Archive for the ‘Radical Traditionalism’ Category

There are aspects of the delivery of this documentary, When the Darkness Falls, that I find a bit tasteless. Certain segments, for example, cannot help but feed anti-white stereotypes for those who are, perhaps, already looking for some sense of justification for the positions they have formed (or inherited) long ago. But I believe the message, at core, is solid and irrefutable, and therefore deserves attention and circulation. Any stylistic critique on my end, then, ought not to be interpreted as a condemnation of this film as a whole. It is merely to stress that not every video or documentary film posted on Ironlight would make it to production, as-is, if I were appointed editor. I am left to assume readers will understand my point, and, for obvious reasons, trust more in those who know me than those who do not. To see where and why I agree or disagree requires a level familiarity we are not afforded here. This explains my admittedly inelegant disclaimers. But back to the film and points of agreement… As I promote the continuity and advancement of my people first and foremost, I expect, and respect, that all those of sound mind and body should desire the very same for their people as well. It is so instinctive to desire the best for oneself, one’s family and one’s folk, that in any other time but the present these kinds of introductions (I’ll refrain from using the term “disclaimers” again) would be wholly unnecessary. I am neither an egalitarian nor a supremacist. Supremacy transcends “isms”. I neither believe in the grand leveling of qualities, nor in the concept of universal and immutable hierarchies. I believe that all men, from the level of race, to nation, to tribe, right down to family, are profoundly unequal in spite of their apparent similarities, and are, in countless ways, essentially sworn to competition of constructive and destructive forms until the end of their days. I believe that such competition, though, is natural, normal and healthy, and by no means particular to humankind, but rather standard for all living creatures. And believing thusly, I have an interest not only in consciously participating in this contest, but in ultimately prevailing in the long term and earning my distinction. The establishment of adequate living space for each and all is vital if anything approximating peace is desired, and as little can be accomplished in a state of constant strife, the thoughtful division of territory among the various peoples of the Earth is, then, a valid concern and a priority in my estimation. Segregation — not only racial segregation, but in innumerable forms — occurs voluntarily in most cases, anyhow, even in fields where it is officially forbidden. To restrict any inclination which occurs naturally and functions flawlessly in countless examples throughout the natural world, and to enforce, by contrast, policies which cannot be realized without dire consequences among such diverse human populations, is self-destructive. I choose another path. -W.

Read Full Post »

Explore further:
The Occidental Observer
Professor Kevin MacDonald

Read Full Post »

Posted by Nina Kouprianova
Source: Takimag

Apart from “rogue” politicians like Geert Wilders, European leaders seem only willing to speak of the problem of dismal birth rates in the Old World by resorting to euphemism and wishful thinking. Faced with its disastrous postcolonial migration policies, the guilt-ridden establishment is only interested in maintaining domestic peace and order, when (not if) Europeans become ethnic minorities in their own lands.

It hasn’t always been this way. Modern European states, both democratic and authoritarian, have periodically attempted to boost indigenous population growth, especially after man-made catastrophes. France did it after the First World War and the USSR after the Second.

The USSR’s pro-natalist experience hasn’t been forgotten. What today’s Russia shares with “Europe-proper” is a quasi-colonial past and a poor demographic present. However, rather than mimicking Europe’s defeatism, the Russian government not only took the proverbial bull by the horns, but also pushed it to mate!

The Soviet Union is a peculiar case study because its social policy rapidly changed in the first decades of its existence. Immediately after the Bolshevik takeover, the state tried to closely adhere to Marxist ideology by legalizing abortion, establishing simpler divorce procedures, and promoting the “new woman,” among other measures. Certain hardcore communist feminists like Alexandra Kollontai rejected morality altogether. However, by and large, people avoided this adventurism and chose to preserve families as socio-economic units.

If the 1920s were a failed attempt to implement Marxist immorality, then the 1930s demonstrated a successful turn toward social conservatism. Abortion was banned, and divorce became more difficult to obtain. The government began rewarding women who had multiple children—the “heroic mothers,” who rescued the nation after the fertility drop as a result of collectivization, industrialization, and consequent famines.

