All politics is identity politics. So-called ‘conservatives’ who claim to oppose ‘identity politics’ in all its forms are either lying or are arguing against the practice of politics itself. But what is politics? Carl Schmitt in Concept of the Political offers us an answer to this question: “The specific distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.”
Schmitt’s answer is brilliant because it gets to the core of why politics is even a thing in the first place. We do politics to defend our way of life and those we share it with (friends) against the forces which threaten it and them (enemies). And Schmitt makes it crystal clear that he isn’t talking about personal friends and enemies, but existential friends and enemies. In other words, politics is groups organising protection for communities and societies in which their shared form of existence can thrive. This is what I mean by stating that all politics is identity politics — if you aren’t protecting those with which you share a way of life (with which you therefore identify) from the forces which threaten their particular form of existence, you aren’t actually doing anything political.
Calls to rise above identity politics from conservatives are always coupled with statements like “regardless of colour or creed, we are all American/Australian/British/etc” — this is not rising above identity politics, it’s merely an assertion of civic identity as politically fundamental. So called ‘critiques’ of identity politics from the Left take two common forms: either the classical Marxist assertion of class identity as the only identity of political relevance, or the globalist-liberal assertion of a universal humanity within which any further distinctions of political identity are to be actively dissolved. Deep ecologists go a step further and assert a non-anthropocentric political identification with the Earth’s entire ecosystem. In the final analysis all politics is identity politics. The only question is: which identity?
Further complexifying what I am calling the fundamental political question — the question of identity — is the phenomenon for which leftist academics coined the term ‘intersectionality.’ Intersectionality refers to the fact that people have multiple dimensions of sociopolitical identity: race, ethnicity, class, gender, religion, sexuality, etc. The question of identity is therefore a contextual one of priority and emphasis. For example, in an ethnically homogeneous society during peacetime the ethnic aspect of one’s way of life is not under direct existential threat. In such a society divisions of class or religion will appear the most politically pertinent. However, today all ethnic groups of European descent face a mass immigration agenda which will reduce them to minorities in their own countries. Under such circumstances, a politics which only focuses upon divisions of class or religion no longer appears adequate to preserve one’s way of life.
It must be stated that leftist discourse which uses the term ‘intersectionality’ attaches to these dimensions of identity a framework of relative ‘privilege’ and ‘discrimination.’ Such a framework presupposes the ideal political identity of a universal humanity by interpreting these identities as constructs with no genuine basis in anything but exploitation. As though the only reason we have conflict between groups or even meaningfully distinct social identities is due to the arbitrary oppression of one by another, not due to fundamentally incompatible ways of life rooted in the actual distinctions of race, religion, sexuality, etc. which these identities correspond to.
Conceiving of intersectional identity through this victimological framework is a reduction of identity to relations of power, as if any positive assertions of who we are and the type of society we want to live in are invalid unless they aspire to the ideal of dissolving sociopolitical distinctions within a universal human identity. This is why such ideological commitments have forced Western academia into pseudoscientific denials of biological race and gender. This ideology presupposes the non-validity of political identity outside of their victimological universalism and therefore refuses to even subject it to argument. This anti-White ideology dominant on the contemporary Left is not based in fact or defended as such; it is a pre-rational existential commitment to universal humanitarianism. We can therefore reject this victimological framing of identity simply with the existential assertion that a universal human identity which requires the dissolution of our way of life cannot represent it.
If the security and flourishing of the White Christian Anglo-Australian heteronormative society I identify with (and its analogues across the West) is deemed incompatible with the ideal of universal humanity by victimological universalists, then they are my political enemies. Their appeals to the victimhood of whichever sociopolitical identities that aren’t compatible with my own are rationalisations to attack my people and way of life, and I owe them no regard in the same way that we would owe the propaganda of a foreign invading army intent on genociding my people no regard. Yet unfortunately most of my fellow White men who share my sense of identity don’t share the clarity of my political resolve. If they did, we would no longer face this existential threat because we would have already defeated it. The question therefore is how to teach my people that we both can and must take our own side to defend ourselves and our way of life.
