The Ethnostate, Yesterday and Tomorrow

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the organizers of this conference for inviting me to speak here today, and my compliments to them for putting before us a subject so bold, so rarely discussed in public fora and so indispensable to our present predicament. I want to thank in particular measure Johannes Scharf; though I have known him but briefly, he is such a man whose quality makes itself known on even short acquaintance. He has proven that merit once more in his speech today in so competently taking up the challenge presented by this hard subject, side by side with the other speakers we have had the privilege to hear today. Gentlemen, it is my honour to share this podium with you.

If I may be permitted a brief personal statement, I thank the organizers as well for granting me the opportunity to visit Germany for the first time, which has long been a dream of mine – both in deference to my own partial Germanic ancestry, and out of natural curiosity about a people whose great thinkers have influenced me almost more than any other people’s. I am sorry I cannot follow the commendable example laid down by several of today’s speakers by offering this speech both in English and in German. I would surely have learned German if I had not been so madly enamoured of all things Italian; many Italians have told me that it would have made better sense from the pragmatic point of view. Whether or not they are correct in their assessment, I cannot tell. But in the end it does not matter: for as we know, love is more powerful to a man than his logic.

Now that I have gotten my thanks out of the way, I am afraid I must chide the organizers as well for having placed me in the unenviable position of following four fine speakers, whose quality and insight no doubt far surpasses my own. Should I fail to provide a worthy successor to them, however, you can take it as the debt you owe to Fortuna, who is jealous of her riches, and, having given you already four such excellent speeches, will surely make you pay with the fifth.

Let us take a century – not because there is anything particularly natural in such a parcel of time, but because it is easy to get one’s hands around, and productive to our purposes. Set before your mind’s eye Western Civilization of 1919 Anno Domini. The first Great War has reached at last its bloody terminus, and we are a full decade yet from the Great Depression, which will have ramifications for the marketplaces of the entire globe – but our theme today is greater than the economic. We are concerned with how civilizations are made, and unmade.

Dream then the West of 1919. Its hopes are all ahead of it, its nightmares all past. All calm on the continent, and any man who might somehow still divine the threat and thrill of the coming war could perhaps even hope that it will be the herald of a new and stronger age, that Herculean tomorrow that Friedrich Nietzsche felt coming, or attempted to conjure. For now, however, the West craves peace. And note this above all, as you gaze out upon the affairs of cities and states, the coming and the going of these million lives, the renewed growth of the West after the long dark of the war: you are in many cases looking upon ethnostates.

Fifty years on, then. It is 1969, of the Common Era. We are standing in the midst of the so-called ‘Cultural Revolution.’ Western man has grown recalcitrant and reckless; he wants to do away with the old and to usher in the new. Traditions are cast off like fleas. The seeds are being planted, here all around you, that will lead in but a few fleeting decades, to the unhampered ‘progressivism’ and cultural relativism of our own times, to the dilution of our native peoples and the engineered mass immigration which is so rapidly deteriorating the fabric of our societies and the atmosphere of our cities. You are witness now, in 1969, to a civilization, Western Civilization, openly, systematically, and evidently with all awareness of purpose, undermining itself and preparing for its own undoing. And note this well: you are still looking upon ethnostates.

Fifty years on again. It is 2019, the Current Year, and the madness which was planted a mere five decades back has sprung up in the densest jungle, so thick one can hardly see out of it and so humid one sometimes struggles to breathe. To speak of ethnostates in the contemporary West is as a slap in the face to those many European-descended natives who are constrained day by day to live amidst foreigners of wildly outlandish ways. Whatever is the nature of the present political dispensation, it is certainly far from being, or wanting to be, ethnic.

Let us rest a moment on the meaning of this overview of the past hundred years: when we speak of the road toward the ethnostate, we seem to be doing nothing more than looking to regain something we once had, something that we lost in the course of little more than a century. Two points follow from this – one, which we can regard in a spirit of optimism, the other which entrains us instead to caution. First: whatever has once existed in this world, can in principle exist again. Second: if we do not redress the underlying reasons for our present disgrace, even should we regain what we have lost, our victory will be short-lived at best.