Soviet “public service” posters reflected these changes. One 1930 advertisement, for example, urged women to take care of their breasts. A more subtle 1934 poster emphasized honest peasant labor by depicting a happy nuclear Slavic family. After 1945, the government attempted to make up for the near thirty-million population loss due to war and labor camps. And so, posters like “Grow, warrior! The Soviet Army protects you!” were used, featuring a blond Slavic baby underneath the red Communist flag.


Beautiful blond Slavic babies appear in contemporary Russian pro-natalist advertising, too. It emerged in May of 2006, when Vladimir Putin had made Russia’s demographic crisis problem Number One. A year prior, the net human decrease in this country amounted to an alarming six hundred thousand people. At this rate, Russia is projected to lose 11 million people by 2025. Not unlike the case of “heroic mothers” of the past, he proposed to reverse depopulation pragmatically: better social services for new mothers, additional funding for multi-child families, a substantial amount of capital in the form of investments into children’s future education, and so on.

Putin’s critics immediately suggested that women might start reproducing out of greed, and they argued that Putin’s programs would lead to misleading short-term population boosts. Furthermore, they urged the government to address the poor health of the aging population, particularly men, whose life expectancy is at least a decade less than that of men in Western Europe and North America.

In 2008, Russia’s pro-natalism resulted in record birth rates—the highest since the Soviet Union’s collapse. However, while these measures have been covered by the media, two crucial aspects of Putin’s plan have been consistently ignored. First, this plan involves a significant cultural initiative which feeds into Russian traditions and contemporary advertising methods alike. Most important, this plan specifically targets people of European descent.

My temporary relocation to Moscow to conduct dissertation research has given me the opportunity to observe this sweeping initiative “live.” In general, the state offers its citizens cultural celebrations, secular federal and Eastern Orthodox Christian holidays, soccer matches, city jubilees, historic blockbuster films, military parades—all in the name of the Motherland. Russians are left with a sense of a glorious past—the kind of past that Western and American academic and government institutions are constantly telling us is “outdated” and “oppressive.”

More specifically, Russians are also rather conservative when it comes to marriage and children, despite the high divorce rate. So, it’s not surprising that the subjects of demographics, child rearing, a woman’s traditional role in the home, and even adoptions and surrogate motherhood receive extensive coverage in countless television miniseries, soaps, silly gossip talk shows, serious political programs, and “public service” advertising on major state-funded channels. For example, eligible bachelorettes and bachelors on a popular award-winning show “Let’s Get Married!” on state channel 1 systematically mention a multi-child family as their primary goal for resorting to television dating.

Yet, the most explicit pro-natalist messages appear within the confines of the 75-year old architectural wonder of the world—the Moscow metro system. This type of advertising grabs the attention of over six million people (90% of users), according to the recent study conducted by TNS Gallup Media. Long escalator rides deep underground and even longer commutes across the city make billboards on walls and posters inside trains simply unavoidable.

One frequently encountered advertisement features colorful matryoshka nesting dolls and reads, “’Love for the Motherland begins with family’—F. Bacon.”


Another billboard is a photograph of good-looking European grandparents, parents, and children enjoying the outdoors together and captioned with, “’Family is one of nature’s masterpieces’—Philosopher George Santayana.” The most distinct feature of both ads is the fact that they don’t simply depict happy nuclear families, but, rather, emphasize genetic and historic continuity through multi-generational family “clans.”


The most overt image in this campaign states that “The country needs our records. Every minute, three people are born in Russia” and shows a young Slavic woman holding three blond, blue-eyed babies. While enormous Moscow is quite multiethnic, here, too, the government’s demographic target market is very clear.

Whether this country’s current pro-natalist experiment, in conjunction with the recent anti-alcohol and anti-smoking campaigns, achieves significant results remains to be seen. But for those concerned with the “Death of West,” some comfort can be found in the fact that what is taboo in western Europe and America is a national priority in the Motherland.

Article URL: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/motherland/

Read Full Post »

I, myself, welcome the thought of population decrease, worldwide, and there are a number of points of varying importance in this documentary that I happen to disagree with. But in stark contrast with the global trends of the last century, I emphatically support the procreation of the healthy, the intelligent, the creative, and the responsible — just as I support restrictions on the reckless reproduction of the unhealthy, the unintelligent, the destructive, and the irresponsible. This cannot, however, be accomplished without the conscious restoration and safeguarding of the traditional family unit, which must take place first and foremost in the developed countries of the world (if we intend to survive at all). -W.

Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family

One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree – we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe.

A groundbreaking film, Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family, reveals in chilling soberness how societies with diminished family influence are now grimly seen as being in social and economic jeopardy.

Demographic Winter draws upon experts from all around the world – demographers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, civic and religious leaders, parliamentarians and diplomats. Together, they reveal the dangers facing society and the world’s economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe. These experts will discuss how:

The “population bomb” not only did not have the predicted consequences, but almost all of the developed countries of the world are now experiencing fertility rates far below replacement levels. Birthrates have fallen so low that even immigration cannot replace declining populations [as things currently stand], and this migration is sapping strength from developing countries, the fertility rates for many of which are now falling at a faster pace than did those of the developed countries.

The economies of the world will continue to contract as the “human capital” spoken of by Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker, diminishes. The engines of commerce will be strained as the workers of today fail to replace themselves and are burdened by the responsibility to support an aging population.

Government programs will slow-bleed by the decrease in tax dollars received from an ever shrinking work force. The skyrocketing ratio of the old retirees to the young workers will render current-day social security systems completely unable to support the aging population.

Our attempts to modernize through social engineering policies and programs have left children growing up in broken homes, with absentee parents and little exposure to extended family, disconnected from the generations, and these children are experiencing severe psychological, sociological and economic consequences. The intact family’s immeasurable role in the development and prosperity of human societies is crumbling.  

The influence of social and economic problems on ever shrinking, increasingly disconnected generations will compound and accelerate the deterioration. Our children and our children’s children will bear the economic and social burden of regenerating the “human capital” that accounts for 80% of wealth in the economy, and they will be ill-equipped to do so.  

Is there a “tipping point,” after which the accelerating consequences will make recovery impossible without complete social and economic collapse? Even the experts can’t tell us how far we can go down this road, oblivious to the outcomes, until we reach a point where sliding into the void becomes unpreventable.

Only if the political incorrectness of talking about the natural family within policy circles is overcome will solutions begin to be found. These solutions will necessarily result in policy changes, changes that will support and promote the natural, intact family.  

Just as it took the cumulative involvement of activist organizations, policy makers, the business world and the media to create the unintended consequences we are beginning to experience, so it will take the holistic contribution of all of these entities, together with civic and religious organizations, to change the hearts and minds of all of society to bring about a reversal.  

It may be too late to avoid some very severe consequences, but with effort we may be able to preclude calamity. Demographic Winter lays out a forthright province of discussion. The warning voices in this film need to be heard before a silent, portentous fall turns into a long, hard winter.

Questions & Answers

What does the expression “Demographic Winter” mean?

The phrase “Demographic Winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends.

Demographer Philip Longman (author of “The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity”) observes: “The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st. century.”

Worldwide, birthrates have declined by more than 50% in the past 30 years (since 1979). There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility

Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. (The United Nations Population Division says that, worldwide, we could achieve below-replacement fertility by 2030.) At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach what demographers call population free-fall in our lifetimes.

Russia is losing three-quarters-of-a-million people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050.

The term “nuclear winter,” popularized in the 1980s, alluded to the catastrophic environmental impact of a nuclear war. The long-term consequences of Demographic Winter could be equally devastating.

What is replacement fertility, and why is the number 2.13 so important?

Replacement fertility is the point of equilibrium at which a country’s population is neither growing nor declining. In order to maintain current population, the average woman must have 2.13 children during her lifetime. She needs to replace herself and a man. Because some children will die before reaching maturity and having children of their own, slightly more than two children are needed – hence 2.13.

A birthrate of more than 2.13 equals population growth. A birthrate of less than 2.13 means long-term population decline.

If birthrates are declining, why does the world’s population continue to grow?

If it’s already in motion, car in neutral will continue moving forward for a while, especially if it’s going downhill, even if gas isn’t being injected into the engine.

Today’s population growth is due to two factors: 1. higher fertility rates in the 1950s and 60s, and 2. people living longer than ever before.