There are many who agree with me that my way of life, and the way of life of all self-respecting White people is under attack and that this is a horrible thing. In fact, I think most White people would agree with this if you asked them. The sense of ‘global citizenship’ in universal humanity is by no means universal, despite its pervasiveness among the cultural and sociopolitical elite. But whilst the majority do not identify with victimological universalism, they also don’t identify with a coherent opposition movement. I think there is only one ideological form which an opposition movement feasibly capable of challenging the regime we are ruled by can presently take, and I will argue my case for it by first breaking down the three main confusions which prevent people from coming to the conclusions which I will then outline at the end of this piece.
In its attempt to ‘unite’ a ‘diverse’ citizenry under one political identity, it necessarily must reject the significance of all identities other than citizenship itself. The relationship between the state and an individual citizen is therefore the only source from which civic identitarianism can define the shared way of life it claims to defend. This reduces it to a defense of the state’s ability to guarantee civil rights and common economic interests. The implicit existential claim of civic identitarianism is therefore that a shared interest in individual autonomy, equal treatment under the law and economic growth is all that fundamentally defines a people. The problem, of course, is that it isn’t. Ethnoracial and religious identities don’t magically liquidate themselves just because there is a political movement which tries to pretend they don’t matter.
Societies with different racial compositions wouldn’t be so different from one another if the racial differences in attitudes, thought-processes and preferred ways of life weren’t just as different. Every country on Earth wouldn’t have a founding stock of shared racial character, from which it historically derives its national identity, if the sharing of ancestry and therefore racial characteristics didn’t also provide them with the sense of a shared way of life. The concept of “multiculturalism” wouldn’t have had any cause to be created in the first place if ethnic minorities weren’t organically resistant to assimilation and absorption into national identities derived from an ethnoracial character to which they are alien.
Civic identitarianism makes an implicit demand upon ethnic majorities that the only portion of their way of life which can be preserved in the ‘national identity’ is that which is inclusive to ethnic minorities, and that failing this sacrifice the “nation” will be “divided.” The question for ethnic majorities therefore is what the point of preserving a “nation” is if the price is destroying the very ethnic identity from which it is derived, giving it its historical identity and social character in the first place? The only implied answer to this question offered seems to be that ethnic minorities will be politically united as enemies of the ethnic majority otherwise, undermining the state’s authority by reducing it to a site of ethnic conflict. In other words, that ethnic groups for the sake of social stability should surrender their ethnic identities to the state in exchange for the preservation of a stable legal and economic order.
However, the Left’s offer of explicit protection against potential hostility from ethnic majorities by actively undermining their dominant sociopolitical position is far more politically attractive than civic identitarianism to ethnic minorities, as we can see in their voting patterns in all Western countries. Why would ethnic minorities surrender their ethnic identity to civic identitarianism if they don’t have to? The Left is offering a way for them to be included in their host nation as part of a coalition of minorities which enables them to preserve their ethnic identity. It would only become rational for ethnic minorities to surrender their identities to some inclusive “national identity” if the alternative was being subjected to a hostile dominant ethnic majority, the very thing which is suppressed by a political process in which civic identitarianism is the only form of opposition that the ethnic majority offers against the Left’s victimological universalism.
Civic identitarianism therefore is a failed attempt at compromise with an enemy which has no strategic interest in accepting it. In addition to this, it isn’t existentially compelling. It can’t offer ethnic majorities or minorities the preservation of their way of life and it offers no meaningful distinction in ultimate aims with the universal humanitarianism of the Left. If anyone, no matter their ethnic, racial or religious identity, can share the “national identity,” then the national identity is functionally inclusive to any member of the human race. It is at its core in existential agreement with its supposed political opposition, which is why it can’t motivate anything close to the same moral confidence, courage, commitment or will to fight as its opponent.
It is no surprise that those who claim to “oppose identity politics” lack a compelling conception of identity, just as it is no surprise that an anti-political ideology destroys its own political leverage to compromise with the enemy in the very compromise it offers. These contradictions are the consequence of failing to grasp the insight that all politics is identity politics. Without this insight, genuinely political thought and therefore action isn’t even possible.