Then to begin from the beginning. We are come here to discuss the ethnostate; what is an ethnostate? In the first place, it is a political and social order, in which a single ethnicity is granted either an overwhelming democratic majority status or an unchallenged monopoly on political power. The name we give to this condition is sovereignty; the ethnostate is then a political or social order in which a single ethnicity is vested with sovereignty.

The modern notion of sovereignty emerged in the seventeenth century in the work of a man who might be regarded as the first Enlightenment thinker, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbesian theory located sovereignty in the person of a sovereign, a king, whereas this same sovereignty was later invoked on behalf of the people, the demos, following the innovations of men like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This in turn laid the groundwork for the subsequent democratic revolutions of the nineteenth century and the communist revolutions of the twentieth. But in the wake of the great European wars and the crumbling of the great European empires, a natural and stable boundary had to be recovered for inscribing new liberal nation-states on the face of a shifting geopolitical terrain, and ethnicity seemed the likeliest candidate to this task. Popular sovereignty, this staple of postwar liberal theory, was therefore increasingly located in supposedly natural ethnic units. Israel for the Jews, Yugoslavia for the South Slavs, and so on.

Now, this fine old idea, invoked and imposed so liberally by our forebears, was compromised from the start. It neglected a fundamental fact of all nation-states, and indeed all non-tribal societies: the boundaries of the state are not coextensive with the ethnicities which historically people them, but are defined by those civilizations or societies which have secured these territories through war or conquest. The political terrain of any time you please is determined by the arbitrary walls built by power, not the natural landscape of ethnic heritage. Ethnicities are super-imposed, one upon another, are brought or are made to live with one another, and always in a hierarchy, whether it be formal or informal. That state in which a multitude of ethnicities coexist harmoniously in a condition of perfect parity and brotherly love is a pipedream; the famed multicultural society has never existed in this world, and never will.

Today, for the first time since the Islamic invasions and the Soviet incursions, the European heartland is faced with non-European claims to stretches of European soil. Many of the foreign contestants to patches of Europe have lived here entire lifetimes, sometimes several generations, and by the standards of ethnic sovereignty, this certainly forms a historical claim of a kind, particularly as their communities become more populous. The ethnostate is one possible response to this terrible development.

But the ethnostate presupposes the existence of a clearly defined ethnicity which can be given sovereignty, and even in the case of the present individual European nations, this ethnic question has not been resolved. Here in Germany, as I have learned from my hosts, there are a great many ethnic groups which might forward their claims to ethnic individuality, and which in some cases agitate for an ethnostate of their own. The Catalans have lately forced the issue in Spain, to no great success. I come to you from my adopted homeland of Sardinia; there, not only is there a long-standing dispute between many Sardinians and the Italians, but even between rival groups of the Sardinians themselves. The precept of the ethnostate appears to impregnate our politics with a principle of dissolution and fragmentation, the very opposite of that unified ethnic spirit which we Occidentals so urgently require in this moment.

Having confronted this problem, let us step back. We have spoken of ethnostate as founded on ethnicity. What is ethnicity? There is surely a phenotypical element involved in it, a certain homogeneity of appearance. But this is not enough: for between the Catalans and the Castilians, not to speak of the Tutsis and Hutus, no one will claim that we are dealing with wildly disparate phenomes, on the order of that standing between a German and an Arab or a Bushman and an Eskimo. There is a linguistic element which is often of greater importance still, but still not enough; for two ethnicities might share a common language, or one and the same ethnicity possess a variety of dialects or even in extreme cases languages, though one of them always tends to predominate. Similar observations hold for cuisine, dress, manners, religions, and customs more broadly.

