against the homo equalis and modern conservatism

7/27/2019 Against the Homo equalis and Modern Conservatism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/against-the-homo-equalis-and-modern-conservatism 1/7

AGAINST THE HOMO EQUALIS ANDMODERN CONSERVATISM:

A dialogue with Alex Kurtagić

Questions: Sebastián Vera.

Considering the debate aboutimmigration not as the defeatof a certain political faction (inour case, both Left and Rightliberals), but the defeat of apolitical philosophy orworldview, do you considereasier or harder to stop the

phenomenon in countrieswhere immigration comingfrom more coloured countriesin South America, and Africa,has grown into considerablelevels just a few years ago?Egalitarians, be it modern

liberals or the Left, would like

everyone to think that the

colonisation of White

homelands by settlers of colour

is irreversible, and that this

(according them) now

permanent situation is a sign of‘progress’, resulting from the

technological overcoming of

geographical barriers, the

deprecation of ‘antiquated’

notions of identity, the

destruction of traditional

hierarchies, and the increasing

move towards a fluid world. Yet

this is vision is purely

ideological: there is nothing

intrinsically progressive in

egalitarianism or globalisation,the latter of which is an

expression of the former; they are merely the expression of an ethics that

subjectively declares equality to be an absolute moral good. And herein lies the

principal difficulty in the effort to instigate a change of government policy: in our

age, the dominant morality in our society is an egalitarian morality, and it is this,

rather than any of the contrived pseudo-economic arguments we often hear

repeated in the mainstream media and liberal and Left-leaning thinktanks, that

serves as the ultimate basis for justification — either for continuing the policy or for



not reversing it. Most ordinary citizens in the West agree that there are too many

‘immigrants’ (settlers of colour) and would rather their governments stopped

them coming and sent most of them back. They dare not say or call for this

publicly, however, because they fear that desiring this makes them ‘bad people’

and would cause others to think them so too. This is why no amount of economic

data, crime statistics, or racial science has any effect on policy. To see it change

we will need to be able to articulate the case for change in moral terms, and Ibelieve this cannot be achieved without attacking egalitarianism in moral terms,

because it is its enshrinement of equality as a moral good that lies at the base of

the modern liberal project.

Once the moral standing of egalitarianism is destabilised, and once an ethics of

inequality (the moral goodness of difference, or the moral goodness of quality) is

successfully articulated, then it will become a lot easier to justify a change in

immigration policy throughout the West.

Of course, reversing the effects of decades of colonisation is more difficult where

it has been more intensive and where the indigenous have intermarried with the

settlers, but, from the perspective of physically relocating, those who immigrated

can just as easily emigrate: after all, did they not emigrate from their countries of

origin in the first place? It is not the migration that is difficult, even if large numbers

are involved —it’s everything else.

In your opinion, if Liberalism has been the cornerstone to both Left and Rightpolitics since eighteenth century, to which historical period of Western civilizationshould identitarian movements look for examples in order to createarcheofuturistic propositions to face this difficult period of time to Europeanculture, tradition and race? We suffer from a confusion in terminology. Our

political language derives from the French Revolution, the terms Left and Right

reflecting the seating arrangements at the National Assembly. At that time, the

Left came to mean supporters of the revolution (liberals), and the Right supporters

of the ancient regime (conservatives). However, with the Leftward drift in politics,caused by the absorption by liberalism of certain Marxian positions, over time the

above terms have come to mean different things. Nowadays the Left means

Marxism (a critique of liberalism), the centre means modern liberalism, and the

Right means classically leaning liberalism. A so-called ‘conservative’ today is a

classically leaning liberal; he is not conserving tradition, but rather he wants to

maintain the status quo, slow down a bit, or take a few step backs (which usually

means the previous election or the last time they were in power). We will,

therefore, not find any answers in modern conservatism.

Also, simply looking backwards and attempting somehow to turn back the clock

will only cause us to become irrelevant, because our world is very different today

and we need something that will provide solutions that are relevant and respond

to our present conditions.

What to do? Alexander Dugin has, I believe, made an important contribution in

this area in his book, The Fourth Political Theory. He says that there were three

ideologies in modernity: liberalism, the first and oldest; Marxism, the second,

which was a critique of liberalism; and fascism / National Socialism, the third,

which was a critique of both. Fascism / National Socialism was defeated in 1945

and Marxism was defeated in 1989. This left liberalism, which is now triumphant,

having proven the most stable. There is a distinction that Dugin does not make in

this exposition of events, however, which is that between classical liberalism and



modern liberalism, but we need not focus on that now. Dugin does not provide a

fourth political theory; he only suggests areas of intellectual exploration where we

may find the components for such a theory, the development of which he says is

a difficult, ambitious, and heroic project that will require a collective effort.

