Part 1 of 2
As Britons, European-Americans, or native Europeans, we are all instinctively aware that something is deeply wrong with our society. However, the language used to describe this problem is kept within the extremely narrow confines of mainstream conservatism.
For example, most indigenous Britons are interested in “UKIP,” think we should “get out of Europe,” “stop immigration,” “ban the Burqa,” and so on. All literal, objective terminology on matters racial and cultural in the West is now taboo and channeled into ineffectual proxy issues.
This is based on the baby-logic of “because Hitler was a racialist, therefore, all racialism leads to Hitler” and the perpetual distraction of ballot-box populism. So this is a problem. However, within the ideological box of the New Right our philosophy, values, and goals have been developing, and we are developing new terminology to express this. We will fix all of this and more by attacking the root cause of this miasma.
What we wish to communicate is that the problems facing Europe — world-eating industrialism, the ever-expanding sphere of what defines “discrimination,” catastrophic immivasion, cannot be solved using our current values. They cannot be redressed whilst not being radical. These problems cannot be stopped by conservatism, because there is nothing left to conserve. They cannot be stopped by legalism of democratic shuffling. They can only be fixed with a total overhaul of what is considered important, of what is considered essential, and what is morally valuable.
As Identitarians we are concerned with what is above law, above money, and above time. Our primary concern is that what makes us who we are — what makes us distinct, what gives our creative edge, our genetic, cultural and historical definition. All of these things can be lost as our very existence is under demographic threat in our own homelands.
In order to grasp that Identitarians are beyond the existing paradigm, the next step in political evolution, we must first revise prevailing dogmas, and examine specifically why Identitarians stand staunchly opposed to them.
Identitarians vehemently reject:
“Equality is a rather perverse thought, like levelling mountains and filling canyons . . . in human terms, an active war against the exceptional by the average.” — Harold Arthur McNeill
We do not believe in “human equality.” Obviously, there are many different types of human beings, with many different traits and characters. Humans are animals, part of nature, and nothing in nature is equal. The insistence on legislative blindness to the extremely different characteristics between populations is oppression of all, as a middling set of social norms and legal bindings are groped towards that are satisfactory for neither group. In the words of William Blake, “One law for the lion and ox is oppression.”
We are not interested in the fairytale that inherent human biological differences can be erased through social conditioning and state subsidy. Instead, we are interested in creating states where different groups of people can fully develop and express themselves, and this necessitates allowing ethnocultural groups to create and maintain standards that are unique to their capabilities and preference.
The true nature of equality is homogeneity. Instead of a racially homogeneous society with many castes, classes, and cadres that interlock and rely upon each other, egalitarians — Equality maniacs — support a globally homogeneous society that erodes biological differences, cultural mores, and traditional institutions whenever they oppose global commerce. The root and ultimate source of the push for “Equality” is capitalism, the dissolution of all ideological and ethnocultural structures that oppose unfettered commerce. Everyone is equal, so no meaningful ideological association between groups of individuals can be allowed to exist that is not synchronous with the interests of capital. Identities built on distractions and novel abstractions – the “LGBT community,” “class consciousness,” “people of color”’ are used as dissolving agents on existing, ancestral and organic identities of native Europeans at home and abroad, who could conceivably otherwise unite collectively on a biological basis. This would not be in the interests of capital, and its imported reserve army of third world labor.
Muslims, as a bloc of persons who value traditional social structures more than liberal democratic society, demonstrate the problematic nature of universalist citizenship. Spirituality and biology are insisted to be a purely personal concern that is irrelevant in the public sphere, with the much-touted and mythic “separation of church and state.” Yet Muslims – a bloc who by definition want the abolition of liberal democracy — are globally encouraged to enter the West and given every accommodation and state sponsorship legally possible, as if to prove just how dedicated the West is on this principle. They work as shock troops against native Europids, balkanizing our homelands and committing low-level street terrorism. Their “right” to a presence in the West is propped up with every conceivable platitude about “one-worldism” and “human rights.” Yet when they do as they are wont to do and try to implement Islam as the sovereign socio-political system, the flares go up and there is ballyhoo about “radical” Islam (as if such a thing ever existed) and more calls to combat “Islamophobia.” In this we see the mendacity of the system — that the agents of “equality” are really for the total destruction of all hierarchical, traditional norms that impede capitalist subjugation, and are even prepared to use terroristic third-worlders in this attack. The difference is the tactical distinction that Muslims, as foreign colonists in the West, can be policed, yet an insurrection of native Europids against the forces of finance would be unstoppable.
Identitarians want instead:
Although amongst Identitarians there are many different types of political supporters, the consensus is that hierarchy is an integral and necessary part of human society. Whereas legal equality (democracy in Iraq!) leads to a faux-hierarchy based on the money-power of the individual, Identitarians believe in a natural hierarchy based on how one best serves the nation. That is to say, no one “rules” per se but everyone has a role of service they develop into, whether this is military commander, economist, accountant or tradesman.