Despite activism being the form of politics from which significant change fundamentally arises, electoralist thinking dominates how most people conceive of political change — within the framework of the party-voter relationship. This constrains political thinking to the process and possibilities of election campaigns, a domain where a paradigm of legitimacy has already been set by institutionalised activists. The key to transcend these limitations of electoralism is in developing an understanding of legitimacy — not just what it is, but how it is constructed and, most importantly, challenged.
Legitimacy is the normative categorisation of political belief, the psychosocial construct of what ideological orientations are ‘valid’ participants in political discourse. Stances which aren’t legitimised by the social institutions which impose common terminology upon political discourse and confer status upon the categorical distinctions this terminology generates are non-viable within electoralist politics. In this sense elected politicians are far more followers than they are leaders.
The other side of electoralist politics, the voters, are also subject to the same social institutions, albeit in different ways. The expression of political belief in any social setting is at least in some sense subject to a paradigm of legitimacy. It might be more controversial for a politician to say something “racist,” but your average Joe Public also faces social consequences for the same indiscretion. The human psyche is not fundamentally rational; fear of ostracism and the will to conform create strong subconscious impulses to internalise the social norms one is subject to. The average voter also lacks political agency due to insufficient intelligence and/or motivation to develop a sophisticated and informed political understanding, rendering him largely incapable of forming political identities outside of the status quo.
The real driving force in politics is not the party-voter relationship, it is the social institutions which generate discursive paradigms of political legitimacy. And therefore the task of opponents to this paradigm is to challenge these social institutions for influence over political discourse. This is what differentiates activism from electoralism. The activist fights on the level of propaganda, narrative and terminology, not election campaigns. And this is the level of politics at which the anti-White agenda must be fought. White identity politics are not simply being defeated at the ballot box — they aren’t even being contested at the ballot box because they have been delegitimised.
All the main social policy agendas of our time are the explicit product of activism — ‘anti-racism,’ feminism, environmentalism, ‘LGBT Rights,’ etc. Activists successfully created new terminological determinations of legitimacy and imposed them upon conventional political discourse. These activists didn’t directly seek elected positions to exercise political power. Instead they built advocacy networks that organised sympathetic academics, journalists and donors to pressure governments and other influential social institutions to conform to their ideological demands and in turn impose them upon society at large.
In the first half of the 20th century being openly “racist,” “chauvinistic” and “homophobic” was socially and politically legitimate in all Western countries. In fact, not being these things was in many cases illegitimate. The shift in this paradigm of legitimacy was the product of human will and organisation — the social norms of an entire civilisation don’t just change themselves by some mysterious process beyond human agency; they are changed by committed and focused groups of people with a shared agenda. These groups are united by an existential mission to secure their way of life against forces they perceive to threaten it. It makes complete sense that Jews, non-Whites, communists and the sexually perverse don’t identify with our White Christian civilisation and want to destroy its identity in order to replace it with one more inclusive to them. Hence why they formed activist groups and pursued their cultural revolution against it. They (the radical Left) understood that all politics is identity politics, that politicians are followers not leaders and that voters have no agency. The Right failed to stop them because it failed to come to terms with these simple truths and organise an adequate defense to contest it at the level of activism rather than merely electorally.
This type of thinking comes in two main forms: economistic and managerial. The archetypal form of economistic structuralism is Marxism, a theory of politics which views all ideology as a mere manifestation of class antagonism. To Marxists, ideological constructs, such as assertions of ‘rights’ or the ‘national interest,’ are effectively illusions designed to solicit the identification of the proletariat (people who make their living primarily through labor) with the class interests of the bourgeoisie (people who make their living primarily through investment). Marxists (and other economistic populists who apply this Marxian style of analysis without necessarily identifying with the ‘Marxist’ label) on this basis attempt to explain the entire ideological direction of the political establishment in these terms under the assumption that the interests of ‘big business’ or ‘Wall St.’ in maintaining a class structure which they dominate is at the root of it all.