There is, to put the matter briefly, no single characteristic which suffices to determine ethnicity. One is tempted to say that ethnicity is a combination of all these factors, and something more as well: a certain feeling, a sense of camaraderie and kinship holding between human beings. And while this cannot close the question, it puts us on a promising track. Let us say, provisionally, that an ethnostate is formed of a group of human beings who are joined by sensible and sentimental bonds, by a shared view of the past and a shared vision of the future, and by similarities in such matters as appearance and customs, and who, on account of these bonds, hold together, distinguish themselves from foreigners, and tend toward political and social unity.

Very well. The year is 1969, and we are upon the cusp of the decomposition of our historical Western ethnostates. Everywhere in the West one hears talk of universal brotherhood, world peace, global unity – the screed of the Enlightenment write large over European societies. Racial equality, gender equality, social equality, educational equality, income equality, the eradication of injustices – which in this newfangled language really means the eradication of differences and the levelling of the heights. Men and women are dressing in a hideous new fashion, everywhere alike, they are abandoning the worship of their gods and embracing a New Age pseudo-religion, cut and tailored for Everyman; they are emphasizing that in them which is identical to all their neighbors, and reducing themselves to the lowest common human denominator. I ask you, how could anything have emerged from this except the disappearance of Old Europe and her offspring nations? These men have forgotten the great events, the great names of their heritage. They no longer have or want to have any of those markers which once defined their ethnicities. This transformation long preceded mass immigration, it was the precondition for mass immigration. We did not lose our ethnostates because we populated them with foreigners: we lost our ethnostates – because in some terrible way, we lost our ethnicities.

When in all the history of the world has such a perversity been known, that a people not only forgets its roots, but cuts itself off from them with full will and even with a kind of horrible ecstasy? Take the most decadent of the Ancient Romans, the latest-born of the Ancient Greeks; such a one, standing upon the rubble of his civilization, was still a Roman or a Greek. His gods had been eclipsed but never denied; his past had not detached from him like a polyp, his heart had not been severed from the veins of his heritage. He was a natural being, if a moribund and emaciated one. We – what are we, if not unnatural, denatured, artificial, constructed and reduced? Tell me: when a man gets his culture from HuffPost and his cuisine at MacDonalds, his friends from Facebook and his recreation from Hollywood, his garb from Abercrombie & Fitch and his dialect from Twitter, what is he? If that is all you know about him, you could pin him to any country of the West and he would fit right in. He has grown cosmopolitan, this lucky son of modernity; he is a man of the neither here nor there, the great placeless one.

The contemporary society of this de-ethnified Everyman is in its way the very problem we are gathered here to ponder; the question of the ethnostate compels us to face this problem. Yet I we like to look at this modern conundrum through modern eyes, and so remain deep in the labyrinth when we have most need to ascend. For despite ourselves, we are the children of the same modernity which birthed this faceless Everyman.

Now, when we speak of the ethnostate, we often speak particularly of the white ethnostate. The word ‘white’ appears at first glance to tell us the specific ethnicity which concerns us. Yet one could imagine as easily a white German ethnostate as a white Australian ethnostate as a white Russian ethnostate. The ‘white’, here, while it may refer to a specific ethnicity, certainly refers to a specific race. The word ‘white’ introduces the problem of race to the ethnostate, it opens the question of race. The racial question, as opposed to the ethnic question, is today the special preserve of the New Right or the Alternative Right. The mainstream right is or pretends to be utterly oblivious to this problem. The left likes to presuppose race where it suits them, and to contest it indignantly where it does not. This puts an enormous responsibility on us to critically and impartially address the matter, and I fear we often default. In the first place, we have a variety of complicating motivations for occupying ourselves with race, ranging from rhetoric to strategy to ideology. The most obvious reason is that race, as opposed to ethnicity, can be defined and discussed scientifically. Anyone in this room, I warrant, can indicate several of the calculable markers from the literature which scientifically distinguish the races, such as IQ, time preference, muscle reactivity, disease susceptibility and psychopathy. This foundation in science lends the idea of race an apparent solidity which the idea of ethnicity clearly lacks.

