A great deal of attention has been invested in the idea that the (re-)establishment of a White ethnostate is of paramount importance and of immediate concern for our movement and our people. Prime facie this appears unquestionably so. However, first glances are often illusory. More discerning individuals amongst us will realize that transformational change needs to begin first within ourselves, individually, with collective change occurring later. If we as Europeans aren’t capable of fundamental change within ourselves — physical, spiritual and metaphysical — then how can we expect a White ethnostate of any variety to be successful?
In Man and Technics, Oswald Spengler quite correctly pointed out that the “tempo” of civilization has changed. This increased “tempo” refers to the notion that what we do now in the present will have exponentially more effect on the trajectory of human destiny; more so than all past historical actions. As such, we aren’t entitled to the luxury of mistakes. White European peoples have made thousands of migrations over the millennia, and it is this author’s belief that if the creation of a White ethnostate (or states) is done without addressing the problems that plague our race today — both internal and external — then those problems will only be transposed onto a new geographical locale. A monumental transformation that catalyzes the total alteration of the global geopolitical landscape will require a transformation and revolution from within, at the individual level, through the creation of a “revolutionary consciousness.” Only then can the transformation propagate collectively throughout.
When writing of Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger asked: “Is man, as man is in his nature till now, prepared to assume dominion over the whole earth? Unequivocally and without question we are not, but fulfilling the daunting tasks before our race presupposes that we must be. So the question is begged, how do we change ourselves? How do we break free from the false narrative that is the miasma of postmodernity and charge forward towards a glorious future?
There is but one answer, and it’s quite simple: we fight. More accurately, we must prepare ourselves physically and spiritually for the impending metapolitical struggles we face currently, and will face in the future. History has taught us that “the strong do what they will, and the weak what they must,” and from this ancient Thucydidean maxim we know that our struggle will require copious amounts of both physical and spiritual strength. Strength in this regard isn’t in reference to some grotesque neo-Darwinist notion of “might is right,” but rather more in the spirit of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus who posited that “the content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become.” Meaning in our particular context that the strength needed by the individuals of our movement, is the strength to endure on a day-by-day basis. We — as individuals and as a movement — must ready ourselves to endure continued derision and censure by the liberal-humanist establishment, and most saliently by those nearest and dearest to us. Presumably in the coming years these attacks will only become larger in scale and more ferocious in nature. Thus the struggle to transform, so as to survive the coming onslaught, presupposes that we must first steel ourselves, physically and spiritually, and sublimate our individual selves towards a spirit of unity not projected by our people since the Second World War. Our objective isn’t just racial survival, or the mere taking of a seat at a “multicultural table,” but of the attainment of magnificent prosperity. Our Aryan progenitors didn’t settle for anything less than glorious transcendence and our rekindling of that ancestral flame will be no different.
The 16th-century Spanish economist Gonzalez de Cellorigo, when speculating about the real and illusory, believed that his beloved Spain had become a “commonwealth of the bewitched, of men living outside the natural order,” and this musing rings ever more true in the 21st-century postmodern West than it did in 16th-century Imperial Spain. “Postmodernity” is the philosophical concept that encapsulates the spirit of decline running rampant throughout the entirety of the Western world. Its deleterious and far-reaching tendrils have managed to enthrall our ‘Faustian soul,’ and as such it must be annihilated. Postmodernism rejects all objective truth, and it is through this epistemological anarchism — intrinsic to its nature — that the artifice of universalism appears organic, rather than unnatural and contrived. The French political scientist Pierre Manent posits that postmodernity is a project, and as a nihilistic project its ultimate objective is the dissolution of truth, via the impartation of meaningless abstraction to all facets of existence. It can, and should be destroyed. At its core, postmodernity is nothing but hypercriticism, and for this reason the concept has sealed its own demise, or at least displayed its weakness. To combat hypercriticism one needs only to be in possession of a higher truth, a truth which has the ability to transcend the mundane, making it incorruptible to the processes of dissolution constituting postmodern thought. The need to preserve the White race and Western civilization is a transcendent truth, but like all beliefs it requires adherents capable of defending its sanctity. We are the defenders of this true faith, and as the race militant we have the ability to overcome the perversion that is the postmodern world. However, to do so we must formulate an incorruptible set of ideas premised and centered upon the ideal that the White race is not only destined to survive materially and biologically, but also destined to be glorious. Ultimately it is this profound sense of gloriousness which we seek to reclaim.
