In order to simply and concisely define our contemporary position it is essential that we look to nature and her eternal and immutable canons. In our acceptance of her brutal yet beautiful administration, we find ourselves located atop a perennial pantheon and subject to primeval statutes. Evolution determines that ‘rolling back’ is rarely an option, and, to the rigorously scientific and unsentimental, it is not in the least bit desirable. Revolution is therefore not a rebellion against the status quo, no matter if it is summarily characterised by blithe inactivity or impeccable equilibrium. In antithetical opposition to the terminally sick individuals afflicted with an intellectual and spiritual psychosis known today as liberalism, and the hoary, grey ranks of revolutionary conservatives, our own minds are free to analyse and accept the inexorable truths extant in the cosmos.
The etymological origin of the word ‘revolution’ stands in marked contradiction to its modern usage. The notion that human conditions can effectively be ‘rolled back’ is the hallmark of the traditionally conservative thinker, not the insurgent. These plenary reactionaries are inherently antagonist towards change and their espousal of political conservation – or social anaplasty – contrasts starkly with the objectives of the true revolutionary. The true revolutionary seeks the endless amputation of that which does not function correctly and craves growth and development. In this respect, the genuine, unadulterated revolutionary has been mislabelled a conservative. And who has mislabelled him and why? More pointedly, why should we give this topic more than cursory consideration? It is important because we have thus far failed dramatically to identify who we are and where we are going (if anywhere).
In his prodigious tome, The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin made the salient observation:
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”
In penning this particular platitude, the great naturalist inadvertently rang the death knell for contemporary conservative revolutionaries and liberal revolutionaries alike. It is clear to any human with an operational brain — one which has not been routinely steeped in regressive dogma for decades — that change is the ‘rolling forward;’ it is evolution. While Conservative revolutionaries shiver, knee deep in the briny (the spectral manifestations of Canute) Liberal revolutionaries confidently attempt to drink the ocean into submission. Both impotently believe their respective self deceptions. Both are equally doomed.
Existence is barely comparable to survival. The perpetual connotations, which permeate the latter term, are surreptitiously absent in the former. Perhaps tackling semantic nuances is not of momentous significance, but correctly delineating our idea so that it is not left off the latch for misinterpretation is of vital importance. We, the White race, must survive. If the reader is in disagreement with this central, defining principle then he must recycle this publication or, if being viewed digitally, dump it unceremoniously into a convenient, virtual wastepaper bin.
Not only must our race survive, it is our special duty, and the responsibility of no other competing tribes, to ensure this survival. Our survival is predominantly biological, but we must understand that laying the foundations for the abiding continuation of our ideological legacy is almost as essential. This substructure, composed of adamantine doctrine, will compliment our biological survival just as the beauty of our womenfolk corresponds, in harmonious exaltation, with the natural grace and elegance of our musical compositions, majestic architecture, and written masterpieces.
Biological survival is our first prerequisite. Without our corporeal presence on earth, no amount of theology will raise us from an eternal slumber. If we succumb to genetic extinction (whether our DNA is comprehensively contaminated and what was the Occident is repopulated by a race-less, mongrelised mass, or — though not a mutually exclusive scenario — our children are unceremoniously butchered in their millions) then our dreams will have been dreamt in vain and our distinctive, sputtering candle will have be snuffed out never to fluoresce again.
In his 1976 National Alliance address, Dr William L. Pierce tackled the issue of why we should survive (an indisputable assertion challenged latterly by the most diseased minds imaginable) and attempts to formulate a retaliation to the interrogative adverb. Pierce’s response was both distinguished and unforgettable, but why had it become necessary to explain to an unmistakably remarkable and inimitable ethnic group why they should continue to live, must surely represent the greatest and most enduring tragedy of any era.
From Dr. Pierce’s address:
“Our purpose is the purpose for which the earth was born out of the gas and the dust of the cosmos, the purpose for which the first primitive amphibian crawled out of the sea three hundred million years ago and learned to live on the land, the purpose for which the first race of men held themselves apart from the races of sub-men around them and bred only with their own kind. It is the purpose for which men first captured lightning from the sky, tamed it, and called it fire; the purpose for which our ancestors built the world’s first astronomical observatory on a British plain more than 4,000 years ago. It is the purpose for which Jesus, the Galilean, fought the Jews and died 2,000 years ago; the purpose for which Rembrandt painted; the purpose for which Shakespeare wrote; and the purpose for which Newton pondered. Our purpose, the purpose with which we must become obsessed, is that for which the best, the noblest, men and women of our race down through the ages have struggled and died whether they were fully conscious of it or not. It is the purpose for which they sought beauty and created beauty; the purpose for which they studied the heavens and taught themselves Nature’s mysteries; the purpose for which they fought the degenerative, the regressive, and the evil forces all around them; the purpose for which, instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path; they chose the upward path, regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entailed.”
The founder of the Creativity movement, Ben Klassen, expressed similar, if decidedly more compartmentalised sentiments, in his ambitious work Nature’s Eternal Religion:
“These European White Men, then, with civilization in their blood and in their destiny, crossed the Atlantic and set up a new civilization on a bleak and rock bound coast. It was the White Men who drove north to Alaska and west to California; the men who opened up the tropics and subdued the Arctics; the men who mastered the African Veldts; the men who peopled Australia and seized the gates of the world at Suez, Gibraltar and Panama.
