Furthest Right

Operation Belisarius: Seven Archaeo-Futurist Perspectives on Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto


As chance would have it, this long-scheduled review of Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto closely follows its banning by the world’s foremost online bookseller, In the contemporary West his is as close as a publication can get to being formally censored. Of course, there is no strictly formal censorship in the commercially “privatized” ex-public sphere of the “Free West”: there merely is the informal reality of the “Brave New World”–style damnatio memoriae.

The ideological motivation and political agenda that underpin the Manifesto‘s banning, effective 24 February 2019, can be gauged by the books that are not banned by these include not only classic “red pills” and “black pills” such as Trotsky’s Terrorism and Communism (1920) and Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925), but also more recent ‘unorthodoxies’ such as the Industrial Society And Its Future and Al-Qaeda’s Doctrine for Insurgency.1 Another indication of the ideological stance and political program that guide the Manifesto‘s banning may be found in its immediate context: the recent wave of “censorship new style,” which is affecting the entire Trans-Atlantic New Right on its main battlefront: the social media and the digital sphere.

The start of this new wave of “targeted bombing” of “key infrastructure” may be — somewhat arbitrarily — dated to start with the Twitter account suspension of the foreman of American Renaissance foreman Jared Taylor in December 2017. Its subsequent highlights include the denial of entry of identitarian activist Lauren Southern en route to the United Kingdom in March 2018, the arrest of native rights’ spokesman Tommy Robinson in May 2018 (after he had tried to break the media cover-up of the rape campaign of Asian “grooming gangs” targeting indigenous British girls), and the near-blanket “reporting curfew” on the French Gilets Jaunes protests in the globalist mainstream media reporting since November 2018. This censorship wave has continued unabated after the banning of Greg Johnson’s Manifesto: early in March 2019, Freedomain Radio host Stefan Molyneux was banned from public speaking in Canada and later that month Jared Taylor was slapped with a “Schengen Zone” travel ban while in transit to speaking engagements in Europe.

In the long run, these apparent “victories” of the globalist hostile elite are self-delusional and counter-productive mistakes: they will merely add to the growing stature and prestige of the New Right as an authentic resistance movement. In resorting to blanket censorship, the hostile elite has effectively admitted its own intellectual defeat and political desperation: by abandoning the principle of free speech it has evacuated its last toehold on the moral high ground, a position that it has claimed ever since its rise to power in ’68. Thus, over and beyond its intrinsic value, Johnson’s Manifesto has now gained important symbolic status. This review must, therefore, set out with recognition of Greg Johnson’s lifetime achievement for the New Right movement, an achievement that has now been recognized in its ultimate “reward”: the “forbidden book” status of his Manifesto.

Finally, the author wishes to express his gratitude to John Morgan, Counter-Currents’ Book Editor, for making available a review copy, and for his time in exchanging ideas and impressions relevant to it.


Johnson’s Manifesto is characterized by a — pleasantly transparent — logical structure and a lucidly precise style, both appropriate to pre–postmodern academic philosophy. These features facilitate easy access by a wide public — which is exactly what he aims to do. Part I (Chapters 2-7) may be summarized as Johnson’s thesis: it proposes that White Genocide is real (diagnosis), that only White Nationalism can prevent it (prognosis) and that White Ethno-Nationalism is the only viable alternative to genocidal globalism (prescription). Part II (Chapters 8-12) may be summarized as Johnson’s glossary: it defines White Identitarianism (Chapter 8) and Ethno-Nationalist Homogeneity (Chapter 11) as alternatives to White Supremacism (Chapter 9) and Multicultural Diversity (Chapter 10) — its final concept of “Whitopia” (Chapter 12) lists concrete policy conditions and precepts relevant to his White Nationalist project. Part III (Chapters 13-16) may be summarized as Johnson’s strategy: it states his aim, “White Hegemony” (Chapter 13), his method, “White Ethos” (Chapter 14), his framework, “New Right” (as opposed to “Old Right,” Chapter 15), and his motto “Inevitability” (Chapter 16).

Johnson’s Manifesto subjects the illusion politics of the postmodern Western public discourse, now increasingly characterized by Cultural-Marxist psycho-pathology and Liberal-Normativist cognitive dissonance,2 to a ruthlessly logical and relentlessly devastating “deconstruction.” Two examples may serve to illustrate this long-overdue demolition operation: Johnson’s deconstruction of civic nationalism and its decrial of “white supremacy”:

[C]ivic nationalists… declar[e] that Western civilization is a universal civilization, but this is simply false. Western civilization is a product of white people, and the people who are most comfortable in Western countries are white people. When blacks, Asians, and other groups come to white countries, they want to change things to suit them better. …[In this situation,] whites must rule over non-whites: …we must impose our values on them, or they will create a society that we do not want to live in. We really need to reflect for a moment on the absurdity of the situation in which it is now “problematic” for white values to be “supreme” in white societies, which were created and sustained by white people and white values. Does anyone denounce Japan for being Asian supremacist or Nigeria for being black supremacist?3

The second example comes from Johnson’s bold forward strategy of actually adopting social constructivism as a valid discourse for White Nationalism:

Let’s just grant the social constructivist thesis that identity is entirely conventional. That does nothing to stop a society from adopting the social convention that only white people can be members. If social boundaries are essentially arbitrary constructs, why not be ethnonationalist?If we embrace social constructivism, we are completely free to answer these questions with arbitrary rules of thumb. Social constructivist should be the last people to object to the idea of white nations being empowered to define their identities and determine who is in and who is out.4

Johnson’s stated aim is “to offer a clear, concise, and persuasive synthesis of arguments… for White Nationalism“; his success in achieving this aim is probably best measured in the fact that his Manifesto has been banned.


As indicated by its subtitle, this review aims at an “Archaeo-Futurist” evaluation of the “White Nationalist” metapolitical project that is mathematically measured out and eloquently summed up in Greg Johnson’s Manifesto. It should be noted, however, that the definition of both these key terms — “Archaeo-Futurist” and “White Nationalist” — is somewhat problematic.

Thus far, the New Right has neglected the “counter-current” avenue of mutual “cross-examination” within the movement: inevitably, its priorities have been on political-philosophical and meta-political “improvisations” in the face of the “Crisis of the Modern West.” The New Right’s political philosophy and metapolitical strategy have been characterized by intellectual diversity and pragmatic alliances — a strategy appropriate to the emergency situation it seeks to address. The necessary “proto-revolutionary” flexibility and adaptability of the New Right, however, do not merely reflect its broad base across a wide philosophical and political spectrum, ranging from anarcho-libertarianism to neo-reactionary palaeo-conservatism.

It also reflects its fundamental openness to entirely new, as yet undefined, ideas and approaches. This openness may be its greatest asset because it allows it to “ride the tiger” of postmodernity and to actually positively welcome the impending height of the Crisis of the Modern West. Thus, despite its apparent near-total eclipse — repression, suppression, censorship — by the dark forces of postmodern nihilism, the New Right has something of immense importance that its enemies lack: it most literally has a future. But this future — which also is the future of the Western civilization and Western peoples that it stands for — can be taken neither for granted nor bent by force: it must be admitted and earned. Thus, no attempt should be made to impose dogmatic thought regimes on the New Right movement — this means that, at this point, strict definitions and directions are counter-productive. As a consequence, this review will restrict itself to giving only functional and provisional definitions to the terms “Archaeo-Futurist” and “White Nationalist”: it will treat both as “broad-spectrum medications” and as pragmatically useful metapolitical weapons.

“White Nationalism,” on the one hand, is not a dogmatically-closed ideology: rather, it is a practical principle that serves the European peoples in their current life-or–death struggle against the globalist hostile elite. At its lowest level, it provides a psychological self-defence mechanism; at its highest level, it has the potential to provide a coherent (philosophically-informed) political program. Johnson operationalizes it in both directions. “Archaeo-Futurism,” on the other hand, is the larger, over-arching philosophical and metapolitical framework within which some of the postulates of White Nationalism are rooted. The founder of Archaeo-Futurism, French thinker and publicist Guillaume Faye, recently passed from this life5; he described the concept as follows: Archaeo– Futurism enables us to make a break with the obsolete philosophy of progress and the egalitarian, humanitarian and individualist dogmas of modernity, which are unsuited to our need to think about the future and survive the century of iron and fire that is looming near. Archaeo-Futurism achieves this break, which represents a break-out from the previous globalist-nihilist “frame,” by means of …a synthesis between revived archaic values and ideals and a futuristic and Faustian spirit in the sense of scientific and technological exploration in the service of the European peoples.6 Archaeo-Futurism has already “deconstructed” academic postmodern philosophy (a contradictio in terminis if ever there was one) and currently is engaged in exploring the contours of new thinking that reaches beyond the fast-approaching event horizon of postmodernity.

This iconoclastic advance is spearheaded by Persian-American philosopher Jason Jorjani, to whom the leadership mantle of Archaeo-Futurism has fallen after the recent demise of its founder Guillaume Faye (and whose most recent book Novel Folklore has been published by Greg Johnson’s own Counter Currents publishing house).7 The present review aims at investigating the context and import of Johnson’s Manifesto from the Archaeo-Futurist perspective.