Fundamentally, we are interested in a hierarchy of personal qualities. Many soldiers are needed to fight a war, but a land with many kings is divided against itself. So this is not a hierarchy of quantitive access to money or weapons, but a hierarchy of increasing specialization and ability within specific fields. Identitarians stand for the hierarchy of the wiser over the naïve, of the elder over the apprentice. By contrast, enforced inclusion – the “anti-discrimination” legislation that forces close knit communities to accept invaders – creates simultaneously a hierarchy of quantitive resource – how much money one can accumulate by appealing to the base nature of mass society. Social status is defined by exclusion and inclusion, and by stealing sovereignty from Europeans at a very basic level (denying the ability to refuse trade, goods, services. etc.), the state has mandated that it alone holds the power to grant and deny social acceptance. The inability to deny – to exclude – to preserve territory from the outsider, has a transformative effect on society, whereby as the social, religious and communitarian aspect of existence is flattened, society is subjugated to the financial elite who are able to make their nest wherever they see fit, regardless of who was living there first.
The term “hierarchy” in many minds is a dog-whistle for being subject to this type of massification, the being stripped of all ability to practically assert personal concerns publicly (beyond mere demonstration), and being reduced to a helpless yes-man in a regime. This equation of hierarchy with brutality is one of the greatest inventions of liberal myth. The fear is of a pyramid of oppression based on surveillance and adherence to clandestine doctrine, yet the irony is that a mania for “equality” has created such a panopticon. The definitions of what constitute “prejudice” and “oppression” – used as a byword for hurt feelings of an officially designated victim group – change daily, and whites Westerners are deemed universally guilty. This is under a damned if you do, damned if you don’t approach to any interaction between whites and other ethnic groups colonizing their countries.
The doctrine of equality is cloudy and mystifying, and accessible only by those who create its reality within University campuses and state institutions of mandated “diversity.” This “equality” is in fact a hidden hierarchy of members of the Outer and Inner Party, who are privy to and participate in discussion of what is “equal” under the circumstance. This is an implicit and hidden hierarchy from the rest of society, which is too busy trying to eke out a living through productive work in the private sector. A member of society who is not part of the “Equality Party” can be prosecuted at any time, for any reason, for a crime against “equality.” This is real oppression, in the rainbow wrapping paper of liberal capitalism.
As Identitarians, we acknowledge that hierarchy cannot be erased from fundamental human nature, and so we wish to institute an explicit hierarchy. In such a hierarchy, we would want everyone to be aware of who is in charge and why, and what it is that qualifies them for such a position. We want all persons to be able to understand who is determining their future and how it affects them, and in this manner, for all persons in areas of responsibility to be accountable for their actions. We wish for a society to be built on an identitarian doctrine which has an explicit purpose that is neither cryptic nor subject to endless, farcical debate, but anchored in an objective purpose of furthering the interests of Europeans and European-Americans. In this manner, we will remove the oppression of the hidden hierarchy and “political correctness gone mad,” and institute hierarchies that are accessible, understandable, meaningful, and based on objective responsibilities and accountability.
Identitarians stand opposed to:
We do not subscribe to the doctrines of multiculturalism which have already been declared failed by Western political figureheads. The doctrine of multiculturalism, that discrimination based on cultural mores is taboo, is in fact a true eraser of culture.
A living culture defines itself by internal interaction within an exclusive space. The idea that many different cultures can inhabit the same society is absurd because means of interaction are a form of culture. For example, an Englishman in Japan is expected to adopt the cultural expression of the polite bow in place of a handshake, and the Nipponese man in England experiences the reverse. However in the “multicultural” society, there can be no dominant mode of expression, as demanding someone follow a particular culture is “oppressive,” an “infringement of human rights,” and so on. So human society at the public level, in the first stage of multiculturalism, is reduced to a consumerist monoculture, the non-culture of the airport and McDonalds, the anti-culture of the purely utilitarian or commercial space.
This is a Babelian confusion of tongues, as mandating a mother-tongue that is culturally dominant or particular to that ethnocultural space, is “oppressive” to other ethnic groups and other cultures that come to invade or inhabit that space. This principle of universal accommodation is a tyrannically enforced anarchy, a brutal anarcho-tyranny of marketplace reductionism. Everyone, regardless of color or creed, is able to shop at McDonalds, but the menu has to be in 27 languages.
A cultural space has to demand its norms are followed in order to survive. If a cultural space — say, a church — cannot exclude people who do not follow the cultural norms of that institution, then the culture is swamped by the masses that are oblivious to it. The same applies for entire societies, where national culture is marginalized by massive immigration of persons who have no connection to that mode of behavior or its ancestral and traditional roots.
We include the essential facts of the variability of human nature in our rejection of multiculturalism; cultural preference is a function of biology, and culture an expression of ethnic character. For France to retain its French identity, its culture must remain French, QED, it must be predominantly of persons who are not only raised culturally French, but who are biologically French. French culture cannot be continued by persons who do not have a French instinct, a French mind-set and ethnology. So we see that multiculturalism is not merely a war of memetics but a powder keg of potential ethnic conflict when we admit these basic facts of life. We can more readily redefine “multiculturalism” as “multiracialism,” or even more accurately as “multifactionalism,” as society is divided into ethno-cultural factions vying for dominance.
