By Alex Kurtagic | 45 Comments | 
Print
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.
Alex Kurtagic
Alex Kurtagic was born in 1970. He is the author of Mister (Iron Sky Publishing, 2009) and the founder and director of Supernal Music.
Yeah I used to wonder does race matter? The TV and Newspapers would have you believe all that really matters is the “content of your character.”
You blithely submit to a nonracial existence but then the United States Census comes along and and demands that you label yourself racially upon pain of prosecution?What gives? Isn’t that racism?
But also when the Federal Government favors certain races you wonder whether we have recolorized our society.
These are the favored races according to the the United States Federal Government.
This is from Title 13 Code of Federal Regulations 124.103
b) Members of designated groups. (1) There is a rebuttable presumption that the following individuals are socially disadvantaged: Black Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, or Native Hawaiians); Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Korea, The Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru); Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal); and members of other groups designated from time to time by SBA according to procedures set forth at paragraph (d) of this section. Being born in a country does not, by itself, suffice to make the birth country an individual’s country of origin for purposes of being included within a designated group.
It might as well read “anybody who is not white”
Is it any wonder whites have given up, their government wants them at the back of the bus.
At least one-half of the perceived “individualism” of the diverse white Americans comes from an apprehension that provocateurs in, and bad leadership of, explicitly white organizations designed to serve white interests will go off, or be driven off, the rails by some reference to something that can then be used to batter the members and the group itself. Learning debate conduct from flaming on the Internet discourages building membership groups.
Single-purpose organizations freed from self-seeking publicity (that a member would not have to disown) work well. (And, yes, the diverse white American peoples do have the right to meet together and engage in projects, apparently until an attack is made on another demographic as a whole, and then it collapses from media and political pressure.)
In fact, we made one work well here until a person now believed to have been a police plant started agitating for more and more radical expression which scared members away.
An ‘archeofuturist’ approach or argument, it seems to me, would leave whites even colder than any other. My feeling is that any appeal to their collective interests would have to be predicated on immediate gain or security, rather than something past or potentially future. This of course implies something unpleasantly self-interested in which ideals are absent, but this is how it seems to be.
Something immediately economic in nature, e.g. job, income, home value, personal security of family, etc., all of which easily integrate into a racial preservationist outlook. Put another way, it would almost certainly mean disastrous or even apocalyptic, to get their attention and involvement. Economic meltdown, huge demographic change hitting them at a personal level, government becoming drastically more intrusive and dysgenic in response to the above, and so forth.
Or perhaps even any or all of the above may not have any effect, so deadened are white sensibilities today. We may just be impotent observers, watching the steamroller come at us. Exchanging ideas and reading each other’s materials of course, but near-totally marginalized and invisible to the trend of events. We can try to be optimistic, but that too can be yet another self-delusion. None of has the answer.
“It requires a much higher level of existential threat, real or perceived, for Western man to adopt such an [White] identity. ”
That says it all.
I think this is starting to happen. The Obama presidency and all of its predictable race card-playing has brought and kept race at the fore.
Individualism is the particular emphasis of the Yankee. Southerners have always been more prone to family and community. We need to get away from Yankeedom and the so-called Enlightenment. Let us look to other models of history.
Alex is right that in order to attract our fellow whites we must have a positive vision of where we White Nationalists want to take our people and our culture.
Interestingly, Alex does not set forth or describe that positive vision of where we are headed.
But more fundamentally, he does not explain how a majority of Whites could be convinced that we can deliver that vision.
We have just lived through 70 years of a supercycle upwave of prosperity and growing optimism in the public mood throughout Europe and the U.S.. If that supercycle upwave of optimism were still in place, then a positive message would be essential. But then our positive message would be entirely speculative whereas the prosperity actually delivered by the globalist economic system, along with its hedonistic lifestyles and opportunities to indulge in vice, would be an omnipresent reality that surrounds us. With our positive vision of the future we would be asking our fellow whites to abandon the prosperity that exists in favor of a new, entirely untested leadership and a set of new and untried policies designed to achieve an entirely speculative vision of the future.
It is hard to imagine how our speculative vision of a better future could compete with the reality of increasing prosperity that surrounds us, or did surround us up until year 2001 or 2007 (take your pick).
