a preference and propensity for following rules and imposing order on one’s environment; and industriousness, which describes a preference for working (or at least a lessened disutility of labor factor, in economic terms). Denial of order and labor to these people is torturous.

So, let’s go back to our game-theoretical discussion. The conservatives, who wither on the vine if they live in disorder or stop working, are supposed to defect on the ruling class. 

I want to advance the idea that they physically cannot do it.

What does defection entail in political relations? It entails breaking with the way things have been. It means primarily a shift in the way in which the world is perceived, of a sudden realization that the old order is not your friend and that the sooner it is dismantled, the better for you. Defection also entails no longer feeding the beast, which means at the very least looking for ways to sever oneself from the beast’s economic system, shifting the focus of economic activity more on independence from the system rather than being the best you can be (which is often only possible within the system). 

So, basically, it’s asking people who are very orderly and very hard-working to become achievement-avoiding anarchists. Ours is not a cause that seeks to eliminate order, but to replace the existing, bad order with a good one, so we aren’t anarchists. But to someone who cannot exist outside an orderly society, we might as well be. Compounding the problem is that no serious overhaul of any system can be accomplished without a little bit of chaos — and whether we like it or not, until globohomo falls, we are on team chaos. The conscientious conservative cannot brook chaos. He is disgusted and disturbed by the very idea of chaos. Conscientious people also tend to be risk-averse, and our thing is nothing if not risky. 

“It can’t be like that,” you say. Who could keep on trucking after being as thoroughly and utterly betrayed as the people of the Right? You’d have to be a blind fool or a masochist not to have enough and just stop indulging the Left. Well, it’s not as simple as that. We do see conservatives flung into uncharted territory after the Left commits another hitherto unthinkable transgression, but there’s always a coterie of quasi-preachers ministering to them in order to nudge them in the direction their neurobiology already favors. 

I’ve observed and will advance as examples three such philosophies of life which appeal to conservatives and serve to provide for them a narrative of heroic cooperation while the Left and the ruling class defect on them. 

The first is the philosophy of Jordan Peterson, whose response to iniquities against white young men is to have them take upon themselves the burden of finding a need in society and filling it, to “sort themselves out” so that they may be useful to the system which humiliates and seeks to eliminate them. 

The second is a nasty outgrowth of American-style social conservatism that blames young white men for the recent decrease in marriage rates, advising them to “man up” and marry that 37-year-old single mother with the triple-digit body count. Really, this is nothing more than the old Cosmopolitan magazine tripe about “commitment-phobic men” that mainstream social conservatism has seen fit to accept. 

The third exhibit in our sad procession is none other than our old friend QAnon, a narrative which convinced Trump supporters to heroically cooperate (“trust the plan”) even in the face of multiple and egregious defections from Donald Trump. And sure enough, these philosophies and screeds have millions of supporters, whereas the Dissident Right screed of defection from the system carries no coin with them. To them, we are losers, Nazis, and other fine epithets. 

The neurology of the conservative will choose order and labor, even self-destructive order and labor (there’s that altruism characteristic of whites again) over dissent and defection. The marketplace of ideas will always provide a narrative on why cooperation in the face of repeated and blatant defection is heroic, as well. Remember, the marketplace of ideas doesn’t produce the best or truest ideas, because value is subjective. Rather, in this marketplace, those ideas that are the most subjectively valued by people will receive the most traction, and so comforting lies — and few things are as comforting as the notion that following your neurological biases is heroic — will soundly outcompete uncomfortable truths. 

Let us circle back to game theory. With this information in mind, we now understand that we’re playing the prisoner’s dilemma with someone who cannot defect; ergo, they cannot punish us for our previous defections. So, even in the iterative game, the most rational strategy becomes defection, given that we are certain that the other guy will cooperate. Grudgingly, with much grumbling, with many dire warnings of Backlash Hitler, but he will cooperate. And if this is true, it may be possible that we have reached peak redpill — that even if mainstream conservatives receive all the relevant facts, they still won’t effectuate the radical change in Weltanschauung necessary to defect — their neurology won’t allow it. They will be satisfied with merely their theoretical ability to summon Backlash Hitler, make a lot of noise, maybe even take a stroll through the US Capitol, but they won’t really defect on the Left. 

