What Do Identitarians Want? Part 2Bain Dewitt
Part 2 of 2 (Part 1 here)
Identitarians are against:
“In the light of history it will ever be regarded as a curious and temporary aberration of the human mind that great nations should elect a government to do a job and should then elect an opposition to stop them doing it. Fortunately, even in the wildest excesses of this transient mania, this delusion never spread to the business world, and no business man outside an asylum has yet been observed to engage a staff of six to carry on the work of his firm, and then to engage an additional staff of four to stop them doing their job.
“Curious to posterity will appear the principle of creating at the same time a government to do the nation’s work and an opposition to frustrate it. . . . Yet this extraordinary harlequinade, in which nothing serious, in terms of the modern mind, is ever done, and little serious is even discussed, is today represented as the only means of preserving the liberties of the people.”
–Oswald Mosley, Tomorrow We Live
Democracy as an organizational force, as Mosley demonstrates, makes no sense. Democracy is predicated too much on the idea that “power corrupts,” and therefore, no one individual should have too much power, lest the crowd be yoked to ideas or purposes it doesn’t like, which will inevitably and lazily be defined as “corruption” by those opposed to those goals. It is symptomatic of a dis-unification of society. As a society fractures along ideological and ethnocultural lines and becomes less concerned with the welfare and survival of the whole, and more interested in “issues,” the universalist, team-captain mode of Western democracy becomes apparent.
This process of becoming “democratic” entails a devolution of power from the majority and their traditional aristocracy, to minority victim groups with “concerns” that form coalitions to surround and plunder the majority and their wealth. A society enamored with the idea that the individual ought to be free to become anything he wants to on personal whim (gender reality notwithstanding), and express this through joining acronym-label minority interest groups, will by extension be appalled at the idea that any one group may be able to hold power on a long term basis, as this would entail a return to majoritarian thinking. This return would be to where the plurality of nonsense identities, and invading ethnic groups, would once again be marginalized to allow the majority to endure.
Once democracy takes hold, the conservative right tries to preserve social traditions and barriers without admitting the ethnocultural standard and origin of those traditions, because that would be unpopular, because it mandates a standard of belonging and behavior that is not possibly universal. The left celebrates, because society can now be driven to be more and more universalist, until no social standard or consensus of values remains, and they can style themselves as radicals for wanting to drive this accepted course of action forward.
We contest utterly the decision made by the society itself to have no goal, and to frustrate the efforts of those who want to restore the majority to precedence over the individual. It is not possible to guarantee people absolute “human rights” and “freedom,” for example, because this is not an assessment of values, but a consensus to have no consensus of values. Without a social standard of what is valuable, society cannot function because it is directionless. Traditional identities then become meaningless as the ethnocultural group dissolves into an assortment of narcissistically self-defined individuals, all with their own causes in need of state funding.
This is a totalitarian hegemony of individualism, where all efforts at ethnocultural re-unification and solidarity are squashed. The individual has unlimited horizontal choice, he can travel across the world, in any direction, and at any speed; he can spend his leisure in pursuit of anything he wishes, changing outfits, changing location, changing lifestyle, changing gender. However, any vertical considerations are denied. Any attempt at aristocratic self-betterment is funneled into harmless “hobbies.” One can “take up” fencing, bodybuilding, churchgoing and so on. “Upward,” transcendental goals require the re-integration of individuals into an ethno-cultural whole, as it is only that whole that can succeed the individual and withstand the rot of time (hence the modern, atomized, individualistic obsession with beauty and makeup, but not sculpture of what is beautiful and beauty as a phenomenon, youth, vitality, etc.). It requires that territory be once again controlled by the in-group, by the “tribe,” by the thede. It requires that the “will” of the “democratic” mob be ignored. It requires that the mechanistic, low-level warfare of the state against distinct peoples, known as “law enforcement,” be suspended, so a local and active participatory sovereignty can define itself and jurisdiction, in opposition to the overruling “democratic” states.
Traditional identities and their preservation as living norms require some concessions of individual freedoms. This is the essence of the concept of “public duty, private vice,” or public duty, and private concerns. (It is only when traditional norms exist that public and private are distinguishable as social behavioral codes rather than economic terms of ownership.) However, individual freedoms as an absolute –“human” “rights” to “belief” and “pursuit of happiness” and so on – demand the elimination of all ethnocultural boundaries. It requires that the folk whole be subjugated by “democracy” into accepting what the oligarchical elite have decided upon. In this we can truly say that we are against totalitarianism. We want a pluralistic society of healthy political division and competition, built on the consensus that our genetic lineage and racial survival come first. Individuals can build their identities and accomplishments in this greater matrix of a thriving, distinct racial biology. It is only through this that any individual can become truly meaningful.
Mass Media Manipulation
Democracy has the levelling effect of creating an “Equality” of causes, and an Equality of values. The denial of qualitative differences and qualitative importance creates the numerical hierarchy, the inversion of the pyramid of human society, the placement of the aristocratic few under the heel of the self-interested and short sighted many. Ultimately democracy is the replacement of actuality with a false consensus about reality as the most pressing issue of the day. Scientists, anthropologists and brave souls may shout about the impending genetic extinction of whites as vitally important, but what is democratically important is what everyone agrees is important, i.e.; a completely trivial non-issue like gay “marriage” or the latest reality TV.