Before addressing the substance of Johnson’s Manifesto, six cautionary remarks should be made to delineate the boundaries of its perspective.

  1. It should be noted that this review is bound to reflect a European — more precisely: Dutch — impression of an American work: the reviewer does not subscribe to the cultural-relativist view that any “objective” and “universalist” truth is possible where matters of (national, ethnic) self-interest are at stake. To a certain extent, Americans of European stock face a different set of challenges than indigenous Western Europeans, even if both groups face the same globalist hostile elite, and the same clear and present danger of ethnic replacement. In fact, Johnson himself explicitly recognizes the inevitability of “national colouring” at the outset of his Manifesto: …the fact that I am an American inevitably colors my outlook… (p.6). Thus, Americans of European stock and indigenous Western Europeans must each face their own realities and find their own solutions. What we can do together is this: to cooperate in the removal of the globalist hostile elite that has hijacked government power on both sides of the Atlantic.
  2. It should also be noted that this review looks at its subject matter from the viewpoint of the — now virtually extinct — Continental European humanities: this viewpoint has a fundamentally different orientation than the viewpoint of the Anglo-Saxon humanities. The former tends to focus on formal structure and synchronic meaning, while the latter tends to focus on descriptive mathesis and diachronic function. Effectively, they are complementary rather than antithetical within the larger discourse of Western science, but they are bound to result in different foci.
  3. Given the fact that Archaeo-Futurism is a “work in progress,” it should be noted that substantive Archaeo-Futurist assessment of any given topic and development during the current “interregnum” of postmodernity is bound to rely on either Traditionalist (“Archaeo”) or Mercurial (“Futurist”) hermeneutics — a true synthesis is still in the making.8 This review will look at Johnson’s Manifesto through the prism of the former.9 In this regard, it is important to note that, properly understood, Traditionalism can never be what Johnson has seen it become in the wrong hands (or rather: the “wrong minds”), viz. a …ready-made system of ideas that… [to be] adopt[ed] as a package deal. (p.131) At its minimum, Traditionalism is a hermeneutic system; at its maximum, it is an esoteric world view; it never can be a political ideology.
  4. In accordance with point three above, it should be emphasized that Traditionalism is not part of what Johnson defines as the “Old Right”: Traditionalism and the authentic Traditions that it studies and preserves stand outside of any political movement. As Guénon stands above “Islamicism,” thus Evola stands above “fascism.” As the Catholic Tradition stands above “Christian Democracy,” thus the Islamic Tradition stands above “Salafism.” In fact, Johnson himself is clearly well aware of the crucial importance of Tradition: We are not just creatures of our own time and place, since we reject the false and meaningless identities that the current system offers us: deracinated individuals, citizens of the universe, children of nowhere, defining ourselves by the products we consume and discard. Instead, our identity is defined by our whole biological and cultural lineage, which leads to the present day and cannot be re-routed to some other time and space. (p. 132)

    Here, Johnson explicitly validates a central Traditionalist tenet: our identity is defined by our whole biological and cultural lineage. Johnson recognizes that the two — biological and cultural lineage– must go hand in hand if a nation is to have a future as a nation. He only omits the third ingredient that positions any true nation within any true civilization-building Tradition: spiritual lineage. The most fundamental role of spiritual lineage is this: to transmit the signature of the Creator which rightfully belongs on all parts of Creation, including civilization. The transmission of this signature is of vital concern to Traditionalism: it is, as an older generation would have said, its “sacred duty.” By re-calling, re-inspecting and re-investigating Divine Providence, Traditionalism can also provide some insights into the great question left unanswered by Johnson’s staunch defence of the “white race,” viz. the question of the ultimate destiny of that race. Johnson states …there are no generic white people, but — as a conscientious philosopher — he then adds a significant caveat: …at least outside Plato’s world of forms or wherever else one finds universals… (p.59). In the final analysis, only this “generic question” is really interesting: it cannot be dismissed casually because it is precisely the postmodern-nihilist failure to answer this question that threatens European civilization at an existential level.

  5. The four preceding points determine the firmly anti-racist premise of this review. Racism, according to its classical definition as “belief in the superiority of a particular race,” is simply incompatible with the fundamental Traditionalist tenet that all of the human races reflect essentially differentiated archetypes. Traditionalism views the immanent (vocational) dimension, the biological (genetic) expression and the material (phenotypic) reflection of “race” as secondary attributes, viz. as physical reflections of (i.e. preceded and determined by) meta-physical archetypes. There is no “objective” standard by which these essential differences — constituting “existential absolutes” and “birth markers” in the immanent sphere — can be “hierarchically” measured. Racial differences may be subjectively experienced in terms of “inferiority complexes” and “racial prejudice,” but such “sentiments” have no more value than the “sentiments” that prevail in the relation between sheep and wolf. At the risk of redundancy: the Traditionalist rejection of “racism” does not stem from any cowardly deference to political correctness — which the reviewer is duty-bound to ignore — but rather from a methodological rejection of the notion of “race” as a merely immanent, biological and material phenomenon.10
  6. Thus, from a Traditionalist perspective, Greg Johnson’s Manifesto constitutes an attempt to protect and preserve the remnant physical (phenotypically “white”) manifestations of one of the many meta-physical archetypes that are fading in the Dark Age of Modernity. The European race archetype is not the first of these archetypes to start fading from the world: the “deconstruction” of other (technologically more “primitive”) archetypes, such as the American Indian and Australian Aboriginal, started much earlier. Given the current “globalist” trajectory, the other archetypes will follow soon enough. The most “resistant” archetypes, i.e. the last to fall, will undoubtedly be those that are least “archetypal”: those that contain strong hybrid (i.e. well-adapted) elements, such as the “Middle Eastern” human type that combines collectivist (social) conditioning with individual (psychological) immunity to urban-hedonist entropy. As the remnant physical manifestations of the racial archetypes are being dissolved back into primordial chaos during the later phases of the Dark Age, some residual resistance is mathematically predictable; Johnson is therefore probably right in assuming that White Nationalism is inevitable (Chapter 16). At the same time, Traditionalism teaches that all physical manifestations of meta-physical archetypes, including “race” (but also “ethnicity,” “gender,” “caste,” “vocation”), depend on a continuous transcendental (existential) re–experience and (ritual) re–inforcement of that archetype.

    Thus, any battle waged on behalf of the “white race” will remain a hopeless rearguard action as long as it falls short of a transcendental re-enactment of its — now virtually lost — archetypes. Without such a re-enactment, any attempt at (ecological, ethnic, cultural) “conservationism” may be noble in and of itself (given the personal sacrifices of Johnson and his staff, his White Nationalism project certainly has that ingredient), but it is also bound to remain “Quixotic.” No Roman legion without a Roman spirit. It is exactly at this juncture that Archaeo-Futurism may yet “ride to the rescue”: the “Golden Dawn” that is the aim of the Archaeo-Futurist Revolution may yet provide a “window of opportunity” through which (a small part of) the old “white race” may escape to “live another day” of re-imagined splendour.11


From an Archaeo-Futurist perspective, the term “White” is not particularly useful as a description for the ethnic conglomerate that Johnson obviously wishes to protect from extinction. It is inadequate as a formal marker: there are other ethnic groups that are objectively “white” but do not fall within Johnson’s target group, e.g. the genetically and culturally unrelated Ainu people of the north-eastern Asia and Kabyle people of north-western Africa.12 More importantly, it is inadequate as a content marker: it fails to give any indication of the ontological quality of Johnson’s target group. From an Archaeo-Futurist perspective, these matters are of more than mere “academic interest”: it is only the form-content match that guarantees a “race” its future. Thus, an Archaeo-Futurist “vocabulary correctio” is not a matter of cowardly political correctness: it is a matter of “worldview correction.”

Johnson is entirely right in stating that, as a rule, …all attempts to avoid the word “white” are just like euphemisms — ways of talking around sensitive topics. …[P]eople who can only speak of race in euphemisms are not yet ready for the struggle. (p. 60) But this rule applies primarily to run-of–the-mill “civic nationalist” discourse — it emphatically does not apply to Traditionalist or Archaeo-Futurist discourse. From an Archaeo-Futurist perspective, Johnson’s legitimate purpose and laudable effort in protecting the indigenous rights of the European peoples would be better served by a forward — and forceful — re-appropriation of “racial” quality.

