By losing control of its understanding of its own history and ceding it to those who impose subjective, egalitarian, and universalist notions, Western civilization has put itself at the mercy of those who are seeking to undermine it. It is only be returning to a specifically Western and unapologetic concept of European history that our identity will be able to survive.
History, far from being an irrelevant and lofty frivolity relegated to Lenin’s “dust bin,” is of paramount importance to our people and more importantly to the European identity movement writ large. The word “history” itself comes from the Greek word ἱστορία (Latin: historia) and refers to the meaning imparted onto the past via a process of inquiry. Moreover, the study of the past is nuanced by a civilization’s unique scale of normality and the collective interpretation valuations that form its constituent parts. Thus a people, a society, and a civilization interpret history and impart value and meaning to their historical record in relation to their own unique value structures. Academics call this process of the assigning of historical value historiography, and it is through the historiographical lens that we interpret meaning and derive value from our ancestral or historical past.
History and the normative meaning that we impart onto it is a reflection of our collective racial psyche, as made manifest by a whole retinue of sociocultural factors such as morality, ontology, cosmology, and a plethora of other societal nuances that make each people and their culture unique. Perhaps even more importantly, history often serves as a portent of things to come, and if the current reigning historiographical trends of the Western world are indicative of European destiny, then it is imperative that we, the peoples of Europe, reassert control over our history. The French historian Dominique Venner stated it quite nicely when he said that “words are strategic implements” used to “affirm your existence, your autonomy, and your freedom.” Thus it’s of dire importance for the survival of all European peoples that our understanding of history reinforces our collective identity, both literally and metaphysically, particularly as the world is becoming more balkanized and our percentage of the world’s population continues to decline.1 A people’s past, their history, and by extension their unique identity is intimately connected to the perceptual constructs they create, and which in turn manufacture a specific consensual reality. The history of the peoples of Europe is being distorted to engineer a systematic civilizational collapse.
In Being and Time, Heidegger uses the term “temporality” to define time as an existing unity of past, present, and future made manifest by man’s “concern” for the world.2 Heidegger’s conceptualization of time, and by extension history, was a veritable temporal trinity, where the intersecting confluences of past, present, and future were merged into and made incarnate through the process and manifestation of “Being-There” (German: Dasein).3 Man’s material existence presupposes “concern” with the world, and this “concern” is given direction by humans acting in accordance with the actualization of their potential. This means that the past, or rather our understanding of it, not only dictates and informs our present, but also actively attenuates the trajectory of the future. Heidegger’s conceptualization of time, being, and history was non-linear, with no active delineations between past, present, or future, and is in accordance with the “historical perceptions” of our Indo-European ancestors, whose reality was a synthesis of past, present, and future made manifest through pure action. By adopting and transposing Heidegger’s theories concerning Dasein onto a distinct pro-European historiographical matrix, we can begin to reestablish control over our ancestral past at the same time that we elevate our beleaguered identify.
The enemies of our people and of Western civilization seek to undermine our past by obfuscating its glory in a miasma of universalistic, trite, and egalitarian propaganda. This trend of historical obscurantism is particularly salient within the social sciences as a whole and within the field of history in particular. In contemporary historiographical models, it is typical to “study” history from a globalized multicultural perspective. In times past, the history of Western civilization was examined from an objectively oriented, positivistic perspective that utilized an empirically quantifiable standard of measurement. Henry Fairfield Osborn, in his Preface to Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race, stated quite prophetically that the institutional integrity of the West could only be maintained via the recognition and eventual examination of the racial element that undergirds all of human history; this is a dimension of historical evaluation that is virtually non-existent in the contemporary social sciences. Race, or heredity, and its impact upon history is a quantifiable reality, despite liberal claims to the contrary, and as such it is a necessary factor in the attainment of historical truth.4 Since time immemorial, the peoples of the Occident, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking, have relied upon objective measurements to establish truth, and history, as we’ve established above, is a cataloging of our past that actively informs our present via the sense it gives of our temporal identity. Thus, European history can only be true and valid to Europeans when it is presented in accordance with the long-held European notion of positivism framed within a uniquely European set of values. Any other type of historiography, aside from being completely antithetical to the European spirit, can only be deleterious to Western identity in terms of the a priori anti-European bias which drives multicultural historiography. In short, by taking back our history, we must establish clear guidelines for its presentation that are based upon reason, and whose narrative is directed towards a pro-European objective.