In all probability that supercycle 60 year upwave (the third and final up wave of a grand supercycle upwave that began in 1780) ended in year 2001, and we are now in a 60 year grand supercycle downwave of economic depressions, wars, rebellions and revolutions. By definition the public mood will darken and that process has clearly begun as of this writing in year 2011. In a grand supercycle down wave in the public mood (the last was from 1720 to 1780) anger and conflict dominate and people respond to negative messages, mild at first and more extreme as the downwave ages.
Our immediate problem is not to convince all Whites, but rather to reach that 10% threshold where every White family has a WN or knows one, and the reality of White Nationalism becomes widely defined and understood by virtually all Whites through personal contact that contradicts the media images. That 10 percent is a tipping point at which firmly held belief in WN can propagate through the entire race.
http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2902&setappvar=page%281%29
However, there is a powerful probabilistic link between the well being of the individual and the well being of his race. For any number of reasons an individual white in 2011 might think he is doing alright, but the fact is that when slots at university, in the professions, government and business management are reserved for individuals with dark skin color in proportion to their share in the population which is now 40 percent in the U.S., and who have average IQs that are one to two standard deviations below your white children and grandchildren, the vast majority of those White Children and grandchildren will have their opportunities severely restricted, and the economy in which they operate severely crippled by the human resource inefficiencies and incompetence imposed by these preferences.
I think that Kevin MacDonald has it exactly right when he argues that White anger is best rendered acceptable to our fellow whites with the message that you cannot be a good and moral person unless you work towards a society that provides your children and grandchildren with equal opportunity. I firmly believe that we must appeal to the moral sense of our fellow Whites. Doing nothing about the injustices that will be imposed on your children and grandchildren is immoral.
The other quibble I have with the article is that we need to recognize that certain tipping points are inevitable going forward.
For example, right now we have a system in which the Ivy League universities recruit White students into a multi-ethnic and multiracial elite with the implied promise that if they are willing to sell out the interests of the lesser orders of their own race, they will be given profitable and secure rent seeking positions in the financial industry, politics and government. However, as soon as Blacks and Browns crest above 55 percent, it will no longer be necessary or even possible for Whites to be given such an implied offer in exchange for betraying their group interests. Thus, loyalty to group interests will become far more compelling for all Whites once we become a minority. Whites are unlikely to get any rewards for betraying their group interests, since the rent seeking positions will be urgently needed to keep the loyalty and peace within the coalition of Blacks and Browns.
Even now, with 40% of the U.S. population being non White, the Democratic Party will soon be closed off to White candidates. Of course the black and brown candidates the party nominates will be dependent upon Jewish money, just as they are now. But Obama will retire with a very deep understanding of how degrading it is for a black president to play mister Steppn Fetchit for the Jews, an understanding which I am sure he will explain in graphic terms to dozens of other Black and Hispanic candidates for office.
Once the population of the U.S. is 55% Black and Brown, the Jews are going to be very surprised at how easy it is for their hand picked Democratic politicians to turn on them once in office. Past the tipping point, a Black or Hispanic president will be reelected no matter what he does, just like a mayor of Detroit or Washington D.C. can do right now.
In short white racial liberals are going to be hard pressed to extract any economic or status advantage from their liberalism and their attitudes will change far more rapidly than any of us appreciate right now.
Similarly the Chinese and Japanese have absolutely no intention of allowing the white skinned CEOs of American and European companies dominate the World economy. They will all be replaced with Asian bosses. The route to the top will be closed to Whites.
Thus the need to recruit Whites to betray the interests of their fellow Whites (lest they forge their own opportunities by appealing to that race’s majority interests) will disappear once Whites cease to be a majority in the U..S. Of course, Britain is far behind in this regard because blacks and browns are only about 15% of the population. In Britain the average upper class Brit feels that it is much more important to maintain his social distance from the working classes of Whites, and this class consciousness and widespread contempt for Whites with the wrong accent is likely to cripple the advance of White Nationalism in Britain for another generation, unless WN is imposed from the outside (wink, wink!!).
A common mistake I see in our circles is a false assumption that we’re the default fallback position of Whites who’ve lost faith in the regnant oligarchy. We’re not. We’re far from it. When this order implodes under the weight of its own internal contradictions, countless pretender oligarchies promoting countless alternatives to the prevailing paradigm will rush to fill the void.
The Underpants Gnome Roadmap Reads as Follows:
1. Collapse
2. ???