The thing to remember is this: Declining birthrates will equal a declining population worldwide at some point in the next few decades. In the West (especially in Europe) population decline will become a reality much sooner. In some countries, such a Russia, it’s already happening.

A nation’s demographic future can be seen in its current birthrate. In Europe, the number of children under 5 has declined by 36% since 1960. Worldwide, there are 6 million fewer children, 6 and under, today, than there were in 1990. If present trends continue, the United Nations estimates that by 2050 there will be 248 million fewer children in the world then there are now.

Where are birthrates lowest?

Of the 10 countries with the lowest birthrates, 9 are in Europe. Overall, the European fertility rate is 1.3, well below replacement level (2.1). No European nation [at present] has a replacement-level birthrate.

Italy’s fertility rate is 1.2. Spain’s is 1.1. That means in the not-too-distant future, absent massive immigration, these countries will lose half of their populace in every generation.

Russia’s birthrate fell from 2.4 in 1990 to 1.17 today – a decline of more than 50% in less than 20 years. Each year, there are more abortions than live births in the Russian Federation.

While birthrates are also plummeting in developing nations, most still have above-replacement fertility – for the time being.

The U.S. fertility rate is just at the replacement level, due in part to higher immigrant birthrates. How long this will continue is anyone’s guess. It’s also important to note that all of the factors driving down birth rates elsewhere in the world are present here as well.

What are the consequences of demographic decline?

Economist Robert J. Samuelson wrote in a June 15, 2005 column in The Washington Post: “It’s hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling.” Samuelson warned: “Europe as we know it is going out of business…. Western Europe’s population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030, that could be one-fourth and by 2050, almost one-third.”

By the mid-point of this century, 16% of the world’s population will be over 65. In developed nations, today, 20% of the population is over 60. By 2050, the proportion of elderly will rise to 36%. By then, these societies will have two elderly for every child.

If present low birthrates persist, the European Union estimates there will be a continent-wide shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030.

Who will operate the factories and farms in the Europe of the future? Who will develop the natural resources? Where will Russia find the soldiers to guard the frontiers of the nation with the largest land mass?

Who will care for a graying population? A burgeoning elderly population combined with a shrinking work force will lead to a train-wreck for state pension systems.

This only skims the surface of the way demographic decline will change the face of civilization. Even the environment will be adversely impacted. With severely strained public budgets, developed nations will no longer be willing to shoulder the costs of industrial clean-up or a reduction of CO2 emissions.

What factors contribute to demographic decline?

A number of social trends of the post-war era have converged to create a perfect demographic storm.

Men and women are delaying marriage, making it less likely they’ll have more than one or two children. Today in the West, almost one in two marriages ends in divorce. The children of divorce are less likely to marry and form families themselves. More married women are putting off having children for careers. After 35, it becomes progressively harder for women to conceive.

The news and entertainment media tell young adults that satisfaction comes from careers, romance, travel and “personal growth” – not from having children. It’s rare that Hollywood even portrays large families (today, more than 2 children). The culture’s message is live-for-moment and live primarily for yourself, with no sense of obligation to generations past or concern for posterity.

The growth of cohabitation also has an impact. (In Scandinavia, almost as many couples are living together as married.) Cohabitation is not conducive to childbearing or childrearing.

For the past 20 to 30 years, children have been taught that over-population (the so-called population bomb) will wreak havoc on the environment and economic development. Not surprisingly, children thus indoctrinated frequently choose to have fewer [if any] children when they reach maturity.

Religious observance has been shown to correlate with higher birthrates. The increasing secularization of Western societies has been accompanied by lower birthrates.

Thus, every aspect of modernity works against family life and in favor of singleness and small families or voluntary childlessness.

Can’t the problem be fixed by increased immigration?

In a demographic sense, this is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The host country gains people, but the home country loses. The developing world, which has seen its own birthrate cut in half since 1970 (from almost 6 to barely 4) can ill afford to lose large numbers through emigration.

Mass immigration changes the national character of the host country. Immigrants tend to have a lower education level than natives. Many never learn the language of their new home or identify with its history and heritage. (Instead of being French-Algerian, they remain an Algerian who happens to be living in France.)

Citizens of developed countries often worry about the loss of national identity.