This explanation is attractive because if we “follow the money” we see the political industry (the mainstream media, NGOs, think tanks, lobbyists, ‘official campaigns’, etc.) is funded primarily by wealthy members of the capital-owning class. But just because these donors have economic interests doesn’t mean their political motivations are entirely limited to their economic interests. For example, a wealthy donor may also be a Jew who is deeply concerned about his ethnic interests. The institutional actors within the political industry also have motivations beyond merely serving the economic interests of their donors. A Black Lives Matter activist who receives funding under the pretext of campaigning for the interests of Black Americans is not going to pay anywhere near as much regard to the economic interests of his donors as he does to the actual racial issues his organisation was created for.
Political analysts committed to economism have attempted tortured explanations for how all of this “identity politics” is funded by the capital-owning class to “divide us” and prevent the “multiracial working class” from uniting against the elite, or at the very least to distract the public from economic issues. But this definitely isn’t what’s motivating the activist groups who have now amassed such considerable social and political influence that donating to them is now perceived as the moral responsibility of wealthy elites within their social milieu. In other words, donating to ‘legitimate’ activist groups as determined by the ideological paradigm of victimological universalism is now a social signal of political in-group loyalty among wealthy elites. Activist groups have also largely entrenched their influence within big business itself through ‘anti-discrimination’ law, enabling them to impose their ideological values over the corporate world itself. Once corporate commitment to ‘diversity and inclusion’ is in place, it becomes suspiciously against the ‘values’ of the company to raise objections to suggested donations to activist groups which perpetuate the same ethos.
Economistic explanations therefore simply aren’t adequate to account for the role these activist groups play, which is why the Left has largely abandoned classical Marxism as a theoretical framework in favour of the victimological intersectionalism I described earlier. Not only do the wealthy have greater existential concerns than merely defending their class interests — they are also subject to social pressures themselves, and are limited in their ability to resist cultural conventions in management within the companies they own.
The second type of structuralist, the managerialist, has a sophisticated explanation for how activist groups have entrenched themselves in the power structure to such an extent that it can override the economic interests of the wealthy. Managerialists view the bureaucratic centralisation of power as the primary structural driver of regime ideology, so for managerialists the “woke” agenda is a mere pretext for this more fundamental structural dynamic. Where it is dubious at best to claim that activists who practice “identity politics” serve the economic interests of the bourgeoisie, it is quite clear that they are expanding bureaucratic oversight and centralising its power. Correlation doesn’t equal causation of course, but this theory at the very least is worth considering due to this clear concurrence.
The central argument against managerialist explanations is quite simple — power is not an end in itself; it is a tool, and anyone who treats it as an end in itself makes themselves a tool for those who use it as a tool. The notion that bureaucratic structures generate ideological innovations as excuses to expand implies either that they have some kind of magical self-awareness beyond human agency or that there is a conspiratorial clique of fixated psychopaths who have no loyalty to anyone or anything but the process of bureaucratic centralisation itself. Neither of these explanations are plausible. The far more logical explanation is that ideologies are designed with human agency and as a product of human existential concerns.
Instead of conceiving of politics as a system or power structure, we can think about it in terms of motivations and identities. Using this existential rather than structural lense reveals a logic for thinking about how dissident groups can affect political change. An existential theory of politics doesn’t primarily focus upon the material facts of power; instead it focuses upon what drives participation in the political process. Resources don’t direct themselves; motivated groups direct them towards defending their core interests. Power is not an end in itself; it is a tool, and anyone who treats it as an end in itself makes themselves a tool for those who use it as a tool.
Political actors who are merely motivated by the attainment of personal status and wealth don’t drive the ideological direction of politics; in this respect they are mere resources to be directed by motivated groups who have an interest other than power itself, which power is a mere means to the end of. This is because the normative structure of the social spaces and discourses which personal status is attained within are set by activist groups who actively organise against the status quo towards that end. However, if all you’re driven by is personal status, you will seek it within the status quo — that’s where the status is. And if all you’re driven by is wealth, the last thing you want to do is move against the ideological status quo where it doesn’t directly relate to your economic interests, creating unnecessary political enemies. It’s in the strategic interest of wealthy elites who care primarily about remaining wealthy elites to adapt to the ideological status quo and leverage this support as a political shield for their self-interested behaviour.