Obviously, these areas of exploration are those outside of liberalism, comprising

all those ideas for which liberalism had no use.

I think Dugin is right. However, Dugin writes from a Russian perspective, and Russia

is, as he is the first to point out, fundamentally different from the West. For

example, he prescribes we attack the concept of the individual, on the basis that

in liberalism the individual is the measure of all things; however, individualism is a

historical trait of Northern European peoples, certainly in the Anglophone world,

so, to me, and considering that the problems we’re experiencing today are not

so much due to individualism but to egalitarianism, we need to attack

egalitarianism. Therefore, we can expect in time the emergence of different

versions of any fourth political theory. It will be up to us to develop one that

reflects our traditions and collective soul.

I realise this is probably not a very satisfactory answer. But the fact is that while

there are many recognisable features associated with anti-liberal thought, there

is an urgent need to articulate — and to do so coherently and systematically — our

worldview and aspirations at the level of theory, particularly in ethics.



As you said in one of your articles, the majority of far Right activists have adopteda liberal methodology and a liberal conception of man and the world,consciously or unconsciously, therefore playing a game invented by the enemy.During your years and travels related to counter-politics, do you see a change inthe strategies of these groups and movements, or they still use politicised scienceas a battle banner? You have to remember that my audience is primarily the

Anglo-American world, which is notoriously averse to theory. Hence, theexcessive emphasis on practical and empirical arguments, the complete

absence of theory and radical philosophy, and my criticisms. However, I believe

there is a tendency within this movement that recognises the problem, is more

oriented towards continental European philosophy, and more open to radical

ideas. The late Jonathan Bowden was unusual precisely for this reason. This

tendency is the most dynamic and I believe we will see more of it in future.

Can it be the lack of a solid theorical background considered as one of the maincauses, or maybe the only great cause, of far Right’s incapacity to emulatesuccessful practices? Yes. Where fundamental change is desired, you have to

start out from first principles. Everything flows out from those. Consider that every

placard, every slogan, every poster, every talking point, and even the trajectory

of a Molotov cocktail, ultimately rests on a body of theory. The radical who

throws a Molotov cocktail knows exactly which window in which building it needs

to go; millions of words have been said and written before that bottle was filled

with gasoline. The radical may not understand the theoretical texts, but he

understands their import, having intuited it in the mass of words around him, as

well as in the feelings and attitudes inspired by them, and, unless he is engaged

in random violence, he will know which window to target with his Molotov

cocktail and why it must be that window in that particular building and not

another.

In your words, the pursuit of equality policies is one of the features that has madeWestern societies different from non-Western counterparts. Should this be

understood as if the application of Liberalism, or any other Europeanphilosophical principle, outside the continent or outside countries with animportant or predominant European heritage, is the cause of all actual disgracessuffered by the Western world, racially and culturally speaking? Liberalism as a

political philosophy has, like Marxism, been an imperialist philosophy. Both can be

understood as a secular form of monotheism. Monotheism is totalitarian by

nature, so it follows that both liberalism and Marxism would also have a totalising

tendency. Yet the world is more in line with the pagan outlook, which is non-

dualistic, and embraces multiplicity, uniqueness, and difference. The exporting of

liberalism to parts of the world whose indigenous civilisations or cultures would

never have theorised it in the first place has, indeed, had very negative

repercussions, both for them and for ours. Unfortunately, because the West grew

very rich under the liberal regime, and because modern media has made this

riches very visible around the world, peoples outside the West desire the same for

themselves, and readily attempt to adopt or emulate the liberal regime, which

they can only half-digest, with mixed and sometimes catastrophic results. Stability

and sustainability demands autochthonous solutions, but the liberals — who are

inveterate proselytists or evangelists — will not stand for that, because in many

cases they find them disturbing or grotesque.



We know that the logical end product ofequality is sameness and mediocrity,therefore a denial of all the things thatmake life good and worth living. How doyou think we can make people understand

that a system of beliefs that takes the joyout of life, a system of belief that is,ultimately, anti-life, cannot be consideredmoral? It will take a sustained, collective,

long-term effort at all levels, from the

theoretical to the practical. But it begins

with a man and a pen.

Do you think it’s possible to tie the pursuit of

the end of the egalitarian system, withnotions of social justice? Yes. Absolutely.

Egalitarianism is fundamentally unfair,

because equality cannot be achieved

without being unfair to someone, without

privileging the undeserving, without

penalising the undeserving, without an

oppressive state apparatus of surveillance

and regulation, and without dehumanising

the individual.

Considering your childhood in Venezuela,do you think white minorities in SouthAmerican countries have a future as atotally different human group, or are theycondemned to mix with the brown mob? It

might be more possible for European descended people living in thesouthern countries of the continent, where they are more, but still a minority?It’s difficult to say. It may be that the whites disappear where they are fewer

and will survive in the southern cone. If we defeat egalitarianism, differences

will likely become more pronounced, and may lead to migrations and

secessions.

