The Moral Battle
From the beginning of Trump’s candidacy I expected and hoped that it would accelerate racial polarization and White radicalization as well as discredit the anti-White media and its false narratives. As that racial polarization — the Great Divide — occurs, our success or failure, and with it the life or death of our race, will depend on how many of the people of our race break to our side of the divide. If it is most of them, we will probably win and our race will be saved. If not, our chances will be greatly diminished, and for something of this importance, this seriousness, with this much — literally the life or death of our race — at stake, we must take the utmost care to maximize our chances.
In April 1989 I gave a talk at a gathering of Instaurationists entitled “Creating a Moral Image.” It was well received and Wilmot Robertson published it in the August, 1989 issue of Instauration. It turned out to be the most controversial essay yet to appear in its pages. According to Wilmot most of the criticism was of a very low quality, too low even for the “Safety Valve,” but he did publish one essay-length response which, like the other criticism, wrongly saw my paper as a pacifistic rejection of warrior values. The critics missed the main point of the essay — the decisive battle for the hearts and minds of our people is being fought on the battlefield of morality. Violence per se was rejected only if it was immoral (by public perception and/or traditional Western standards) or counter-productive, and the example I cited was clearly both. I maintained that those who practiced or preached such immoral violence, or in any other way projected an immoral public image, were hurting our cause and playing into our opponents hands.
Over twenty-eight years later, in the wake of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, we see how little has changed, how clearly our battle is still one of morality, and how the points I made in that essay are, if anything, even more true now than they were then (see also “Moral Capital and White Interests“). Our anti-White opponents know this well, but too many pro-White activists have yet to heed the lesson. The storm now shaking the country, and the whole of the Western world, including the Trump administration, is one of perverse anti-White values and policies presented as consensus traditional and universal morality. Our anti-White antagonists were given, or arranged, the opening or opportunity they were looking for and took full advantage of it at our expense. They seized the moral high ground and from those heights are showering us with a torrent of moral invective, denunciation, condemnation and epithets, creating false pretexts to justify suppression of our message, our platforms and our gatherings as our moral image seems to have been dragged to new lows.
They have succeeded at this because we have not yet succeeded in framing and communicating our message, and defining ourselves and our movement, in moral terms, and putting this into practice. We have a very moral goal, and it needs to be communicated effectively within the framework of a very moral narrative. It is really a simple message, as simple as it is moral. Expressing it simply, in terms easy to understand, we could say:
We want our race to live, but it is being destroyed. It is being destroyed by multiracialism. All those who promote or defend multiracialism, or oppose the preservationist solution of separation, are responsible for the destruction of our race, and are therefore guilty of the genocide of the European peoples.
Our antagonists usually deny this simple and damning truth for tactical reasons, to lessen the resistance of their victims by keeping them ignorant of their fate. Most of their victims seem not to know or care, or both. Whether they don’t care because they don’t know, or — per Heidegger — don’t know because they don’t care, it is of the utmost importance that we promote accurate knowledge of our ongoing genocide as far and wide as we can, at every opportunity we get. The facts are certainly there, in plain sight for everyone to see, brought on by immigration and intermixture, and it would be difficult to believe someone could not see them.
Indeed, the first half of our destruction or genocide, our displacement and replacement in our own countries, is already well underway. A healthy race exists at two levels, at the individual level and at the population level, as a racial population. Most of the European peoples have already been effectively destroyed at the population level and no longer exist as racial populations, as populations capable of continuing their racial existence. They have been destroyed by multiracialism, which has transformed them into multiracial rather than racial populations leading to the destruction and death of the White population. That is the first stage of White genocide, and we were nearing its guaranteed success before Trump’s election. His win temporarily delayed — we cannot yet say foiled — the intended progress of our genocide, frustrating and angering the anti-White coalition who had never before experienced such a reversal of their agenda.
Our anti-White opponents have responded by promoting numerous false narratives — the so-called “fake news” — and have run with these false narratives a very big way. We must hope they have gone too far, and by going to excess they may yet fall victim to their own trap, the trap they had set for us, and be hoisted on their own petard, caught in the coils of their own false narrative when the truth comes out. And we must hope the truth does come out, as much of it as possible.
In combating their false narrative, and promoting our own narrative and moral image, we should pay careful attention to our messaging and labeling, how we define and present ourselves and our positions, and make sure they are consistent with each other. If we reject the label of “White supremacism,” we must logically reject the labels of “neo-Nazi” and “KKK.” If our position is one of White preservation and independence, of continued White racial existence and control of our own existence, both of which require separation from other races to be successful in the long-term, and therefore not seeking to control other races so long as they are separated from us, then our labels and self-definition should be consistent with that.
The simplest and most direct labels are usually the best, as the least subject to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. This would make the label “pro-White” the best, defined as supporting White racial interests, of which the most vital interests are in continued racial existence and independence or control of our own existence. The simplest and primary label for the opponents of these ultimate White racial interests would be “anti-White,” which label could be extended to include those who oppose the promotion or defense of fundamental White interests.
Other labels that would accurately describe us in moral terms would be more specific in describing our pro-White positions, e.g., “White (or racial) separatist,” “White (or racial) preservationist,” “White (or racial) liberationist,” “opponent of White (or European, or racial) genocide.”
Our slogans should be consistent with our labels and positions. Examples would include “I want my race to live,” “Support the right to racial life,” “Support the continued existence of the White race (or the British, French, German, Italian, Swedish, etc. people),” “Stop White genocide,” and we should be prepared to show how those slogans refer to the real world.
Notice that none of these slogans mention or refer to non-Whites. The slogans are about us and our interests, not them, and so are positive expressions clearly motivated by love. Slogans that mention non-Whites in a negative, critical or adversarial way — and given our current precarious situation it is hard to mention them in any other way — invite accusations of hate, and our motives, whether love or hate, are a central part of our moral image. Certainly the harm that non-Whites do to our interests must be addressed, as they are central to our ongoing destruction. But this should be done in more detailed and in-depth forms of discussion that allow for an adequate and thoughtful presentation of our positions, not in slogans.
Wanting one’s race to live is not hate by any reasonable or traditional definition. Nor is it “supremacism” (properly defined as ruling, controlling or dominating other races) to advocate racial survival through separation and independence. It may be defined as a form of racism, but if so it is a moral form, with a highly moral purpose and goal — preservation rather than destruction. Our anti-White opponent’s false claims to the contrary — claims that advance their promotion of White genocide — represent their false narrative at the macro level. Their false claims about Charlottesville represent their false narrative at the micro level.
Only a value system that defines genocide as good could define racial preservationism as evil. Nevertheless, that is the anti-White value system of our would-be destroyers. They have a long record that makes this very clear. If we get a chance to fight on the moral battlefield with anything close to fair odds our morality should be able to beat theirs. That is the fight we need to win, the fight we should focus all our attention on, and let nothing else — no promotion of some other agenda, organization or ideology, no toxic influences or spoilers — divert or distract us from it.
Comments are closed.