In contrast, the pervasive multicultural historiographical approach which is currently the standard in Western academe is anything but objective, and relies upon sentiment rather than science to inform its methodology. This process of multicultural historical inquiry has undergone a series of permutations over the years, but its deleterious “globalized” agenda remains unchanged. As Yukio Mishima so pithily phrased it in Sun and Steel, words possess a “corrosive” power, and the study of Western history is currently in the grip of a “corrosive” historiographical methodology which is dedicated to achieving the complete dissipation of all European peoples.5 This type of multicultural historiography quite paradoxically, but in accordance with its anti-positivistic deviation, focuses upon race, but only in the sense that it views Europeans as the scourge of the planet, and our hegemony as deriving not from our collective excellence (Greek: Ἀρετή or Arete) but rather solely from the suffering of others. Thus, contemporary historiography, like most of the social sciences and European society in general, evinces a religious dimension of sorts, with the European acting as a symbolic Christ, crucified and broken so as to alleviate the global masses from their sin of historical non-existence. More succinctly, the multicultural historiographical approach is a prime example of the European propensity for “suicidal altruism,” and is little more than racially-charged propaganda meant to eliminate European identity via a perpetually “widening gyre” of absurdity. In order to take back our history, we must begin to utilize a historiography that is based on the idea of European excellence as the progenitor of our civilizational success, rather than as a metric for measuring the global oppression of less historically deterministic peoples.
The great con of the platitudes of multicultural historiography is that it views our European ancestral past via an anti-positivistic, thematic approach, immersed within the destructive nexus of Critical Theory as formulated by the Frankfurt School. Unsurprisingly, given its metaphysical origins, the multicultural historiographical model is heavily proletarianized, and as such seeks to debase, degrade, and destroy the peoples of Europe through a systematized and incremental erasure of our past via a process of politically correct historical revisionism. Similar to the ebb and flow of viewpoints in the evolutionary sciences, the historical record of our people is intermittently modified, edging closer to a critical mass which will eventually hasten our descent into racial annihilation. The history of the European peoples, of our people, is one of eminent grandeur and interminable agony, but ultimately it is ours and ours alone, and as such it cannot not be confined by the constraints of egalitarian historiographical approaches, nor revised in a politically correct manner which can only be tantamount to suicide. The postmodern academy seeks historical equalization through a process of global homogenization, which in turn negates any and all perceptible historical sense of self.
To achieve this idealized planetary homogenization, multicultural historiography relies upon the abstract modus operandi of “integration” and “separation” to interpret history via a process of deconstruction. Its initial aim is to end the European identity. This will eventually be followed by the dissolution of all global identities. The European proclivity for individuality, and conversely collectivity, in times of distress necessitates that our demise occurs first, before the rest of the process can unfold.6 “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”7 European history should emphasize the dialectical synthesis that underscores the entirety of our collective history. The success of the peoples of Europe and of Western civilization as a whole derives from our people’s unique ability to synthesize seemingly discordant ideas, events, and a whole plethora of other seemingly disparate human phenomena into a cogent, usable whole. The Alt-Right movement, for instance, though small in influence, has managed to begin to transcend the stale, and wholly inaccurate, ‘”Left” versus “Right” political dichotomy via the synthesis of productive ideas from both poles of the traditional political spectrum. Multicultural historiography neglects these defining characteristics of Western success, specifically the notion of intrinsic excellence and dialectical synthesis.
There are a number of structural issues with this approach. First, its methodology relies upon intangible abstractions which are extremely limiting in their absoluteness. In short, this approach demeans European history by marginalizing the variables in historical expression. More specifically, this methodology relies upon theoretical abstractions derived from moralism rather than from empirical fact; morality precedes fact, rather than vice-versa. For example, in this view, Hitler was pure evil while the Allies were purely good. Our opponents frame reality through the lens of this dualistic process and likewise frame, as Heidegger suggested, our perception of (or “concern” with) the past that nourishes the present, which in turn informs our ethno-identity. Thus, the enemies of Europe utilize a historiographical process that coincides with the ideals of the enemies of our people rather than with historical truth, in this case our European historical truth. Contrary to these ambiguous academic whimsies, reality is neither wholly “good” nor “evil,” but is rather a splendid mix of varying shades of gray. History should firstly be examined via the dispassion of objectivity, and objectivity is based upon gradation and degree rather than vague “either/or” statements rooted in hyperbolic emotionalism. Furthermore, a type of historical narrative imbued with normative meaning should be constructed. More often than not, traditional European historiographies of times past sought narratives which accentuated the natural world and our place within it. European hegemony, in both the past and the present, is primarily derived from our unique ability to collectively conform to the natural order.8 Inversely, many of the problems that are plaguing the postmodern world stem from the fact that the latter-day European individual, his society, and most perniciously his civilization, is being beguiled by a worldview whose very essence is not only the opposite of the natural world, but is actively antagonistic towards it.
