Declining to Play the Game

A discussion in the comments today reminded me of the following essay, which I wrote back in 2011, in the wake of the Breivik crisis. It hasn’t lost any of its relevance in the last seven years, so I decided to repost it. Since I wrote it the political climate has become even more vicious and polarized, and the animosity of the MSM towards us “racists” is now absolute.

Declining to Play the Game

Main Premises:

1.   Media coverage of the Counterjihad is stacked against us.
2.   This overwhelming disadvantage can’t be significantly improved.

The organs of the Socialist Left have a stranglehold on all discourse about Islam, immigration, Multiculturalism, etc. This stranglehold is maintained through the iron grip of the Left on education, NGOs, large corporations, the media, and the permanent bureaucracy.

Each new generations is even more brainwashed than the previous one, guaranteeing that the demonization and marginalization of people like us will only intensify. We cannot improve our standing to any useful extent in the media without conceding the Left’s major arguments about immigration, Multiculturalism, and “racism”.

The New Mainstream

During the immediate aftermath of the massacre in Norway, one of our people expressed his despair over the situation. He said, “Now we’ve lost any chance of even partially winning over the mainstream.”

My response was, “Forget the mainstream. We never had a chance anyway. We will create our own mainstream.”

This may sound grandiose, but when “we” are thousands of people who follow the same program independently, we create a new common discourse that abandons any elements of the current mainstream. When enough people adhere to such a strategy, the “mainstream” becomes irrelevant, and eventually withers away.

In order to build a coherent set of values that reflects what the vast majority of Westerners support — the new mainstream, in other words — we must refuse to accept the basic premises that inform what now passes for “mainstream” thought. We do not accept the validity of those premises, so we must decline to enter any discourse based on them.

The Game is Rigged

The media game is rigged against people who believe what we believe.

The rules of the game state that it can only be won by someone who accepts the “mainstream” premises about immigration and Multiculturalism. Players are “racists” if they do not accept those premises.

Examples of the ground rules of the game which all players must accept if they expect to win:

1.   Immigration is a good thing; it enriches our culture.
2.   Our society has a history of racism and intolerance for which we must atone by becoming more open and inclusive to foreign cultures.
3.   To oppose the importation of foreigners from widely different (and often antagonistic) cultures is to be guilty of racism.
4.   No culture is inherently preferable over any other culture. They are just different. In fact, if anything our own culture is somewhat lacking. Therefore, by importing foreign cultures, we improve our own.

We cannot win this game.

According to the rules of the game, the only way to win is to acknowledge the truth of the above premises. If we do that, we have joined forces with our enemies. If we don’t, we lose the game.

There are two teams in the game, the “Islamophobes” and the “Multicults”. In effect, the only way for the Islamophobes to win the game is to defect to the other team and join the Multicults.

That’s not much of a “victory” in my book.

Forget About Partial Victory

Without realizing it, up until now we have been attempting to gain a partial victory in this absurd game.

By denying that we are “racists” (“We have a lot of Jews in our organization!”), repudiating “racist” groups (“We have nothing to do with the BNP or the KKK!”), and agreeing that we love foreign cultures, we hope to gain at least a few yards against our opponents.

However, these tactics only concede the field to the other team. We pull further and further back, and the inevitable result is an “own goal” against ourselves.

According to the terms of the mainstream, if we do not concede the inherent value of mass immigration, we are morally deficient racists and xenophobes. We cannot change this perception without conceding the game to the opposing team.

A partial victory is a chimera. It is simply not possible: the rules prohibit it.

The Alternative: Decline to Play the Game

Once we realize that we cannot possibly win the mainstream game and still remain Counterjihad activists, the only prudent course of action is to refuse to play the game.

Don’t accept the rules.

Don’t recognize the authority of the referee.

Don’t call the toss.

Don’t even go onto the field.

It’s very difficult to avoid being sucked into the game, because we’ve been playing it for so long. Virtually everyone else is playing it, too. No one else recognizes how screwy the rules are. Very few people realize that the game is rigged so that only the Multicults can win.

We need to reinforce our inner determination by reminding ourselves over and over again that the rules forced upon us for the past forty years are irrational, insane, and evil. They permit only one outcome: the destruction of our traditional Western culture.

Avoiding Intramural Versions of the Game

It’s crucial not to allow the rules of the mainstream game to enter our internal discourse. No one should fling the “racist” term at other members of the Counterjihad. Nobody that shares our goals should be described as a “neo-Nazi” or a “fascist”.