In this regard, it is clear that the term “Aryan” will not do: not only because it has been historiographically tainted, rendering it metapolitical usage highly problematic, but also because it includes other branches of the Indo-European peoples that are not European, viz. the Iranian and Indian “Aryan” peoples. But even if Archaeo-Futurism recognizes the need for a cultural-historical re-appropriation of the “Aryan” archetypes that underpin European civilization,13 there is no need for a meta-political “Aryan” discourse. To provide Johnson’s Manifesto with an Archaeo-Futuristically effective charge, it is sufficient to replace his descriptive term “white” with the qualifying term “European.”14 Even so, it is clear what Johnson’s choice of words aims at: it aims at a Trans-Atlantic target audience in need of a Trans-Atlantic vision surpassing the superficially “Old Worldly” connotation of the term “European.” Thus, with the caveat that reviewer would have replaced the term “white” with the term “European,” Johnson’s choice of vocabulary will here be respected. From an Archaeo-Futurist perspective, Johnson’s specific communication strategy is useful to the extent that it serves the iconoclastic counter-deconstruction of Cultural Nihilist “political correctness”: …to ensure our common destiny, we need to overcome silly taboos about acknowledging and drawing strength from our common racial origins. (p. 62)

From an Archaeo-Futurist perspective, there is another problematic term in the title of Johnson’s Manifesto, viz. “Nationalism.” Elsewhere, the reviewer has pointed out the cultural-historic role of Nationalism as a mobilizing agent of Modernist subversion:15 Nationalism subverts the higher governance principles of authentic Tradition, above all the supra–national (not: trans–national) principle of Imperium. From an Archaeo-Futurist perspective, it would be more useful to replace the historically charged term “Nationalism” with the discursively progressive term “Indigenous Rights.” Nevertheless, it is clear that Johnson’s message is aimed at the protection of European “Indigenous Rights” by means of White Nationalism. From an Archaeo-Futurist perspective, Johnson’s White Nationalist strategy is legitimate in the absence of a higher European Imperial strategy. It should be noted, however, that such a “(neo–)imperial strategy” is already on the drawing boards in the Neo-Eurasianist movement.16 From the Neo-Eurasianist perspective, Johnson’s White Nationalism is primarily useful as a specific strategy for protecting the European peoples that have settled overseas: it is in the Americas, in Oceania and in southern Africa that European settler populations may actually see their interests served by (some form) of White Nationalism. To truly understand Johnson’s White Nationalism project, it is important to investigate its Sitz im Leben in the lived reality of postmodern America.

“Falling Down”
(The White American Perspective)

The great task remaining before us: …that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. — Abraham Lincoln, “Gettysburg Address”

Greg Johnson’s America, the America that came out of the fall of JFK’s Camelot and out of LBJ’s signing of the Hart-Celler Act, is dystopia writ large. For those Europeans who have not experienced America beyond the globalist bubbles of “tourism” and “expatism,” its gradual decline through the Reaganomic 80s and the Clintonian 90s is perhaps best accessible in the caricature — thus: revealing — self-image of Hollywood. The movie Falling Down (Joel Schumacher, 1993), coming close upon the heels of Bush Senior’s “New World Order” and Fukuyama’s “End of History,” appropriately marks the watershed moment in the post–’68 globalist melt-down.

For those younger people who have no time for pre-digital “golden oldie” movies, Falling Down must be summarized. It depicts the “downfall” of its middle-aged, well-educated and socially conservative white male protagonist, credibly portrayed Michael Douglas: after being laid off in work, abandoned by his wife and deprived of child-visitation rights, he is attempting to artificially maintain old routines and habits… until he finally “snaps.” Falling Down records the “snapping process”: caught up in the hellish commute into Los Angeles on a hot day, this “angry white man”–in-the–making decides to abandon his car and “walk away from it all” with the express intention of ignoring his ex-wife’s restraining order and visiting his little daughter on her birthday. What follows is an epic Anabasis, from his suburban highway “stop” all the way down to the Pacific shore, right across those “jungle areas” of LA that “white America” has long been abandoned to Asian entrepreneurs, Hispanic gangs and Black down-and–outs. On the way, the protagonist develops the violent “vigilante” skills appropriate to his new surroundings, earning him a manhunt led by his eventual nemesis: a last-day–at-work, last-white–man-on–the-beat police officer portrayed by Robert Duvall. This police officer has an uncanny (“fellow white”) instinct for the “moves” that his vigilante quarry is about to make — he finally catches up with him on Venice Pier. There, the “fallen” protagonist is redeemed by a last glimpse of his young daughter and the acknowledgement of his grievances by his hunter — he then commits “suicide by cop.” It should be noted that this hard-hitting and symbol-heavy cinematographic “reality check” is now over a quarter of a century old — a contemporary “update” would be entirely unthinkable in the present media landscape of “post-white” political-correctness.

Effectively, Falling Down provided a “preview” of today’s America, as visualized in Greg Johnson’s blunt reporting: …[in] Detroit or Los Angeles or London …we can simply show our people the lawlessness, corruption, anti-white discrimination, alienation, collapsing public services, hellish commutes, blighted cityscapes, shrinking opportunities, and pervasive hopelessness that come with white demographic replacement. And these are mere pockets of blight within majority-white, First World countries. To appreciate what life will be like once whites are a hated and powerless minority within a majority non-white, Third World country, we only need to look at the fates of the whites in Rhodesia and South Africa. (p. 31) It is against this background that Johnson’s Manifesto takes its stance against the hostile elite that is causing America’s slow-motion “Twilight of the Gods,” recognizing its simultaneous reach into the old heartland of the European peoples: …virtually every European government today has adopted policies of race-replacement immigration, a course of action so perverse that the wisest of [our] legislat[ing ancest]ors could not have foreseen and forbidden it. Indeed, they would have been mocked as insane if they had even suggested the possibility. (p. 103) Johnson takes stock of globalist rule — and takes an unequivocal stance against it: Today we live in a Left-wing, soft totalitarian society, [that can be] characterized as a ‘Left-wing oligarchy’, a system of vast economic and political inequities in which everyone piously mouths Left-wing slogans. (p. 108) Johnson also points to the historically unique nature of the globalist hostile elite: Currently, white nations are ruled by the wealthiest, most powerful, and most diabolically evil elite in human history. When Plato and Aristotle compiled their catalogues of bad forms of government, neither of them imagined a regime so evil that it was dedicated to the replacement of its own population with foreigners. (p.115)

In his introduction, Johnson emphasizes the fact that the globalist hostile elite — which may, in fact, be characterized as a “fake–elite of counterfeits”17 — is about to engage in its final all-out assault on Western civilization as a whole and on the Western peoples as a group. This “Operation Downfall”18 depends on a “total war” strategy of “diversity” at multiple levels throughout the entire public sphere. This “diversity” is destroying Western civilization and Johnson succinctly sums up the existential threat that it poses to the European peoples: We stand for brotherhood and belonging. Diversity takes those away. That’s what’s wrong with diversity. (p. 86) Johnson specifies its manifold effects: the cutting of core curricula (education policy), the lowering of graduation standards and the creation of “bogus” disciplines (academic policy), the enormous resources invested in “affirmative action” and “diversity programs” (labour market policy), the systematic sabotage of law enforcement and the judicial system (legal policy), the structural weakening of family life (social policy) and the deliberate overload of infrastructure facilities, the housing market and the labour market (immigration policy). The net result is a break-down in the social mechanisms of Western communities: the failure of trust, reciprocity, and self-sacrifice. As community life collapses, societal cohesion fails and self-governance structures evaporate. Things start breaking down in the immediate present, as soon as people lose hope for the future. …In the present system [white people] have no future, and… are acting accordingly. …[T]he collapse has been spiritual. When people lose hope for the future, it makes no sense to go to college, marry, start families, invest in one’s children, create businesses, pursue careers, or think about giving something back to society. Instead, it makes sense to turn to short-term hedonism: pornography, video games, drinking, drugs, casual sex, etc. People are increasingly failing to mature, failing to launch, failing to build relationships, failing to have lives. But short-term self-indulgence can’t make us happy. Thus, we are see soaring rates of alienation, loneliness, anti-depressant usage, drug overdoses, alcoholism, and suicide. (p. 2-3) Here, Johnson analysis describes the combined effect of social implosion and ethnic replacement on the Western peoples as a whole — his sociological analysis describes a dynamic development that is visible throughout the entire Western world and his political analysis points to its origin in a globalist hostile elite whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of the Western peoples.

It is important to note, however, that in Johnson’s analysis of the threat faced by the Western peoples he mentions a number of threatened elements that are not generally Western but rather specifically American: fiscal responsibility, private enterprise, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gun rights and limited constitutional government (p.36). It should be emphasized that while these principles have some (partial) parallels in other Western societies, they are not typically Western in any sense. Rather, they specifically reflect the great experiment in pursuit of (religious, political, economic, social) “freedom” that started with the early White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) settlement of the North American continent and that was formalized in America’s founding documents: its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. It is important to remember that, irrespective of its astounding historical and material achievements, the philosophical idealism and individualist enterprise of the New World “American Project” remain fundamentally alien to Old World Western culture. The closest equivalents of American values in other Western cultures are to be found in (ex–)Radical-Protestant “fellow travelers” such as Britain and Holland and in the ex-British and ex-Dutch European overseas settlement colonies — Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. To a certain extent, the WASP “American Project” remains a unique experiment with its own unique qualities — and its own unique challenges. From an Old World perspective, it tends to be characterized by ideals that can only develop in sheltered “hothouse environments.” Geopolitically and culturally, the “American Project” is insulated in a coast-to–coast “safe room”: till today, it is shielded from direct non-Christian invasion by the world’s two greatest oceans. From a European perspective, even the main demographic “competition” to America’s WASP founding nation appears somewhat “tame”: in terms of its religious, linguistic and even phenotypic make-up, the Hispanic “inbound tide” remains at a much lower level of existential divergence than that of the African-Near Eastern “storm surge” currently facing Europe.