This imposed “consensus,” given legislative power through universalist democracy, is the conduit to power by those who shape the social narrative – Those in the Inner Party who pull the levers of Mass Media and “Academic” institutions. The power of the press becomes the only power, as the “heroic journalist” standing up to and exposing the hidden hierarchy of monetary interests, is bought up and only permitted to exist so long as his labor is used to enforce taboos created and preferred by global finance; exposing “racism,” “sexism,” debunking “conspiracy theorists,” and so on. Short of being the opposition of the “corporate state,” that terrifying bogeyman of “fascism,” democracy is the corporate state perfected (but transposed from the organic to the ideological sphere). Democracy is the legislatively empowered mass, and the mass is controlled, curtailed and corralled by mass industry, mass manufacture, mass media and mass hallucination.
Identitarians want instead:
The problem of the modern world is not so much centralized government, but centralized government without the counterweight of local Identitarian consciousness and action. Economic class distinctions are very acutely felt in the West – especially in contrast to the egalitarian doctrine of enforced race blindness – however biological, historical and geographic distinctions; the differences of ways of life, have been eroded, and with, the loss of local identities with tribal political clout.
The centralization of production, and the subsequent export of production resulting in the reduction of Western populations to serfs in the service sector, has completely ripped the heart from Europe.
An international production line exports jobs and technological expertise from the West to the global market. Whereas whites were integral in the production of goods and cultural capital, whites are now “dis-integrated” from the formation of the societies around them. A general strike of whites would be met with blithe indifference as all economic and cultural leverage is relocated to China and Hollywood, or diffused into individuals in the rarefied network of global trade. This globalization, sooner than pulling Western citizens into a “global village,” has simply shattered Western society from a functioning whole into competing sectors and individuals. The false, token morality of assisting “developing” countries through international capitalism comes at the cost of the development lost at home, and ultimately, economic independence.
This internationalization is the most physically tangible example of the shift of legitimacy and morality from a local, organic consensus, to a cabalistic, international agreement. Societal focus has flipped polarity from local relevance to televised drama of far-flung places, and the corresponding moral basis has been transformed from what is objectively healthy in the present, to a utopia in the future.
The moral man – the man of action and high-achievement – is no longer the local activist concerned with the health of his children and local community; instead he slides into total irrelevance in the face of the international crusader, the global volunteer who teaches endangered dolphins to perform tricks for disenfranchised Africans. Likewise, economically, the high achiever and economically successful man is not a local small businessman; he is an international partisan that orchestrates production across the world stage for multinationals. His local interests are surrendered, and in exchange, he becomes part of the grand society of world-controllers who are building the empire of economic growth, regardless of human cost.
This inversion of values is symptomatic of universalist doctrine given media sensationalism. Standing up for “human rights” in war-torn countries carries a dramatic immediacy impossible before the explosion of the media complex. It cannot be stressed enough that these are not mere economic systems working within an “existing paradigm” of national values, but that the international morality now supersedes and subordinates all other concerns. In short: Ask not what human rights can do for you, but ask what you can do for human rights. The logical conclusion and eventual goal of this program is of course a global “democratic” state – Everyone can vote, but who is voted for, the mechanisms of voting, and what is allowed to be voted about is dictated by centralized corporate interests. Democracy wants the world, so it can eat it. Identitarians want the world, so we can defend and nurture it. What this entails is a restoration of ownership from the “system,” to the “people,” so that they cannot be robbed of their ancestral homeland and identities by market predation.
As our civilization will be based on ability and nobility, and the current civilization is based on self-interest and deceit, our intention is to entirely replace or reform the mechanisms of the modern world at all levels of society, in all spheres of production, and in all aspects of operation. We want to:
- Abolish centralized banking and liberate currency from international dictation. We will create new state currencies and allow local groups to create their own. This will empower local people to create and experiment with separate economies that are insulated from global harm.
- Abolish centralized state legislation that is not “purposeful”; we will throw the entire legal library, the thousands of pages of arcane and obscure rules and regulations into the incinerator. All centralized legislation that contradicts or otherwise impedes the expression of local sovereignty will be consigned to the memory bin. This includes, of course, all legislation regarding “discrimination.” Free association will no longer be a crime for Whites.
- Dissolve all international power structures and withdraw entirely from international politics. Concerns of health, morality and the restoration of Europeans and European-diaspora populations to sovereignty within their ancestral homelands and those civilizations built abroad are of the utmost importance. Until this is accomplished, the world order can take a hike.
- The removal of all corporate interests from media production and the proliferation of local access to media broadcasting. While we may retain the tools of mass media to counter existing egalitarian thinking, our eventual goal is an “open society” of citizen participation that allows local identities to flourish, and fully realize themselves.