3. WN Hegemony
I would begrudge Mr. Kurtagic’s decision to leave hanging with sweeping concepts like Radical Tradition and archaeofuturism without fleshing those concepts out by offering a tangible avatar to manifest these skeletal abstractions. I don’t, but only because I suspect he’s surely aware of this and is merely outlining the foundation upon which he’ll later construct a more comprehensive and concise solution.
I would share Yggdrassil’s optimistic prognostications, but I’ve seen the documentary Mugabe and the White African. I saw the very last White men standing babble on about equality, diversity, and the preciousness of God’s children until their minds were too bludgeoned to construct any more abstract thoughts. Conditions are definitely becoming more fertile for our efforts, but there must still be sweeping efforts, efforts which both promote a radical new metaphysical worldview at the global level and manage to consistently and effectively demonstrate our superior stewardship at the local level.
“When this order implodes under the weight of its own internal contradictions, countless pretender oligarchies promoting countless alternatives to the prevailing paradigm will rush to fill the void.”
Matt, I suspect that you are right. However, I do not see any of those pretender oligarchies or any of those “countless alternatives” at this point. Belief in the system seems to be rock solid with the tea party advocating 1950′s style tax cuts.
Is it possible that we have a bit of a head start?
A resounding “No.”
One group comes to mind which has a vast army numbering in the tens of millions, a shadow distribution network with dozens of massive storehouses, a rigid hierarchy capable of mobilizing those millions behind coordinated political action, a mythology in place that prophesies their rise to power in the wake of “the collapse”, a vast region larger than most countries that will fall under their de facto sovereignty under such a scenario, and a relatively mature alternative media framework with their own satellites, television networks, radio stations, and publishing institutions.
We’re talking about a passionate army prepared to fight to the death hiding in plain sight. Currently, our stuckment is lucky to meet out in the open or raise enough money to make a downpayment on a used trailer. The only thing our men are prepared to fight to the death over is the handful of crumbs tossed our way by our handful of serious financial supporters.
Just sayin’.
Plenty of people scoff at the notion of direct Chinese control, but a lot of that would amount to mere scoffing if they went about it intelligently, investing deeply in a nationwide network of industrial workshops, subsidized supermarkets, and slick White front men.
Jon Huntsman may be a long-shot for the 2012 presidential race, but he’s the odds-on favorite for the office of Post-Presidential Overlord!
The big question here is whether they’ll bother to wait until the collapse before getting started…
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/31/1472023/chinese-company-eyes-boise.html#ixzz19hQC9Ccy
A lot of it will ultimately come down to pitching ourselves as the most reliable vehicles for protecting the interests of the overseas oligarchies which won’t be as acutely affected by the collapse: namely East Asian and Eastern European power centers. Russia Today and Al Jazeera are only the tip of an iceberg of efforts to reverse Yankee Imperialism. A North American continent in the midst of an epic upheaval would be the staging ground of an international bidding war for influence and control over the people and resources exposed by the power vacuum.
I should append to that gloomy prognostication of an uphill battle that we’re ill-prepared for that I do believe we have one face card in this game: identity. If we can construct some semblance of leadership ability and a coherent message, then we’ll have a population that’s extremely wary of being manipulated by alien oligarchies whose interests are naturally misaligned with ours.
After reaching a certain critical mass after decades of being exploited and abused, many nations in Latin America reached a breaking point where they could no longer be bamboozled by wealthy corporate and foreign power brokers. Hence the rise of Morales, Chavez, and others of a similar mold. The people of Venezuela realize that Hugo Chavez is a bit of a retard—but he’s their retard.
This home team advantage that we and only we possess doesn’t do our job for us, but it definitely does offer us a generous handicap relative to our competition in the hypothetical context. We would still have to show up and play the game, of course, which is not something we’re prepared yet to do.
1) When a loved one or oneself personally is “gang attacked” by a “minority mob”, from my experience, Whites who are closely linked to the attack quickly lose their “love of minorities and diversity” and seem much less hesitant to proclaim their preference for “Whites”.
2) Just as the “Jews” have, over several generations of “economic bullying”, driven most Whites to self-loathing (too strong a word perhaps?) on a racial level, because to love ones race as a White person means certain loss of Job, the reverse is also true…
If Whites can provide “jobs” for “other Whites only”, based on their implicit White Racialist self-worth, you would be surprised how many unemployed Whites would at least play the “Born Again White Racialist” part even if they didn’t at first agree with it.