Such behavior is a sign that the game has been internalized by our own people. It displays an unconscious acceptance of the mainstream premises.

Declining to Play the Media Game

When dealing with the media, it’s important to refuse the interviewer’s implied rules of discourse. This is tough to manage, because the grooves of the old behaviors have been worn so deep over the decades. If we don’t engage the interviewer on his own terms and attempt to convince him that we’re not “racists”, we feel morally inferior.

Just remember: You can’t prove you’re not a racist unless you surrender your most important principles.

It’s disheartening to realize that there’s no point in going through the whole I’m-not-a-racist charade. It’s discouraging to discover that victory is absolutely impossible using the terms dictated by the mainstream.

So refuse to accept the terms dictated by the mainstream. Be steadfast, and repeat the same response over and over again, like a broken record:

“I don’t acknowledge the validity of the premises of any arguments based on ‘racism’

“If the premises of an arguments are false, the conclusions are meaningless.

“Therefore I will not discuss any issue using terms like ‘race’ and ‘racism’.

“That’s all I have to say on this topic.”

The same statements can be used for alternative terms, such as “xenophobia”, “Islamophobia”, etc. From the media’s point of view, they’re all interchangeable.

Interviewers will keep throwing the same old loaded questions at you, but if you stick to statements like these, after a while they’ll realize that it’s no use to continue. If they want any interesting footage for their program, they’ll have to discuss the issues on your terms. They’ll have to engage you on the importance of preserving the traditional customs and values of your own culture, and hear you describe how destructive immigration and Multiculturalism are to the fabric of Western society.

If they don’t, the interview will be short and pointless. But you will have avoided compromising your own principles.


Forging a new mainstream is a long, difficult, thankless process. It will take at least a generation to undo the indoctrination and propaganda that have spread throughout every institution in our society. Young people will have to be exposed to new games that have different rules, games that are more interesting and fulfilling to play.

We begin by declining to engage the mainstream on its own terms. There is no other way to accomplish our purposes, because playing the mainstream way is a mug’s game. We can’t help but lose it.

Islam is not the problem. The problem lies in the rules forced on us through more than a half-century of Leftist dominance. Islam would never have made such devastating inroads into our culture if the vast majority of Westerners had not unwittingly accepted those rules.

Decline the rules.

Refuse to play the game.

29 thoughts on “Declining to Play the Game

  1. Since then, we’ve got “institutionalized sexism” to counter, in all its varying forms. Remember the risible Trudeau and his “otherkin”?

    Now Canadians may face jail, fines, and loss of standing/jobs in the community if they dare to stand up against the compelled speech laws. And those speech laws are the thin wedge in the door which will permit the imposition of all sorts of other imposed compulsions – behavior, thought, etc.

    • Through one of my jobs I have the opportunity to meet many interesting and influential individuals. Several days ago I met a senior member of one of the Canadian provincial governments ( I will not say which one for obvious reasons).

      We had an interesting conversation about Mr Trudeau; according to this official Mr Trudeau is very despised in much of rural Canada for a variety of reasons dealing with the economy and the mistreatment of the oil and gas industries which has effects on employment. We did not discuss islam or immigration. The conversation was encouraging though. It is good to see that not all Canadians are fools despite the election of Mr Trudeau. And it appears that that is an error which stands a good chance of being rectified at the next election cycle…

      • If you did not discuss Islam or immigration, you ignored the elephant in the room. You missed a big opportunity and btw never take a politician at his word.

      • “mistreatment of the oil and gas industry”
        You must have been talking to an Albertan official.
        It’s P.E. Trudeau all over. Flashback to the 1980s.

    • Just like the Chines social score, points for being a loyal party member, points off for being somewhat less than loyal, and definite points off for being a Christian.

      • Last year here in CA the legislature considered passing a law that not using the correct gender pronoun in regards to trannies would get you jail time.

        It didn’t pass because of the 1st. They knew Trump would sic the DOJ on it in a heartbeat and SCOTUS would shoot it down.

        However once the right ruling regime in D.C. is in place. Don’t expect the 1st and 2nd Amendments to exist any longer than a snow cone in Hades.

        When Trump is gone I expect all h*** to break loose.

        • Indeed. “They” will want to make sure that a Trump never rises again. Expect massive amnesties, encouragement of immigration and a great love of Islam to be the norm, as well.

        • Natural rights don’t exist because of what “party” is in power. A government can attempt to stifle them through various laws but it can’t fully remove that which it has no power to bestow.