There is thus an enormous temptation to overestimate the extent of calculable race – to suppose that if this or that marker can be reduced to mathematically verifiable data, then so can every distinguishing quality of human groups. By this view, man and his society are deterministic machines produced by evolutionary pressures, themselves but the complex issue of the physico-chemical makeup of the world, and it is only a matter of time before all human things will have been reduced to a set of nice, neat, precise scientific formulae for the manipulation of our formidable technical skill.

Yet here we must remind ourselves of a painful fact: white countries are the only countries on the globe that seem hellbent on disbanding their racial unity through openness, ‘multiculturalism’, cosmopolitanism, mass migration, labor mobility, globalism, and the whole mess of liberal and neoliberal slogans. Any man who holds to the scientistic, geneticist view of humanity, is therefore compelled to ask what racial element has led white populations to betray themselves so wantonly and almost universally. We white folk are, it would seem, racially compromised.

This view is a recipe for resignation, if not despair. Even overwhelming social and cultural currents can be resisted and redirected, as history attests – but what can we hope to achieve before our racial limitations, this bedrock of biological and mathematical granite? The best we can do is hope that the same environmental pressures which produced these racial flaws in our bodies will work to undo the same in the bodies of our children and grandchildren. But this is essentially out of our control. The idea of a white ethnostate appears then to be something we can dream of and hope for, but nothing we can with our own hands and holy will achieve.

If this puts bitterness in your heart and shadow in your eye, all the better. The wisdom of resignation is always dubious, for the future is wide, and nothing if not inscrutable. We are obliged to look the causes of our resignation full in the face: what are the natural limits of this scientific idea of race?

Scientific race is either stable or unstable from an evolutionary perspective: it is either very difficult to change, so that all substantial changes to it will come in the course of millennia or longer, or else it is very easy to change, so that the evolution of a race may transpire over the course of several centuries or even several generations.

If race is stable, how explain the vast and radical changes our Western societies have undergone in the past decades? How explain the abyss yawning between the ethnostates of 1919 and the ethnostates of 1969? Why did it require five thousand years of the known Western past for this tragic flaw to reveal itself in the space of five decades? The scientistic estimations of an abiding physiological race cannot explain to us our present dilemma, whatever their value might be in addressing issues peripheral to the same.

Those who are particularly enamored with Darwinism here fall back on a view of race as unstable, as an essentially ephemeral or volatile genetic combination, such as might alter on the whim of chance or fortune. The violent intervention of two world wars, the unnaturally decreased mortality owing to our remarkable advances in industry and medicine, and any number of other social and material factors have by this view rendered us racially divergent from the men of two or three generations ago. If this is so, however, what is this race we are seeking to save, which evidently did not belong to our grandparents, and will not belong to our grandchildren? Why should we care to preserve our own impossibly frail and self-destructive race, which is the mechanistic result of soft times, and reveals no trace of nobility, independence, genius, freedom, heroism or even dignity? Do we merely wish to preserve our so-called race because it once was great, and so could be bred to become great again? Very well, I see some sense in this. The jeweler does not cast away the gold merely because it is intermixed with iron; he seeks to purify it. But then, can this same thing not be said for any race on the planet, any human material you please, African, Asiatic, Arab, or Aboriginal? And is this not the universalistic, multicultural, liberal Enlightenment creed precisely? What could possibly lead a modern European, by such an indiscriminate view as this, to give a damn about his whiteness?

The evolutionist here has recourse to the concept of ‘genetics’; his claim, whether he makes it explicit or not, is that we are all instinctually invested, from an evolutionary perspective, in passing on our genes. I confess, I find this even somewhat mystifying. Supposing some god could guarantee you the eternal perpetuation of your precise genetics to all your progeny for all of time to come, with the single caveat that all these children of your gene pool must exist forever in a state of dreamless slumber, passing their lives in a coma – well, I think that rather neatly satisfies the so-called ‘genetic imperative’ – but what human being would ever consent to such a bargain?