After all, playing a role in the beginning (being multi-culturally diverse, just to land a job) is what many of the first “White Race traitors” did in increasing numbers immediately after the Jews managed to open the flood gates to the 3rd World in the 1960′s.
Today the off-spring of those “early White turncoats” have to a great degree internalized this once “explicit and learned behavior” of their forefathers.
So the reverse is also possible, but as long as the Jews control the issuing of money and continue to steal (fiat money=inflation) and lend, preferentially to other Jews and anti-Whites, there is little hope that any White person with wealth will be able to “realize the reversal” of the technique the “Jews” used to destroy us Whites in the first place.
3) Secret societies are, according to Henry Makow, illegal in Canada by virtue of British Common Law (do not know about the USA?). In the UK they were made legal through much Jewish lobbying AFTER repatriation of the Canadian Constitution from the UK (sometime in the 1970′s I believe?).
Of course, in Canada today, secret societies have almost all been hi-jacked by Jews and Crypto-Jews and made into “Jew worshiping White killing” vehicles.
Even though secret societies are ALL illegal (legally seen as criminal organizations) trying to get a police officer to press charges based on the archaic law (introduced in the UK in the 1600′s?) or a Judge to hear the case is next to impossible.
It is becoming next to impossible to get even a middle ranked professional position (teacher, engineer, lawyer) without being a member of a secret society in Canada today.
How can Whites build wealth and pass the fruits (jobs) on to other whites when “the Jews” can secretly penetrate our organizations and destroy them from within or have their lackies on the outside per/pro-secute us from without based on discrimination laws?
4) On of the many many techniques the “Jews” used to get Whites to let their guard down was to is to appeal to their own vanity. I can remember so many White British Canadians who warmed up to the idea that, although British in ancestry and not German, based on Hitlerian ideals of “the Master Race”, they were part of this “Racial Breed Apart”. While White kids strutted around thinking highly of themselves, the “Jews” were working overtime boring into their foundations.
“Power Jews” used promises of Israel and threats of the Holocaust to keep their own masses busy (carrot and stick) while Whites let their “obvious superiority” go to their head in while watching Jew produced trash on TV.
Today, Canadians Whites are almost exclusively “allowed” (via unspoken Jewish breeding programs) to maintain their positions only as long as no White males (especially explicitly racialist ones) are born, they remain childless (replaceable with Asians without a fuss) or, marry and breed with other Whites but have only female off-spring (likely to be absorbed by Minorities).
The Canadian solution seems to be to go to the most inhospitable and geographically isolated parts (Newfoundland…, aka the Rock) of the country that entered the Dominion last and have remained more implicitly White than other “connected parts of the country. The major draw back is the obvious… (I would go so far as to call it “the Frozen Rock”.)
White Canadians, however superior they are to the rest of the breeds, have become soft over 3 or 4 generations of “Jewish abuse”.
Frankly, there are no short cuts, and going to a frozen rock where they have a chance at being left alone may not only provide a chance to build wealth, but once again harden a breed that has long gone soft.
We need artists who can deliver a vision of White Glory.
I think that a sizeable portion of us are mainly visual, not auditory.
Perhaps such are already among us?
@Yggdrasil
@Matt Parrott
I am indeed outlining a foundation and my intention is to build upon it. My methodology has always been to go from general to specific.
To my mind, theory is useless without practical implementation, but practical implementation will be useless if the theory being implemented is flawed.
And my point in the article is that the argument ‘let’s save the White race’, which has been a staple of the racialist Right, has not worked and will not work.
I am proposing an alternative approach.
Concrete, practical strategies I certainly have and is what comes next.
I don’t think it’s advisable to rely on a collapse. What if the collapse is deferred? What if it is in slow motion? What if it is not apparent until after it’s well under way, or after the fact? What if it is unlike anything we imagine? What if it comes at the wrong moment?
Also, there is nothing that guarantees such an event would have the desired effect. The expectation that it will is a reflection of desires rather than of knowledge.
@Yggdrasil
A collapse is only advantageous to those who already have a credible and clearly articulated vision of what they want after the collapse and who can inspire a following with that vision, backed up by the means to convey it, dynamic leadership, and solid organisation.
Hence, why I have said we should not be focusing on the collapse (even if we prepare for such), but on what should come afterwards.
Another point—and here is where we may diverge—is that we should not need a dramatic collapse. People are already fed up with the status quo and will likely switch as soon as they see something viable.