This leads me to conclude that the real political battle will be fought over the heads of these permanent cooperators by the political Left on one side and the Dissident Right on the other. Conservatives will not win because they’re not in the game. They’re not just unwilling, but might be neurologically incapable of taking the plunge into the strange world of defection from the system. Someone who just will not defect is always someone’s serf. 

The word “elite” is thrown around a lot these days. From the context of what they’re saying, I gather that a lot of people seem to conflate it with positions within government and society. I see things differently. Elite are those who have the option of defection. The normie Right cannot defect. The bioleninist client coalition is so addicted to chaos that they cannot cooperate. The elite are those who can choose and therefore engage in an actual battle of wills. Whoever wins in this battle of wills gets to impose an equilibrium of his own choosing on the so-called normie who cannot defect, who hasn’t got the neurology for it, who watches a TV program because it’s on TV. 

With that, I leave you to think. Knowing all we do now, seeing history sprawled behind us, understanding human psychology and game theory, I ask you: can we really redpill the normies? What can we accomplish by redpilling them? Could the impossible have happened? 

Have we reached peak redpill? 

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

• First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)


• Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Bradley A. Thayer
Darwin and International Relations: On the Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict
Lexington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press, 2004

Every summer it happens. Warriors head out to meet their foes on the field of battle. These fighters tear each other’s bodies apart in one-on-one combat. They also summon reinforcements, deploy in complex formations, and use strategy. These warriors are ants. Ants wage warfare so aggressively and commonly it is thought that if they had hydrogen bombs, they’d destroy the Earth in the course of a summer afternoon.

Ants, humans, chimpanzees, bottlenose dolphins, and many other species go to war against their own kind in some organized way. Chimpanzees patrol, give battle, and conduct ambushes in the same way soldiers do today. Professor Bradley A. Thayer argues that warfare is a product of natural selection and this can be explained by evolutionary theory.

An ultimate causal explanation for warfare based on evolutionary theory begins with the recognition that warfare contributes to fitness in certain circumstances because successful warfare lets the winner acquire resources. For evolutionary biology, a resource is any material substance that has the potential to increase the individual’s ability to survive or reproduce. As such it may be food, shelter, or territory, especially high-quality soil or wild foods. (p. 107)

While Thayer argues that warfare is the natural result of evolutionary processes, he admits that evolutionary theory doesn’t explain exactly how or why a particular war will start and where it will take place. The cause of how, say, the First World War got going shifts from one historian to the next. Thayer admits that using evolutionary theory to explain war has four avenues for criticism. Evolutionary theory can be deterministic, reductionist, tautological, and Panglossian. Though Thayer finds these criticisms useful to illuminate dangers for natural or social scientists, they are not “sufficient to impede. . . the use of evolutionary theory to explain human behavior. (p. 58)

Wars are fought for several reasons. These reasons apply to primitive tribes in South America as well as high tech nations:

• Resources such as food, oil, etc.


• Territory, especially key points such as Gibraltar or Suez


• Ideology, religion, or “witchcraft”


• Revenge for earlier attacks


• Access to females

War & Sex

I thought the idea about access to females was interesting. It is known that successful warriors “get the girl,” so to speak. It could be that the baby boom of the 1950s was due in part to so many American men successfully serving as soldiers in World War II — American women thus naturally paired off with them. Additionally, the ancient Irish warrior chieftain Niall of the Nine Hostages and his male relations have many living descendants today.

You can buy It’s Okay to Be White: The Best of Greg Johnson here.

However, access to females is a conditional thing. One doesn’t want a wife who has sympathies to a rival tribe, and one doesn’t want the children to be of a downward-trending racial admixture. The Ottoman Turks looked for white women in the Balkans and steppes to their north. They had access to African women through the Arab slave trade in Zanzibar, but they didn’t breed with them. Likewise, while the Bible has a verse encouraging a warrior to wait a month before having sex with a woman he captured in battle, there are more passages about not marrying Canaanites or being “unequally yoked.” This brings to mind the drama caused to Abraham by Hagar and their child Ismael. The only politically stable and nice parts of South America are the parts where Spanish and Portuguese conquistadores married European women.