Postmodernity is the metapolitical fulcrum through which the hegemonic “New Left,” the Frankfurt School, and their degenerative offspring utilize when spewing their dissolutive vitriol. In a world of moral relativism and universalism, the “Achilles’ heel” to an all-pervasive sense of hypercriticism is the unflinching belief in a cause that is beyond ill-repute, and as such inviolable. The flourishing of the White race is just such a cause, but needs stalwart defenders. The liberal-humanist worldview relies upon the dual notions of ‘liberation’ and social justice, which are nothing but reflections of the spirit of dissolution that is postmodernity. The ultimate teleology of the dissolutive forces that constitute postmodernity is chaos; notions of ‘liberation’ and social justice are its contemporary agents. The objective of the chaos of postmodernity is universal emancipation from the racial and cultural norms and values of European civilization. To combat postmodernity we must strengthen our resolve collectively, as a movement, by improving ourselves individually. Our struggle is a “sacred war,” one that is both supra-political and supra-human, and as such it requires the creation of a ‘New Man’, of the Übermensch.
Our racial struggle and the need for the Nietzschean Übermensch to effectuate that struggle isn’t premised upon some abstract utopian fantasy, but rather represents and is one facet of the revival of the “natural order.” The “natural order” — the order which is anathema to our enemies, and by which the White race thrived for millennia – is essentially Platonic and Aristotelian in character, and therefore part and parcel of the Western sociocultural tradition. Plato and Aristotle (albeit in different fashions) conceived of the cosmos as being ordered, perfect, and good; more specifically, it was this “ordered cosmos” made manifest in the penultimate telos of the natural world, that man should seek to emulate within himself. More succinctly put, the inegalitarian hierarchy of the “natural order” exists inside man as a microcosm of the cosmos in its totality, and it is therefore “good” to strive for “perfection” within ourselves, regardless of its unobtainability. European civilization was forged by the “natural order”: we reached our civilizational acme when we better adhered to its timeless principles, and thus they need to be revived. So our struggle for the White race becomes a struggle for the very survival of the ‘natural order’ itself.
A restoring of the “natural order” is possible, but first and foremost we must regenerate our racial soul on the individual level. The French polymath Gustave Le Bon was correct when he put forth the notion that crowds, consisting of a collectivity of individuals, form one group mind. The various human races, regardless of disputed taxonomical nomenclature, consist of groupings of individuals who when combined into a “collective” are distinct from the sum total of their individual parts, and form a new “racial” entity. By creating and adhering to a transcendent idea like the flourishing of the White race, and by holding this idea to be self-evidently true and thus immune to all postmodern critique, we strengthen our position in a process that is two-fold. First, it allows us to create a new mythos and a unified metapolitical substratum, “a mythos of the blood,” one that will eventually receive pseudo-religious trappings and in turn become sacrosanct. (The appearance of the “sacred” or the “religious” is essential to the proper functioning of any society, and most importantly to the contentment of the masses). Second, by creating an actual ethno-identitarian bloc, composed of loosely affiliated and heterogeneous social groupings, a macro-organization centered upon the premise of White/Aryan renewal will also take shape, and thus increase the power and influence of our movement. In brief, by adhering to a single, all-pervasive metapolitical ideal — namely that the White race is destined to thrive — in concomitance with the continual struggle to improve ourselves both physically and spiritually, makes total victory a foregone conclusion if we endure.
The enemies of our race, both internal and external, adhere and to a bizarrely self-defeating ideology, which is inconsistent metapolitically and metaphysically. The inherently contradictory nature of their ideology is evidenced by the fact that on its political “fringes” adherents consider themselves revolutionary when in actuality they are the custodians of a decaying political system and its dilapidated Weltanschauung. Despite their overwhelming numerical superiority, in terms of men and matériel they are disconnected from reality, and their shared cognitive dissonance places them at a marked disadvantage, regardless of the fleeting hegemony they presently enjoy. The ideological bankruptcy of the liberal-humanistic establishment is so totally pervasive that the underlying metaphysical impetus and endgame is dissolution itself, making it a system destined for failure. As guardians of the White race what we lack in numbers and influence, we can potentially more than make up for in resolve and martial spirit. Regardless of the petty infighting that historically has always reared its ugly head in movements like ours, we as a collective are united by our desire to revive the White race, and as such our goal is just and productive. Ultimately, our objective, White racial revival, is a constructive, “positive” endeavor, while the objectives of our bêtes noires are difficult to delineate, amorphous and doomed to failure.