Two examples may serve to illustrate the characteristically American approach of Johnson’s Manifesto: (1) Johnson’s idealistically abstract approach to bio-evolutionary group strategies in emphasizing Genetic Similarity Theory, which …shows that affection, harmony, and altruism among humans — and living things in general — are functions of genetic similarity. The more genetically similar two creatures are, the more likely they will have harmonious relationships. The ultimate explanation for this is the biological imperative for genes to replicate themselves. (p. 83-4) This theoretical model is logically valid, but it should be noted that it only applies in a relatively safe “breeding environments” where specialization is possible and optimal choices are available. This model will immediately fail to be applicable in the case of sustained outside “predation.” Any “clear and imminent danger” of a permanent nature, such as the continuous presence of enemies on a territorially permeable perimeter will enforce radically different bio-evolutionary adaptation strategies.

In the real world, bio-evolutionary adaption and genetic development at the group level are functions of power relations pure and simple. A contemporary example of the immediate effect of shifting power relations triggering anti-similar — and therefore group-boundary altering — reproductive behaviour is visible throughout the entire West, with indigenous females massively opting for “reproductive strikes” and interracial experiments. (2) Johnson’s idealistically abstract programmatic notion of Universal Ethno-Nationalism, which states that [e]thnonationalism is a universal right possessed by all races and peoples (p.4) and…that ethnonationalism is good for all peoples. (p. 130) Although philosophically idealistic — even ethically superior — this proposition is clearly utopian: ethno-nationalism may be a proper meta-political strategy for a specific ethnic group in a specific historical context, but it has no automatic “universal” validity. Even if ethno-nationalism is a bio-evolutionary strategy that may suit “white” nations at their present historical fork-in–the-road, it is definitely not the preferred strategy of many contemporary non-European populations. Thus, Judaism and Hinduism represent bio-evolutionary strategies with explicitly trans-national dimensions: they are transcendentally anchored and therefore totally override the immanently defined categories of “ethnicity” and “nationhood” — they also override any mere immanent “rights” that “others” claim for themselves.

Practically, Judaism and Hinduism view non-Judaic and non-Hindu ethnicities and nations as simple “environmental factors” — “circumstances” akin to natural factors such as climate and topography. Left to their own devices, Judaic and Hindu populations will simply pursue their own path and ignore any abstract “rights” that other populations may claim for themselves — to the extent that these “theoretical” rights are not backed up through practical enforcement. Yet other bio-evolutionary strategies depend on subtle combinations of religious and linguistic alliance that override phenotypic association. Thus, Turkish and Arab identity is created by linguistic and religious hegemonies that actually override phenotype. Historically, language proficiency and adherence to (specific forms of) Islam are more important to Turkish and Arabic identity than skin colour or physiognomy. Thus, these identities have the potential to override and absorb other ethnicities and nations: they are vehicles of pure power, i.e. power that is transcendentally (psychologically, spiritually) grounded as well as physically expansive. In the face of bio-evolutionary strategies such as these, a merely immanent category of “whiteness” is meaningless. In the face of such competition, idealistically abstract ethno-nationalism based on “whiteness” alone cannot survive. European identities can only survive by mobilizing equivalent — rather: superior — power sources.

From an Old World perspective, Genetic Similarity Theory and Universal Ethno-Nationalism constitute theoretical models befitting the New World and other relatively isolated “white habitats.” The American and Australian continents are still relatively insulated from the realities of all-out “jungle war” that now prevail across much of the Old World. Even so, Johnson’s “ideal forms” are certainly worthy of America’s founding vision of a “City upon a Hill”: they obviously connect to the universalist and utopian foundations of the American project. European would do well to remember that Americans made great sacrifices in pursuit of this vision: they fought a highly destructive four-year–long civil war to enforce the abolition of slavery. The American universalist and utopian vision is palpable throughout Johnson’s Manifesto: …although whites were not the only people to practice slavery, hunt animals to extinction, or devastate the natural world, we are also the race that took the lead in abolishing the international slave trade, saving endangered species, and protecting the environment. (p. 26-7) When Europeans talk about Johnson’s Manifesto, now subject to facile censorship as “racism,” they should remember this Sitz im Leben. In its notion of universal ethno-nationalist rights, the Manifesto actually represents a highly idealistic attempt to salvage the old American Dream of universal rights in a compartmentalized (“nation by nation”) fashion — it still represents a vision for all mankind. Johnson’s vision of universal ethno-nationalism is good for all nations, because …is simply the idea of a society where everybody around you is kin. It is a society where you can understand and trust your fellow citizens. Where you can understand and trust your fellow citizens. Where you can cooperate to pursue the common good. Where you will wish to contribute to grand projects, even though you might not live to see them completed. Where people plant trees so that future generations can enjoy the shade. (p. 86) Thus, in an unlikely manner, the Manifesto actually befits the legacy of the greatest American president, who gave his life for that same cause: Abraham Lincoln.

“Wind River”
(The Bio-Evolutionary Perspective)

Luck lives in the city.
It don’t live out here.
Here you survive or you surrender.
Period. — “Wind River” (Taylor Sheridan, 2017)

If America, shielded from direct military invasion and direct overland immigration by thousands of miles of ocean, still represents a relatively safe “white” habitat where universalist idealism can still thrive, it also represents a “testing ground” for some of the largest bio-evolutionary “experiments” of the Modern Age. These titanic “experiments” in “human engineering” include the Darwinian “survival of the fittest” removal of its indigenous “American Indian” population, the Morlock-and–Eloi “role play” between “slave race” Africans and “master race” Caucasians and the “Judeo-Christian” symbiosis within its political establishment and religious self-image. Thus, the more recent globalist policy of unrestrained Third World “labour migration” into America is merely the latest in a series of “experiments” — “experiments” of a kind that, at least until the last few decades, remained entirely unknown to indigenous Europeans. It was only in the 1890s that American Frontier, i.e. the border between colonial civilization and the “Wild West,” disappeared in the physical sense, but its existential meaning still retains its force in the American psyche. If “American” identity is archetypically defined as WASP identity, then the American psyche tends to retain much of its old “frontier mentality”: in America gun ownership, private property, individual freedom and self-government are fundamental issues that simply have no parallel in Europe. Johnson’s Manifesto may be interpreted as an intellectual reflection of the just-below–the-surface Wehr– und Waffen-Instinkt that is an intrinsic part of this “frontier mentality.”

Johnson’s Manifesto mobilizes this “frontier mentality” and its concomitant “survival instinct” through a ruthlessly blunt exposure of the “racial taboo” that threatens the shrinking habitat of “White America.” Stripping away the entire — largely artificial — cultural “superstructure” of postmodern America, it re-states the issue of survival in bluntly Darwinist terms: In biological terms, the white race is a subspecies of the larger human species, Homo Sapiens. …[W]hen a subspecies goes extinct, other subspecies of the same species might still survive. …From the point of view of conservation biologists, the extinction of a subspecies is to be fought just as adamantly as the extinction of a whole species. (p.9) He then lists the biological causes of species and subspecies extinction:

  1. habitat loss — in this case, due to human, not natural, causes. Here, Johnson hits the mark: …whites do not reproduce in unsafe environments, and one of the greatest causes of unsafe breeding environments is the presence of non-whites. Just as panda do not breed well in captivity, whites do not breed well in diverse environments. …[W]hites specifically feel unsafe around free and unassimilated non-white populations, such as we find in modern multicultural societies. (p. 13);
  2. invasive (sub)species — in this case, due to demographic competition with ‘non-white’ populations;
  3. (sub)species hybridization — in this case, partially direct (rape), and partially indirect (white male disenfranchisement, white female emancipation, government-sponsored family planning);
  4. excessive predation — in this case, informal “cold genocide” by means of de facto legal impunity for its perpetrators;

What is in question is not the validity Johnson’s analysis: what is in question is the ability of his “target audience” to live up to the task that he puts before it. This ability is highly problematic. As Johnson himself points out, it is ultimately a function of the long-term mechanisms of bio-evolutionary adaptation and selection: Voluntary birth control is also strongly dysgenic, because it requires long-term thinking and impulse control. It is, moreover, motivated by a sense of social and ecological responsibility. To the extent that all of these traits are heritable, voluntary birth control means that future generations will be disproportionately sired by the impulse, stupid, and morally irresponsible. (p.15-6)

From a Traditionalist perspective, the physical mechanisms of bio-evolutionary adaptation and selection that take place under the aegis of Modernity have two distinct but complementary meta-physical meanings. First, the dys–genic and de–volutionary ‘self-selection’ mechanism has the metaphysical meaning of Dark Age “downfall.” In the Traditional School, this meaning is described in René Guénon’s concept of the “reign of quantity”; in postmodern scientific discourse it is described in Peter Sloterdijk concept of Modernity’s “fall into the future.” Second, the same “self-selection” mechanism has the metaphysical meaning of pre-Golden Dawn “purification.” The following paragraph will elaborate on these two (inextricably linked) meanings of “downfall” and “purification.” These meanings, however, do not in any way invalidate the validity of Johnson’s analysis, which simply describes the concrete and contemporary manifestations of the inexorable meta-historical process described by the founders of the Traditionalist School.