At the moment they are sticking with what they know, bad as it is, because they have not seen anything better that they consider viable.
Matt mentions Chavez in Venezuela. By the time he gained the presidency in 1998, the collapse there had been unfolding in slow motion for fifteen years. He campaigned as an anti-corruption candidate against another anti-corruption outsider, the blond, very popular, former Miss Universe, Irene Saez. The key difference was that while Saez talked merely of clearing the decks and tried to be nice to everyone, Chavez had a radical programme for afterwards and looked like he meant business. As to the collapse, it never actually stopped down there and it is, of course, still unfolding. But, collapse or no collapse, Chavez will not be replaced unless he dies or is challenged by a credible or more powerful rival.
Even in Argentina, where there was a fairly dramatic collapse in 2001, there was no fundamental change. The reason was that there was no credible outsider offering radical change with a clearly visualised and articulated post-collapse programme. So the existing system was merely reformed and propped up until the next crisis.
The lesson is that a collapse in itself solves nothing. It only opens the way for a change of paradigm, and it is only desirable in as much as it opens the way for a desirable, credible, and viable new paradigm.
Alex,
You are absolutely right that a collapse alone does nothing for us. Rather, we must take advantage of the collapse – whether fast or slow – with a credible program and a vision of the future sharply at odds with current negative trends.
It is also important to realize that several of the most powerful demographic drivers of collapse are entirely unrecognized by our elites – a fact that gives us – first as individuals and later as a group – tangible material advantages that we must exploit. There is a great deal of money to be made in transit from first world power to third world basket case.
In short, we must plan to win the collapse and then execute that plan with some serious effort and organizing.
The burden’s certainly on us to both prove that our abstractions are tied to reality and to translate them into real world action. There should be no theory without application, but there shouldn’t be a bunch of misguided ham-fisted application without sound theory…hence the boring theorizing. I have been active both in grassroots organizing and in developing propaganda. A lot of what’s working is working because it’s rooted in sound theory and a lot of what’s failed has failed due to bad or incomplete theory.
Talking out loud in public is the best thing we can do at this moment. More people need to be led to the truth on their own. I talk loud in public to total strangers about the jew banker mafia that has usurped our politics. Waiting in line for anything is a great opportunity to get the truth out there. Gotta love a captive audience. I almost never get challenged by anyone and I usually try to talk directly to a minority. I talk real loud and everyone in the room hears me. Because I talk to a minority in a friendly manor it is hard for someone to play the race card.
Jews are the problem. Get the jews out of power and everyone will be allowed to seperate themselves again. Plus we can close the borders and boot all non citizens.
Well said! The past is over. You can’t move forwards when you’re always looking backwards. You can’t drive a car by looking in the rear view mirror all the time. It’s all about vision, the sense of destiny, of that which we may create, if we but focus our will and energy.
The king is dead. Long Live the King!
You are right, Matt Parrott.
Even in coming up with an idea for a book illustration, I rack my brain to come up with four good possibilities. Then I must find a way to make the viewer feel what I want him to feel, and try out many different paths to do so.
I suppose I differ from you guys in that I think more by feeling–how I feel determines the way I will go.
White people need to organize for their racial interests. A lot of whites are delusional and think diversity is a good thing (or at least say it is). The most logical way to make whites racially aware and organized is for them to be exposed to racial conflict. They must experience hatred, violence and economic deprivation, whether it be in gradual or acute form. When you are delusional you have to suffer for your delusions before you can wake up.
The conditions we need to achieve the goal Alex outlines are being given to us. We have millions of non-whites living in our countries and they hate us! Their hatred will beat the tolerance out of us.
There are various parties who benefit from immigration but one inevitable purpose of creating such diversity is to play the different groups against each other so as to more profitably rule them. Our elite wants racial conflict, but managed conflict. Even white political parties could be allowed so long as they are castrated and only ask for their own piece of the pie.
We ought to use this conflict to create a white political movement which will explicitly advocate white interests. We must not pursue a ‘majority strategy’, standing opposed to the dark masses, but take control of this managed conflict our elites have instituted and turn the blacks and browns against each other. We can split the diverse coalition of the left and destroy the basis for the political power of our traitor/alien elite. We will use their own diversity against them. After that we can employ the most logical methods of creating an all-white state (I would hope we can just have secession but these things are never pretty).
