What is it to live as a European, in this new world which has replaced the one our parents knew? Everything is ugly. A wrecking-crew has moved among the institutions of the West and replaced them with the flimsiest of stage sets. A limitless flow of aliens crosses our borders. Our cities are filled with strangers. Endless, tedious perversity is held up as the highest virtue. Our traditions are mocked. The weak and corrupt are our new saints. Strength is now the great crime. Our language is rendered unusable. Not to rejoice in all this is taken to be madness or evil. To speak of it is dangerous. This is a society that talks constantly of kindness, but which is ruled by fear.
Europeans are seen as having no existence in, or for, ourselves. Any need or desire of other groups must be answered, no matter the consequences for us. It is hard enough to make our governments admit any direct harm these people inflict upon us. There can be no question of asserting that we have a life of our own which is damaged by the presence of even the best of them. We must blind ourselves to all they cost us. We hold back what we are, kill what we could be, for them. Unease seeps into every moment of our lives, and we feel ourselves alone in a foreign world. Above all, we feel a sense of inevitable doom, that we are caught up in an inexorable process destined to crush us, as if we were being dragged into a machine. This is by design. It is our enemies’ aim that we should feel powerless.
This is why what is termed “the Great Replacement” must be approached with caution. Yes, we must name what is being done to us, and give our people the words to speak of it — but it is too easy to become overwhelmed and to lose hope. Sorrow alone is corrosive of the will to fight. All our experience must be turned to our use. It must be made to inspire action. It is necessary that we develop a praxis which leads to the reconquest of our lands.
Our enemies would have it that what we are undergoing is unavoidable, a natural process like the changing of the seasons. It is, in fact, a choice, and a choice made by those who hate us. We know that in the question ”Who, whom?”, we are that which is acted upon. We need to look more closely at “who” acts. It can seem that the enemy we face is a united bloc. There appears to be an international ruling class emerging; one which moves above and against us in pursuit of a single project. In reality, it is made up of many elements and many factions within each element. It is an alliance of opportunism. What holds these people together is a desire for gain, and enmity toward the peoples of European origin. The various alien peoples within this alliance naturally seek their own advantage. It would be senseless on our part to expect anything else.
We need to focus on that section of our enemies which has its origin in the European peoples — those that we should expect to defend our interests. Why do they behave as they do? The obvious answer is that it is in their interest to do so. Yet, in other than the short term, this is not the case. And it is at this point that the alliance against us is weakest and most prone to fracture. It is now beyond doubt that this native ruling-class recognizes no kinship with the people. They seek our replacement with a more docile, easily governed population. The question is how far they grasp the full implications of what they are doing, and how far they move like sleepwalkers.
Playing into their actions and ambitions is a traditional class hostility of the kind felt in all societies. There is an inevitable tension in the relation of all ruling-classes to those they rule. They grow from, and act for, the group. However, they also wish to sustain and increase their own power, and to distinguish themselves from those they rule. This tension can be resolved in the direction of maintained or strengthened powers for the ruling class. If the relationship is strained too far, the necessary bonds between rulers and ruled break, and they will, by some means or other, be replaced. This general process of the opening of a gap between leaders and led is part of what we are experiencing. Yet there is also a specifically European aspect at play.
Something of this has been recognized by many commentators on our side. Some attribute it to the French Revolution, or to the Enlightenment generally. Others to the growth of Protestantism, or to the Industrial Revolution. These have been seen as destructive of Western Civilization. Yet, the weaknesses that are currently destroying us have their origins much further back. They are central to what we call Western Civilization. There is in European man an enchantment with speculation. This is both uniquely productive and dangerous. There is a temptation to position themselves above their own existence, and to judge life rather than to live it. They become caught up in abstraction. In aiming to go beyond appearance and reach a hoped-for truth, European man dreams of what should be. And, it appears, he is so in love with the long dream he has inhabited that he would risk death rather than give it up.