From a Traditionalist perspective, the current Western cycle of bio-evolutionary adaptation and selection is entirely predictable: the future trajectory of America’s current bio-evolutionary “experiment” — the gradual replacement of its white population by non-white immigrants — can be predicted from the historical trajectory of America’s first bio-evolutionary “experiment,” viz. the wholesale ethnic replacement of its “American Indian” population by white immigrants.

The “final outcome” of the various factors described by Johnson — habitat loss (territorial marginalization), invasive species (economic marginalization), species hybridization (phenotypic marginalization) and excessive predation (judicial marginalization) — is already spelled out in the cruel fate of the last survivors of the Native American population of America. They live through their “latter days” in a land that is no longer theirs. Similar “final outcomes” can be scientifically studied among the Australian Aboriginals, the New Zealand Maoris and the South African Bushmen. Those readers that have no appetite for studying unemployment, homelessness, addiction, obesity, rape and murder statistics will find all they need to know in the handful of “marginal” movies that are dedicated to the sad lot of such groups: “Once Were Warriors” (Lee Tamahori, 1994), “Charlie”s Country’ (Rolf de Heer, 2013) and “Wind River” (Taylor Sheridan, 2017). Anybody who has seen “Wind River” and understood the “native” reality in which it is grounded19 can easily discern the parallel developments that are starting to pervade “white” reality. If these developments continue to unfold along to their current trajectory, the remnants of “native Europe” and “white American” may soon remember Johnson’s Manifesto in the same way that Native Americans remember Wovoka’s “Ghost Dance”: “latter-day magic” to “hasten the event.” If they remember anything at all.

The Face
(The Meta-Physical Perspective)

What a piece of work is man,
How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty,
In form and moving how express and admirable,
In action how like an Angel, in apprehension how like a god,
The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals.
And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? — William Shakespeare, “Hamlet”

As a follow up to the preceding discussion of “final outcomes” — “white extinction” as Johnson has it — it is proper to interpose a Traditionalist note regarding the meta-physical meaning of racial and ethnic “demise.” From a Traditionalist perspective, the bio-evolutionary “cropping” of the European peoples — the “white race” as Johnson has it — has actual meta–physical meaning, i.e. a meaning that transcends the physical decline of a certain phenotype. Irrespective of its exact causes — deliberately planned, naturally occurring, or both — the physical decline of the European peoples reflects a weakening of its meta-physical archetypes. In cultural anthropological terms: a loss of “totemic power.”

From that perspective, the destruction, absorption and transformation of (parts of) any people — the European peoples included — also reflect a process of self-selective purification: those that are unworthy of the old archetype and ancestral ideals are “selected against” by history. The men who are unworthy of their warrior ancestors and fail to honour their totems in the present will be despised by their own women — their bloodline will fail. The women who abandon their allegiances and voluntarily give themselves to the enemy will be despised by their own men — their children will belong to other tribes. But the men who fight and die for their tribe will gain immortality in memory and myth. The women who fight and are “conquered” by the enemy may yet raise children to avenge them. These are the “cultural” equivalents of “natural selection.”

From a metaphysical perspective, what matters is not the quantitative but the qualitative outcome of the current bio-evolutionary “cropping” of the European peoples: even if the European peoples are quantitatively reduced to a mere fraction of their current numbers, their remnants may be qualitatively raised to a higher level. In this regard, it is important to note that the original boreal habitat of the European peoples was characterized by harsh seasonal cycles, great primordial forests and ferocious animal predators. The physical, psychological and spiritual conditions to this primordial habitat — near-equivalents of which are found in Europe’s boreal and austral settlement colonies overseas — offer the existential optimum for the European peoples. Thus, a(n intentionally) reduced population density and a (deliberately) ‘re-wilded’ environment may actually greatly benefit the (re)creation of a European version of Perfect Man.

From a meta-physical perspective of the Traditional School, the “measure of man” ultimately surpasses all ethnic boundaries. The face of the Perfect Man (Adam Kadmon, Insan-e Kamil, Purusha) has a colour that surpasses the fleeting shades of this world. On this Earth, it is seen seldom enough. Perhaps it was seen in Zulu King Cetshawayo kaMpande when he defeated the British Empire on the Day of the Dead Moon,20 or in Lakota Chief Sitting Bull on the day that he outfought the US Army on the Greasy Grass,21 or in Polish King Jan Sobieski on the day that he rose to become Defensor Fidei on the fields before Vienna. After the modern abolition of martial heroism, it still shines through during those occasional moments when even modern “last man” falls silence in the face of peacetime glory — some notable “white” moments include Kirsten Flagstad’s Liebestod of 23 July 1952, Bobby Fischer’s “Game 13 Rook Lock” of 10 August 1972 and Nadia Comaneci’s Olympic “First Perfect 10” of 18 July 1976.

After the Dark Age end of even such public moments, reminders Perfect Man may still continue to recur in uniquely private visions: the perfect posture in an African Eve on a street corner, the serene stillness in an Asian Bodhisattva in a rice-field village, the heaven-blue clarity in a Nordic scientist in a laboratory. No human group or individual is superior in its potential to achieve Perfection: each race, each nation and each person may achieve it in a unique way. But given the failure of the prerequisite conditioning — which depends on authentic Tradition — this transcendental challenge is increasingly beyond the grasp of self-absorbed self-satisfied “modern man.” Thus, Modernity relegates the very notion of the Perfect Man to the status of a “museum exhibit.” Even so, it still remains available as an instant cure to the primitive “racisms” and evolutionary “superiorities” of “modern man” — even as an individual “modern man” may yet choose to see beyond gold, lapis lazuli, quartz and obsidian into the Living Image of Amun.22

Only a decisive re-appropriation of the hidden archetypes of European Tradition will provide a solid enough basis from which to launch the project envisaged by Johnson’s Manifesto: Reconquista.

(The Ethno-Nationalist Perspective)

Speak softly and carry a big stick — you will go far. — Theodore Roosevelt

Johnson’s rejects the hostile elite’s assumption that the European peoples — should and — will “go gentle into that good night.” His Manifesto is exactly this: a public rejection of the globalist insistence on the unconditional surrender of the European peoples. At the same time, Johnson recognizes the need for the “total war” mobilization that follows from this point-blank rejection — this rejection represents an existential choice that will finally involve a life-and–death struggle with the globalist hostile elite. Johnson summarizes the task ahead as follows: If whites have no future in the current system, then we will simply have to set up a new one. …To give our people a future again… [w]e need to replace our leaders before they replace us… (p. 3,5). The forthcoming power struggle with the hostile elite has three distinct aspects: (a) Inner Revolution, (b) Outer Revolution and (c) Policy Implementation. Johnson implicitly addresses all three of these — the following summary will describe them in Johnson’s own words:

  1. Inner Revolution: …individualism can be replaced with an ethic of racial responsibility; sex-role confusion can be eliminated by the reassertion of traditional and biological sex roles (women as mothers and nurturers, men as protectors and providers); white guilt and self-loathing can be replaced by white pride and self-assertion; affordable family formation can be a cornerstone of social policy… (p.24)

    Johnson implicitly recognizes the crucial problem of distinctly effeminate “denaturalization” that obstructs the realization of this Inner Revolution: The essential problem… is finding a way to square the requirements of white survival with our people’s highly evolved, perhaps even morbid conscientiousness. [It may] actually make… it easier to mobilize our people if fair and reasonable solutions are violently rejected. (p. 47) The main stumbling block… is bourgeois morality. The bourgeois ethos holds that the highest good is a long, comfortable, secure life. By contrast, the aristocratic ethos holds honor as the highest value, to which the aristocrat is willing to sacrifice both his life and his wealth. Bourgeois man, by contrast, is all too willing to sacrifice honor to pursue wealth and to extend his life. The bourgeois ethos is also opposed to the willingness of idealists to die for principles, whether religious, political, or philosophical. …As a movement we need to cultivate idealists who take principles seriously and warriors who are willing to fight and, if necessary, die for our people. (p. 124-5) Johnson recognizes the most effective therapy for this conundrum, even if he does not explicitly recognize its Traditional Christian root (in its Theological Virtues): Hope. …[T]here will be immediate psychological dividends for whites once we know our race has a future again. There will be less alienation and depression — fewer losers, alcoholics, drug addicts, and suicides. More whites will form businesses, and contribute to society. Once we restore hope for the future, our people will start living as if the ethnostate is already here. Those who fight for a better world live in it today. (p. 47)