However, the “negative nihilism” that masquerades as sincere liberal-humanism does possess two distinct advantages. First, its vapidity and inconsistency of thought have rendered it metapolitically hegemonic, purely by virtue of its mass appeal. It is an inconsistent ideology for a fractured, broken people. Second, thanks to ‘left-leaning’ ideologues like Michel Foucault and his ilk, the establishment proposes that its highest telos is freedom, or more aptly a “negative freedom” that is not conceived of as a theoretical or academic construct, but rather as a practical, real-world thing. Foucault’s conceptualization of freedom presupposes that it must be exercised to exist, and that the “exercise” of freedom was the guarantor of its perpetuity; this theory has been adopted by the left writ large. Thus the so-called ‘left’ is driven by the need to exercise freedom as action, and until relatively recently has held a virtual monopoly over the domain of political activism. It is this propensity for the exercise of action, in combination with the broad appeal of its plebeian politics, that explains a large part of the left’s meteoric rise as a hegemonic movement. Furthermore, ‘left-leaning’ activism conforms to a society premised upon ‘liberation’ and emancipation, while ours represents a regeneration of the timeless “natural order” and as such must be suppressed as “reactionary”. Of course the collective weakness of the White race, namely our shared racial propensity for universalism and non-kinship based altruism, has been a major contributory factor to the left’s hegemony as well. This is particularly true when our intrinsic racio-cultural inegalitarianism is pitted against an adversary whose endgame is the systematic elimination of all differentiated forms of status, power, and wealth. The establishment offers contentment and inactivity for the “last man,” while we offer merely racio-cultural renaissance and the revival of greatness.
Aristotle articulated it most poignantly when he mused that the power of discrimination is integral to the human psyche. The power to discriminate, or discern, is an integral function of intellect and of perception, and the medium through which cognitive judgment is formed. Thus the liberal-humanist establishment in its quest for egalitarianism has rendered all things void of meaning, by its incessant need to level and equalize all things. All humans seek meaning, and the ‘left’ by virtue of the speciousness of its arguments, based neither upon reality nor the “natural order,” but upon the hubris of ideological polemics, has constructed a system which is doomed to self-cannibalization, thanks to its incessant need to deconstruct. To counter this, we White Identitarians, by strengthening ourselves first as individuals and then collectively, need only to continue our struggle and to endure the trials and tribulations of Ragnarök. By the grace of our strong, positive ideals — particularly when contrasted against the self-defeating leftist dogma of our adversaries — we will be victorious. The Roman playwright Terence once wrote that “fortune favors the strong,” and it is this strength, the dual strength of our people and of our ideas, which shall eventually set us free.
* * *
With all of the above in mind the question still remains: how do we form a “revolutionary consciousness?” Echoing the earlier works of Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernst Jünger proposed that the warrior of the future is he who can endure the most pain. Thus, in true Jüngerian fashion, by perceiving the body as a vessel for the attainment of the heroic, via the disembodiment of consciousness, and by extension via the negation of feeling and pain, the forging of the Übermensch is a forgone certainty. But on what battlefield do we test ourselves, we nascent Übermensch, we harbingers of a new Herrenvolk? The battlefield from which the Übermensch of today will arise is that of the mundane, contemporary world.
The establishment seeks to redress all perceived wrongs, all differences in status, power, and wealth, and it does so through the perverse mechanism of social justice. In the United States, what little adherence remains of the First Amendment to the Constitution and its notion of “free speech,” guarantees that for the time being at least, the severest lawful “judgment” wrought upon heretics like us will be an auto-da-fé of social and economic ostracization. The word “ostracize” is derived from the Greek meaning “to banish,” and true to its original meaning we heretics of the Western world are rendered persona non grata by “the powers that be” as exercised by social justice and its feckless “warriors.” Thus to eventually thrive, we must revel in the struggle, steeling ourselves for a future that will be hard fought.
The question is raised: do we cower like scared animals, as the system wishes us to do, or do we fight? I’ve opted to fight, and hope that you will do the same. But, how do we fight? We fight by overcoming those who seek to demean and limit us, we fight by enduring, we fight by achieving victory when faced against overwhelming odds, and most importantly we fight for the glory that is the sheer magnificence of the White race! Joseph de Maistre opined, “In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve,” and as a race should we prove ourselves capable of enduring through transformative change than we shall someday be blessed with the homeland that we’ve earned.
 Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life (United Kingdom: Arktos, 2015).
 Bernd Magnus, Heidegger’s Metahistory of Philosophy: Amor Fati, Being and Truth (Netherlands: Nijhoff Publishers, 1970).
 Robin Waterfield, The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists (United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2009).
 J. H. Elliott, Imperial Spain: 1469-1716 (New York: Penguin Books, 2002).
 David Charles, Aristotle on Meaning and Essence (United Kingdom: Clarendon Press, 2003).