We will have to chose a different path if either we or the great works of our people are to continue. There is no great, single truth towards which we all move. It is, perhaps, only a matter of definition that we have believed in the existence of one humanity. Neither the alien peoples who now live among us, nor the dominant powers of the West, have the capacity to begin to think through the consequences of this failure of universalism to achieve its end. They use universal principles to make claims against the European peoples, yet they also deny that the thought of the West has a greater power or validity than any other. They both reject the works of European man and seek to make their stand upon them.
It is now clear that the peoples to whom the European mode of being is held out neither wish to take it up, nor are capable of doing so. In part, this is because they know that they can play on Western traditions to get without giving. It is not, however, pure calculation, and it is necessary to understand this. There is no process of negotiation or argument that can convince them to come to terms with the structures forged by Europeans. These institutions are not made for these other peoples. By the nature of what each is, they cannot understand or use them. As with the cargo cultists of the Pacific Islands who thought that if they built grass airstrips and wooden models of planes, goods would miraculously come from the sky. They recognize the shape of Western Civilization, but have no idea what makes it work. This is true of all of them: those with the greatest intellectual pretensions, as well as the simplest rural people. As they come to predominate in societies that were not built for them, those societies will disintegrate — and clearly already are disintegrating.
European men seem reluctant to face this. They shrink from the practical consequences of recognizing their real position. They continue to project their own qualities onto those who do not possess them. Above all, they do not want to relinquish their dream. Yet the only way to preserve what is best in it and save themselves is to do so. If they cannot, then the whole of European thought will have been like a great firework that bloomed for an instant against the dark and then disappeared without a trace. All it will have served for is to light our peoples’ destruction. If we are to save ourselves, nothing is beyond question: no philosophy and no principle. We must think it possible that the universal is a lie, that rights are a fiction invented by white men, and that European man has mistaken the laws of the tribe for the laws of nature.
These questions are, even in the current dissolution of the West, hard to ask. The assumptions which must be challenged have wrought so much, for good and ill. We live within them, and even those of us who wish to see our people live do not fully comprehend the extent of the necessary overturning. These universal proclamations, which have been central to the West for so long, are self-destroying philosophies. They must extend themselves to those to whom they are alien. If they do so, they contend with those who cannot and will not live with these ideas; those who both seek their own power and their hosts’ destruction. If they do not do so, they deny their own claims. We must, at last, accept this denial. Failure to do so has left European man helpless at the feet of his enemy, trapped in a net of his own making.
The people least able to grasp this are that section of the ruling class who spring from the European people themselves. Regardless of how the future unfolds, they are a doomed group. The current European ruling class identifies with universalizing thought. It raised them. It will also destroy them. In attempting to bring about its consummation, they bring about its — and their — destruction. They can no longer think or imagine, except in dead forms. When the idea and the world are at odds, they pick the idea. They look and work towards a situation in which the planet is brought under their sway; in which they, benevolent and wise, preside over a united, homogenized population. Yet, the idea that peoples are the same and that there is a universal man is an illusion which can only be kept up at a distance. As different groups with different traditions come closer together, a repelling force pushes them apart. Those who advocate globalism gamble that the animal instinct for territory can be suppressed forever, if not abolished. The tensions between different peoples cannot be reconciled because they are not based on what has been done, but upon what we are. Our rulers have both their ideal vision of the future and an ever-growing number of unassimilable strangers in their countries.
They cannot allow themselves to see this. It must be rationalized away. To blame their native peoples is a natural avenue to follow. They consider them their inferiors. It must be their bigotry which is making things go badly. The people must be made to acknowledge their errors, and should be attacked until they do. This also has the advantage of being safer than pressuring the new populations. It is, though, another form of attack on those same universal ideas which are the basis of their project. It assaults the very notion that there are universal standards which apply to all and that objectivity exists. Ideas of justice, and the theory and practice of science, must be distorted and denied to accommodate a new, mongrel people. What this produces is not a steady state, but something unstable.