How has the idea of a cultural revolution been received? Are politicalmovements adopting this strategy? This is the overall tendency, yes.

The identitarian parties are still seeking to win elections, of course, which is really

the raison d’etre of the mainstream parties. In my opinion, we should not

abandon party politics, but we should remind ourselves that their aim is merely to

broaden the debate and disrupt the consensus; in other words, we should remain

active on this front, but with the understanding that, for now, this is not how we

are going to win: we will not vote ourselves out of liberalism until the intellectual

and moral bases of liberalism have been completely discredited, and it becomes

acutely embarrassing for a person admit that he once believed in equality.

Which do you think is the best way for whites to change a reality that threat theirexistence as a self-identified human group, in countries where they are a hatedminority, taking in consideration that they can’t count with the option of a massrevolution? Emigration or secession.



Speaking in terms of what we, as European civilization (in contrast with WesternNeoliberal and Atlantist way of life), can be, ought to be, must be, what is yourproposition, in terms of how whites can take the power back in their owncountries, and of what will eventually come after that? The first thing is to

understand who we are. The second is to know what we want to become. Once

that is clear, the rest follows as described above: the formulation of a body of

theory that justifies us ontologically and teleologically, and that enables us toarticulate both, proudly, openly, and publicly, in moral terms. Then translate than

into strategies, which can be applied by organisers, and in turn by activists

(activism can take virtually any

imaginable form.) In every area of

activity or creativity, anywhere

and everywhere, subject

egalitarianism to radical criticism,

and oppose to it an ethics of

difference, that puts a premium

on quality rather than equality.

(Quality implies uniqueness as well

as superiority.) Fight egalitarianism

anywhere and everywhere, in

every possible form, on an issue-

by-issue, form-by-form basis,

always with a moral basis.

Destabilise egalitarian

assumptions and categories,

make egalitarians soul-search

and question themselves, force

concessions out of them, keep

them constantly under pressure.

I cannot stress enough the

importance of being able to dothis on a sound moral basis. Without that, it will not be possible to articulate our

position loudly and proudly, as it needs to be, and we will continue to have to

speak in code, in hushed tones, and in secret venues.

Of equal importance is also to enjoy the struggle. Anti-liberal commentators have

a propensity to speak in apocalyptic terms, and to delight in extreme expressions

of cynical pessimism. It’s all hopeless. Everything lost. We are

doomed. This creates a very negative atmosphere. It also

has no basis in reality, unless you’re planning on doing

nothing. No culture war can be sustained for long

if those involved are not enjoying themselves. It

is a heroic effort, of course, but putting the

enemy on the defensive, and finding ever new

ways to keep them under pressure and

extract concessions from them, has to be

fun.

Finally, due to a personal interest in extrememusic, what do you think it’s the importance

of artistic expressions as music in the culturalfight for Europe? Do you think Black Metal



plays as important and/or especial role in this issue? If so, why? For me Black

Metal represented an articulation, in musical form, of elitism, non-dualism, and

intellectual paganism. Most people are not interested in political theory, but

many are interested in music. And I think Black Metal provided a cultural space

whereby individuals of a particular sensibility were able to express and realise

themselves. Individuals of this sensibility were not limited to Black Metal, of course;

those were not interested in the genre found other avenues, such as battle re-enactment. It goes without saying that Black Metal was never meant to be a

political campaigning tool, and those who have tried to use it in this manner

have caused irritation among individuals who are otherwise, by instinct or nature,

of a congenial sensibility. Yet, the power of music, and art in general, particularly

its popular forms, should not be underestimated, because it is capable of eliciting

the most violent of emotions, in a way that few other areas of human endeavour

can. And in this sense, those who share our outlook also found in Black Metal a

method of articulating their utter defiance to, and disgust at, the dominant

ideology of the wider society. I see Black Metal as a form of the 1990s (though it

existed since the 1980s) and early 2000s. Many of those who grew up or were

involved with it will continue to have a loyalty, or at least a soft spot for it, even

long after they have transcended it. At the same time, new forms will emerge,

and will continue, I hope, to plough the furrow ploughed by Black Metal in

popular culture, making further inroads into less underground circles.

Thank you very much for your time. We spectyou to continue your precious work in savingall what we consider valuable fighting for inlife. We will follow very closely your intellectualfight, the most important fight of our times.Thank you for the interview.

alexkurtagic.infoalexkurtagicofficial.blogspot.com

Cover art for Francis Parker Yockey’s Imperium,published by Wermod and Wermod PublishingGroup.

Fuerza Nacional-Identitaria. 2013www.FNI.cl

http://www.fni.cl/

http://www.fni.cl/

http://www.fni.cl/

against the homo equalis and modern conservatism

Documents