Can’t demographic winter be countered by governments encouraging people to have more children?

This is being tried in Western Europe and Russia. The Russian Federation pays families a bonus of 250,000 rubles (the equivalent of $9,200) for every child after the first – in a nation where the average monthly wage is only $330. It’s not working.

Couples decide to have children for all kinds of reasons – religious, emotional, cultural, etc. Money isn’t one of them.

Children are a life-long commitment. While governments should make childrearing easier by lowering the tax-burden on families (out of self-interest if not fairness), cash incentives don’t work.

If the United States has near-replacement fertility, why should we care?

All of the factors that are leading Europe into the depths of Demographic Winter are present in the United States as well, including high divorce rates, the rise of cohabitation, families putting off procreation to pursue careers, an anti-family culture and voluntary childlessness.

We may be a few decades behind Europe, but we’re heading in the same direction.

National economies are interconnected to such an extent that the impact of economic collapse in one country or region can be felt around the world.

The social, political and economic decline of previously stable nations can destabilize entire regions and create perils for neighbors and far-ways allies. The United States is connected to Europe economically, [culturally], and through multiple security treaties.

What Is “Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family”

“Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family,” is an hour-long documentary which explores every aspect of demographic decline based on interviews with hundreds of academics, scholars, researchers, elected officials and civil and religious leaders from more than 33 countries.

Produced by Barry McLerran and directed by Rick Stout, “Demographic Winter” brings together a number of disciplines to examine and analyze what could be the greatest threat confronting humanity in the 21st century.

What role did declining birth rates play in the current economic crisis?

Economist Harry S. Dent notes that 70% of GNP in the U.S. is consumer-driven. As the Baby Boomers aged, they began spending less, moving to smaller homes and planning for their retirement. Gen-X can’t fill the gap of the decline of spending by 81 million baby-boomers. This contributed to the slump in the housing market – when Boomers began selling rather than buying, there was a glut on the market and home sales began to decline. “Demographic Winter” predicted the financial crash of 2008 to within 18 months. The “Demographic Bomb” forecasts worse in store for our economy.

Can the economic impact of declining birth rates be seen outside the United States?

Yes, in Japan, which has a birth rate of 1.25. Of the 10 nations with the lowest birth rates today, Japan is the only one outside of Europe. [Ironlight: K strategists vs. R strategists] It also has the highest ratio of elderly to children in the world. As the rising sun sets, where will the next generation of producers and consumers come from? While much of the industrialized world saw their economies grow in the 1990s, from 1990 to 2005, Japan’s stock market fell 80%. Between 1990 and 2005. Its real estate market lost 60% of its value.

What is the population control movement and how has it promoted demographic winter?

The population control movement includes organizations, governments and international bodies (like the United Nations), dedicated to lower birth rates. Their methods range from the voluntary to the coercive – including forced sterilization in Peru and China’s one-child-per-family policy, which has included forced abortions. Over the course of decades, population controllers have persuaded the public, through fear and hysteria, that there are too many people in the world and drastic action must be taken to curb population growth. Their fallacies have been institutionalized and become the “standard wisdom” of Western elites.

Who is Paul Ehrlich and what is his relation to declining birth rates?

An etymologist by training, Paul Ehrlich is the author of the 1968 best-seller “The Population Bomb,” and the father of the modern population control movement. In “The Population Bomb,” Dr. Ehrlich argued that population would quickly outstrip resources, leading to global starvation. (“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famine … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.”) Ehrlich also argued that if voluntary limitations on population didn’t work, coercion would be necessary – a refrain taken up by the movement he spawned. He described human population growth as a cancer that would require drastic action to treat. Currently a professor at Stanford, Erhlich continues to argue that (absent draconian measures) population growth will doom the planet – this notwithstanding that none of his more sensational predictions have come to pass.

What is “The Demographic Bomb: Demography Is Destiny”?

Released in July of 2009, “The Demographic Bomb” is the long-awaited sequel to “Demographic Winter: the decline of the human family.”

It continues the examination of rapidly falling birth rates (and both the causes and consequences thereof) where “Demographic Winter” left off. “The Population Bomb” focuses on the economic impact of declining birth rates — especially as they relate to the current global economic crisis – and the role played by the population-control movement in this disaster in the making.