Our rulers’ delusions are destroying them and their own projects, but they cannot give them up. It is as if the West is a decayed mansion in which the idiot descendants of a once-great family rifle through the closets for costumes in order to act out caricatures of their forebears while rain pours through the roof and mold creeps up the walls. They cannot exist without illusion. They are not cynics — or if they are, it might be described as a naïve cynicism. One in which they see themselves as Machiavellian, a new Bismarck, yet understand nothing and succeeding at nothing. Momentum keeps them going. They crash from one disaster to another, and only by never slowing down can they stop their collapse into death.
Ever-growing and heterogeneous populations of aliens do not make a new, grateful populace, but increasingly assert their own views and power. They will also seek rulers who are from among them. European members of the ruling class are working to make themselves rulers without a people. The idea that there will be a supra-racial ruling class is a fantasy. Alliances of other groups with our rulers will be as temporary as they are opportunistic. Our European ruling class is interested in the particularity of alien groups only while they can be used to beat us down. In the long term, they want their new subjects stripped of all identity and firmly under their control. The new populations, for their part, accept the patronage of Europeans with power while requiring their protection against the native people. In the end, they want to remain themselves, and they want everything that not only we but also our rulers have as well.
In this looming power struggle, the European ruling class is doomed. They have destroyed their own power base and cut away at their own roots. In having established “white” as the measure of evil, they have tainted themselves beyond redemption. When any conflict among the ruling class arises, it is the term which will be seized upon and used against them by any opponent. Even if it is not believed (although largely, it will be), it will be used cynically, and there will be no defense. Our leaders are not competent to act in their own interests, much less in ours. If we are to survive, separation is an essential step.
We must create a new leadership for our people. This is the true great replacement on which all depends, and which we must bring about. All of the contending groups that wish to rule us have ambitions which exceed their capabilities. Chaos and collapse are the likelier results of their actions than the uniformity they seek. All the struggles of the past pale before what is at hand. It is now a question not of defeat or loss for one part of our people, but of the annihilation of all that we have ever been, and our reduction to scattered, powerless remnants in lands which were once ours. We can no longer allow the lost to play at leadership.
We must come to believe this — to be fully convinced that the old is dead and the new is ready to be seized. If we do not shape this world, others will, and it will be one with no place for us. Nothing is sacred. We must guard against an attachment to dead forms. The great European intellectual project has been a posing of questions. It has now received unexpected and unwelcome answers. European men must find the courage to face what they have uncovered, if either they or their intellectual odyssey are to go on. It is the European peoples who must survive, not particular modes of thought. We must see our heritage not as an accretion of concepts and objects, but as a stance in relation to he world, and one which only we can take up. One which is daring and creative in what it asks and what it can accept. One which puts aside dissolving softness and recognizes that, contrary to current pieties, virtue is harsh or it is not virtue. The first and greatest virtue is to survive. Everything else must be subject to this. If the peoples of Europe survive, their thought and art will be reborn. If they die, their works die with them. There is no one else able or willing to pick up the torch.
In order to survive, our people must be led. Forming this leadership is our central task. The first necessity is to understand that we can have no expectations of justice from our opponents. They can neither wield power effectively, nor give it up. For them, a world in which they do not rule is an impossibility. While they still have power, they will use it in every way against us. It is necessary to abandon the idea that safety is possible. There is no law which cannot be turned against us. There is no level of wealth that can make us safe. Our only protection is in solidarity. The aim of our enemies is that each of us should be, and feel, alone. This is what we must overcome to replace them at the head of our people and to reshape our lands.
This will be hard, but it can be done. It will take clarity and an unremitting focus on our goal: that we should survive. Any questions of a future society must be for later. First, we must get out of the burning house. If we succeed, the conflicts that have characterized our peoples’ history will, doubtless, continue. In order for them to do so, we first have to survive, however. To begin to act, to find purchase in the storm that surrounds us, may seem overwhelming, but again, it can be done. There is a tendency to hang back, to put off the act out of a desire for perfection. But it is necessary to engage. Thought and action are inseparable. One encounters power, tests out allies and opponents, learns, and refines ideas in action. There has been a lack of this clarity that we need in much of the Right’s thought in the last few years. This is not due to a lack of intellectual power, but to the comparative lack of practical experience.