The leadership of the West is creating a diverse society with diminishing prosperity and endless instability and conflict. We offer them the only viable model for a stable, prosperous and socially harmonious state – ethnic homogeneity. We offer them a way out of racism, conflict, multicultural dogma and poverty. That is our vision.
How about a new approach. I tell people when your over-run by the third world you will get what nature has in store for you and your kind. The smart ones will wake-up and concentrate the gene pool in their favor and the dumb ones we don’t care about anyway. Nature takes no prisoners
Alex is totally correct about the positive message rather than the negative. Radical traditionalism with futurism such as archeofuturism may offer a great deal to our cause. I certainly find it very inspiring and uplifting.
However, from my personal experience I don’t believe the death of racial consciousness amongst ‘whites’ has occurred. I live in London and know many educated and professional whites who certainly do not wish to see their race die and are prepared to share their concern with me once they are sure the PC ‘coast is clear’. These are young people in the 20s and 30s, they are horrified with the racial oblivion they face everywhere. My view is that racial consciousness in most whites is alive. In addition these people are not ‘right wingers’, I have met them in the routine course of living and working in London.
It is true that a larger minority than in the past of whites have come to be race blind, but they still seem to be in the minority. I can only think of a small handful of such unfortunates; often in mixed-race relationships themselves. The race soul of these people is dead. They do not exist to us and I’m not sure they can be redeemed.
abritishmaninlondon.blogspot.com
If each white man in the U.S. went out and randomly killed just one non-white your perceived threat to white civilization would be instantly solved. Widespread social unrest due to a crumbling economy makes this a far more likely scenario than you folks actually imagine.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t address what would happen next as the majority of the remaining white population would still have IQ’s under 110 and would be hard pressed to maintain the highly complex infrastructure of modern society.
Sure, we would still need some plumbers assistants and truck drivers but we wouldn’t need bookkeepers, fruit pickers, or assembly line workers when we have robots to do that sort of work. Unfortunately it has become obvious that Joe Sixpack simply can not be retrained to run a CNC machine. Even in this economy those jobs are going begging.
I’ve stopped referring to myself as a conservative. Although I’m a conservative in the literal sense that I want to preserve the white majority in my country, the word has almost no meaning otherwise.
My basic view of western politics is that we’ve taken individualism to an irrational extreme, and we need to strive for a balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of the tribe. To achieve that in a liberal hegemony, we probably need to emphasis the later.
Mainstream politics is basically just a battle between the ‘wet’ individualists (the left) and the ‘rugged’ individualists (the neocons and libertarians).
A good article and analysis. In negating the importance of white preservationism and in relying so heavily on the issue of purported white indifference to white interests, however, I think the author overlooks the extraordinary suppression of all pro-white advocacy and advocates. If truly whites were so indifferent to their own interests and survival our enemies would not need to be so vigilant and so oppressive in their attempts to silence white voices. There’s a reason they make every effort to destroy, both personally and professionally, every white advocate: The white message will resonate if heard by enough white people.
This is a question that that seems to get me when I come into contact with very ethnocentric White Nationalists. Full disclosure: I am not WN, but I do not dismiss them (or at least, the polite ones) as “racist” and “hateful”. That question is: If today, America (or, America and all of Europe) repealed all anti-discrimination legislation, cut off immigration from third world countries completely, and ended Affirmative Action, would White Nationalism still have a purpose? These are all things that I am not necessarily incredibly opposed to, I may add. Would WNs be less hostile towards other minority groups who had already lived there? Or would they attempt to turn the clock back all the way to pre-WWII Western civilization? (i.e, institutionalized segregation and legislated cultural policies, borderline Fascism)
Jacob,
By definition, White Nationalists are for complete geographical segregation. The overwhelming majority of them recognize that it would likely require massive and painful forfeiture of territory in order to realize that aim. All these issues you name are little more to me than opportunities to start a conversation about identity and destiny.
In my opinion, your what-if scenario falls flat. Those things you list aren’t merely transitory policies, but manifestations of a larger tribal resource competition. It’s akin to asking whether lions and lambs should be allowed to lie together if the lion weren’t going to eat the lamb. By definition, lions eat lambs. By definition, human tribes compete for territory, resources, and mates with other human tribes.
“By definition, White Nationalists are for complete geographical segregation.”