Like “Demographic Winter,” “The Demographic Bomb” includes input from distinguished economists, historians, demographers and other social scientists. It also includes the views of Dr. Erhlich, as well as the current and past heads of the United Nations Population Division.

To order a copy of “Demographic Winter: the decline of the human family” and “The Demographic Bomb: Demography Is Destiny,” or view a trailer for either documentary, go to http://www.demographicwinter.com

Read Full Post »

Wanted: Something to Dream
Radical Traditionalist Aesthetics
By Alex Kurtagic
Source: Alternative Right

I have written elsewhere about the need for pro-White campaigners to provide their target audience with better incentives than the apocalyptic warnings about economic collapse, race wars, and extinction that have constituted the traditional fare of the White Nationalist movement. I have argued that the reason campaigners have failed to make real political progress, in spite of having logical arguments, a moral case, and massive supporting data, is that, in the effort to persuade and inspire action, key aspects of human psychology have been ignored. Even though he is typically steeped in sociobiology, the White advocate has generally relied on rational persuasion to advance the pro-White agenda, neglecting well-known pre-rational motivators, such as the need for status and self-esteem (which he knows well enough), and the role of emotion (which he often deplores). We often hear about confronting the boobs with “the facts,” even though it has been amply demonstrated that, on their own, facts make no political difference.

In response to this, I have stressed the importance of style and status as pre-rational campaigning tools. And in my most recent article, I have also stressed the need to move away from the negativity, the pessimism, the paranoia, the emotional masochism, and the obsessive conspiratology that permeates much of the White advocate’s discourse, in favor of a friendlier, more positive presentation. Overall, my message over the past year has been that White advocates need to become pleasant and sought-after company, look attractive, and create a parallel economy and status system so that they can both impress and have, here and now, something to offer the White folk whose attention are seeking to gain.

I deem these essential ingredients to a successful strategy, because the evidence shows that ordinary White folk, no matter what the state of the economy or the politically correct indignities they are asked to endure, continue to see White advocates as scary, angry, boring, stupid, impoverished, and old, full of complaints but without solutions, full of analysis but unable to tell them exactly how signing up to the White advocates’ program would improve their lives. Ordinary White folk continue to entertain the misconception — perhaps partly justified, and in any event gleefully perpetuated by the Left — that were a pro-White faction to achieve political victory, it would inevitably create a fascist dystopia like the ones commonly seen in Hollywood films. This deterrent is further reinforced by the fact that White advocacy’s “perks” often consist of ostracism, lost livelihood, prison sentences, and even death. Ignorance of “what is really going on” might be, for most, a small price to pay when there is no immediate threat and when pretending that everything will be fine means retaining one’s social status, peace and quiet, and affluent lifestyle.

How to change?
Evidently, I am not suggesting that pro-White campaigners ought to change their message, compromise, or sell out. I am simply saying that they need to change how that message is delivered; that they need to reformulate the pro-White discourse so that it achieves its political aims rather remain a method of personal catharsis.

The first step towards achieving this is understanding the White advocate’s role in contemporary society. Presently, the White advocate is the gentleman who arrives at a party wanting to switch on the bright lights and turn off the music, to tell everyone to sober up and put out their cigarettes, to scold them for wasting food and electricity, and to inform them that the lawn needs mowing, the floors need scrubbing, the drains need clearing, the overdraft needs paying, the and garbage needs taking out. And when the lung cancer patient is dying, the White advocate is the gentleman who tells him, “See? I told you so! I told you smoking is bad for you, but no, you wouldn’t listen! Now you’ve got what you deserved! And if you think you have it bad now, it will only get worse!”

This is hardly a recipe for popularity, and it is no surprise, therefore, that so many choose to ignore this gentleman; that they applaud when the Leftist host says, “Oh… Let’s get him out. He’s a psycho”; and even help him loose the guard dogs against the party pooper, even though the latter is looking after many of the partygoer’s best interests.

Yet, the task is not as difficult as my analogy makes it seem.