We need to begin to constitute ourselves as a people and move on from the imposed categories of class. It cannot be a concern for us from where our leaders come, as long as they do come. Yet all the resistance that we have seen over the last decade has come from below. Brexit, Trump, the Yellow Vests, and the Canadian truckers all show that a will to fight still exists within our people. Working-class skepticism of our rulers’ liberal projects is long-standing. The long, certain superiority of those who have mocked their doubts and sought to rule has been a catastrophe. The sullen, quiet doubts of the people, only sometimes flaring into anger, have been correct.
There is often a disappointment, verging on contempt, however, on the part of commentators on our side at the failure of these movements to bring about all the changes we want to see. They wish for them to be something they are not, and cannot be. They also fail to understand what our relation to these movements should be. We must recognize that these efforts on the part of the people had a transforming effect on the political landscape. They stunned the ruling class and sent them into a panic that has seen them spend political capital like water. They have been driven to impose an ever-shifting hysteria, a constant shrieking that aims to disorientate and induce a sense of powerlessness. Yet this leaves them stretched and exposed, vulnerable to both their own incompetence and to attack from others.
To imagine that a successful overthrow of our ruling class could come from an unorganized people is mistaken. The people are a — the — great power, but they must be focused, or their power dissipates without effect. Those who would remake our world must provide this focus. They must lead. They cannot simply expect to be given this role as a gift. They must earn their right to stand at the head of the people. This is something that must be learned, and can only be learned in practice.
There has been a good deal written on our side about the Left’s strategies and tactics. There is often a desire to adopt aspects of them without understanding them, or grasping what can be fruitful for us and what is not usable. Antonio Gramsci and his work on the long march through the institutions has been one of the strands of Leftist thought which has most often arisen in this regard. This is a mistaken path to go down. We face a different timescale. We do not have years to march through the structures of the West. The urgency of the task which faces us is far greater than that which faces the Left in this, or the last, century. Nor will we be pushing at an open door. Having captured the institutions, the Left has no intention of ceding them to us. They will hold power and crush opposition with a ruthlessness that was alien to those they faced in their own ascent. More, this strategy will waste energy in the contest for what are, in many cases, dying institutions.
We could more profitably study the Left’s work on the political party. Revolutionary change in the twentieth century had three elements. First, the people: the great, latent power through which all can be accomplished. Second, the party: an organizing, focusing element. Third, the leader. It is important to understand what is meant here by the party. It should not be understood in the light of the West’s current political theater. It is an instrument to be used to take power. It does not see itself as limited to contesting elections, but moves between the street and legality as necessary. Russia and Germany in the first half of the twentieth century saw this model of political organization, in which all situations were met with a singular focus — the seizure of power — but with freedom in the methods employed.
The party so conceived is a flexible mechanism. It can adapt itself to changing circumstances in the light of its goal. It serves many purposes. It welds the people together. It can sound the people out and discover what is moving in their depths. It can transmit messages upward and downward. It teaches those of different backgrounds to know and trust one another, creating comradeship. It enables our potential leaders to test their powers. It can anchor the speculations of thinkers in reality. It can contest the streets — which will have to be done — and give our people the sense that they are not alone. It can sow doubt in the minds of our enemies. It is a repository of experience. The lessons and mistakes of the past must not be forgotten, and must be brought to bear when the next conflict arises.
It is only through the means of the party that we can clarify our ideas and establish a useful hierarchy among our possible leaders. We do not agree on everything — perhaps on nothing beyond the need for our survival. We may use the same words, but we do not mean the same things by them. What we mean can only be worked out in the effort to shape reality — and struggle will decide, not debate. The effort to make a party and to bring it into a relationship with the people will reveal the third element which is so necessary: leaders. Leadership has been decisive in European history.
Often, the right man has been vital to events — Lenin or Hitler in the twentieth century, for example. Yet the men who have played such a role have recognized the necessity of having an instrument through which to work. They have seen building such a force as essential. In doing so, they created their own possibilities. While the people are the great power, they cannot spontaneously order themselves in such a way that they can seize or replace the state’s existing structures . Nor is it possible to build a suitable instrument — a party — only at the moment of crisis. Any collapse will not favor us unless we have the forces to shape it. Men who aspire to influence events must create the means to do so.