This sort of academic pedantry masquerades as revealed historical truth, but in reality it is nothing more than a secularised vestige of monotheistic thinking, to which our people have been shackled thanks in large part to Christianity and its intermingling synthesis with European, and specifically Germanic, culture. As Dominique Venner mused in The Shock of History, aspects of non-material culture such as religion, or in this case historical perception, are traits that are “human” in nature, but the form of their expression occurs in relation to their sociocultural milieu.9Christianity was first “Europeanized” by a thoroughly Latinized and Hellenized Germanic culture until it was later reappropriated and transformed into a bastardized, secular imitation of its former glory by forces hostile to Europe. This transformation and de-europeanization of Christianity into a secular shell of worldly and materialistic primacy has altered European man’s perception of himself and, by proxy, the cultural understanding that undergirds his history. Secularization helped to extirpate the notion of transcendence from the European psyche, replacing it with a vainglorious lust for the existential nihilism of unchecked materialism and purposeless scientism. Thus, it is from this spiritual vacuity, catalyzed by a fetishization of the material world, that those who undermine our people, culture, and history operate. Our spiritual and evolutionary histories are manipulated and marginalized by the orchestration of our decline. For example, from a “spiritual” or intangible perspective, the European penchant for “infinity” is transformed into the lust for “unlimited” material wealth, while a concurrent Marcusian dialectical approach is advocated in the social sciences which justifies this extravagance.10 From an evolutionary perspective, the European predisposition for a high radius of trust is stretched to comical limits via the attempted incorporation of hostile peoples into the West, while this demographic transformation is lauded by the Boasian environmentalism, and in turn racial denial, of the academic world. As Aristotle once mused, nature abhors a vacuum, and we Europeans would be wise to re-orient the direction of our historiographical approach, and in turn ourselves, back towards a realignment with the natural order.
This process of historical marginalization and trivialization denigrates our history via a process of systemization into an overly pedantic, if not outlandishly puerile, model of historical (and interdisciplinary) compare-and-contrast backed by fallacious reasoning and propped up by suicidal emotionalism. Of further import is the fact that this conscious subversion by racio-cultural outsiders has a snowball-like effect on our culture, propelling it further down into the depths of the multicultural abyss, with its ultimate aim being the removal of all forms of racial and cultural differentiation from the face of the Earth. This process is furthered by the rise of the Nietzschean “Last Man,” whose inability to tame his animal appetites and spiritual vacuity renders him inert and historically inactive. Through this process of academic simplification, valueless secularization, and systematization, European man, his Faustian soul, and his “rational restlessness” is subsumed beneath a tidal wave of vapid egalitarian folly. Ceteris paribus, the heavenly polyphōnía of Mozart is brought low and put alongside the rhythmic gyrations of the African goblet drum. When everything is equal, nothing possesses meaning.
Our history and our ancestral past, channeling the language of Carl Schmitt, belongs to the inclusive “us,” not the ubiquitous “them,” and as such it transcends the base, teleological leveling of egalitarian dialectics.11 The advocates of globalized multicultural historiography besmirch the triumphant greatness of our ancestor’s achievements by a process of systematic historical debasement. The ancestral travails of yore, their struggles, conflicts, pain, joy, and the entirety of the magnificent cornucopia that is our Faustian European history is being denigrated by the tendrils of egalitarian dogma. In Nietzschean parlance, the various conflicts fought between our peoples, these “agonal wars,” these evolutionary stressors that catapulted European man to the apex of civilizational success are criticized as being nothing more than an undirected bellicosity by a people no better or worse than the Bantu Hutu. In this view, the imperialism that brought civilization to Africa (most of which has vanished since “de-colonization”) was wicked and oppressive. The spread of European peoples around the globe to places like Australasia and the Americas is being framed as evil and genocidal. Even the Italian Renaissance, that great harbinger of secular humanism, wasn’t that big of a deal; in fact, it was actually imparted to European peoples by the Chinese, or so they would have us believe.