Men will always be the key warriors. Female soldiers are an expensive trinket at best. The reason is the different reproductive strategies of the sexes. The men must show some sort of worth, and military service is always worthy, and women need to be protected. Career military women often don’t have children.

Another big evolutionary factor in warfare is disease. The Europeans conquered the Americas in part because their bodies were more resistant to diseases that the Indians had no natural immunity to. The Spanish arriving in Hispaniola in 1492 were descended from people who’d survived earlier pandemics and passed on their immunity to their children. The Europeans also set up outposts in Africa as early as the 1500s, but had difficulty settling the area for the opposite reason: they were not resistant to African maladies.

Evolutionary Theory and Ethnic Conflict

If you are reading this article, one is aware that ethnic conflict is a major driver of social dilemmas. An ethnic group is a group of people who believe they have a common set of ancestors. In the northern United States, many people — even those with non-Anglo names like Olaf and Pasquale — can trace their roots to the Mayflower passengers or Daniel Boone’s family and militia followers. In the southern states, many whites trace their roots to families such as the Lees of Old Virginia. In the Deep South, there is probably a connection to the early English colonists of Barbados.

Ethnic conflict can be primordial, meaning that it arises naturally from within a particular tribe – i.e. “ancient hatreds.” Or it can be modernist, meaning that it arises from external factors. For example, national feeling didn’t arise in the Austrian Empire until after the printing press, public transportation, and advanced economic activity arrived.

There is probably a “middle way” truth between the primordial and modernist theories of why ethnic conflict occurs. Regardless, ethnic conflict is here to stay. Thayer argues that one way to suppress ethnic conflict is to expand the definition of who is a citizen of the nation. American Establishment propaganda since the 1960s has done a great deal to include Sub-Saharans as major contributors to the American project although this effort is only partially successful.

America’s Low-Grade Civil War

Today the United States is in a low-grade civil war and one can see a Darwinian aspect to it. At issue is the Scramble for America – or more accurately the access to Anglo whites. Anglos have created a society whose walls contain money-giving ATMs, whose industry can churn out fleets of bombers, and whose suburbs can provide valiant white men to serve as crews for those bombers. Non-whites that get access to this society get clean water, a wealthy population to rob, and access to a political system that can send those bombers against their enemies in their homelands.

These non-whites waging this war use mattoid whites, such as those in Antifa, and well-meaning status signaling whites as allies. Additionally, they are using a mind virus — the “civil rights” narrative and the illicit second constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — against whites. With that in mind, the very definition of weapon is broader than hypersonic missiles or assault rifles. Narrative matters. Law matters. Additionally, important territory isn’t just a place like Gibraltar, it’s also the food pantry, welfare office, and US Justice Department.

To reverse this trend, whites must figure out a way to counter the reigning narrative, deny non-white access to white systems, pick apart underground centers of power hostile to whites, and otherwise turn things around. Darwinism shows that there is no way out of this conflict but through. 

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

• First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)


• Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

On this episode of Counter-Currents Radio, Greg Johnson interviews Jared Taylor on his book White Identity ten years later. Topics discussed include: The story behind White Identity, copies sold, “diversity is our strength,” science and racial differences, Genetic Similarity Theory, reciprocity and unilateral disarmament, whites blamed for black failure, Asian achievements, reviews and responses to White Identity, race vs. class and sex differences, Tucker Carlson, and How Jared’s thinking has changed over the last ten years.

White Identity is available through the official American Renaissance bookstore.

To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”

*  *  *

On Monday, April 19th, Counter-Currents will be extending special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

• First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)


• Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.

As an incentive to act now, everyone who joins the paywall between now and Monday, April 19th will receive a free paperback copy of Greg Johnson’s next book, The Year America Died.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

America Braces for Mass Insomnia as Floyd Trial Wraps Up

As the Trial of the Century winds down in Ol’ Minneapolis Way, news outlets are prognosticating a vicious wave of “unrest” all across the country.

In Philadelphia — which had nothing to do with George Floyd’s death — businesses are said to be preparing for “social unrest” in a city that already suffers from a lack of healthy REM sleep.