          A strong dose of testicular fortitude is required of the citizenry to ensure it doesn’t happen. That’s more important than who is in power at the moment.

  2. You cannot win by only defending. You MUST attack. That is what ‘changing the rules of the game’ do. They force the other person on to the defensive and they have to think, and since the Left are not used to thinking you then get opportunities to exploit their static position.

    Don’t do a frontal attack, do as Yuri Bezmenov and use judo – take their momentum and direct it where you want.


    Left: You’re a racist !
    Right : We Classic Liberals are Post-Racial in the sense that we are so used to treating all races equally that race is not a factor in our political analyses. Don’t you think that the very act of dividing people based solely on their skin color is the very definition of racism ?
    (we put out our principles and they now have to justify their position)

    Left: You’re a hateful bigot ?
    Right: We don’t hate anyone. We do believe that the citizen should decide how to live their own life and reject people who think they can tell us how to live our life. Don’t you agree with that ?
    (we have put out our principles and asked them to agree to them – they are now on the defensive )

    Jordan Peterson does this masterfully. By outlining principles that the Left say they agree to and then he asks them questions they have to agree to. The Left are so no used to this they lose their mojo. Then you can seize the initiative and drive where the questions lead. It’s just OODA in action, amigos (look it up). Get inside their decision cycle and you can then force them to react, then you can put out the points you want while they remain defensive.

    Not accepting their premise is the first step. You have to deflect their energy, state a principle they gave to agree with in public, and then raise a question to make them react to your initiatives (they move from a position of control to reacting).

    In boxing you cannot win by defending the whole time, you must strike back. Same with air combat, you cannot win by defending all missiles, you have to fire back (even a marginal shot) so they lose the initiative and you can then work to gain a control position.

    As Alinksy said, use the positions the Left publicly claim to believe in as questions they have to answer, just to force them to think long enough for you to get them reacting to you.

    • That won’t help because they do not listen to any reason, neither could their serfs understand reason or truth after so many years of indoctrination. What should be done is creating a parallel society with its own NGO’s, self governance, self financed parochoal schools (in the few countries that still permit it,) etc.
      There are a few issues to resolve:
      1. Finance, wevneed our iwn Soros of sort with the ability of seeing beyond the immediate politics and vie for the future.
      2. Real hatred must be eradicated. A consrevative world cannot be built with true racism (which is different from what our enemies call racism) and anti-semitism, lest our enemies build on that weekness, and we will lose true possible allies (and finacing wizards).
      3. We have to act under the radar first to build strength

    • Sorry, completely pointless. ‘Don’t you think–‘ type arguments are [utterances that I judge to be ineffective]. Don’t explain ANYTHING. If they call you a racist, point out, loudly and brutally, that it is they who are trying to destroy homogenous white societies, your homeland and your community, that the enrichment rubbish is a pernicious lie, and it is THEY who are the racists. And say no more. Tell these white-hating racists they have insulted your intelligence and walk out.

      You’re a bigot? No, YOU are a bigot. You want to destroy my homeland and my community.

      Don’t play ball with these people. Hurl the ball back in their faces. If they are personal friends, be firm and polite, but do not give an inch. Hit back. And be prepared to lose friends. If you are not prepared to do this, [ad-hominem redacted].

      How long will it be before the right learns to stop apologising for itself?

  3. This sounds far more like the rules for creating and defending a religious cult, or a cult of personality. Group think is always a possibility when you decide you’re the only one with “the truth.”

  4. Bravo Baron. I sense we are entering into an exciting new time of American upheaval, and afterwards these principles will serve us well.

    • Perhaps, it would be more accurate to say that Muslims and Communists are the main problem. They caused and spread racism, islamophobia, poverty, radicalism, etc and then they(those forever irrational muslims) blamed poverty, racism, radicalism, etc as they continue to breed more dysfunction in societies/countries that they infiltrated and controlled viciously via their totalitarian Islamic communities and their gullible supporters.

    • Any ideology which makes individuals worthless in the face of the Collective (which is an abstract idea) is dangerous. Communism and Islam are just examples of such ideologies that devalue individuals and, especially, dissenting individuals.

  5. Usually when you just ask to clarify the terms your opponent is using, like ‘racist’, ‘neo-Nazi’, ‘far-right’ etc and why he or she feels they are somehow can be applied to yourself, they are lost in their own arguments within minutes, while you’re just standing there, waiting.

