Those concerned with the future of the white race often talk about defending Western Man. I, however, have never taken to defensive conceptions of whiteness and prefer to talk about it as a creative process.
My problem is that Western Man, as we have known him, led us to where we are. And my view is that what is falling does not need propping up, but rather needs pushing down. I say let Western Man die so he may be reborn, twice as strong and masterful as before.
True: Western Man conquered the Earth, walked on the moon, built the modern world, and developed technology that transformed humanity. But today he is held in contempt: school textbooks spit on his legacy, films portray him as evil, sitcoms mock him as effeminate, and advertisers ignore him or portray him as a loser. Streets are no longer named after his heroes, and planets are no longer named after his deities.
Worse still: universities admit others before him, and when he is allowed in, he is told that he is the “cancer of human history.” His political leaders look forward to a future when there will be fewer of him. Social scientists go even further, and tell Western Man that his race does not even exist.
Yes, Western Man may have once been King of the World, but today he is being erased from the pages of human history. He is the subject of a Great Erasure—the erasure of whites and whiteness worldwide.
It is also true that Western Man faces competition: his homelands are being colonized by settlers from the Third World, who do not look like him and do not like him. They come looking for his money, they breed competitively, they think and act as a group, and they are aggressive and ruthless.
But they are not the main problem—the main problem is Western Man himself, because he is his own worst enemy.
It is he who embraced the values of the French Revolution (the psychopathology of the terrorist Left), he who became a true believer in the proposition nation, he who opened his borders to the rest of the world, he who passed the laws that dispossess him. Western Man sponsored his own decline.
He is the one stepping aside, surrendering, apologizing, on his knees, of his own free will, because of the wrongs a distant neighbor’s friends’ cousin’s employer’s brother-in-law’s sweetheart’s great-great-great-uncle did three hundred years ago.
In fact, he now gets offended when someone tries to look after his interests; he is the most vigorous persecutor of his own best friends—the first to enforce political correctness, the first to call his friends racists, the first to fire them, the first to ostracize them, the first to throw them in prison, and the first to say that there is no place for his friends in civilized society.
Those who come to live among us cannot believe their luck, because Western Man equipped them with all the intellectual tools they needed to take advantage of him. Doubtless, they cannot believe the stupidity of Western Man for giving it all away, turning the Western El Dorado into one big piñata: they would never dream of doing such a thing themselves. In front of us they may put on indignant faces, but at home they must be rolling on the floor laughing—laughing at the idea that Western Man really thinks racial diversity is good for him.
But perhaps I am a bit unfair, because not every Westerner has been a traitor to the Western cause.
Some have not gone with the flow; some, in fact, have identified the error and seek to correct it by mounting an opposition.
The majority are merely ill informed, so saturated with contradictory information as to be unable to tell right from wrong. Determining the truth would require too much time and effort, and since they are under social and economic pressure anyway, they have no motivation to ask difficult questions. These may be guilty by omission.
The truly guilty ones are a small minority. We find them at the lunatic fringe of extreme Left politics: rabid academics, sloganeering pressure groups, balaclavaed Marxist terrorists. We also find members of this minority in the highest echelons of power—corrupt politicians, unscrupulous businessmen, cynical mediacrats, who know better and yet pretend otherwise because there’s money to be made. In short: Egalitarian Man and Economic Man. These are guilty by commission.
And when we look around and see what they have done, and we analyze the implications of their actions, the magnitude of their crime is so staggering as to defy comprehension. You would think that individuals of such mind-blowing immorality would have been thrown into a lake full of piranhas long ago.
But that is not what we see.
From Ape to Man, from Man to God
Western Man made mistakes. He became overly enamored of his own fine ideas—Enlightenment revolutionary ideas of liberty, equality, and brotherhood; universalist ideas with an inbuilt logic that may work in a racially homogeneous society but that, in a competitive racially diverse society, leads inexorably to where we are.
Thus, fanatics and self-serving minorities were able over time to exploit this logic for their own ends, pushing these ideas to their logical extremes in order to gain maximum advantage, either for themselves or their group.