Friends, I will tell you my view of this matter: man is larger than his genes; race is deeper than genetics. The scientistic view of race tends to persuade men that their entire state of being is rigidly defined by elements of their genetic composition. But it always measures what is, not what could be, and is thus prone to conflating what is for what must be. A single example must suffice. It is tempting, looking at the sorry state of modern Western man, to conclude that he is the unhappy heir of profound bodily and spiritual disorders, such as obesity and emasculation, susceptibility to diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, immune deficiencies, corporeal and mental enervation, hormonal imbalances, proclivity to depression, and so on. But it has been demonstrated in innumerable individual cases that seemingly very profound pathologies, which are often proclaimed incurable by our scientistic medical establishment with all its billions of dollars in research, can be resolved by a simple return to the fruit and fat of the land: a healthy diet of whole, unprocessed foods, based more or less on that of our ancestors. May be there is more of them in us than we know; may be we are in need of but the right intellectual and spiritual and artistic diet to cure us of our malaise of soul. Whatever the case, we must not take the scientistic outlook and its conclusions as though they were god-given truth; we must free ourselves from the meretricious power of ‘scientific studies.’ For truly, we human beings know our potential only as we have made trial of it. Then let us all be audacious experimenters, and let us never lose our good cheer.

And above all, let us begin anew. What is the ethnostate? The ethnostate is a principle for social and political organization founded on a basis of ethnic homogeneity. It takes the semblance of a universal concept: it is not a concept ‘for us’ alone, but intends a juridical principle of international scope for all the nations or peoples of the world who would seek recourse to it. It is, we are sometimes tempted to claim, a basic human right. Against those who oppose this idea, we can point to existing ethnostates, most particularly Japan and Israel. These nations are founded on a basis of ethnic exclusivity; they establish ethnic conditions for such basic matters as immigration and citizenship, and insist on these laws with no qualms and with full cognizance of right. We are then seeking something which is not novel and would not be unique to us.

Yet no where else in the world, I wager, will we find a concept like that of the ethnostate, save as it has been imported from the West. The Japanese do not seek to maintain an ethnostate; they seek to maintain Japan. It is not ethnicity which concerns them so much as the Japanese. As for Israel, the Jews are ever a special case, and while Israel truly can be called a Jewish ethnostate, there are Jews enough who do not wish to see the same principle extended to any other people of the world, and perceive in all other rising ethnic consciousness, and especially in our own, a threat.

Not so with us. We do not begrudge any people its plot of land and its special forms of life and government, so long as it minds its own affairs and leaves others to their own. We only ask the same for ourselves, in a spirit of simple parity: suum cuique, each to his own. Our concept of the ethnostate is magnanimous, comprehensive and comprehending, universal. It is one of those ideas one likes to call abstract, for it fishes what is or could be common to mankind out of the jostling sea of diverse societies and human ways; we prefer rather to call it a philosophical idea. The idea of an ethnostate itself is a Western idea, it is ours; its birth is as inconceivable in the great East as in the great South. It grows from the central taproot of our heritage, and goes straight back to our own deep past, halcyon Hellas, that Greek idea of justice and the just regime, which in consummate audacity risked the hazard of hazards, casting itself beyond the boundaries of the Aegean city-states and seeking the transhistorical and superhuman truth regarding human societies. And paradoxically, in that seemingly universalizing movement, it gave birth to the specially and characteristically European soul.

We are the heirs of our ancestors. The idea of the ethnostate is ours, and it is for all the world. Such is the largess of the European spirit; such is the bounty of our spirit still, even in this, our most inglorious hour.