    • Well, don’t just wait. Fill the vacuum by saying something ‘Hm, you cannot define it. Bye’

  6. The fundamental principles of civilised society need repeated airing and defending:
    1. Equality before the law (identity politics and creeping shariah undermine this, we need to point this out)
    2. Freedom of conscience (again undermined by identity politics and shariah)
    3. Freedom of speech as fundamental to naming problems in order to solve them. We have lost so much ground but need to reclaim the right to give offence, to make bad jokes, to blaspheme. If this is a post-religious world how can some groups be protected?

  7. Here is an unpublished article I wrote a while back, seems relevant to the topic. It was titled “Correct Terminology” –

    I have confronted many people, that I know to be responsible, middle-of-the-road voters, about their inability to stand up for their country, their people, their cultures or their values, and invariably I get the same response. ‘I don’t want to be labeled an extremist, a right-winger, or a Nazi, so I keep quiet.’ This is natural if you feel vulnerable or defensive, because the left has twisted the terminology of political discourse to the point that anybody who disagrees with them must be an extremist.

    Here are some examples of how socialists, progressives and liberals have hijacked our language of political debate.

    Nazi – people who defend their culture, traditions or values are often called Nazis because that puts them on the defensive. The term refers to the National Socialists in Germany, which in fact had more in common with other left-wing totalitarian regimes, than with any right-wing movement. As in Marxist and Communist dictatorships, the individual was sacrificed to the welfare of the state, civil liberties did not exist, and the slaughter of millions of people was justified for some higher purpose. Real right-wing regimes, such as those of the junta in Greece and Pinochet in Chile, continued to espouse family values, private property and the role of religion and tradition in the lives of their people.

    The answer to an accusation of being a Nazi is ‘You confuse the term Nazi with that of Patriot. If your political views are to the left of mine, then it is you who resembles a Nazi supporter.’ Think back to 1939 – did the patriots bring out the flowers, candles and teddy bears, to make Hitler cry at the heart-warming show of support for the fallen Poles, or did they sacrifice their sons and daughters, so that we could be free today?

    Fascist – anybody who holds a view to the right of the extreme left is labeled a fascist or a neo-fascist. A better definition of fascism would be ‘a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, with stringent socioeconomic controls, and suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship.’ These are the hallmarks of all left-wing regimes. The answer to an accusation of being a fascist is ‘Of all the left-wing governments that ever existed, name one that was not perfectly described by this definition.’

    Waves of Immigration – this is a euphemism for the massive, well-organized and well-funded invasion of western countries. The Oxford English Dictionary gives three definitions of ‘invasion’ – ‘An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force’, ‘An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity’ and ‘An unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain.’ If you were, heretofore, under the impression that the millions of Muslim immigrants finding their way into Europe had no resources or funding, then who do you think has financed the thousands of mosques and cultural centers they have built in Europe? And who has been arming these immigrants? In Sweden it is estimated that the immigrants have a larger stock of weaponry than the Swedish army. If you are still in any doubt, go read Muslim Brotherhood’s The Project and if there is still any lingering doubt about the purpose of this invasion, go read the Koran. It was, strangely, a Labour politician, Denis Healy, the Labour Chancellor , who said “World events do not occur by accident. They are made to happen, whether it is to do with national issues or commerce; and most of them are staged and managed by those who hold the purse strings.”

    Multiculturalism & Ethnic enrichment – the left-wing academia and mainstream media has sold us the myth that importing millions of hostile aliens will, in some magical way, enrich our cultures through diversity. The marketing tools they used, to sell this myth, were the left-wing attitudes to moral and cultural relativity ie. that there is no right or wrong, that there is no civilized or uncivilized culture, that all societies and their norms are worthy of our respect and tolerance. Europeans and North Americans are now busy discovering the benefits of ethnic enrichment, by seeing for themselves, up close and personal, how well murder, violence, rape, female mutilation, pedophilia, homophobia, etc are going to work for them. Not to mention the cost of keeping 85% of immigrants on benefits, for ever. Sweden may well be the first to succumb to this virus.

    Religion of Peace – no more brazen perversion of our language was ever committed than the reference to Islam as the Religion of Peace. In the first instance, Islam is first and foremost a militant political movement, and only as an afterthought, a religion. The 99 Names of God does not include God is Love, and there are only 20 references to God’s love for Man (the Bible has 409). The Koran makes only five references to human love, hubb, but 109 verses refer to the killing of Jews, Christians and infidels. The term is usually used by Europeans, trying to allay the fears of their own people, and is not the way Islam is referred to by their followers.