“It was the White Race who produced men like Columbus who crossed the unknown Atlantic; men like Magellan who first circumnavigated the globe; men like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Rembrandt, Velazquez, Bernini, Rubens, Raphael and thousands of other geniuses who created beautiful and exquisite productions in the fields of sculpture and painting; geniuses like Beethoven, Bach, Wagner and Verdi who created beautiful music; men like James Watt who invented the steam engine; men like Daimler who invented and built the reciprocating internal combustion engine; production geniuses like Henry Ford, inventors like Thomas Edison; such a prodigal genius as Nikola Tesla in the field of physics and electricity; literary geniuses like Shakespeare, Goethe and thousands of others, untold geniuses in the fields of mathematics, in the fields of chemistry and physics.”
Likewise, the perusal of Arthur Kemp’s Match of the Titans quadrilogy, or Dr. Pierce’s Who We Are, will identify in vivid detail what our race is capable of if unrestrained by crippling ideological levies.
However cogent and inspiring the narrative, it is with profuse consternation that we must remind ourselves that such noteworthy men of our race exhausted their lives wrestling with the bewilderment of a population who no doubt appraised, and continue to evaluate, the self flagellation of Dr. Pierce, et al., as a grotesque and trifling pantomime. An opportunity was missed and the leadership of these men became forfeit because they held close to their breasts some vestige of faith in their race at large. At worst their tenets fell impotently before swine and, at best, reside raw and dormant in us.
The question of why we should survive now festers on the ideological shelf, while the apparently more consequential and urgent query of why we should seek the survival of those who appear prepared to embrace ethnical suicide, troubles the psyche of the desperate racial nationalist. One can exist as a homo/trans/bisexual; one can exist as a conscientious objector to procreation; one can exist as an accomplice to miscegenation; one can even exist as a deracinated and politically ignorant debt-slave, but one cannot survive for any length of time as any of these things. The overarching prognosis of our epoch is reflected in the looking glass of self worth, moral health, and tribal exclusivity: those who consider their survival in the context of race have a slight but definite chance. The remainder, even if a majority, will inevitably perish from this earth.
The appalling fact we must come to at least recognise is that the preponderance of our people will not survive. Although this bitter state of affairs was not of our fabrication, it is clear nevertheless that no matter how ‘salvation’ is pitched, our brethren have selected existence as opposed to survival; adopting all the ephemeral appurtenances and luxuries associated with their unholy pact. Having reluctantly received this information and processed it, it is incumbent upon us to carry on regardless — we must not share this fate, which is indeed a fate far worse than death. Thus our perspective turns away from the majority of our folk and towards a disparate and increasingly more permanent horizon.
Survival is the synthesis of fugacious carnal existence and interminable proliferation. It is the glittering prize of those who can overcome any obstacle, no matter how seemingly colossal, and pay any price, no matter how apparently prohibitive, in order to seize it. Vociferously proselytising to the stupefied mass of consumers, who now comprise, and have come to epitomise, Western civilisation, will not ensure the survival of the White race. Now that we fully comprehend, without reservation, why we should survive, the task at hand is to formulate and implement a practical strategy capable of securing the survival of those members of our tribe who are ready and willing to actively pursue our immediate objective.
It is sobering to remember that our shared right to survive is carved deeply in the tablet of human endeavour; we earn this right, it is not granted by supernatural entities or the synthetic codification of mortal man. Wherever human rights do exist – typed, in legalese, on voluminous sheaths of officious paper, locked within monolithic filing cabinets – they are unquestionably sanctioned and buttressed by irresistible physical force and not a vigorous sense of ‘humanitarian’ compunction or the ‘universal brotherhood of mankind.’ The question of why we should survive cannot exist within the intellectual lexicon of the rational mind. ‘Can we survive’ has, however, established itself as the most acute and urgent controversy of our waning age.
Given time, the citizenry of the West will come to accept its survival as being of paramount concern, but this situation will not come to fruition due to the undeniable truth of our doctrine or the unrelenting force of our argument. Ineluctable racial strife, economic malaise, and the gradual, stifling repression of the state, will compel our folk to tribalise along ethnic fault lines. Those who do not – who resist the intrinsic, organic urge to survive – will cease to exist and their genetic inheritance will vanish, never to play a role in the eminent and bountiful future that is to come.
In the Way of the Open Fist I will attempt to describe our position as enlightened evolutionaries as we struggle to survive in hostile occupied territory. I will endeavour to set forth a new moral code of conduct, one which utilises our inherent efficacious traits and qualities, while employing an organically engineered Aryan Duality; a vital enhancement desperately required to temper, restrict, and circumnavigate our corresponding deficiencies. At the beating heart of the New Code is the Idea, the conclusive conviction that we, as stewards of our race, must ensure the survival, proliferation, and development of our kind, no matter the cost. This represents the barest beginnings of New Tribe thinking — long may it continue.