756 words
Justus Sustermans, Galileo Galilei, 1636.
Many on the dissident right argue that white people are entitled to a homeland, grounding this claim in the idea that they are the indigenous people of Europe. On the surface, this position is defensible: just as other groups assert their right to preserve their heritage, language, and land, it is logically consistent for whites to seek the same. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying Europeans have ancestral claims to Europe. The problem, however, lies in the conceptual framework many adopt when making this case—namely, the invocation of indigeneity. While well-intentioned, this rhetoric is a categorical mismatch with the nature of Western civilization.
Indigeneity, as it is widely understood in contemporary discourse, is defined by a refusal to deviate from tradition. Indigenous cultures are often described as being grounded in their specific ecological, historical, and spiritual contexts. Their societies are oriented toward preservation rather than transformation. Indigenous knowledge systems—often called “ways of knowing”—are holistic, orally transmitted, and resistant to abstraction or generalization. These traditions offer valuable perspectives, but they are inherently conservative and localist.
By contrast, the West’s defining impulse is progress, not permanence. Since the Middle Ages, Western thinkers have conceived of civilization as a cumulative process—one in which each generation builds upon the intellectual achievements of its predecessors. The Western mind, animated by what we might call a Promethean spirit, seeks to extend knowledge, break frontiers, and reshape the world. From the Scholastic method to the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution, the West has been a culture of dynamism, not stasis. Its intellectual heritage is characterized not by reverence for the past, but by critique, revision, and synthesis.
While the Romantic era briefly flirted with nostalgia for the pre-modern, even its most influential thinkers—like Rousseau or Herder—envisioned this return to roots as a thought experiment, not a permanent ethic. And despite Romanticism’s temporary embrace of the “noble savage,” Western civilization has rarely looked backward for very long. From Galileo Galilei to Isaac Newton to Charles Darwin, the West has consistently exalted those who challenged old doctrines and created new paradigms.
Exploration offers another illustrative contrast. The great voyages of discovery—Leif Erikson, Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan, James Cook—were driven by an insatiable Western desire to venture beyond the known. Indeed, The Concise Encyclopedia of Explorers lists 274 major figures in the history of exploration; only 15 are non-Western, and none of the non-Western expeditions occurred after the fifteenth century. While indigenous peoples developed rich relationships with their native lands, European men developed ships, sextants, and the courage to abandon their lands in search of new ones.
Even today, the West upholds a deep respect for originality and dissent. Its core institutions—universities, journals, and public discourse—are designed to reward innovation, critical thinking, and rigorous debate. While the recent wave of cancel culture may suggest otherwise, its influence is waning, and a renewed appetite for heterodoxy is emerging. In response to ideological conformity, anti-establishment thinkers have founded independent institutions like the Centre for Heterodox Social Science, reaffirming the Western tradition of open inquiry. At its best, Western culture remains adversarial in spirit, thriving on scientific debate, legal contest, and philosophical disputation. In contrast, the indigenous model privileges harmony, continuity, and consensus within a stable worldview—treating inherited wisdom as sacred rather than provisional.
To be clear, many indigenous individuals have integrated successfully into Western society and contribute meaningfully to its institutions. But as a political concept, indigeneity is fundamentally incompatible with the Western ethos. It is rooted in an ethic of cultural and epistemological closure. The West, by contrast, thrives on openness—on testing, questioning, and changing.
So while it is perfectly reasonable for white dissidents to advocate for a homeland—just as other ethnic groups do—it is a mistake to frame this claim in terms borrowed from indigenous politics. Doing so not only misunderstands the unique trajectory of European civilization, it also undermines the very cultural achievements dissidents seek to protect. The West was not born out of permanence. It was born out of struggle, discovery, and intellectual rebellion. It does not rest. It revolts.
To appropriate the language of indigeneity is to misrepresent Western identity as something primitive, fixed, and anti-modern. This is not only historically inaccurate—it is strategically unwise. Westerners should not romanticize the past in the name of reclaiming a future. The better path lies in embracing what made the West exceptional in the first place: its refusal to stand still. Appropriating the rhetoric of primitive cultures won’t rejuvenate an emasculated West.
17 comments
Reading this, I’m reminded of the one question, that lets me know if someone is useful to my cause or not: Do you believe that Whites are deserving of 1 place (large or small) on this entire planet (no matter how remote) which we can call a homeland, where Whites only will govern over Whites, and will maintain a White ethnostate?
I am open to exploring this idea. However, for me, you made a stronger case for the indigenous argument. The open ever changing ethos is what is destroying The West. It is precisely Occidental Man seeing himself as an abstraction that is abetting this demographic catastrophe upon us. Occidental man and humans as an abstraction and thinking machine is the sickness. For me, you argued in favor of the Open Society which is killing us.
Moreover, to make this case you must outline a clear means to combat the major attack vector of our enemies – renouncing our claims on our homelands by handing those claims falsely to other peoples. This is a massive weapon that disarms many of our people and is aimed squarely at the minds of our young. How does your proposal fend off this attack?
Finally, there is no argument in favor of why these are our lands and ours to preserve and protect by retaining them and exercising the right of exclusivity to govern them for the betterment of our distinct people.
I think this idea may have some merits, but right now it looks like another weapon handed over to our enemies.
At some point a tribe claims and holds its territory simply by saying, “This is ours!”, and then doing everything it takes to prove it.
The argument to indegeneity is great for Europeans, but not so great for Americans, Canadians, or Australians. It would be the principle motivation to demolish Rhodesia now if it hadn’t been demolished in the past.
Agree.
I would agree that indigeneity is not the best framework, because that would prompt more agitation for us to withdraw from all of North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa in favor of the “indigenous”, but I’m in favor of us claiming the indigenous label for ourselves in Europe.
Our right to exist and rule in our homelands must not be based on indigeneity, though, but on the fact that they are our homelands now, however we acquired them.
The first come first served finders keepers never held water. The “indigenous rights” and decolonization claimants (meaning anti-White coloreds) should be forced to look at rights to land from the lease violation/tenant accountability perspective. If they and their sprogs cause constant disturbances, noise, crime, don’t pay on time, and put holes in the walls, they’re gone and replaced by better occupants (Whites) who don’t do those things and now hold right to the land as long as properly maintained. These principles should hold particularly true for problem peoples wrecking formerly functional nations.
I too dislike the indigeneity argument but I don’t think progressivism is why we should reject it. The real reason we should reject it is that it devalues ourselves and relies on the failed liberal construct of objective rights. In reality whoever owns land is whoever took it and can defend it with force – thats as true for whites in Europe as it is us for our diaspora – and forgetting that hard fact only disconnects us from nature.
How about a rejection of the indigenous, and progressive frameworks for a more robust, “It’s ours now and we’re going to keep it framework!” 🙃
“Western” identity is of no value. It is something that can be and is applied by Jews and other non-Whites as a political weapon against Whites. “Western values” are rules like “tolerance” (for Jews but not for those who oppose the Jews), “values” that are typically applied in ways that serve Jewish interests and “multicultural” antiwhite interests and not the supreme and vital interest of White genetic perpetuity.
We need White identity whether we live in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or Siberia. We need White identity and a single-minded focus on the survival and the flourishing of our race no matter where we live and no matter who lived there first.
Being “native” to a particular bit of dirt has nothing to do with it.
🙃 Sorry, wrong article, had to erase,
There is no argument against indigeneity. If a people have lived somewhere for centuries, it is trivially easy to get everyone to recognise a special bond between land and people, and therefore a right to that land. Once we get into “the Promethean spirit”, those who attack Europeans as the blight of the Earth are vindicated. The Promethean drive will kill the European peoples of the world within a century unless it is cured. On top their bones, Africans and Asians, who never knew such a manic jangle in the nerves, will go on.
I understand that indigeneity scares whites in Colonial regions (USA, South America, Australia & South Africa), but that isn’t reason enough for whites to foolishly defend what we can plainly see now is a suicidal drive. “We’re special, we break things and go fast” is a good recipe for getting no pity by the rest of humankind as you drive yourself off a cliff. Let us be smarter, and survive.
This article would be more convincing had it been published at the end of the 19th Century, when “the West” was at the apex of global military and cultural hegemony, but after two disastrous world wars and numerous smaller but equally damaging conflicts as well as general decline, this argument really runs hollow.
I recall in grade school when I first understood the key difference between the red and white (and thus the American black) man is one in terms of how each people relates to the land; Indians treated the land as something indivisible and integral with their way of life whereas Whites treated the land as something to be exploited as part of their “evolving” nature. Which one of these views is actually sustainable over the long term?
White consciousness has been hijacked by a sense of apocalyptic paranoia since the end of the Roman Empire. And it has resulted often in very chaotic, unfulfilling, duplicitous and destructive societies that are always in need of finding a new land or people to exploit. This is currently reflected by the genocide taking place in Palestine at the behest of the Zionist Jews.
It’s time for white to rediscover a sense of their own spirituality, whether it is just connected with Europe or not.
people have been divorced from the
Another well-written and provocative article from Lipton Matthews, but I disagree with its thesis. “Indigeneity” is a moral argument, not any sort of epistemological one. It is about who has a right to live in Europe: those whose genetic lines have been present there immemorially, or anyone from any background whom the recent treason regimes have admitted. Arguing from indigeneity, while certainly not the only (or even the best) argument in defense of exclusive white inhabitance of Europe, is another weapon in our arsenal, one that appeals to a certain type of white (the type overly concerned with fairness and non-hypocrisy).
And indigeneity poses no threat to whites in America and elsewhere in the New World (including Australia/NZ, and South Africa), as there are other moral grounds for white national ownership besides – and that can supersede – the moral claims of indigeneity. The whites who came to North America in the 16th-19th centuries arrived somewhere that was very sparsely inhabited, and with which the “first nations” had either done nothing to build upon it, or had erected what we whites believed were objectively evil civilizations (eg, the Aztecs) that deserved to be suppressed. A savage present when the first whites arrived in (what would later become) Virginia or Massachusetts was morally entitled to keep his personal property and any land which he had brought into ownership (by, eg, cultivation). But he and his tribe could hardly claim ownership of the entire state-area simply because they happened to be standing on the ground when the whites arrived. Can America seriously claim ownership of the Moon merely because we were the first there?
America belongs to the white man, not in this case the Amerindian, because whites founded it, settled it, and built it – we took wilderness and made it into civilization (exactly as whites had been doing in Europe for thousands of years). The Indian could, on this theory, claim his mud hut, his arrows, and his moccasins. If he actually grew corn, he could in justice claim the land on which his corn stalks grew.
The “indigenous” argument goes out the window when it comes to the ongoing third worlder invasion of Europe. Then the party line becomes the “rights of migrants” and being “enriched by the diversity.”
Same old drill.
The term “indigenous” is just a tactic, an agitprop means to an end, to be trotted out where useful, then put back into cold storage when not needed. The strategic goal is the destruction of the white world and the creation of a supposed global utopia.
If one were rational, one could point out that the vast majority of peoples moved into their current lands over the millennia. So very few people can be totally “indigenous.” And even if they could make such a claim realistically, what exactly have they accomplished?
The “indigenous” argument is a rehash of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s noble savage thing. It’s a glorification of some supposedly uncorrupted state of nature, and assumes that modern industrial civilization arose no different from the proverbial mud puddle.
Check of proof: how many of the proponents for the “indigenous” actually live an indigenous lifestyle? Say, by giving up their internet connections or perhaps abjuring airline travel to prestigious international conferences for the latest trendy cause?
Check of proof: how many of the proponents for the “indigenous” actually live an indigenous lifestyle? Say, by giving up their internet connections or perhaps abjuring airline travel to prestigious international conferences for the latest trendy cause? They wouldn’t dare. The john zerzan’s and Olmec Stonehead wannabes like ward ‘the fraud’ churchill would never abandon the creations of White men they rely on like oxygen.
Indigenity or reverence for the past is not living in the past like the cult of ‘forever young’ wanting to be 21 forever, frozen in time. Defying limits to the skies, ocean deep, or revolutionary thought doesn’t mean an uprooting or total break with the past any more than generational settler-homebodies are ignorant for preferring the life of familiar localism.
Indigeneity is mainly a trope that Jews and white liberals use to further the noble savage ideal, and they exclude white people from it. For example, they’ll complain about American Indians losing land to whites or modern black Americans losing their city blocks to gentrification, but they never complain about the Great Migration of blacks from the South pushing whites out of northern cities in the mid-20th century. Before the Great Migration, New York State was as white as West Virginia is now, and Illinois was as white as Iowa is now, yet liberals act like the blacks are sacred cows of indigeneity. So, whites push out Indians, blacks push out whites, and Asians and whites push out blacks, but we’re only supposed to complain about the first and the last replacements and forbidden from complaining about the middle one.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.