    “Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam,” Yahya Cholil Staquf, general secretary of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), the world’s largest Muslim organization with 50 million members, said in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (translated into English for Time magazine).

    “There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to ‘Islamophobia.’ Or do people want to accuse me – an Islamic scholar – of being an Islamophobe too?”
    “The West cannot force Muslims to adopt a moderate interpretation of Islam. But Western politicians should stop telling us that fundamentalism and violence have nothing to do with traditional Islam,” the scholar declared. “That is simply wrong. If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a problem, you can’t begin to solve it,” the scholar said. “One must identify the problem and explicitly state who and what are responsible for it. There’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de facto proof of Islamophobia. This must end,” he declared. “A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.”

    Apartheid – a derogatory term, referring to the South African policy of racial segregation. The white National Party developed the policy, ostensibly for ‘separate but equal development’ but it was used to exploit and control black people. Guess what? Apartheid is back, in Europe now, and it is about to be re-launched as a highly respectable policy, because millions of Muslim immigrants are refusing, not only to assimilate with the local people, but will not live in the same space. No-go zones have therefore been created, and the immigrants are demanding their own Sharia Courts, to regulate their own affairs. Nobody can risk using the word apartheid, too loaded, so we wait to see what the left-wing useful idiots come up with in its place. Possible new name – monocultural rights!

    No review of linguistic perversions would be complete without reference to the Democratic Party in the United States. This ‘democratic’ party supported slavery and fought the Civil War to maintain the status quo. The Republican Party was actually founded as an anti-slavery party. The 13th Amendment was passed in 1865, abolishing slavery, with 100% support of the Republicans and 23% support of Democrats. The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in Congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and, of course, 0% Democrat votes.

    After black people were given the right to vote, Democrats intimidated them into abstaining by threats of violence. A black person who ignored their warnings was taken into the woods and given a dose of 100 lashes with a bull-whip, hence the origin of the expression, to bulldoze somebody. You can guess, then, who formed the Klu Klax Klan, and who ran around lynching black people. At some time, around the coming-of-age of the Baby Boomers, the Democratic Party moved across the political spectrum to espouse more left-wing, internationalist causes, and claimed to best represent ethnic minorities and immigrants. Since African-Americans, in general, do not like to read history, this new personae was quickly accepted and the party is now seen as the home of all people of color and all left-wing causes, no matter how insane. Nancy Pelosi, who never worked outside of government, has amassed a fortune in excess of $100 million, and Hillary Clinton, who doesn’t care anyway, well, she smiles and takes it as a compliment when others refer to her as Crooked Hillary.

    So, stand up for your family, your nation and your values. Do not be bulldozed by what your enemies define as being politically correct, and demand your right to freedom of speech, using the correct terminology.
    Basil Eustace

    • Heh Basil,

      Thanks for this really good article. You encapsulate very well so many of my views and beliefs.

      Hmm, after writing that I asked myself “so ‘really good’ = ‘agree with it and it reflects my own way of seeing things'” ??

      Maybe. Anyway, thanks.

    • An excellent article, extremity well described and supported with examples, accurate international references and historical facts.

      You define the current disastrous culmination of the infiltration by obscure cultures, under camouflage, that have been orchestrated to destroy western culture by the holders of the purse strings, to achieve their own personal agenda to the detriment of civilization.

      Thank you Basil, for having posted this.

      Pity its still taking so long for the “civilized” world, to wake up, and futhermore to respond with an effective counter action.

  8. The weak minded people who want to be ” loved ” cannot accept the obvious fact that ” Transgender people ” are simply “Surgical Cross Dressers” ; Nothing More. Let the majority prevail to their own destruction. The Normal Remnant will start again. It takes time ; but , Stupidity cures itself.

  9. The arts of war do not change – in ancient China or 21st Century America.

    1) Choose your battlefield, don’t let the enemy choose the battlefield.

  10. Absolutely right. Do not let the Marxists dictate the rules of engagement, that way lies defeat. Instead, oppose political correctness, oppose multi-culti, equality & diversity, defend racism (a self-preservation, survival instinct) and never ever apologise when the leftist mobs howl.

  11. This is an excellent article, and actually tells us what the #1 priority is.

    Not letting “them” define the debate. This is a classic left-wing way of debating – they excel at setting the question.

  12. Simply don`t bother if a moron, a muslim, a Jihad Denier or an adherent of a leftist death cult calls you names.

    None of them has a future.

  13. I am intrigued that the poster who inspired this repost has up and vanished with the wind.

Comments are closed.