This is not just because some parties are dreadful, but also because its ideological matrix confers upon the radical traditionalist Right a number of discursive advantages, in the same measure that the Leftist’s own ideological matrix saddles him with a number of discursive disadvantages. In other words, the radical traditionalist Right tends to be uniquely proficient in the areas where the Left cannot be — because of the Leftist system of belief — an adequate match without superhuman effort and without Leftists twisting themselves into highly artificial convolutions. Identifying the areas of advantage is the second step.

Where does the radical traditionalist Right’s mindset enjoy natural advantages?


One area, in my opinion, is the ability to inspire heroic feelings of superiority, pride, and glory. This is strategically advantageous, because humans like to think that they are strong, and because they enjoy feeling that they are part of something powerful; it flatters their vanity, it caters to their need to belong in a manner that enhances their self-esteem. The radical traditionalist Right excels at this for the same reasons that the Left does not even try: the former has a Romantic ethic, aspires to greatness, strives to push forward and upward in an organic and metaphysical sense. This, of course, implies elitism, a hierarchical conception of life. Leftists, by contrast, are egalitarians, so they resent hierarchy because it reminds them of their own mediocrity — after all, only the mediocre benefit from egalitarianism. Rather than elite, proud, and glorious, Leftists are resentful, envious, and self-hating. Accordingly, their tactics rely on guilt-mongering and on inspiring a sense of grievance; they are champions of the weak and the pathetic. It is difficult to feel inspired by this, let alone be roused into heroic action for abstract principles like “equality.” The best they can hope for, therefore, is to inspire feelings of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is unattractive, and people who are self-righteous tend to be preachy and irritating.

For the mystically-inclined, another area of natural advantage is our esoterica, which is linked to the Romantic ethic, which is in turn linked to traditionalist tendencies. Marxists would have never been able to produce a Left-wing analogue to, say, Armanism. Esoteric Marxism? Such a thing, were it ever to be invented, could erupt only out of a right-wing mind. Leftists are rationalists, materialists, anti-traditionalists; they see the world as a machine, without a soul. Whereas our side has thousands of years of rich and deep mythology and tradition, both exoteric and esoteric, to draw from for the elaboration of alternative, meaning-laden narratives, Leftists impoverish themselves by their wholesale jettisoning of the past, of tradition, of metaphysics. If the Left has any use for any of these, it is to subvert it, pervert it, mock it, and uglify it. The Leftist desires to be unmoored in order so that he may be given free rein to indulge his selfish individual appetites and impose his speculative schemes on pliant human guinea pigs. This confers our side with another strategic advantage: firstly, many ordinary folk feel attached to, and reassured by, traditional forms — they are upset by fundamental change; and, secondly, for many ordinary folk everyday life is tedious and filled with drudgery — esoterica caters to the human need for fantasy and escape, for something that supersedes the pedestrian reality of the material plane of existence. The Left, being solely concerned with material reality, can only emulate this with sneers, cynicism, and poor taste.

These unique areas of advantage can and ought to be further elucidated. They are also not the only ones.


They are sufficient, however, for us to begin elaborating our own, forward-looking utopian vision. A utopian vision is necessary, because it provides direction, an ideal to aim for; because it unites behind a common purpose, it inspires aspirational sentiments of greatness and glory, and caters to the aforementioned human need for fantasy and escape. A utopian vision is like the advertisement in a marketing campaign. It needs to be forward-looking, because the arrow of time, indeed life, moves inexorably forward: you can kill a baby and make a new one; but you cannot put the baby back in the womb.

Those who doubt the political significance of utopian inspiration ought to remember that while the Left was in opposition, it was as fundamentally critical of the existing system as we are today — its message was “No, it’s not OK and things will have to change radically, and I’m afraid you’ll have to give up some of your privileges.” On the face of it, this is not a message likely to prove popular with a ruling class or a dominant culture. Yet, at no point did Leftists forget to couch their critique with uplifting, moral language (“dignity,” “inalienable rights,” “fairness,” “social justice,” etc.) And neither did they forget to tell their constituents concretely how they would benefit from the Leftist program (“equal pay for equal wok,” “universal healthcare,” “no child left behind,” etc.) The Left was successful because its leadership understood human motivation and it knew how to market its program effectively in a manner that was both consistent with the Leftist system of belief and difficult, for that reason, for the Left’s opponents to emulate without looking like hypocrites.