As the bearers of this new idea, we are also its sentinels and shepherds. It is our duty to give form, meaning, direction and grounding to this idea, which – I cannot emphasize this strongly enough – may inform the new political paradigm for the era which is destined to replace Modernity, the era even now upon us. An idea is like a child: it shall have its own life, and one day go where it pleases quite despite our best intentions and aims; but like a child, it will be guided in its later career by the ‘education’, the onward leading, that we have given it. We are tasked then to gain some clarity about the notion of the state or civilization founded on or formed around the ethnic principle. Yet we have only arrived at such a task, because we ourselves have forfeited our ethnostates.

Then, friends, comrades, I say to you, no ethnostate can possibly emerge among us until we have first achieved the conditions for the same, which are contained in its very name. We who have lost our ethnicities must first rediscover and remake an ethnicity. And before our task can even be properly understood, not to say undertaken, we must ask the question yet again, and now must risk at least some poor answer: what is an ethnicity?

In the spirit proposed above, let us ascend to our roots. The word ‘ethnicity’ comes down to us from the Greek, τὸ ἔθνος, a kind or genre or group bound by common ways or common nature. Homer used it in many places: ἔθνος λαῶν, a host or men or warriors; ἔθνεα νεκρῶν, the hosts of the dead in Hades; ἔθνος μελισσάων, a swarm of bees. It is related but not identical to the Greek τὸ ἔθος, use, custom, habitual way of being or doing, from which we derive our ideas of ethos and ethics. Both ἔθνος and ἔθος most likely share a common root, the verb ἔθω, which has the meaning of doing something usually or commonly or habitually; that which becomes natural through long repetition or that which is repetitive because it is the product of nature. Thus Plato could use ἔθνος to refer to the classes or craftsmen of the Republic. It naturally came to take on the meaning of a people or a tribe; Aristotle would speak of tὰ ἔθνεα to refer to the barbarians, the non-Greek folk. In the Greek New Testament, the translator of the the Book of Acts uses the word sometimes in the sense of the Gentiles. Xenophon in at least one place uses the word to signify the genders.

Ethnos is the natural confluence of nature and custom, which in its highest and rarest form results in a culture. We modern Westerners have lost our right customs. We retain our nature. Yet nature, ὴ φύσις, that which emerges or is generated by a thing’s being, can be fulfilled or it can be thwarted; it is not governed by a mathematizable scientific law. Nature, and most especially human nature, is that which might be consummated, realized, fulfilled, or else perverted, rendered incomplete, crippled and botched. The individual human being as such does not always contain within himself the power to become excellent, the best, ἂριστος. On the contrary, the human being attains this with strange difficulty and rarity, even as compared to the other animals; his arrival to his excellence depends, among other things, on the character of his people, his city, his family, his upbringing. The quality of being well-born, εὐγενής, is more common to some tribes or peoples, some ethnoi, than to others; some peoples are given to excellence. We of the West, we sons and daughters of Europa, have forgotten or defiled our habitual ways of being and doing, and in consequence we have damaged or hindered or suppressed our nature as a people, our excellence as a people and in particular the excellence of the best among us. Our betrayal of our ethos, our customs and our common ways, has led to a terrible decadence in our ethnos and the occultation of its native greatness. We shall regain that greatness only if we regain its ethic and cultural underpinnings. We require a new ethnic unity if we are to neutralize the poison of so-called individualism.

A question is thus put to each of us: what is our ethnicity, what is our people? Where do its boundaries lie? Shall our idea of ethnicity work as a lever upon our differences? Shall it be, as it has been in the dark moments of our past, the Germans against the French, the French against the English, the English against the continent – the Americans for the Americans? Or worse still – shall the Catalans chip away at their little plot of land, as the Sardinians, the Oranians and Idahoans do the same in every nation of the Eurosphere, while hostile states grow around them, ready to snap them up? Unity means everything in this game. We have seen in the other speeches this evening how the idea of the ethnostate might encourage precisely this kind of fractalization and vulnerability. It is this that the idea of the white ethnostate attempts to defuse.