  2. Outer Revolution: Johnson zooms in on the precise target of the Outer Revolution — the globalist hostile elite: The entire political establishment in virtually every white country is committed to the policies that are driving white demographic decline: the destruction of the family and the denigration of motherhood; the promotion of hedonism and selfishness; encouraging multiculturalism, race-mixing, and race-replacement immigration; and the cult of “diversity,” which is just an euphemism for replacing whites with non-whites. (p.3) [These policies] …were hatched in the minds of intellectuals, artists, scientists, politicians, educators, and advertisers. They were made real by changing people’s beliefs and values, and by altering the laws and institutions that govern us. (p. 18)

    Johnson cautions against any unwarranted naïveté concerning the intentionality of the evil perpetrated against the European peoples by the globalist hostile elite: …[T]he ruling elites in every form of society are noted for thinking and planning ahead. Both government intelligence agencies and private think tanks are in the business of generating long-term predictions based on current trends, and planning accordingly. Thus it is just not plausible that our leaders are unaware of white extinction. They either don’t care about it, or want it to happen. (p. 20) Once demographic displacement could no longer be ignored, the establishment switched from denying it to hailing it as progress, while silencing and marginalizing dissenting voices, quietly refusing to enforce existing immigration controls, and blocking all attempts to impose new controls. (p. 22)

    Johnson locates the greatest vulnerability of the globalist hostile elite in its metapolitical “deficit spending.” Our enemies’ …greatest weaknesses are false ideas and decadent values that are leading to terrible consequences. These catastrophes and the subsequent attempts to cover them up, explain them away, and avoid blame are shredding their credibility. (p. 104)

  3. Policy Implementation: before suggesting a number of concrete suggestions for the implementation of anti-globalist policy reform, Johnson points out the need for retaking the moral high ground. He recaptures the ethical initiative by ruthlessly exposing the false argument that counter-globalist “ethnic cleansing” would be unethical. He points out that …whites are already living with ethnic cleansing for political reason. It’s just that whites are the victims rather than the beneficiaries. For two or more generations now, whites have been subjected to mass ethnic cleansing in our homelands. Millions of whites have changed homes, schools, and jobs millions of times because of the end of racially segregated neighbourhoods, schools, and businesses and the influx of millions of non-white immigrants, who have destroyed white neighbourhoods, schools, and jobs, forcing white families to move elsewhere in search of “better” (i.e., whiter) places to live and work. Despite the enormous human and financial costs of this ethnic cleansing, whites have been “living with it” quite well. It seldom seems to intrude into their consciousness, much less into public expression, and hardly ever into political action and change. So I think whites can live with themselves quite well if they imposed the same processes of demographic replacement on non-whites, and I think that non-whites could live with it too. (p. 40)

After retaking the moral high ground, Johnson proceeds to set out a number of concrete policy proposals. In the final analysis, these proposals represent the true heart of his Manifesto. Again, the following summary will let Johnson speak for himself (p. 98-9) — with a few added caveats that add a touch of European Realpolitik:

  1. We need to close our borders to non-White immigrants.
  2. We must repatriate all post-1965 immigrants and their descendants to their ancestral homelands. Caveat: not applicable to ex-colonial expellees, spouses of indigenous people and thoroughly assimilated mixed-marriage offspring.
  3. We must deal with pre-1965 non-white populations by offering them, for instance, autonomous reservations, independent ethnostates, or resettlement in their ancestral homelands. Caveat: in Europe these measures should include unconditional residence rights, local sphere sovereignties and autonomous community rights for pre-World War II non-Europeans such as Israelites and Roma.
  4. We must create barriers to race-mixing. …[W]e need strong social norms and even laws to discourage miscegenation. Caveat: in a Europe that has been swept clear of post-1965 non-European immigrants legal restraints could easily be kept at a civilized minimum (e.g. limited to rescinding semi-automatic “partner naturalization” and automatic citizenship right for non-assimilated offspring). Another caveat: it might be prudent to consider the recognition of new categories of “mixed descent” ethnicity with autonomous community rights.
  5. [We] must institute pro-family policies. We must restore biologically-based and tradition-hallowed sex roles: men as protectors and providers, women as mothers and community builders. We must also make it affordable for men of all social classes and income levels to own homes and support housewives and children.
  6. We will have to adopt protectionism and pro-labor policies to promote the return of high-wage manufacturing jobs to [the West].
  7. We will have to reform our educational system, culture and media to purge them of anti-white propaganda and to communicate the knowledge, skills and virtues necessary both to flourish as individuals and perpetuate pour civilization.

Plus Ultra
(The Neo-Eurasianist Perspective)

Let’s get them all. Now while we’ve got the muscle — “The Godfather” II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)

From an Archaeo-Futurist perspective, it would eminently desirable to fuse Johnson’s limited program, aimed at the protection of the indigenous rights of the European peoples, with a greater vision — a vision that reaches beyond the immediate concerns of the European peoples. In metapolitical terms, such a greater vision should have priority, for the simple reason that the master plan of the enemy of the European peoples is based on a planetary vision: that master plan should be matched and outdone.

Archaeo-Futurism may deconstruct the Liberal-Normativist ideology of the globalist hostile elite at an abstract level, but such a deconstruction does not automatically translate into a deconstruction of its concrete power structures, i.e. its institutions of “global governance,” “high finance” and “mainstream media.” The deconstruction of these power structures requires nothing less than an alternative geopolitical “power paradigm.” Because the ethnic replacement of the European peoples that is targeted by Johnson’s Manifesto emanates from these globalist power structures, his incipient “White Nationalist” movement would be well advised to consider a strategy that covers them in their entirety.

Here the interests of the “white nationalism” naturally align with those of other anti-globalist forces — if for no other reason than that they are fellow-enemies of the same globalist hostile elite. Here White Nationalism may find a natural ally in Neo-Eurasianism, which pursues an anti-liberalist multi-polar geopolitical alternative to the uni-polar New World Order of the globalist hostile elite. Despite divergences in focus and vision, an alliance between these two movements would have the same goal: the removal of the globalist hostile elite.

From the Neo-Eurasianist perspective, the globalist hostile elite victimizes not only the indigenous peoples of Western Europe and the overseas Anglosphere but the whole of humanity: it obstructs all peoples and nations on Earth in the vocational pursuit of their authentic identities and in the geopolitical exercise of their legitimate self-interests. Neo-Eurasianism opposes the “business model” of the globalist hostile elite, which depends on ecocidal “slash and burn” resource exploitation, immoral “disaster capitalist” usury and antinomian socio-cultural deconstruction.

Neo-Eurasianism opposes the supra-territorial hegemony of the globalist hostile elite, which depends on “full spectrum” arsenal of “hybrid warfare”: a subtle combination of modernized hard power (“humanitarian” military intervention, proxy terrorist networks, economic “sanctions” blackmail) and futuristic soft power (“colour revolution” infiltration, culture-distorting cognitive warfare, digital “algorithmic” psyops). While Archaeo-Futurism aims at dislodging the abstract (philosophical, metapolitical) “frame” of globalist Liberal-Normativism, Neo-Eurasianism aims at dislodging the concrete (geopolitical, sociocultural) “frame” of the globalist New World Order. To the extent that the interests of White Nationalism are directly aligned with those of Neo-Eurasianism, Archaeo-Futurism can point to possible “bridging” concepts. Thus, the gap between the “archaic” (Traditionalist) foundation of Neo-Eurasianism and the “futurist” (“Whitopian”) orientation of White Nationalism may be bridged by the following considerations:

