March 6, 2019 By Daniel Gibbons (Australia)

There are many of us on the right who are often accustomed to swallowing what seems like a ceaseless stream of blackpills. A “blackpill”, for those who don’t know, is essentially the depressing equivalent to a redpill. It is the realisation of harsh and sad truths, such as the degradation of culture, the extremely harmful levels of immigration, and the loss of national solidarity and identity in the tide of overwhelming progressivism we seem to find ourselves in.

Some take blackpills very harshly, and I know for myself I’ve found thinking on the state of things can leave me feeling depressed for the future of the nation and our movement. It can be very deflating and, from an activism point of view, can be very damaging. People who are particularly blackpilled feel that trying to change anything is a waste of time, that the course is set and that our demise is certain.

I don’t underrate the challenge ahead. Those who call ourselves nationalists recognise that everything has come against us: money, government, media of all kinds. All of these material forces are extremely powerful, capable of destroying people through their influence over the world and suppressing opposition. And while those forces we come up against are certainly great, it is through an analysis of both history and the present that we can see that despite all this, there exists reasons to be hopeful.

If we are to identify this decline, it is most certainly a distinctively European one. I do not discount that there are those who are not ethnically European that have concern for the decline of the west, but even they must admit that the west’s foundation rests almost entirely upon the European people. By necessity, the decline of Europeans will lead to the decline of European civilisation, so we witness the decline of the west correlated perfectly with the decline of Europeans.

So in establishing this, we can look to the history of Europe for examples of how in history there has been apocalyptic threats to the very existence of European civilisation. We have the Huns, the Mongols, the Persians, the Saracens, the multiple Islamic invasions of Italy, Eastern Europe, and Iberia. All of these present examples of where foreign forces have directly attacked and threatened the existence of the European people and the European civilisation.

In all these circumstances, when the threat was critical and collapse seemed certain, the perseverance of what could only be named the European will to exist would suddenly prevail against these forces; of whom more directly than our current threats challenged the very existence of Europe and its associated institutions, beliefs, and structures.

Of course, the new threat is posed from within. Governments, politicians, and all sorts of other forces have mobilised against us and threaten us in a new way, but it is obvious from the proliferation of populist outbursts that the mood and attitude is now shifting away from an acceptance of the dogmatic mainstream to a desire for a fresh new perspective.

This shift is slow and tardy, most certainly frustrating for us on the right, but it is certainly occurring. The fear it has struck in the liberal establishment is a testament to the growth of this inspiring phenomenon. As liberals continue to rail against the fundamentals of reality, disbelief in the authority of an established order that insists on truths that do not apply to the average man will begin to growth.

Doomsday scenarios are plentiful with practically everyone holding their own kind of prediction on how everything we know would come to an end. Being accurate in this trade of doomsday predictions is very difficult, so I certainly won’t make a fool of myself by attempting to suggest a particular time and point that a dramatic turn around will occur.

What can be said however is that it is inevitable that there will be a critical moment where crisis threatens the very existence of everything we know. The form it comes to us seems clear to us on the right; endless mass immigration and economic pressures threaten to undermine our society fundamentally. This fact in itself has become a blackpill for many, but I view it from a different light.

In the article I wrote a few weeks ago I discussed the need for conservatism to abandon “pacifism” and embrace “will”. The basis of my discussion was the book “Reflections on Violence” by Georges Sorel, within which Sorel pitches his argument and justification for violence to his fellow Marxists.

He criticised the parliamentary socialists for their dealings with the bourgeois and in how they duped the proletariat into believing them great reformers when in truth they served better as preservers of the bourgeoisie through their work of mediating between the bourgeois and the working class. What we can take from this is an understanding of the dynamics we face as nationalists in the event of some kind of critical moment, whatever its nature will be.

Neoliberalism, the dominant ideology currently pervading the west, is essentially the ideology of the modern bourgeoisie. They share the same characteristics and largely behave the same way as the bourgeois Sorel describes in his book. They are a very fearful group of people who are terrified by the prospects of instability as this directly impacts their profit. The trade unionists, acutely aware of this, use disruption (worker’s strikes) in order to gain concessions from the bourgeois as they act to restore stability.

The end goal of Marxism is the total overthrow of the bourgeois state and the establishment of some kind of replacement, whether that be anarcho-communism or a dictatorship of the proletariat, but in any scenario the bourgeois are certainly worse off — often dead. As modern politics has resulted with a dichotomic political spectrum consisting of socialism on the left and liberal capitalism on the right, when liberal capitalism suffers economic woes and undermines the wealth of the lower classes, people are flung towards its opposite, socialism, in response.

We have seen the results of this shift in several countries during the interwar period between World War I and World War II. Across Europe, Marxist movements became highly popular and of course famously successful in Russia due to the extreme economic pressures placed upon the poor. This naturally rouses fear in the bourgeois as the rise of the left indicates the demise of the bourgeois.

Here is where the nationalist seizes the moment. Before the ruthless left-wing movements, the bourgeoisie-right are left with little options. They are locked in a paralysing fear; they are unwilling to use violence as they fear violence leads to greater violence and instability, but there is nothing they can concede to restore stability because of the strenuous economic circumstances.

The bourgeois unwillingness to take action is what gives a nascent right-wing movement of action the ability to suddenly grasp the resources of the bourgeois and thrust itself into the prime position. With the bourgeois left with no alternative but to support the side that won’t end their lives, the nascent right-wing movement will be capable of demanding any concession from the bourgeois.

Here, this movement will appropriate the state and take command of the nation. The bourgeois willingly hand themselves over because they simply have no choice. In this action, the right-wing movement prevents a bloody revolution resulting in the death of many of their countrymen, while also forcing the bourgeois to give up their excess greed and manipulation by profit.

In times of crisis, dramatic action is demanded. History has shown to us that these moments, when seized by men of action, lend themselves totally to those with the will to act.

“A series of macro-lines of catastrophe are converging towards a breaking point situation somewhere in the early Twenty-first century: an environmental, economic, and military apocalypse brought about by ‘faith in miracles’ – including the belief that ‘development’ can continue indefinitely without posing the risk of a general collapse.” - Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age (2010)