At times I’ve gotten that impression of them as hard-core white separatists. At other times It’s seemed to me that there are many people who call them “white nationalists” who are just interested in maintaining a white majority. I certainly have no objection to the later.
I think it’s worth asking yourself: Would that “massive and painful forfeiture of territory” be worth it?
Consider your example of a lion and lamb. It isn’t an apt comparison at all. A white man and a black man are of the same species, even though they differ in some respects. A lion and a lamb have almost nothing in common. I think you’re mistaken if you think that race/ethnicity is the most important “tribe” that a human has. It’s an important one– but it is one of many. Two Republicans of different races are more likely to get along then a a white Communist and a white fascist will. And I expect that with the rise of information technology and social networking, tribalism will only decrease, if only slowly in small increments. Maybe you wouldn’t like that, but in my eyes it isn’t such a bad thing. Not enough to make everyone crave for a “One world government”, (small scale projects are almost always more successful then large ones) but enough that people may begin to see less of groups and more of individuals.
Whatever the case, I am for complete freedom of association.
PS: How do you wish to achieve this dream of complete geographical segregation? By ripping people away from their towns and homes? From their non-white friends and possibly family? Do you want geographical segregation just for yourself or for all whites, even the ones who don’t desire it?
I’m still waiting, Matt. I I’d like to know so I know how to react when the American Third Position’s secret police shows up at my doorstep and tells me that I have to move away from my black and Hispanic acquaintances all in the name of some mystical “destiny”. (By the way, I have no doubt that the A3P would do that, if they ever get around to enacting their “Pace Amendment”. ) . I was willing to settle for stopping third-world immigration and ending enforced diversity, but now it appears you wish to apply your own enforced homogeneity in turn. Unless I’m mistaken, and you would like to clarify your position?
Or perhaps I’m just not “getting it”, and I have yet to bear witness to the propaganda no doubt being planned at Counter Currents publishing and the like. (Trust me, I know, I read the comments sections frequently on these types of sites. ) Yes, races differ in average behavior and intelligence, partly due to genetic and partly due to environmental factors. And yet, there is considerable overlap between the races. I fail to see the case for complete separation when they’re already partly together, unless there was some grandiose event that would trigger the need.
Tribes stop and end wherever you want them to. Don’t you think that you could extend the tribe to self-sustaining, intelligent non-whites? If not, then I don’t think your movement will do much for race relations in America, unless your goal is to worsen them to realize your dream of complete separation. Just a thought.
If I may presume to speak for Matt, the problem is that identifiable ethnic and racial groups within a single country or empire compete for power and resources. The engineering problem is how to stop this process from harming a remarkably complacent majority – namely White gentiles – and protect them from future domination by organized and hyper active minorities.
The simplest means is complete separation, but as you note, that process is “messy,” interfering as it does with moral and cultural values of the complacent majority in need of protection, and also disrupting the economy at the same time.
Partial separation, which would implicitly mean removing only the huge welfare underclass of those blacks and browns with sub 90 IQ’s – a removal that would certainly lift economic burdens – would also minimize the burden on our sensibilities by avoiding disrupting friendships with the higher IQ blacks and browns that we actually know and interact with in our daily lives.
The problem with partial separation is that we are still left open to politically hyper active minorities who will continue the struggle for resources and power using all means at their disposal. Consider the power of organized Jewry for example. In other words, partial separation leaves a majority that has proven its inability to protect itself in the clutches of a multicultural competition they are bound to lose.
Thus, as an engineering matter, the partial separation alternative would require laws preventing all activity that could lead to domination by hyper active minorities, as well as enforcement police to protect the complacent majority.
The problem, of course, is that this enforcement arm would be a constant irritant to the remaining more intelligent blacks and browns who would constantly be appealing to Whites to lift the restrictions on their dominance seeking activities. And we know from past history that the existence of such an enforcement arm would give a critical mass of our fellow Whites endless opportunities for “holier than thou” moral posturing in opposition to its activities and legal mandate, and in opposition to the collective interests of their own racial group.
Thus, partial separation would not end the ethnic and racial struggle for power and advantage.
In truth, Whites have to be subjected to a massive cultural conditioning process that leads them to understand group conflict and immunizes them against all the special pleading and posturing of their competitors within a multicultural society. For partial separation to work, Whites themselves would have to become active participants in that contest for power and advantage and shun socially and economically any fellow Whites who seek individual advantage by cooperating with competing groups.