The Washington Post sternly warns us that the current “unrest” in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota over the shooting of a mulatto with outstanding warrants, previous armed-robbery charges, and a fat, ugly white mother should serve to scare the shit out of other suburbanites.

Unrest is spreading all over the country just like it did last year when the weather started getting warm, and Americans are taking out their sleeplessness by bashing and smashing and burning and chanting dumb slogans again.

Never mind the fact that there wouldn’t be all this unrest if these clowns didn’t stop resisting arrest.

Just take a 10 mg chewable cherry melatonin tablet like I do every night. Works like a charm.

Holy Toledo, Is “Brown Lives Matter” Next?

In the ridiculously murderous city of Chicago — where two people got murdered a day last year but no one makes a stink about it unless it’s a white cop shooting a poor, defenseless, homicidal POC — downtown businesses are boarding up and “expecting unrest” after authorities finally released video from late March of an adorable Hispanic child with a Moe Howard haircut named Adam Toledo being ruthlessly slain in cold blood by a melanin-deficient policeman who probably called him a “spic” and a “beaner” as he was pulling the trigger on the gun he uses to compensate for his sexual inadequacies.

Only, that’s not what really happened. These days, what they tell you really happened is never what really happened.

Yes, Young Master Toledo was but a wee brown saplin’ of only 13 years. But even his own mamacita admitted he’d gone missing for several days in late March, returning home on the 28th for a few nibbles on a chalupa before heading out once again into his barrio called Little Village in Chicago, a nest of the notorious Latin Kings street gang, the largest Hispanic street gang in the country and an ethnonationalist criminal syndicate whose membership in Chi-town alone numbers anywhere from 25,000 to 35,000. It’s also a known fact that the Latin Kings recruit members when they are still children.

Police have not confirmed whether Toledo was a member of the Latin Kings, but several fact-pellets have rained down from the heavens that suggest he was much more malo than the media is spinning it. For starters, several Hispano-tweeters mourned his death by referring to him as “Lil Homicide” and “Bvby Diablo.”

Then, there’s the extremely uncomfortable fact that this little Spanish angel was in a Chicago alleyway sometime around 3:00 AM, and police were responding to a report of gunshots fired in the area.

After that, there’s the narrative-destroying fact that the video released last week clearly shows Toledo holding a gun and running from police as they shouted for him to stop. The video also shows that he “dropped or tossed the weapon away less than a second before the officer pulled the trigger.”

Less than a second.

Think about this for a moment — the people who’ve been tearing the shit out of the country in massive deliberate temper tantrums since last May over shootings that did not directly affect them in the heat of the moment — actually, they didn’t directly affect them at all — are condemning a cop who was responding to a report of shots fired, then chased a kid with a gun for 19 seconds, and then pulled the trigger less than a second after the kid tossed the gun to the ground and held up his hands.

Not one among thousands of these rioting maroons could have handled that situation. Judging from their temperament as has been on ample display in cities across America, they would have blasted this kid’s head off while sitting in their squad cars, then gone out to get a bag full of White Castle hamburgers.

Speaking of shooting someone dead while sitting in your squad car, that’s what Somalian cop Mohamed Noor did to a blonde white woman named Justine Damond in Minneapolis in 2017. Damond had called the police after she heard a woman screaming in her alleyway and was only going out to greet the police. No resisting arrest, no running down the alley with a gun in her hand, and, most importantly, no subsequent months-long “unrest.”

You can buy Jim Goad’s Whiteness: The Original Sin here.

No Charges for Capitol Police Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Dead

While we’re on the subject of white women being shot dead by cops without white riots, Ashli Babbitt — who was stupidly, let’s face it, trying to crawl through a smashed-in window during the Capitol, uh, “incident” on January 6 — was slain with one bullet. But her name will never achieve the Q Score of George Floyd or Adam Toledo or Mike Brown because she’s an inconvenient victim.

Due to the fact that he was a Capitol Policeman and subject to federal rather than local laws, her killer’s name will never be released to the public. We’ll never see his anguished mugshot. Actually, there never was a mugshot because he was never arrested for shooting her — and never will be.

Last week, the Department of Justice issued a press release about the shooting that managed to squeeze seven instances of the word “mob” in one sentence. When white people gather together to smash things, they are an insurrecti