All this will be difficult for the Right to do. The Left is far more accustomed to acting, and when the Right tries to emulate them, they often draw the wrong lessons. For example, they look to the struggles of other peoples and seek to make common cause with them. We have spent too much time and wasted too much energy on studying and trying to understand peoples and things which are not ours. We have lost ourselves in the contemplation of others who have no corresponding curiosity about or sympathy for us. We need to relearn our powers, not look for alliances — or worse, rescue — elsewhere. Europeans need their attention and energies for themselves.
A failure to root ourselves among the people has left us unprepared for their various movements, and unable to fully take advantage of the situation. Cynicism and fantasy are the enemies of our attempts to build our power. They have the same cure: going to the people. We must not expect them to agree with us, but we must be where they are, entering into dialogue with them. We must be present in all their actions, making our — and their — case. We must be their voice, finding ways to articulate what rises within them.
As white men are increasingly expelled from their own creation, the pool of the disaffected grows, and it consists of the most gifted section of the population. Meanwhile, our enemies continue with their collecting of the incapable. We must form an enemy camp. If someone is attacked for being white, no matter who they are, we must stand with him. We must learn not to abandon those of us who are attacked. Although the Left is riven with internecine conflicts as well, they never give up one of their own to us. We must put it clearly in the minds of our people that they have no long-term future in siding with our opponents. We will no longer allow who is or is not acceptable, or what it is acceptable to say, to be defined by hostiles. We must strip all legitimacy from them. We must reduce their ability to use their power against us by making it cost too much to do so. We must make them hesitant.
This is all dangerous. Danger is inseparable from our situation. What future do we believe inactivity will bring us? We are threatened as much by our leaders’ incompetence as by their designs. The dream of safety is a wish to be out of the world. Daring has been a central characteristic of our people. Can we claim our inheritance if we shun risk? Lack of a great cause is suffocating our young men. They cry out for struggle. If life is not dangerous, it is not life. We are always on the precipice; the only question is if we will cover our eyes.
Our enemies want us to believe that the end is already there, waiting for our people. They want despair and resignation. Yet, even in their own terms, they have never been right. They live in words, and their aspirations begin and end in talk; what is merely named is taken to exist. Theirs is a society that can never “be,” and can only hold the promise of becoming. We can no longer be held hostage to their illusions. Their word magic, their wishful thinking, and their technological dreams will fail. Conflict is life. In trying to suppress it in favor of their new order, they seek the impossible. Above all, in none of their projects do we find any worthy “Why?” In our rediscovery of, and fight for, ourselves, we will stand in relation to the world as the greatest of our ancestors did. And their great purposes will reawaken in us.
Europeans are the outsiders and insurgents in Western societies today. We must learn to glory in it, and to be and act from what we are. Contact with the “Other” has proved that it is just that, other, and always will be. We must make a radical break from the universalism of the past and leave that territory to the enemy. Europeans have attempted to dissolve their own particularity and to make a gift of it to the world. The world denies us. Our irreducible Europeanness is handed back to us in every judgment of “whiteness.” European man will emerge from this encounter with the world having achieved an enriched subjectivity: a fuller knowledge of what he is. In attempting our destruction, they have made us more ourselves. We cannot get beyond ourselves. Our choice is to fully become what we are, or to die. We must accept out uniqueness either as a death sentence, or as a liberation.
* * *
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:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
 The term “European” refers here to all offshoots of the European peoples and all the societies which they have created.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
David Zsutty Introduces the Homeland Institute: Transcript
Are We (Finally) Living in the World of Atlas Shrugged? Part 2
What to Do about World War II
Must Jews Be Able to Feel Safe in Germany?
The Rise of Jackson Hinkle: Is Twitter’s #1 Anti-Zionist Influencer /OurGuy/?
Management and Working Remotely
America’s Free Trade Disaster and How to Fix It
Keeping Up with the Kauf(f)mans