- Restore a culture of localism through giving sovereignty to local councils, and through unshackling local councils from national governance. We do not believe that in order to move as one people, to express a national unity and consensus of purpose, everyone must be made to pay the same rate of tax or obey the same speed limits. Finally, through this process, the international theft and plunder of Europe through market means will be stopped with local armed authority. Through radical devolution we will remove the international yoke from Europeans, and make politics vital & relevant.
This process of extricating Europe from the vampire squid of global finance will be difficult and arduous. Quite literally, we will have to learn how to look after ourselves again. Cutting ourselves from the sedative umbilical cord of cheap global labor will restore purpose and belonging to European peoples, as they are called once again to the great racial endeavor of survival and improvement. Everyone is important as all hands will be needed in the reconstruction of Europe.
Ultimately, we believe in the human spirit of self-overcoming and the ability of European man to shape his own destiny. We are not “defending the white race” – we are the white race defending itself. Our political program is quite simply the removal of market and legal predation on Europeans. Through this, a vibrant culture of self-discovery and radical experimentation will take place. Europeans will once again, without the omnipresent threat of imprisonment or character assassination, take the course of their lives into their own hands. We believe that Europeans should be subjugated to no one. We seek to empower them in the most basic realpolitik terms, to unify them, and to bring them to consciousness of themselves as part of a biological whole. This accomplished, the modern world – a creation of predatory cultural distortion and European technological progress – will cease to exist, and a new Golden Age will begin.
A “Novel” Approach to the Understanding of Evil
The Populist Moment, Chapter 12: Liberty — Equality — Fraternity: On the Meaning of a Republican Slogan
The Populist Moment, Chapter 11, Part 4: “Multitudes” Against the People
The Populist Moment, Chapter 11, Part 3: “Multitudes” Against the People
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 505 Mark Weber on the Perils of Empire
Revolution of the Nation
The Left & Democracy
Bain Dewitt, this article is certainly intelligent and well-written, and since I consider myself to be a European New Rightist/Identitarian myself, I agree with many of your basic values. However, I cannot help but notice some flaws in your discussion, especially in regards to what you claim to be Identitarian thought. First of all, you mentioned in passing the “European New Right” as one of your reference points, and recognize that the Identitarian movement draws its basic philosophical ideas from the New Right. But nowhere do you cite any works by the most important New Right or even generally Identitarian thinkers – which include Alain de Benoist, Charles Champetier, Dominique Venner, Guillaume Faye, Pierre Krebs, Pierre Vial, and Robert Steuckers – and you don’t even reference the original French Identitaire movements to make up for it.
You appear to cite a few old British thinkers, primarily Oswald Mosley, but while it is acceptable to cite thinkers outside of the New Right for support in discussions, one must use them in the framework of New Right ideas. Otherwise, you begin to express their ideas (in this case Mosley’s Fascism) and not actually New Right or Identitarian philosophy. That being said, your essay does contain a lot of good points, and there are certainly old Right-wing thinkers who express similar values to the New Right or modern Identitarian movements and from whom one can therefore pick up Identitarian values, but you seem to fail to distinguish between what is New Right and what is not, and you article, as I said, contains some errors in terms of what you express to be Identitarian ideas. Just to elaborate on some specific key examples of such issues:
First, your assertions in Part 1 on culture imply that you want complete cultural closure, but New Rightists/Identitarians reject both total closure and total openness in favor of a partial closure mixed with moderated inter-cultural dialogue (including dialogue with other races’ cultures; e.g. between Europeans and Asians). In other words, Identitarians aim for the original, healthy condition which involves partial closure and partial openness, combining particularity with dialogue, as opposed to complete openness which destroys particularity or complete closure which eliminates all dialogue. Secondly, you assert that Identitarians oppose democracy, but actually they don’t; they oppose liberal, modern republican forms of “democracy” in favor of what is known as the non-liberal “organic democracy.” The idea here is that the majority of modern “Western” democracies are not true democracies to begin with, and we must aim to create organic forms of democracy which combine ethnic solidarity, hierarchy and authority, and popular will and participation (this vision has been introduced well in Benoist’s “The Problem of Democracy”). Lastly, you stress the racial factor as the defining one in ethno-cultural identity (like the White Nationalists), but Identitarians reject the notion that humans are just animals whose nature and identity is ultimately determined by genetics and everything non-biological is ultimately subordinate to biological type. Identitarian philosophy asserts, by contrast, that man is more than mere “animal” or mere “nature,” and recognizes that human identities are actually a fusion of racial, cultural, and spiritual factors, and therefore the biological-racial factor, while important, is only one among many others (study for example the concept of man as a “biocultural being”).
You’ll have to forgive me for not being able to fully elaborate on every issue, but I have actually written whole essays on these topics. There are several other statements in your article that I would dispute, but I don’t think it will be fruitful to pick away at every detail. My purpose here, however, is not to “nitpick” your writing (and I hope that I don’t seem overly critical), but rather to give you some brief advice so that you can improve your philosophy as well as your arguments. Also, I wanted to make it clear that one cannot appropriate the term “Identitarian” and explain its principles without direct reference to original European Identitarianism – a troublesome trend that I am seeing is increasing in Anglophone nations, but which is almost nonexistent among other Europeans.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.