On the basis of the above, I propose that our marketing strategy needs to focus on positive values that come naturally to us and which the Left finds difficult, or impossible, to replicate: quality, greatness, spirituality, heterodoxy, and romanticism. These values need to appear in contrast — more often than not by implication rather than by accusation — to the Leftist tendency to produce a world of cheapness, monotony, mean-spiritedness, materialism, and utilitarianism — all of which are consequences of egalitarianism’s race to the bottom, to the lowest common denominator. If we are able to develop a style of presentation, an image, that encapsulates our core values and message in an attractive, uplifting, and forward-looking manner, that captures White people’s imagination, that enraptures them with images, sounds, tastes, textures, and smells that hint at what could be; and if we are able, at the same time, to develop economic opportunities (quality goods and services, as opposed to the modern con jobs) and status systems (awards, clubs, etc.) we are likely to make our target audience more receptive to the pro-White arguments and supporting data than it has been so far. The arguments and the data would then be marshaled by our target audience to justify their fantasies, yearnings, and ambition; the enemy’s arguments and data would be dismissed, because boring and inconvenient. And access to parallel business opportunities and status systems unencumbered by political correctness would, in turn, inoculate our target audience against its dependency on the anti-White establishment. We would then be offering a carrot, available now, and not just the stick of fear of a cataclysmic future.

Back to my party analogy, we need to be like the gentleman who is throwing the rival party across the street, which is so much more vibrant and impressive in terms of music, food, décor, theme, cache, quality of attendees, and organization — so much better, in sum, than the one being hosted by the Leftist that the latter’s guests eventually desert him. A frivolous analogy, perhaps, but such is the world we live in.


Obviously, I do not regard political activism as a party, or as it being all about fun, style, and presentation — to be sure, there is no reason why political activism cannot or should not be fun, but seriousness and substance still matter. I do maintain, however, that successfully selling a message involves necessarily making those to whom it is aimed feel good about themselves and their affiliation with the messenger; and that, if our side is to make political progress, this process and the methods, strategies, and tactics it involves needs to be understood and afforded much greater focus than it has enjoyed hitherto.

Some final thoughts. In some of my articles, including this one, I have used the terms “Left” and “Right”. I use the Left-Right dichotomy for the sake of expediency. In reality, however, I do not see our mission in terms of a simple political binary, as the situation is far more complicated, indeed superseding the realm of politics (it has been suggested that our crisis is spiritual, for example). But I trust my readers will know what I mean; that they will understand that “Left” does not mean Democrat or Labour any more than “Right” means Republican or Tory – these are all liberal parties, all Leftists in my book. Essentially, “the Left” refers to the enemy: the rationalist materialists who believe in the ideology of equality and progress.


Also, sometimes I come across organizations that claim they exist to defend Western civilization and / or the interests of the White race, without making it obvious how they do this or what they plan to do. They tell us what they believe in and what they are against, and… they ask for money; but the prospective donor is not given in advance any real sense of what his / her money will be used for, let alone whether it will be used effectively. These organizations are not political parties, evidently, because they do not systematically campaign in elections, but… are they lobbyists? Award bodies? Literary agencies? Record labels? Or are they just websites, pumping out information for the benefit of the converted? Thankfully, White advocacy has in recent years been gradually moving away from this model; but, all the same, it needs to be re-stated: a generic organization with a grandiloquent remit is not sufficient. It is better to create narrowly focused organizations (small businesses, clubs, charities) that operate within a specific area, in a specific role, with a clearly circumscribed mission, offering opportunities and real goods and services in the market place. It might be that, locked in isolation, a record label, a battle re-enactment society, or a charity aiming to preserve specific monuments or sites, does not appear crucial in the battle for survival; but they are important in their aggregate, and, because specialized, they are much more likely than a generic organization to achieve tangible objectives within their scope of operation. Remember: focus is important in marketing. Another advantage to this approach is that the organizations need not be overtly political, and, therefore, not make themselves an immediate target for the censors.

In sum, I believe that ultimate success or failure will depend on, among other factors, whether our side is able to recast itself as the energetic forger of tomorrow, rather than simply the embittered critic of today.

Read Full Post »