Whilst it is obviously true that elite economic and managerial actors seek to defend their structural positions and this has a major impact upon economic policymaking, we can only understand what fundamentally drives the non-economic portion of regime ideology by recognising the motivations of the activist groups which have created it or seek to change it. Economic and managerial structures adapt themselves to human agency, because they are a product of human agency. If activist groups are well-organised enough to legitimate imposing their normative goals upon a managerial structure, managerial structures will tend to integrate rather than resist them. Therefore the agenda of activist groups in the final analysis can only truly be resisted by ideologically opposed activist groups. And what fundamentally motivates these activist groups is grasped by returning to our axiom that all politics is identity politics.
The Dialectical Centrality of White Identity
An examination of the ideological priorities of the regime demonstrates that a positive assertion of White racial interests is the most fundamental negation of current order. There are many examples to draw upon to show this. I will walk us through a few of them. Consider first some of the other stated priorities of the regime: combatting ‘climate change,’ feminism, ‘LGBT Rights,’ upholding ‘liberal democratic values,’ national security… All of these things are compromised when they clash with the anti-White goals of victimological universalism.
Studies show that immigrating from the third world to the first world quintuples one’s ‘carbon footprint,’ and increasing the populations of Western countries through mass immigration only makes their emission-reduction targets less feasible. Nevertheless, the regime cannot stop mass immigration because that would be “racist.” Non-white immigrants are far less tolerant of both ‘women’s rights’ and ‘LGBT Rights’ and also commit sexual assault at rates far in excess of Whites, yet the regime cannot stop mass immigration because that would be “racist.” Foreign illiberal regimes are criticised by Western governments for their lack of an open public discourse and political process, yet Western governments also persecute pro-White dissidents and try to block their participation in both public discourse and the political process because they are “racist.” Western governments claim to be deeply concerned about foreign influence, infiltration and acts of terrorism for the sake of national security, yet they won’t stop importing immigrant populations from hostile nations because that would be “racist.”
Even at the height of public hysteria during the Covid pandemic, when the world was locking down to contain the spread of the virus, the American government all of a sudden stopped caring about the public health crisis that they were willing to grind society to a halt for because George Floyd died and ‘Black Lives Matter’ being able to ‘protest’ (riot) was higher priority. The CDC even declared “racism” to be a “public health crisis” in order to justify not enforcing lockdowns upon Black rioters. There is nothing more important to the regime than combatting “racism” — and “racism” is now basically defined as White people existing with any semblance of dignity. According to victimological universalism, White people simply wanting what is good for themselves is “racist,” and there is no graver moral transgression than racism.
Even just considering the meaning of the word ‘racism’ itself reveals a lot. A ‘nationalist’ is someone who wants the interests of his nation put first, a ‘socialist’ is someone who wants the interests of the average member of society put first, but a ‘racist’ is never defined as simply someone who wants the interests of their race put first. Apparently a ‘racist’ is someone who maliciously hates other races. But a Black person who wants the interests of Black people put first or a Jew who wants the interests of Jews put first isn’t ‘racist’ apparently, somehow only a White person who wants White interests put first is. The word ‘racist’ doesn’t have a consistent meaning because its ideological role is not to imply a universal moral standard, but to deny the legitimacy of any positive assertion of White Identity. In fact, the meaning of the word ‘racist’ is now morphing even beyond that to now refer to all White people not actively sympathising with non-White interests. It’s not merely illegitimate for White people to assert their collective racial interests, they are also increasingly being obligated to actively deny them and work against them.
This ideological prioritisation of opposing the assertion of White racial interests implies an existential recognition by the regime that there is no form of opposition to it more fundamental than White identity. Of course there are other existential claims which are also incompatible with the current order: heteronormative ‘family values,’ Christianity, ethnocultural conceptions of national identity, the assertion of civil liberties, and the younger generation’s desire for the same prosperity and social mobility their parent’s generation enjoyed in its youth. These claims are all valid and I sympathise with them, but their incompatibility is with an ideology built upon a fundamentally anti-White agenda — without delegitimising this core priority, the justification for the current order remains intact. The political assertion of White racial interests is also fully compatible with these concerns, as it is in the interests of the White race to secure and maintain heteronormative family values, reverence for its religion, the political empowerment of its people, and access to prosperity and social mobility for its youth.