  1. Neo-Eurasianism emphatically differentiates between the globalist hostile elite and the Jewish people. This differentiation ultimately stems from the Neo-Eurasianism’s incorporation of the Traditionalist recognition of Judaism as an authentic Tradition: true and legitimate identification with any authentic Tradition ipse facto precludes participation in projects such as those of globalist hostile elite.23 While scientific (bio-evolutionary, cultural-historical) analyses pertaining to the historical “Jewish Question” — including those addressing its juxtaposition with the globalist hostile elite — are entirely legitimate, there can be no question of any equivalence between the Jewish people and the hostile elite. The credentials of White Nationalism as a legitimate movement for European indigenous rights and as a legitimate partner in Neo-Eurasianist anti-globalist movement will depend on its rejection of anachronistic and counterproductive Anti-Semitism.
  2. Neo-Eurasianism recognizes the need for a correct assessment of the (often complex) historical positions of the many non-European minority ethnicities that are living scattered among the European settlement areas across the Eurasian landmass. In Eastern Europe these include a number of long-settled Turkic peoples, in Western Europe these include remnants of long-resident Israelite and Roma populations — they now also include a number of ex-colonial ethnic groups that remained faithful to their European imperial masters and went into exile in the wake of the decolonization of Africa and Asia.24 The rights of these groups include unconditional residence, communal autonomy and respect for their historical privileges. Neo-Eurasianism wishes to incorporate these in an entirely re-ordered post-globalist Eurasia, characterized by multi-layered power devolution and confederative organization (perhaps eventually under the aegis of a small number of new Imperia). Thus, Neo-Eurasianism takes a less rigorous stance on the issue “ethnic homogeneity” than White Nationalism — the right balance needs to be worked out. A less rigorously “whitopian” political forum will also have the added benefit of harnessing the support of (some) non-European minorities in the fight against the globalist hostile elite. A united front of indigenous Europeans and (some) minority groups in the common fight against the globalist hostile elite will also broaden indigenous support for a generous post-globalist “settling of account” with such minority groups.
  3. Neo-Eurasianism allows for the development of a holistic vision of benevolently paternalist “empire,” which may eventually be extended beyond the Eurasian landmass by new forms of Imperium — into to Equatorial regions of the Americas, Africa and Oceania — on equitable terms. In this regard, Neo-Eurasianism recognizes the validity of Johnson’s appropriate analysis: …we should recognize that not all peoples have an equal capacity for self-government. …[E]thnonationalism is not really possible in the racially mixed societies of Latin America, where the best option is probably a more benevolent version of the present system of rule by European-descended elites. Nor is ethnonationalism possible among the most primitive tribal peoples of the world in Africa, Amazonia, Micronesia, or Papua. Such peoples require benevolent paternalism and ethnic reservations. (p. 57) In this regard, a positive role can be played by the continuing European presence in Southern Africa, which in some areas dates back over three and half centuries, i.e. barely less than the initial European presence in the territory of the present United States. The European peoples of Southern Africa — the Afrikaners people above all — are now effectively indigenous to that region. Instead of being encouraged to “return to their homelands,” as suggested by Johnson (p. 91), they should be supported in reclaiming their rightful inheritance. Their struggle against repressive regimes of totally artificial and deeply dysfunctional “black majority rule” is a litmus test of the cause of European indigenous rights movement: the Afrikaner people in particular constitute the proverbial “canary in the coal mine.”
  4. As mentioned earlier, Neo-Eurasianism is currently investigating a concept that can (theoretically, potentially) encapsulate — and protect — the ethnostates that Johnson advocates for the European peoples: Archaeo-Futurist Imperium. Quasi-confederative forms of “new empire” may serve the common interest of the European peoples — and the other indigenous peoples of the Eurasian landmass. The notion of supra-national and confederative Imperium is historically central to the political philosophy of the great Traditions of Eurasia, including those of the Indo-European Traditions of Persia and India. In fact, Johnson implicitly recognizes this notion in his concept of “Uncontested Supremacism” (p. 50) and his statement that …[e]thnonationalism should be seen as a right, not an obligation. It is not a moral duty that needs to be adopted by every ethnic group, regardless of circumstances. It is simply a highly pragmatic tool to decrease conflict and promote genetic and cultural diversity. (p. 50)

    An Archaeo-Futurist Imperium, which is based on the protection of ethnic identity and maximal power devolution, may provide a viable alternative to maximalist “ethnic purism” in contexts where it is historically inappropriate. Throughout Eurasia there exist a number of “hybrid ethnicity” complexes that defy “ethnostatic purity.” Relations such as Netherlands-Belgium–Luxembourg, Castile-Catalonia, Serbia-Montenegro and Russia-Belarus–Ukraine defy ‘single-level’ definitions of national sovereignty. Globalist geopolitics exploits the naturally occurring fractures within these complexes to weaken any form of non-globalist state construct that can accommodate them. It should be remembered that there are good historical precedents for non-globalist remedies to the artificial boundaries and divides that are being created by globalist ‘single-level’ definitions of national sovereignty. Historical coherence remains “actionable” for the Netherlands-Belgium–Luxembourg complex in the concept of the “Low Countries,” for the Castile-Catalonia complex in the concept of “Spain,” for the Serbia-Montenegro complex in the concept of the “Yugoslavia” and for Russia-Belarus-Ukraine complex in the concept of “All the Russias.”

  5. Finally, Neo-Eurasianism emphasizes Decisionist alternatives to Liberal-Normativist hyper-democracy:25 such a Decisionist approach seems warranted in the face of the escalating speed at which the Western body politic is unravelling. This Decisionist approach may provide a “window of opportunity” for the implementation of Johnson’s White Nationalist program. Johnson proposes …a well-planned, orderly, and non-violent process of repatriation. There is, moreover, no hurry. Our enemies planned to eliminate us over generations. We can take a few decades to set things right. (p. 43) Johnson is right in proposing a “controlled descent” to cope with the emergency of “ethnic replacement” — and he follows up with many good suggestions (p. 43-6). Johnson’s approach has the advantage of retaining the moral high ground: it defuses the dangerously explosive legacy of multiculturalism, which is already raising the spectre of civic disorder and ethnic conflict. But this gradualist approach needs a basis in Realpolitik: it needs a restored political power base from which to implement it. Liberal-Normativist hyper-democracy is irreconcilable with the restoration of authentic Auctoritas in the political sense. The globalist hostile elite merely needs to implement “business as usual” to achieve its goal of destroying the European peoples. It has the “long breath” — the European peoples cannot match it. Only a Decisionist break-out from the Liberal-Normativist “checkmate” will save them. Time is running out.

Operation Belisarius
(The Geo-political Perspective)

For not by numbers of men, nor by measure of body,
but by valor of soul is war to be decided. — Flavius Belisarius

Thus far, the strategy of the Western New Right movement has been to focus on cognitive warfare: it has focused on the counter-deconstruction of the Liberal-Normativist “narrative” of the globalist hostile elite.

The metapolitical project of the New Right derived its momentum from internet-based strategies: “alternative media” outlets and social media “memes.” Thus, Johnson describes the White Nationalist movement, which is a subset of the New Right, as follows: …a vast non-hierarchical network of organizations and individuals, …not created and guided by some mastermind. (p. 113) …The White Nationalist movement is more like a subculture than a political party. It is a network of individuals, web platforms, and organizations. It exists more online than in the real world. (p. 115) In the face of the rise of “censorship new style,” alluded to in the first (“Acknowledgements”) paragraph of this review, the strategy of the New Right needs radical reconsideration. In the face of social media deplatforming, book distribution bans and travel restrictions the New Right will have to re-invent itself. While it may very well mount a successful digital guerrilla campaign, it will most likely be deprived of its formal control of sizeable sections of the digisphere.

Similarly, real-world gatherings of the New Right will become more problematic as its freedom of movement is being restricted in the most literal sense of the word. By depriving it of these former assets, the hostile elite is attempting to “delegitimize” the New Right: it is literally attempting to drive it “underground” — out of public sight, where it may be “deconstructed” with impunity. The New Right would be well advised to anticipate this attempt by reinventing itself. Such anticipation will benefit from a realistic geopolitical perspective, i.e. a realistic appraisal of the geopolitical strengths and weaknesses of the globalist hostile elite.

Johnson’s Manifesto contains some useful maxims to deal with the geopolitical reality that would ensue from the partial occupation of Europe by a non-European enemy. He sketches the following scenario: …what would happen if a sovereign European state signed a treaty to host a gigantic Chinese military base? Or if it fell into the hands of plutocrats who started importing cheap non-white labor? Clearly such policies would endanger all of Europe, therefore it is not just the business of whatever rogue state adopts those policies? …Other states would be perfectly justified in declaring war against a rogue state, deposing the offending regime, and removing non-Europeans from its territory. Then they would set up a new sovereign regime and go home. (p. 53) In fact, it may be plausibly argued that Johnson’s scenario has, in fact, already come to pass.

A non-European enemy has, in fact, materialized in the globalist hostile elite. A partial occupation of Europe has, in fact, materialized in the form of the globalist regime known as the “European Union.” As Johnson starkly puts it: …the leadership of the present-day European Union is infected by [an anti-European] memetic virus, and it is doing all it can to flood all of Europe with non-whites. (p. 54) The territory subject to all-out ethnic replacement does not necessarily include all of the territory formally claimed by the European Union — it certainly does not include the Visegrad nation-states, which have consistently resisted the legal and physical implementation of ethnic replacement on their own territories. It should also be noted that there is an incipient rebellion against ethnic replacement in parts of its old heartland: the phenomena of Britain’s “Brexit” and Italy’s “M5S” are the most visible aspects of this rebellion. The rebellious contagion has even spread to the core areas of globalist power in Europe: the blanket censorship of media reporting on “immigrant” violence in Germany and “yellow vest” protests in France point to the strains and stresses that accelerated ethnic replacement are causing even among the most docile of Europe’s indigenous populations.

Nevertheless, the global hostile elite is still firmly in control: it continues to hold de jure power throughout the entire territory European Union and it is aggressively attempting to implement it de facto within its recalcitrant “new member” states in Central Europe. Taking the globalist “power grid” to include institutions such as the “European Economic Area” (which includes Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), the “Schengen Area” (which includes Switzerland) and the “North Atlantic Treaty Organization” (which includes Albania and Montenegro), the only truly “free” European territory that remains is found in the Western Balkans and in the former Soviet sphere. The only great power that is still free from globalist dominion is Russia. Thus, the natural geopolitical basis for the Reconquista of Europe is Russia — its incipient Neo-Eurasianist orientation provides an additional metapolitical basis. The New Right movement should recognize the stark geopolitical reality — and the window of opportunity that it still contains. A Reconquista of Europe may be possible through an east-to–west roll-back campaign, turning back the tide of globalism. Such an “Operation Belisarius” may yet recover the lost lands of the West — against all odds.