They started out on the margins—a freak show of defectives, alcoholics, thugs, and psychopaths, led by tainted geniuses with pyrotechnic oratory. First they terrorized, then they marched through our institutions, and, for lack of an effective opposition, they made themselves masters of our society, able to wrap themselves in the cloak of institutional legitimacy. And since people admire and are attracted to power, the ideas of the terrorist Left look important to many simply because they come from above.
In this way, their creation, Egalitarian Man, came to represent the finest son of the West—the ultimate archetype against which everything and everyone is measured.
Egalitarian Man has made himself godlike; even we who oppose him learn, see, and think in ways that serve him. Even the way we think about ourselves, down to the language we use to describe our ideas, serves him: he is a liberal, so we are anti-liberal; he is modern, so we are anti-modern; he is a feminist, so we are anti-feminist; he is democratic, so we are anti-democratic; he is a communist, so we are anti-communist; he is for immigration, we are against it; he is for diversity, we are against it; he is for equality, we are against it; he is for globalization, we are against it; he is for materialism, we are against that too. We seem to be a negation of everything he is. Egalitarian Man sets the vocabulary; we learn it and just say no to everything. Hence, he can portray himself as positive, and us as negative.
In sum, he has got us caught in a negative loop, exactly where he wants us, acting like a bunch of naysayers—angry old men, waving a fist at a world that has left them behind. That is how he wants us to behave. That is how he likes us. The fact is that when we talk about defending Western Man we are playing the equality game.
Now it may seem strange to conceive the defense of Western Man as a negative. It certainly does not have to be a negative. But it is a negative when the movement that claims to be for Western Man, when the very nature of the struggle, is conceptualized in defensive terms. The implication is that Western Man is paralyzed, comatose, and that it is his attackers who are in motion.
What this says is that we do not think Western Man dynamic, that we do not think he has creative energy, that we do not think he is going anywhere—that Western Man is dead. And that for us he is like an embalmed body, in a sarcophagus, in a mausoleum, that needs preserving and guarding against robbers.
What this says is that our choices are either to hold out inside our own tomb, or be flattened by the enemy charge. This defines the cause for Western Man not as an action, but as a reaction; not as something we do, but as something that is done to us.
This is a concession, and admission of weakness, a cession of the initiative to the enemy. Does Western Man deserve to live, if he’s acting this way—always on the back foot, always on the defensive, always complaining?
There is no denying that Western Man has come under attack. And there is no denying that there needs to be a defense. But a defense alone is insufficient.
Why do we not talk instead about unmaking Egalitarian Man? Where are the lions? Why is he not in the pit with them?
Revolt of the Mind
You may want to argue that negating Egalitarian Man, or his maker, the Left, is admissible because the Left is a negative, and two negatives make a positive. Well, two negatives do not make a positive—not in this case. Two negatives make a positively negative answer. It is off-putting and depressing. It makes people think, “I do not want to be around these cranky old men. I think I’ll go and stand with those smiley folk over there!”
When one defines oneself in relation to Egalitarian Man, as merely the opposite of what he is, one is saying that one has no original ideas of one’s own. One is saying that Egalitarian Man is the most important thing in one’s life, and one is, therefore, trapped in his matrix. One is not a challenger to the alpha male but a parasite that has become attached to him and lives off him.
No. If we want him humiliated, we do not negate Egalitarian Man; we ignore him. We establish our own parameters, and we force him to define himself against us, as a negation of what we are.
The Left as a Negation
If one unlearns his language, one will find that beneath his fine words the equality zealot, the Left, represents the most negative movement ever devised by man.
First of all, the Left is a negation of humanity: the Left reduces societies to economic relations. To its proponents we are not people; we are a balance in a bank account, a social security number, a credit score, and, above all, a UTR (unique tax reference number).
The Left is a negation of identity: “There’s no race but the human race.” To its proponents we are not a glorious people with a destiny but a “social construct.”
The Left is a negation of difference: they want everyone to be the same; they love uniformity and demand conformity. We can see it in their architecture: massive blocks of cement, rows upon rows of tiny little windows, dwellers crammed into uniform cells, gorging on junk food and hypnotized by lowbrow daytime television.
