“We, the identitarian generation, demand a future for Europe. And we will give Europe a future. Yet this future will demand of us lives of constant struggle. It will be torn by conflicts and battles that never would have been necessary if you had acted responsibly.
“You ask how you have sinned? What were your crimes?
“You’ve inflicted countless and terrible wounds on our planet. Wounds that we’ll need to bandage and heal with the greatest care.
“You’ve allowed an unprecedented demographic collapse, and so we’ll need to cough up extravagant sums for your pensions. You’ve allowed, and even promoted mass immigration, and so we’ll need to fight for the right to own our own continent one day.
“This is the thread from which the battles and conflicts of the future are woven. This is the burden that you’ve passed down to us, your children.
“We are aware of our responsibility to history. We want to pass Europe to our own children in a better state than we found it in. We want them to be able to live freely, without the worries that we have to bear.
“To achieve this goal, we will relieve you of all your duties and all your power. Your politics is a dagger in our hearts, because it harms Europe.
“For this reason, we strive for political and spiritual authority. We pursue politics of the grand style. But unlike you, we aren’t afraid of assuming responsibility. We will take on both power and responsibility for the greater good of Europe.
“For we are generation identity.”
▪ Markus Willinger, Generation Identity – A Declaration of War Against the 68ers (Arktos, 2013) extract from pages 73 through to 74.
I’m glad to have found an expression of the New Right amongst fellow Australians. The Challenge of the Identitarian: http://wp.me/p4n7vv-8q
Thank you for your comment. Identitarianism is still a somewhat unknown creature of political theory here in Australia. However, in relation to your cited link, we think it is important to eschew the reductionist and ideological reaction to the globalist liberal complex. The export of democracy is certainly a leftist idea, but placing ones-self diametrically in opposition to some of the institutions recently exploited in by it, such as NATO, may itself lead to error. NATO was of course the greatest oppositional force (in military terms) to the ultimate expression of the demotic impulse: international communism. It is a mistake to equate the Putin (i.e. Dugin) complex with an Occidental vanguard, as many do within the European New Right or Nouvelle Droit; Muscovite irridentism in Eastern Ukraine and elsewhere (for example) may prove to be a greater threat to uniquely European “particularist unity” than the alternative: a form of highly centralised and fundamentally Oriental system of governance. Note: this is certainly not to be interpreted as an endorsement of the EU/US neoconservative liberal imperialist agenda. It is merely a call to a nuanced and careful approach to what are very complex problems.
I agree that one should not over-react to the globalist liberal complex by creating a new ‘Uncle Joe’ out of Putin.Tom Switzer at the recent Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney challenged the Russophobic/Cold War II narrative that is promulgated by mainstream media and our politicians: http://youtu.be/_sgNx1ZYvxk
Without wanting to venture too far into historical revisionism, isn’t NATO part of the legacy that created the Soviet Union? The price of unutterly defeating the Germans was sorely paid for well after the war by the occupied Soviet countries.
At what point will we decide that the loss of liberty in the West through taxes, surveillance, the erosion of civil liberties and PC witch hunts that there is more freedom in Putin’s Russia, where you are mostly left alone? But I digress.
The Kremlin’s appeal to its own people and the Right by fashioning itself as a defender of tradition against the decadent, modern Imperial West should be viewed with suspicion. However, the seductive appeal of the ‘cultural rebirth’ and revival of Tradition should be recognised and utilised in some way. In our culture, the Left holds all the cards.
Yes indeed. Far too many people risk the pitfalls of binary thinking, where they chose either one or the other player in any geopolitical controversy – as if choosing one’s own side wasn’t an option all along.