There are also some nationalists who largely agree with my analysis of the problem, but refuse to embrace a fundamentally racial identity in favour of an ethnocultural one. The central problem with this approach is that it merely opposes the regime at the level of the nation-state rather than at the level of Western political culture in toto. The exact same anti-White ideology controls the paradigm of legitimacy in every Western country. This ideology is not an organic product of any single particular state but emerged and is sustained as a product of a common Western political culture. The activist struggle to delegitimise it therefore must also be waged at the same scale, a scale which only a White racial identity can encompass. This does not require us to abandon our ethnic identities of course; it only requires us to develop mutual sympathy between all White ethnicities in the existential recognition of our shared racial interests and ultimately our shared fate due to our shared political culture.
Many White Christians claim that race isn’t so important to them and that they see their religious identity as a comprehensive basis for their politics. I am a Christian myself and I also want to live in a society which has Christian moral norms, but most fundamentally my identity and way of life is under attack for its racial and not its religious character. White Christian children are not being indoctrinated by the education system with Christian guilt; they are being indoctrinated with White guilt. The enemy attacks us as White people, so we can only defend ourselves against these attacks as White people. That means you have no choice but to ally with your non-Christian fellow Whites to defend yourself against the anti-White agenda.
Christianity is the White man’s religion of course, and so defending it is fully compatible with White advocacy — but Christian politics which refuses to align itself with the pro-White struggle is siding with the ideological agenda of the Left against White racial interests. This is not only unacceptable to anyone who wants to secure a future for White people against the hostility we face, but it should be unacceptable to Christians opposed to the Left’s support for the breakdown of heteronormative family values and the privileged influence of Jewish, Islamic and other non-Christian religious communities under the guise of “multiculturalism.” Christianity is disrespected in contemporary Western societies relative to religious practices associated with racial minorities in large part because it is perceived as the White man’s religion.
Christians and others of a humanitarian persuasion also raise moral concerns that because the assertion of White Identity divides humanity into White and non-White, that this necessitates the dehumanisation of non-Whites. The first problem with this is that no one ever seems to raise these same moral concerns with regard to identitarianism from other racial groups. But for the sake of argument let’s imagine these moral concerns are raised not only towards White identity, but universally towards all forms of racial identitarianism. When considered in this universal form, the solution presents itself quite clearly — a mutual recognition between racial identitarians of their respective concerns. We know this is possible because there are over 200 countries on Earth and with very few exceptions they are all in a state of peace with one another. And just as states agree to mutually respect one another’s sovereignty for the mutual benefit of peaceful relations, racial groups can do the same. States do not have to sacrifice their sovereignty, identity or sense of self-interest for the sake of this mutual recognition, and neither do racial groups.
Now of course the negotiation of mutual recognition is not always successful, and conflict is the consequence — but if one side’s attempt at negotiating peace in good faith is rebuffed by a belligerent and unreasonable enemy, then they have no choice. This is likely a position White identitarians will one day find themselves in, but if and when we do, it will be justified. Conflict is costly and destructive, so negotiating peaceful relations where possible is in everyone’s best interest. The point, however, is that White people are not aggressing against anyone simply by asserting that they want to preserve their identity and way of life — conflict only becomes necessary with those who refuse to acknowledge the reasonableness of this demand. But if White racial interests are not asserted with any force of will and organisation behind them, there is no pressure on the other races to pay them any respect — and this is precisely what we see today.
White cowardice is not righteousness. Tthe White race is under attack as a race — if it refuses to defend itself, this is not morality; it is collective suicide. In fact, refusing to defend your family’s future and your race’s future (which is your extended family, ancestrally speaking) is immoral; it is an abdication of your responsibility to honour your ancestors and pass down the way of life you inherited from them to your descendants. The only thing stopping the White race securing a hospitable world for itself and its future is our lack of willful determination to do so; therefore we fundamentally have no one to blame but ourselves for our collective predicament. It is not dehumanising to non-Whites to politically assert White identity, but it is dehumanising to Whites to refuse to assert it. Only once the White race becomes self-aware enough to force the rest of the world to respect us can White people relate to the rest of humanity with any dignity.