The Left is a negation of quality: in their world everything is standardized; it’s an appeal to the lowest common denominator.
That is why everything they produce is of low quality; that is why their art is a crucifix in a jar of urine; that is why they resent beauty and seek to destroy it, be it through their so-called art or through miscegenation. Beauty is elitist, discriminatory, non-democratic.
Therefore, the Left is also a negation of beauty.
The Left is a negation of excellence. Industry, ambition, and intelligence are penalized with predatory taxation. Laziness, mediocrity, and criminality are rewarded by the welfare state.
That the Left is big on the welfare state is no coincidence, because the Left is a negation of independence: think independently about race and immigration and you are fired!
The Left is a negation of spirituality: for them an enlightened man is a man without religion—a man in a boiler room, selling junk shares to the unsuspecting, out for himself, motivated by selfishness and ruthless calculation.
The Left is a negation of truth. Where science proves inconvenient it is denied. A finding is scientific only if it proves equality. When it does not prove it, it is not science—it is bias . . . hate . . . racism.
Ultimately the Left is a negation of life. For the Left society is not an organism. It is a machine. That is why they seek to engineer it; that is why there are pyramids of human skulls in Cambodia.
The world of the Left is a dead world—a world of dead matter and lifeless abstractions. It is an anti-human, anti-natural, anti-aristocratic, anti-freedom, anti-beauty, anti-metaphysical, anti-truth, anti-life, reductionist, immoral, hateful, genocidal, necrophiliac, mendacious, predatory ideology that has sown death everywhere it’s gone.
A Pack of Lies
Considered globally, it is fair to view the Left as a pack of lies, because it is immoral even by their own professed standards of morality. In their UN charter of Human Rights, for example, they state that the peoples of the Earth have a right to self-determination. That is precisely what American Renaissance conferences are about, and yet proponents of the Left suppressed them two years in a row. In their UN charter of Human Rights they also make it a crime to inflict upon members of a group conditions of life intended to destroy them. And yet pharmacological research is being done at Oxford University on a pill that “cures” people of racial consciousness. Liberal news sources were jubilant. Interestingly, all the experimental subjects were white.
How do we turn this around? How do we re-assert ourselves in the world and reclaim our destiny?
Understanding this issue begins by examining first how we do not reclaim it, by defining what our struggle is not about.
Not About Party Politics
Our struggle is not about party politics. Politics is the art of the possible, and in a culture where white identity is evil, white identity politics are not possible. Ours is a culture war. And in a culture war, the battleground is culture, not politics. The armies comprise those who produce culture, not politicians or party activists; the weapon is cultural production, not a political slogan.
This is not to say that politics has nothing to do with our cause. It has everything to do with it. Neither is it to say that we should withdraw altogether from party politics. But in a culture war, we must remember, politics is the last battle. Without winning the culture, you cannot win the election. Without cultural power, you cannot achieve political power. Culture defines the politics, not the other way around.
Thus the most we can expect from party politics today is to hold the fort, to maintain a presence in the political landscape, so that the outrages of the Left do not pass without at least a reply.
Not About “The Collapse”
Our struggle is not about “The Collapse.” Today a system collapse may be desirable, but it is desirable only so long as we have something credible and attractive to build following it. The collapse itself is not a solution; it can only be a means to an end—the clearing of the decks that makes way for what follows after. And that’s our destination: what follows after.
It does not follow that a collapse leads automatically to a white awakening. A collapse leads simply to fear, and without an alternative establishment already in place to grab hold of the king’s scepter, a collapse makes way for whomever is strongest at that time. So we must be careful what we wish for.
Not About Competitive Fertility
Neither is our struggle just about boosting fertility. We certainly need to continue the chain of generations, to keep our traditions alive and increase our legacy. But more white births in an anti-white system only makes more anti-white citizens, more guilt-ridden taxpayers who are more likely to help those who hate them than to help themselves.
Our children need a healthy environment first, as well as a habitable planet. We live in a closed system with limited resources. Our civilization is energy intensive. And although whites make up a smaller percentage of the world population today, there are more whites now than there were a hundred years ago, when we ruled the world. The problem is not underpopulation in our homelands, but overpopulation everywhere else. Much of the Third World groans with unsustainable population levels. They are coming here because they cannot live there.
We certainly need to be strong demographically, but if we breed competitively, we will eat ourselves out of an environment, and will end up eating each other. We forget that our civilization is immensely powerful. The others need numbers because often numbers are the only thing they have—and, even then, they need us to sustain those numbers.
Not About Race and Intelligence
And neither is our struggle about race differences in intelligence. This may surprise some, because we are very interested in this. And it is indeed an important area of study: it has serious implications for policy and the future, and we will have to know how to formulate good policy once we are in a position to implement it.
However, so long as the cultural climate is egalitarian, politically this is not a campaign issue for people who score high in IQ tests; it is a campaign issue for people who score low. The data on race differences in intelligence play into the argument of so-called “white privilege.” Hence, when the cultural climate is egalitarian, the data may be scientifically inconvenient for them, but it is politically inconvenient for us, because sympathy is for the underprivileged.
What’s more, in political terms the correctness of the data does not matter. What matters in political terms is how people feel when they talk about it. “If I say that Blacks are, on average, less intelligent, will I look like a bad person?” “Will the people whose opinion of me I care about stop talking to me?” “Will my black co-worker go NUCLEAR?” “Will my employer fire me?” “If word gets around, will I be expelled from my Country Club?” “If I am seen reading this book about the white race, am I going to get nasty looks from my fellow commuters on the train?” “Will a Black man come up to me and make a scene?”
We may want to dismiss people like that as lacking backbone, but we still need their support if we want to represent more than a fringe position. It’s no good to say they need to wake up and smell the taco. People would rather die outright than die of embarrassment.
We also live in an age of information overload, in which complex data can be selectively organized to prove virtually any argument. The result is that people are able to choose the data that suit their convenience and flatters their vanity. That is how science becomes a discourse.
Not About Conserving
Finally, our struggle is not about conserving. Our mission is not about going back to 1912. This is not about restoring an imagined yesteryear that may have never existed, or about conserving things that are now obsolete. We are not antique auctioneers, curators in a museum, or a conservation society.
To begin with, there is nothing left to conserve. After two and a half centuries of liberalism, even ultra-conservatives are liberals.
Understand this: conservatism is as much our enemy as liberalism, if not a worse one. Conservatism defends the previous revolution, which makes conservatives irrelevant, thus providing a rationale for liberalism. We could even say that conservatives are liberalism’s best ally, because they offer respite before the next wave of liberalization.
Ultimately, conservatism and liberalism are both about death: while a conservative complains that things are dying out, a liberal complains that they are not dying out soon enough. One is a necrophile, the other a murderer.
By contrast, tradition is about life. It is about an idea that has roots in the distant past, but which is constantly renewing and regenerating itself. And that’s very different from conservatism.
New Dawn of Western Man
Therefore, if a political party is putting the cart before the horse, if a hyperinflationary collapse is a double-edged sword, if superfertility is not strictly necessary, if folk choose the science that suits them, if conservatism is the night of the living dead, we must look at different ways to bring about the new Dawn of Western Man.
So the question is—how do we bring about that new Dawn? How do we remake Western Man and the white identity? How do we win the culture war?
The first step is not to try and win the liberal culture. As I said earlier, the Left needs to be ignored. We do not seek their approval. We do not accept their boundaries. We do not recognize their categories. We do not play by their rules. We do not care about their opinion. We do not care if they hate us. (In fact, if we find that they do not hate us, we are doing something wrong.)
In sum, we do not play their game. In the old Western films, when a cowboy in the saloon saw that the poker game was rigged against him, he did not try to make nice with his fellow players. He flipped the table. If the game is designed to make you lose, you flip the table.
No. We do not play their game. We set our own rules and play our own game. And that begins by identifying who we are and, most importantly, who we want to be. Where are we going? What does our future look like? What do we look like in the future?
The second step is about how we communicate that idea. Naturally, we cannot step into a time machine, travel to the twenty-second century, beam back a picture and proclaim, “This is what our world looks like!” (We are not there yet.) But we can evoke what our world could look like, and what kind of people will be running it, through the way we imagine it.
After all, the future begins with fiction, science with science fiction. The sound of their future is the sound of our music. And this presupposes that if you are for Western culture you are involved in producing Western culture, or at least in enabling those who can to do so.
Western culture does not stop with putting a man on the moon. Western culture is also about art, architecture, music, literature, philosophy, and spirituality; but also about things like fashion, design, and manners. Who we are and who we want to be is communicated in this way, as well as through politics.
And, of course, it is also communicated with language. This means that if we are to play by our own rules, we have to develop our own way of communicating our ideas. This begins by developing our own terminology. We do not use the enemy’s words, let alone negations of those words. We do not say we are “inegalitarian”; we say we celebrate difference. What are the Lefties going to say? That they are anti-difference? And if they say they are anti-difference, does not that make them totalitarian? And if they are totalitarian, WILL THEY APOLOGIZE FOR THE GULAGS? We set the rules and we put them on the back foot.
It is important to remember that 99 percent of the culture war is waged with language. The culture war is mostly a war of words. When egalitarians call someone racist 99 percent of their work is done. The rest follows quickly from that. That’s why they focus on language, why they do not care much about the science of race, and why they are big on political correctness.
We first declare our independence with words. We then follow through with deeds.
The third step is the most important one: the articulation of a moral case for white racial consciousness. The single biggest impediment in the cause for Western Man is the lack of belief in the morality of white racial consciousness.
Our struggle goes beyond economics, beyond criminology, beyond race relations, beyond biology, and beyond logic—it goes beyond all of these because there are things that are essential for human existence, that are essential for living a good and meaningful life, that are not necessarily logical, inclusive, or profitable.
Our struggle is a moral struggle. Western Man is highly preoccupied with morality, so the cause for Western Man needs to be conceived as a moral cause, and needs to be stated in moral terms.
The Left is strong today because they were successful in presenting their crusade as a moral crusade. The Left remains strong today because no one has made a more compelling moral statement.
That is why it is futile to try and convince anyone about the need for a white racial identity with facts and reason. The only ones prepared to accept these are those who already have a white racial identity. The rest do not even want to listen. They do not want to know the science, even if it is correct because they think it is immoral and believe that being for equality makes them better people. And even if they do not care about equality, they certainly care about being liked—about being liked by their friends, by their family, and by the people whose respect they seek to gain or maintain. In the end they want to feel good about themselves. This makes whiteness a moral issue.
It is evident that most people out there are fed up with the status quo. They want to see fundamental change, and are willing to try radical solutions. That is how the gentleman now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue ended up there three years ago: in many people’s eyes at the time he represented fundamental change. There is evidence, then, that people are willing to try radical solutions, and that many white people secretly want a solution like ours. The problem is that they dare not say it, partly because they do not know who we are, partly because they do not know where we are going, and partly because they do not know how to assert their identity with a clear conscience.
Before they make the leap, they need to be convinced in the core of their beings of the morality of batting for their own team. Once convinced of the morality of their case, they will not feel uncomfortable when the enemy asks them questions, they will not feel the need to explain or justify their way of thinking, and they will not feel the need to hide behind placatory circumlocutions. They will say, instead, “Yes, this is who I am, and this is what I believe in!”
Moreover, they will start challenging egalitarians with uncomfortable questions— questions for which we demand answers, because ultimately Egalitarian Man needs to apologize for what he has done and get out of the way, because he’s proven he’s unfit to run a society, even by his own professed standards.
Thus remaking Western Man also involves a Great Erasure—one where we are the erasers, where we erase the negativity among us as well as the negation of us.
The remaking of Western Man is not a defensive response; it is an offensive action. It is not a pathetic struggle for survival, but a heroic struggle for glory. And it’s not about embalming the man who was, but about creating the man to come.
Mr. Kurtagic is Editor-in-Chief of the Wermod Publishing Group and author of the novel Mister. This article is a adapted from a speech he gave at the 2012 American Renaissance Conference in Nashville, Tennessee. A DVD featuring Mr. Kurtagic’s speech is available for purchase here.