As a culture is a dominant mode of behavior, it has to create sovereignty in order to exist. We see today Islamic culture, intertwined in the Arab mind-set, is creating “sensitive zones” within French cities where Islamic law is enforced at street level by Muslims of Middle-Eastern racial descent. This is the logical conclusion of the precepts of multiculturalism. Other peoples of the world are invited to bring their culture to Europe. In doing so, when they reach critical mass, their culture ceases to be relegated by state force to private expression in bedrooms, mosques, and restaurants, and expands into the public sphere through legal warfare and street violence, until it is the dominant culture of a particular area. The cultural mythology, being rooted in the sensibility of a particular ethnic group, allows for their psychological domination of native Europeans when it achieves supremacy.
Through money-power and suicidal demographic policy, “black culture” and Islam kick sand in the face of native-European culture at all levels of society. As a result, young white men adopt a harmless, effeminized “hipster” identity of ironic posturing, too subdued to display genuine conviction of will, and white women frequently out-marry both racially and culturally into the third world which presents itself within Europe’s capitals. Europe suffers both Islamization and Africanization at every turn as Arab Muslims and non-denominational Negroids are wielded as biological weapons against the disenfranchised majority. “Cheerios” adverts put on full display the idyllic life that awaits those that contribute to their own racial extinction.
The “multicultural” experiment, in its final form, is the disruption and ceding of all white territories to foreign influences and invaders, as all European spaces must be “multicultural,” handed over to other imported colonists carrying foreign memes, ideals, and codes of conduct. Thus complete, it leaves Europeans as a genetic ingroup in tatters, if not destroyed outright, and where there was once Europe . . . Brazil.
Identitarians want instead:
Identitarians are interested in preserving and creating the pinnacles of human achievement. Whereas a forced “eEquality” of judgment leads to a consumer society and mediocrity of production, Identitarians are concerned with what best represents each society and the highest and greatest artistic, scientific, and exploratory endeavors that can be achieved.
Being heavily grounded in the ideals of the European New Right, a label many Identitarians reject (as the Anglo-American use of this term was, in contrast to its continental version, the ENR, based on obsolete economism), Identitarians nonetheless are chiefly interested in European heritage, and more importantly, the future of Europe. We are sick of being dominated by a debased culture that produces music and art that centers on the movement of the hips and the base workings of the body. We reject completely alien cultures, artificial cultures, and consumer monoculture. We are instead interested in rigorous and sustained excellence in all areas of production.
Our conception of art and culture is that it must be led by ethnocultural purpose. Art, commercially, is subject to market manipulation and crassness. High culture instead unifies the ethnocultural community that it originates in, bestowing upon it a greater sense of itself. It exemplifies the particular character and strongest feelings of that ethnocultural group. This is synchronous with our emphasis on biocentrism. In our eyes, although an outlier, the artist is not an individual, but a variation of a particular racial biology, and a conduit through which the higher sentiments of that race expresses itself. In this, we want culture that is “authentic” to an ethnicity, that is expressive of nature, and yet provides new insight. Unlike “modern” art with its emphasis on detatched ironies and insincerity, we do not want fifteen minutes of fame. Art that is truly rooted in ethnocultural expression transcends time as it is true to its origins. In regards to fame, Bach has had three centuries of it.
We wish to sweep away noxious post-modernism with a new culture of aspiration. Our worldview is that escapism, world-denying philosophies, and all forms of messianic dogmatism are ludicrous hallucinations, and high culture is grounded instead in a willingness to embrace the “heavy” questions of human existence, the tragic, and the ineffable. We believe that only through this willingness to embrace actuality and prospective extinction can our ethnocultural group – Europeans – understand the essential greatness of their historical Identity, and the necessity of protecting and perpetuating themselves for the future.
In short, we believe High Culture lies in life-affirmation (through recognition of death), rather than the monolithic, creedal ideologies of the megachurch or “human rights,” which dull the wit and destroy a nation’s vitality through promises of utopia, avoidance of death, and techno-consumer sedation.
In this, we wish to restore a living culture, a dominant culture, to Europe. We do not value accommodation of other peoples, and other cultures, in and of itself. We see this as simple ethnocultural surrender to competitors. We believe the Identitarian idea is able to energize artists and other creative types, and unify disparate European peoples under a common banner of historical preservation and succession. Multiculturism is a short sighted, expansionist attempt at assimilating all cultures on and over the horizon. Instead, we want to inspire Europeans to climb to higher planes of expression – we want High Culture.
O co skutečně jde na Ukrajině
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 436 Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson
A White World Renaissance?
What’s Really at Stake in Ukraine
Homer: die Gründungsepen oder die Bibel der Europäer.
A Response to Dr. Robert Jensen
Renaud Camus on the Great Replacement