Spanish translation here
The great majority of readers of Counter-Currents I am sure, feel that something is deeply wrong with the world in which they live. This view will be held even if, as may well be the case, they currently enjoy a standard of material living and perhaps health, far superior to the great majority of Homo sapiens in the history of the species and even than the millions of its members currently living.
Anyone reading Counter-Currents especially the comments section cannot fail to be struck by the frequent use of the terms “we” and “our.” This characteristic of those who identify themselves with certain trends which have various names: ethno-nationalism is one, racialism is another, or especially popular in the USA “the Movement.” There exists indeed a movement of persons with a strong sense of belonging to the white race.
Those possessed of this sense are probably all deeply discontented and have a sense they are losing on all fronts, that their race is in (“irreversible”?) decline. Reading the contributions to this or any similar publication will bear out that this is overwhelmingly what racially-conscious whites both instinctively feel and rationally think. The reason for a sense of losing is undoubtedly based on the fact that the white race is declining numerically and in terms of power and has been in decline in this respect since 1945. This is a fact which virtually no one, whether white or not, whether racially conscious or not, seriously disputes. Disputes are concentrated on the desirability or relevance of that development.
In other words, “we” are not challenging others so far as facts are concerned, we are challenging others on the significance of those facts. Here we come to a significant even fatal lacuna, namely that having taken this notion of “we” so far, “we” have singularly failed to go back to basics and separate the fundamental defining quality that constitutes our faith — or better said, knowledge, for there cannot be the least question that at the most fundamental ontological level “we” are right and “they” are quintessentially in error — and the second level of opinion. Consequently, there is too often confusion in deciding what is of primary importance, an importance which cannot be negotiated or discussed, and all that is of secondary importance, which is the stuff of politics, alliance, compromise, Realpolitik, and negotiation.
What is the primordial instinct, which arguably extends to all being, even to distinct non-life? It is the will to be what it is. All being, all phenomena per definition, will to be what they are. The energy or will to be, is the defining force of being itself. At the level of an individual member of Homo sapiens, this takes the form, as with all higher animals, as a will to survive as an individual. Individuals which have lost the will to live or whose will to live has been subordinated to the quest for a particular thrill or pleasure (addiction) are regarded as being in existential crisis.
Healthy individuals of every species of plant and animal on earth seek to survive and prosper. Survival is defiance, as long as possible, of the Grim Reaper. For highly developed animals not only survival but comforts and positions which heighten the enjoyment of survival are ends to strive for. Human being seek not only to survive, they want to be conscious of their success.
Man is not satisfied with success as evidenced by nature. He wishes to be aware of it.
“No man is an island” says the poet. Human individuals do not exist as and for ourselves alone. Not only would it be dreary and uneventful to do so (even the misanthrope or hermit with their books or at least legends and memories, contemplate a spectacle of human actors), it would in fact be suicide to do so. They need social intercourse to survive and to flourish. People do not chose for this purpose beings from another galaxy with whose customs they are unacquainted and which seem alien to them and whose appearance is frightening or repellent, they seek familiarity. As social beings people remain fairly narcissistic, seeking recognition in social intercourse.
This is by no means a special feature of Homo sapiens. In fact, all animals do this. In seeking others we/they also seek ourselves/themselves. Races, which are biologically speaking, a halfway station between one and two species, a species in the process of evolving into two species, are the most natural social groups for human individuals to identify with. Historically human societies have often stressed other social groups above race: class and cultural divisions, and recently and fatally, national division. In other words, human beings have historically placed human division above natural division.
Those who can be described as part of the “we” to which I referred at the beginning, followers of “the Movement” if you will, specifically insist on the primordial role of nature. It strikes at the fundamental insistence on the primordial role of race in human division, primordial, because truly primary: biological, predating human culture or civilization.
It is in the name of a natural order that we proclaim our defiance of the human world as it is today. It is in the name of the natural order or it is nothing.
This brings me to the third fundamental element, after individual and race, the third principle of what I would practically call a holy trinity, that is, our environment. Neither the human individual nor a race of humans nor for that matter a species however mixed or constituted, can thrive and ultimately will not survive, if the planet itself dies. If the water supplies of our planet were all contaminated, or if the sun were to be blocked off and not shine on us for months, we would be doomed as a race and as individuals even if everything else were satisfactory and working perfectly! This will be so for as long as we are confined to this planet and so long as Mother Earth remains our only known home.
I believe I have sketched the three essentials, the trinity, of “our” cause. The race, the individual, the planet. I consider these three elements non-negotiable in that all measures or development which threaten me in terms of this trinity are unacceptable. In the unwelcome situation that one is called upon to make a sacrifice to save another, then an individual would be sacrificed to a race and a race to the planet.
There can be no compromise and all struggle in relation to these three elements is literally a struggle to the death, a stark “either/or.” Those who cannot see life in those terms, for example those whose priority is to be as comfortable or famous as possible for their short term between cradle and grave at the cost of the interest of their race or their planet, or who regard religious salvation in another dimension or beyond life on this planet as above either race or even the survival of the Earth itself, are life deniers in the Nietzschean sense. In the name of life those in this struggle must will their destruction.
There are many many extremely important issues which are subject to debate, compromise, alliances, treaties, compromise, debate, negotiation. Do I favor a more authoritarian or more liberal form of government? Do I favor a more or less permissive society? To what extent do I believe the state should intervene in society to address social imbalances? To what extent do I believe in a right to private property? To what extent should men and women enjoy different social roles? Is the nation a valid human unit? These and many others are certainly vital and divisive questions which need to be addressed, but they must always be understood as what they are, second in importance to the overriding interlocking elements of race, environment and individual in terms of survival and prosperity.
It is especially tragic that there are many whites who fully understand the necessity of saving the environment but who consider racial survival irrelevant at best or racial survivalists who regard the deterioration and indeed wholesale disappearance of the natural environment with a certain indifference or complacency. The protection of the race and the environment are not simply equally important, they are part of the same protection and to ignore one element of the two is to deny the third: oneself.
I cannot see the world other than I have tried to outline it here. This is a clear vision. Persons are welcome to disagree with me but if they do I do not consider that they and I belong to the same tribe, party “movement,” community, fellowship, call it what you will. Ultimately I consider them potential foes. I consider them as in some manner even unknown to themselves, potential abetters of an occult enemy.
I know this to be the fundamental truth. How that truth manifests itself and how it is best propagated is another question. From one point of view, “ours” at least, it constitutes the merest common sense and the most natural will to survive and flourish. Nevertheless, not only is the white race in undisputed decline, so is the planet. How can it be that the conscious ones, the “we” in the face of overwhelming evidence to support them, evidence which the anti-life systems are scarcely able to conceal, are so pessimistic for their cause of truth? In the second of my three part series I shall underline what I consider to be some of the worst mistakes made repeatedly by believers in our cause.
La politique identitaire blanche est morale, Partie 2
Politique identitaire blanche : inévitable, nécessaire, morale, Partie 1
Remembering Anthony M. Ludovici:
January 8, 1882–April 3, 1971
What Liberals Mean When They Say “Hate”
We’re Even More Jets Now: Spielberg’s West Side Story
Autognosis: Auditing the Self
A Polite Response to PhilosophiCat
The Problem with Foodie Cosmopolitanism