Whiteness, however, the idea of our race itself, is not a reality, so much as a task. For whiteness is not yet and has never been an ethnos, a coincidence of nature and custom. At this present moment, whiteness, I fear, is only what remains when custom has been subtracted from a European people and its nature suppressed. Whiteness is the blanching of the face of Western Civilization when the blood of its cultures has drained out. Or put positively – whiteness is as the clay upon which we may form new customs and new culture. At present, it is but formless and inert; but we have a start.

For there is a feeling, a sense of brotherhood, which is emerging between all the Europeans or European-descended persons of the Right who meet one another on any shore of the world. We already stand on a common ground, wherever we disembark; we already meet as friends, almost even as kith and kinsmen; we already have beneath our feet the first tender roots of what might grow into a new common culture. Despite our differences, the many countries and many origins from which we hail, yet all of us – Germans, Swedes, Canadians, Italians, New Zealanders – we look each other in the face – and recognize one another.

Friends, I do not believe any generation in all the known history of the world has ever faced so strange, so unheard of, so fateful a task: the task of recreating itself, of reconjuring its people’s soul back from out of the land of shadows. The dark enormity of our need must not be allowed to eclipse the bright potential of our purpose. We, who would be the bearers of a new flame, the stewards of a new fate, the midwifes of a new beauty for our people, must strive to live, in our own and personal lives, as if we were the men to come. How do we want them to be, our children, our scion? How to speak, to act, to dress, to worship, to write, to eat, to move, to interact with one another, to court, to love, to create? Our manners, the way we behave and comport ourselves, our health of body and mind, mens sana in corpore sano as the Romans would say, the spirit in which we meet and treat one another, and our enemies – all of this matters, is of primary importance to the creation of an authentic ethnostate. We have the chance, such as is rare in the world, if ever it has even existed as it exists now, to found new art and arts, new morals and mores, now costumes and customs. Modernity makes everything disposable; its productions are made to be destroyed. Whatever withstands the fury of our times will come from the hands of men who live in contempt of Modernity – build to purpose and who build to last. We today have such a possibility, if only we will make it our own. In what more promising a time could any man hope to live, who has yet fire in his heart and light in his mind? There is but one question which regulates us: what are the limits of our vision, our talent and our means? The first is given to us by our nature, the second by our will, and the third – the third is the very future which we are fighting to secure.

So. The year is 2069. What do you see? Looking out over the West, what vision greets your eyes fifty years from today? Have these lands succumbed to chaos and catastrophe, fallen to pieces along the lines of too many ethnicities, too many languages, too many political and religious squabbles – too much of the past, and not enough future? Have they been plucked up to the mastery of foreign powers, some banner wearing white and blue and red, or perhaps the green rapine of the star and the sickle, if not the crimson of the sickle and the hammer? Have the sons and daughters of Europe subjected their once high, free hearts to the tyranny of a soulless, rootless plutocracy? Or do we not see across the globe – the fair, renewed, rejuvenated rise of a great-souled people, who, once again and for the thousandth time, touching some mysterious fire in their deepest origins, have lifted themselves phoenix-like from the ash, more unified now than ever before, and set out once more to manifest in this world something worthy of their far-flung fame, something deserving of memory, of reverence, of awe?

What do we call this hope of ours? It has borne many names; it will bear as many more. Call it the white ethnostate, if you will. Whatever its name, this reborn Civilization of the European peoples seems to us so very distant, so very hard, perhaps so very unlikely; it walks upon the razor’s edge, and the abyss gapes on either side. But I say to you, friends: no more could a man of 1919 have constructed 1969 from his mere imagination, than we any particular future from out of our sordid and dismal present. No one who had never seen such a thing emerge would ever predict the oak tree from the acorn; to a naive view, that tree is a kind of miracle. And human affairs are thousandfold more complex. What’s more, they have our will in them. Our people, our ethnicity, our culture will grow, half spontaneously and half deliberately from the actions that we take today, the words that we spend, the ideas that we nurture, the way that we live out our lives and the example that we make of them. Then let us take these seeds, and let us plant them well.