In effect, the greatness of our people is being utilized as a weapon. The aim of this weaponized history is to first belittle what remains of our racial self-esteem, debasing our existence, and then ultimately to lay waste to any semblance of collective European identity. From this will come the elevation of the Ortegan “mass-man,” symbolically rendered incarnate via historiographical methodologies centered upon un-reason, emotion, and anti-Europeanism, that which “crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent.”12 Our collective fall from grace into the skein of historical banality elevates those around us, historically and quite literally, to undreamed heights. A historical “transvaluation of values” thus occurs. For example, the “Golden Age” of Islam is heralded as being more important to the West than the Papal Revolution, or even the Italian Renaissance. What is usually glossed over is the fact that the knowledge “preserved” in this Islamic “Golden Age” was Western, being the legacy of those such as Aristotle, Plato, and Plotinus. The fact that this “Golden Age” was propagated largely by the conservatory measures of a Greco/Hellenic, “Near Eastern” population attempting to express and preserve their rapidly dwindling ethno-identity amidst a sea of Arabo-Islamic domination is swept aside. To wit, according to the current historical establishment, these facts aren’t facts at all, but rather fascistic pejoratives masquerading beneath a thin veneer of academicism. Previous historical truths which were based upon a historiography of European design and centered upon tangible, objective measurements are anathema to the systematic processes of emotionally charged anti-Europeanism now present within the social sciences. We would be wise to not only alter the nature of our cultural output (in the historiographical and broader metacultural sense) by adopting a pro-European metaphysical perspective onto our historiography, but to weaponize it against our enemies. The last flowering of the sociocultural achievement of the Near Eastern Greeks, much like that of the Sassanid Persians, occurred concomitantly under Islamic rule, and because they lost ownership and sovereignty over their history and culture, they not only lost their identity, but ultimately their achievements were also coopted by the Caliphate and presented as being a product of Islam. A new European historiography should be both pro-European in outlook and metaphysically aggressive.
With the above in mind, it’s only prudent to note that the achievements of Europeans, both historically and in the postmodern world, are beyond comparison. In 2003, Charles Murray, an American political scientist widely known for his paradigm-shattering work The Bell Curve, published Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 A.D. and eloquently articulated the glaringly obvious fact that over 80 percent of all contributions to the arts and science were, and in fact are still, produced by European males.13 From the discovery and systemization of infinitesimals to modern geopolitics to the iPhone, European man is the progenitor of modernity, for better or worse, and is the fulcrum from which global change emanates. Our people are evolution made incarnate, and our history is a testimony to this. As Aristotle opined in his Nicomachean Ethics, nothing is more unjust than treating the unequal equally, and to even attempt to “compare” and “contrast” European achievement and history with that of extra-European peoples is both debasing to our people and an illumination of the specious reasoning underlying our age.14
These multicultural historiographical approaches demean our people, our achievements, and our future via a forced, and wholly egalitarian, act of historical commeasure whose ultimate aim is our destruction. Our existence is an impediment to the implementation of a rootless and worldwide cosmopolitanism, centered upon the non-notion of nihilistic materialism. History, like reality, is inegalitarian in its pure and natural form, and as products of this natural order, we would be wise to follow its cosmic, sacred laws, as our ancestors did. This embracing of our ancestral past shouldn’t be done simply out of some forlorn reverence, but rather for the betterment of ourselves and ultimately for our survival as a unique people. In order to reconquer and transcend our historical past, it’s essential that we correct its presentation to accurately correlate with our reality, and not that of our racial enemies. By taking back our past, we are actively engaging in the securing and reclamation of our people’s future.
- Dominique Venner, The Shock of History (London: Arktos, 2015), p. 67.
- Mary Warnock, Existentialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 20.
- Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race (London: Forgotten Books, 2012), p. vii.
- Yukio Mishima, Sun and Steel (New York: Kodansha, 2003).
- Europeans have always possessed a collectivity that is oriented towards the individual, but strangely in times of struggle it becomes ordered in a “collective” fashion. Think of the Homeric Age. In Homer, a society that is radically individualistic (the radical aristocracy of Nietzsche, as promulgated by Brandes) comes together in times of national peril and wages war. Contemporary historians now believe that in Homeric Greece (Mycenae, Dorian/post-Dorian invasions) that single combat between champions was fought simultaneously with large battles between masses of men-at-arms. European society mirrors this, and Western civilization mirrors this “individual collectivity,” particularly in times of potential annihilation. Think of John III Sobieski and the Battle for Vienna.
- George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Signet Classic, 1961), pp. 39-40.
- Natural order, as in the the world governed by Natural Law as espoused by Plato in Gorgias and Timaeus.
- Marxist theory, as articulated by Herbert Marcuse, specifically within Eros and Civilization, posits that history is not a class struggle, but rather a struggle between the instincts of human beings versus societal regulatory mechanisms. By freeing biological repression, via the the elevation of the “pleasure principle,” mankind is liberated and the individual worker and social collective is reconciled to what Marcuse calls the “apparatus”; apparatus being the state, or organized society. Marcuse provided the metaphysical basis underlying the 1960s counter-cultural movement.
- Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2007).
- José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses (New York: W. W. Norton, 1994), p. 81.
- Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 A.D. (New York: HarperCollins, 2003).
- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962).