So whilst the current ideological order presents itself as universalist, it really isn’t — every identity which can be framed in opposition to White racial interests is the only legitimate identity to assert the interests of. The logical conclusion of its victimological framing of universal humanitarian interests is that they’re fundamentally incompatible with the White race’s assertion of our own. It is therefore not us who are denying humanity to the other races; it is this ideology of our rulers which is denying humanity to us. At its core, victimological universalism is an anti-White ideology — making the question of whether the assertion of White racial interests is legitimate the fundamental political question of our time. The legitimacy of the ideological paradigm currently ruling the entire Western world and the legitimacy of White identity politics are mutually exclusive existential claims. Politics today begins by making a choice between these two sides. There is no third position.
Existential Polarisation and Its Strategic Implications
The ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’ therefore must correspond to the two most fundamental existential determinations of political friendship, which I have already identified as the anti-White victimological universalists currently in power and their pro-White opposition. Other existential claims associated with the Right, such as concerns for civil liberties and heteronormative family values, therefore must be synthesised with a fundamentally pro-White politics, as only a pro-White opposition is capable of delegitimising the ideological paradigm which justifies the erosion of civil liberties and heteronormative family values. The fundamental reason your civil liberties are being taken away is because you are “racist” (pro-White), and the fundamental reason heteronormative family values have been eroded is because it is “tolerant” (anti-White). We know this is true because non-Whites are permitted to be intolerant of divergence of heteronormative family values and racist towards White people, because not permitting this would be “racist” (anti-White).
The institutional movement which claims to represent the Right is usually accused of being “racist” or “Nazi” (pro-White) by most self-identified members of the Left; however, these accusations are completely unfounded with few exceptions — as the representatives of the institutional Right will go to great lengths to not only explain but demonstrate with their actions. The very fact that these people view their supposed political enemies as their existential enemies as a slanderous insult is itself sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they are not actually of the Right. The Right and Left can only be defined in relative opposition to one another. If someone tries to prove to you that he isn’t a “racist” (pro-White), that means he isn’t fundamentally opposed to the Left. In other words, the institutional movement which claims to represent the Right is actually just a moderate version of the Left.
The reason why this false opposition movement which claims to represent the Right has mass support is because its supporters oppose the Left, so its legitimacy is built upon a contradiction — it must seem like it is opposing the Left without actually opposing it. It is this contradiction which is the core weakness in the legitimacy of the entire system. And all it takes to expose this contradiction to opponents of the Left is to create a real (pro-White) opposition movement, as its very presence will force the false opposition movement to side with the Left against it and expose its falsity to its own base of supporters. Growing prominent enough that it forces the false opposition movement to delegitimise itself and legitimising the defection of their supporters to a real (pro-White) opposition movement is the primary strategic task facing White advocacy — only after this is accomplished can a battle with the Left for political power even begin.
The key to accomplishing this task is embracing an activist strategy. We are in a battle of legitimacy first and foremost, the Right must become a real existential opposition movement to the Left before its electoral victories can become existentially meaningful. And the activist’s primary role is to assert existential claims, not negotiate them. Only after the Right becomes self-consciously pro-White will it be in a position to negotiate White interests. Our fight therefore is one of propaganda, narrative and terminology — the imposition of pro-White propaganda, narrative and terminology upon the political culture of the Right. Once this is imposed, the resources of the Right’s support base will be at our disposal and the structural and electoral aspects of political struggle can be organised.
This may appear “too simple” to many, but that is because our struggle is that simple. The only thing holding back the White race from politically defending itself is our collective lack of self-awareness and determination to embrace racial identity politics. And the only way that self-awareness and determination can proliferate among our people is for those who already have it to propagandise those who don’t with pro-White narratives and terminology. The only obstacle facing the legitimisation of White identity politics and the elevation of pro-White representatives as the new leaders of the institutional Right is our own lack of determination to advocate for our race. And that obstacle is broken down one White man at a time each time he chooses to commit his time and energy to White advocacy. The future of our people will be decided entirely within our own hearts and minds. Fight or die; there is no third position.