The Guardian
(The Traditionalist Perspective)

And when I find myself frozen in the mud of the real
Far from Your loving eyes,
I will return to this perfect place of mine and take solace
In the simple perfection of knowing You. — “Wind River” (Taylor Sheridan, 2017)

From a Traditionalist perspective, the fundamental premise of “Operation Belisarius” must be a thorough grasp of the metaphysical quality of the existential challenge that it poses. This is the crusader’s challenge: the challenge of making an uncompromising stance against evil. As a representative of White Nationalism, Johnson explicitly acknowledges this challenge at the level of the bio-evolutionary “arms race” between the European peoples and the globalist hostile elite: It is easy to understand why people might shy away from [the] truth, for it implies that whites are not just the victims of a ghastly mistake, or an impersonal sociopolitical “system,” or an inhuman cosmic or historical destiny, but of knowing malice, principled enmity, and diabolical evil….It is hard to accept that such evil exists, much less that it wills our annihilation.

But if we are to save ourselves, we have to understand the forces that are arrayed against us. If… eventually [we] come up against not just ignorance and indifference but diamond-hard malice, we need to know that. (p.22) …The architects of white genocide …knew very well that its ultimate end is the extinction of the white race. But they were not interested in a quick paroxysm of slaughter, as emotionally satisfying as that might have been. They knew that it is difficult to mobilize the people to commit mass murder, and it is risky, because the victims could fight back and perhaps win, in which case one’s own people might be wiped out in retaliation. Therefore, they conceived a slower, safer process of genocide. They knew that if anti-white demographic trends were set in motion and sustained over time — i.e., lower birthrates, collapsing families, miscegenation, non-white immigration, non-white penetration of white living spaces etc. — the long-term result would be white extinction, and very few whites would become aware of it, much less fight back, until resistance was pretty much futile anyway. (p.42)

From a Traditionalist perspective, it is important to clarify something that is directly related to Johnson’s crusader stance: Traditionalism proposes that what Johnson terms “inhuman cosmic destiny” and “principled enmity” can, in fact, co-exist. They co-exist in the demonic New World Order that the globalist hostile elite is currently foisting on the European peoples. Traditionalism posits that every Tradition has its Guardians – these Guardians are bound to re-appear when the hour is darkest. In its own particular “American” way, Johnson’s Manifesto proves that the crusading spirit of the European peoples is about to re-appear.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul. — William Henley, “Invictus”


Les reines de nos coeurs!
Comme ils sont provocants! Comme ils sont fiers toujours!
Comme on ose régner sur nos sorts et nos jours!

Faites attention! Observez la mesure!

Ô la mortelle injure! La cadence est moins lente!
Et la chute plus sûre!

[The queens of our hearts!

How defiant they are! How proud they remain!

How daringly our fates and our days are ruled!

Pay attention! Observe the scales!

Oh mortal insult! The rhythm is slowing down!

And the fall is more assured!]

— Robert Comte de Montesquiou-Fézensac

At present, the New Right is the only indigenous advocate for the rights of the European peoples. Given the fact that the European peoples are facing the final onslaught of globalist destruction, it is of crucial importance that the New Right speaks with one voice. The title of Johnson’s last chapter, “White Nationalism is Inevitable,” is somewhat ambiguous: it leaves open the question of whether the victory of white nationalism is inevitable — or not.

This question should be answered in a realistic fashion: it is not. Throughout history, many peoples have gone extinct for many different reasons: the European peoples may very well go extinct in a historically unprecedented manner. From a cultural-historical perspective, they are no more than a hair’s breadth away from the near-extinct status of the American Indians and the Australian Aboriginals, even if they arrived at that point following an entirely different path. The writer of this review suspects that, in his heart of hearts, Johnson knows this: why otherwise would he have sacrificed so much — why otherwise would he have written his manifesto?

In the face of the impending all-out war between the globalist hostile elite and the New Right, the watchword of the New Right must be unity. This task of protecting the indigenous rights of the European peoples is clearly beyond any one of the many groups that constitute the New Right. In Johnson’s own words: …we simply have to learn to work with people who share our views of white identity politics but may not share our views on a whole range of other issues. (p. 120) As Johnson states: the New Right should learn from its experiences and mistakes, not waste scarce resources on duplicating efforts and not compete with the events and products of others.

It should focus on efficient cartelization instead of destructive competition, on the equitable adjudication of disputes and on collaboration for tasks that are too great for any one organization to accomplish alone (p. 119-20). This means that the New Right should rise above the “personalized” feuds and the superfluous “disputes” that allow its enemy to “divide and rule.” Reasonable compromises or simple “ceasefire” arrangements should be reached on a number of divisive issues such “misogyny,” “homophobia,” “climate denial,” ‘anti-semitism’ and “islamophobia.” All of these issues may involve important questions that need to be addressed at some point — but when the house is on fire there is no time to dispute the colour of the wallpaper. Right now, all we need to recognize is that Europeans, like any other healthy animal, will fight back when we… are being attacked. (p.135)


1 Cf.

2 For an Archaeo-Futurist counter-deconstruction of Liberal-Normativism, cf.

3 Of course, countless other examples of mainstream media “double-think” are possible, e.g. the virtual total silence around outrageous atavisms such as Saudi Arabian “religious law” and South African anti-White “ethnic cleansing,” and blatant racisms such as Liberian citizenship law and Haitian land ownership law.

4 The significance of collective identity construction, involving some degree of in-group self-consciousness, as a “bio-evolutionary strategy” in the course of “human evolution” has been thoroughly investigated by Kevin MacDonald in his ground-breaking multi-tome work on Jewish identity.

5 For obituaries, cf. and


7 The author’s reviews of Jorjani’s previous works Prometheus and Atlas and World State of Emergency are freely available at and

8 Traditionalist hermeneutics as defined by the Traditional School; cf. Alexander Wolfheze, Alba Rosa. Ten Traditionalist Essays about the Crisis in the Modern West (London: Arktos, 2019 – ) 151-3. Mercurial hermeneutics as defined by Jason Jorjani in his Atlas and Prometheus (London: Arktos, 2016 –,

9 For a more detailed exposition of the reviewer’s Traditionalist approach, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origins of the Great War (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2018 – free extract available at ) 1-24.

10 Thus, contra Johnson’s strong historical-materialist bias, Traditionalism cannot endorse statements such as White Nationalists argue that the ultimate source of political harmony is not culture. It’s genetics. (p. 80-1) From a Traditionalist perspective, the ultimate source of societal harmony is archetypal power. Different expressions of this archetypal meta-physical power are reflected as harmonizing ordering principles in the physical world. Thus, “racial types” surpass mere “genetic” hard-wiring’: these types also have “subtle bodies,” as reflected in spirituality, art and psychology.

11 For a symbolic Archaeo-Futurist re-interpretation of the Indo-European (“Aryan”) archetype, cf. the author’s review of Jason Jorjani’s World State of Emergency in

12 Johnson also explicitly narrows his working definition of the term “white” (…white people are the aboriginal peoples of Europe and their unmixed descendants around the world. – p. 68). He recognizes the somewhat “permeable” nature of the term “white”: its “Borderline cases” include not only non-European peoples such as Persians, Armenians and Israelites but also non-Christian Europeans such as Balkan and Caucasian Muslim groups.

13 Clearly, a purely historically-materialist defined White Nationalism lacks the positive, mobilizing charge that resides in the meta-historical and im-material Aryan archetypes of the European Tradition, cf.

14 For more precise Archaeo-Futurist definitions of the terms “Aryan,” “Indo-European,” “European” and “Western,” cf. the “Preliminaries” paragraph of the author’s essay, “The Great Year” –

15 Wolfheze, Sunset, 267.

16 For a brief introduction to (Neo-)Eurasianism, cf.

17 A reference to the title of a Dutch political treatise written by Martin Bosma, second in command of Geert Wilders’ patriotic party PVV (De schijn-élite van de valsemunters (2010), made freely available by Bosma at ).

18 A reference to the Second World War code name for the Allied plan to invade the Japanese homeland – an operation that was made be redundant by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the subsequent Japanese surrender.

19 Cf. and

20 A reference to the Zulu victory in the Battle of Isandlwana, which coincided with the solar eclipse of 22 January 1879.

21 A reference to the native toponym for the location of the Battle of the Little Bighorn, a.k.a. “Custer”s Last Stand’, on 25-6 June 1876.

22 A reference to materials of the death mask of Pharaoh Tut-Ankh-Amun, on public display in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.

23 Cf.

24 E.g. the Moluccan exiles who settled in the Netherlands after the decolonization of the Dutch East Indies – an American equivalent of such a group is found in the Hmong exiles who settled in the United States after the Vietnam War.

25 For an Archaeo-Futurist analysis of Decisionism, cf.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn