White Preservationism is Dead
The case for the White racialist Right is often made in terms of racial or cultural preservation. A civilisation, the argument goes, is inextricably linked with the genius of a race, and, because the Western civilisation was created by the White race, and Western civilisation is unique and an asset to humanity, the race must be preserved so that the civilisation may continue. A variation of this argument is that the White race itself is unique, because it created Western civilisation. Yet another variation is that the White race must be preserved because White folk have the right to exist as a distinct people, and to live how they like, among whom they like, just like any other people on Earth.
I have never seen this argument work with anyone outside of the racialist Right. At best, ordinary White folk outside the movement are left cold by appeals to their collective self-preservation; at worst, they react negatively, and dismiss the appeal as hateful nonsense, Nazism, and a rationale for genocide.
This is baffling, and it is certainly frustrating, at least for those of us who care about the future of the White race, but there are good reasons for this.
Firstly, Western civilisation is highly individualistic—individualism being, in fact, one of the principal traits that contribute to the uniqueness of Western civilisation.
This is particularly true among Anglo-Saxon folk, probably the most individualistic Westerners of all, responsible for extremist ideologies like Liberalism, and thanks to whose fanatical attachment to universalist abstractions has caused individualism across the West to be exacerbated to the point of fundamentalism.
Both the cause and the result of this is that White folk, already weakly ethnocentric by nature, have become culturally much less ethnocentric, much less racial, than other peoples of the world.
Western man sees himself as an autonomous, or sovereign individual, as a generic man, who may be from a town, a state or county, or a country; who may support a football team; who may belong to a leisure subculture; who may belong to a church, or a religious denomination; who may work for a given company, or work in a given industry. Very rarely—and only because minorities, politically correct politicians, and the multiculturalist media remind him—he remembers that he happens to be White.
In fact, when he develops friendships with non-Whites, he often forgets that the non-White is not of the same race as he is. The non-racial nature of his identity and self-concept is such that even drawing attention to Whites in private conversation is socially awkward.
This is not to say that he is incapable of a White racial identity, because the various identitarian political parties in Europe and the various forms of White advocacy in the United States are proof that he is. But, it requires a much higher level of existential threat, real or perceived, for Western man to adopt such an identity. Before he does so he is more likely to adopt all manner of other collective identities, a racial one being the very last resort.
It is only those who are contrarian by nature, obdurately independent, or unusually principled, who adopt racial identities today.
Thus, an appeal to racial self-preservation means nothing to someone for whom his race is so unimportant.
And it means even less when the surrounding culture only sanctions a negative White identity as part of a narrative that depicts Whites as privileged enslavers and oppressors.
Secondly, the threat of racial extinction seems so remote to most White folk as to appear but a preposterous delusion. Many Whites remain unaware of the extent to which their homelands have been colonised because the different races have automatically—explicitly or implicitly—self-segregated into ethnic or racial communities, and diversity is something they only encounter in the unreal worlds of television, airports, offices, and the public spaces of metropolitan areas, while commuting to their all- or nearly all-White peripheral enclaves.
What is more, while most White folk are aware and will openly acknowledge that the ethnic composition of their native countries has changed, the change, which in most cases he has witnessed from afar, and which in many cases began before he was born, has taken decades to occur. Racial extinction, therefore, seems to them so far off as to be of no personal import. ‘I won’t be here to see it, so what do I care?’
There is also a certain normalcy bias. So far most Whites, and almost all the Whites with meaningful power in our societies, have successfully avoided most of the unpleasantness of diversity. To them the prospect of extinction seems doubly remote.
Equally remote is the unpleasantness they would experience as a dispossessed minority, following a change in the balance of power away from the Whites. Comparatively few Whites, except some of those now residing in former colonies like South Africa, have any real experience of life as a dispossessed minority. The experience of those in highly diversified Western cities, like London or Los Angeles, is relatively recent and can be conceived in ways other than as an ontological threat as a race: it can be conceived in terms of political correctness being a nuisance; immigration being a requisite for economic growth, propping up state pension funds, and ‘doing the jobs that Whites refuse to do’; and muggings, rapes, and murders being part and parcel of living in a large city, easily avoided through sensible precautions.
This makes it easy for White folk to believe the narrative of the radical Left, which explains the extinction scenario as a concoction of paranoid, fear-mongering haters.
Thirdly, preservation is about the past, and appeals to something of the past in a culture that prizes progress and modernity is a marker of irrelevance.
To frame the battle against the radical Left in terms of preserving the race is to cast oneself as a conservative. And a conservative is always easy pickings, because he negates the new without ideas of his own; he represents stasis, ossification, museology—concepts linked to old age.
Against him the radical Leftist can easily cast himself as a force of innovation, as the voice of the future, because he does have an idea of his own: his is an act of affirmation. What he affirms may now be old, decrepit, orthodox; it may have been exhausted, it may be bankrupt, and, because of its inherently destructive nature, it may offer no way out; but an affirmation is always more appealing than a negation, and the Leftist’s affirmation, though of an old idea, is newer than the idea defended by the conservative, which is even older.
Worse still, conservatives seek to conserve the ideas of superseded radicals, so he is by implication a dealer in antiquated, second-hand goods.
Hence, why scribblers of the radical Left strain to portray their enemy’s events as gatherings of superannuated pensioners, consigned to irrelevance and reduced to waving an arthritic fist at a world that has left them behind.
Hence, why the radical Left loves the racial preservation argument. For the reasons given above, its ideologues and supporters understand better than anyone the degree to which said argument is an own-goal for their enemies. After all, it was the radical Left that campaigned to move the goalposts further apart, and to hire a midget for a goalie.
The racial preservation argument is only good for 1) endangered non-White ethnic groups, and 2) racialist Right-wingers in need of self-justification.
White racial preservationism is dead.
What, then, is the alternative?
As I said earlier, it is always better to affirm rather than to negate; to be for something rather than against the opposite.
Therefore, rather than speaking in terms of preservation, we need to speak in terms of destiny; not in terms of what we are, let alone what we were, but in terms of what we can be, of what we ought to be, of what we must be.
Rather than lament the loss of the West, we must pursue its future glory; we need to imagine it, to daydream, to fantasise about it, and we need to project our visions out there, in the most seductive manner possible, with the most modern media, methods, and techniques.
If we are not masters of the present it is because the radical Left defined it in the past as their glorious future.
We can only be masters of the future if we define it ourselves.
Framing our proposition in terms of destiny is utopian, and implies regeneration and rebirth. In other words, it implies a renaissance.
And after so many decades of misery under the Left; after so many decades of broken promises, failure, and decline; after so many decades of disillusion, scepticism, cynicism, guilt-mongering, and forced apologies, people in the West are crying out for a renaissance, for strength, for pride, for glory.
A renaissance, or rebirth, goes well with a traditional outlook. Tradition is the ongoing affirmation of the archaic, which is endlessly regenerated and renewed, always rooted in the past, but also always futuristic.
Hence, why a radical traditionalist outlook is also called archeofuturist.
Framing our proposition in such terms also avoids the negativity of a preservationist argument, with its implied fear and pessimism. Because it implies fear and pessimism, such an argument is the marker of a losing faction, of people who have lost power and are en route also to lose their future. And with good reason, according to the Left, since those who talk about preserving the White race are an evil anachronism.
As no one wants to be part of that, doing away with the fearful and pessimistic preservation argument further eliminates the risk of denial, for most find living in denial preferable to being sober realists.
One additional advantage: a utopian conception of destiny cannot be deconstructed, cannot be disproven, because it is about belief; whereas arguments about preservation can be subjected to forensic investigation, to case-making, because there is a historical record that can be used and interpreted as evidence to support any imaginable position, including the revisionist slander preferred by the Left. Facts can be neutralised with other facts, logical arguments with other logical arguments, and rationalisations with other rationalisations, ad infinitum; but belief cannot be paralysed in this fashion because it is transcendent, metaphysical, not of this world.
Ultimately, to get us from here to there, we have to know in our hearts, and visualise in our minds, what there could, ought, must look like. It is about ideals—about ideals that give life meaning, that cause individualist man to reach outwards, higher, beyond. It is, in short, about being Westerners.