Some months ago an intriguing social phenomena was mentioned on several teenager forums: the “fagify”. It started with various testimonies and especially a Facebook message that was supposed to be kept a secret among teenage girls. Roughly, some girls start talking to a boy as if he were a female friend, humiliate him by mentioning manlier guys, then follow by tattling about masculine penetration, ask him to rate other guys on their beauty… The aim? As the name says: turn a regular, heterosexual boy into a “fag”. According to the mainstream gender theory, sexuality is a whole “social construction” and it should be possible to “fagify” someone by mere social engineering, not to say indoctrination and mental manipulation. However, it already failed a long time ago and it failed again when a “fagified” boy attempted suicide.

During teenage years, girls tend to be more gregarious than boys and more often prone to social manipulation. The gender theory, along with how homosexuality became fashionable, was enough to give the idea of “fagifying” to some crafty manipulators, even some adults. The shaming of masculinity certainly played a powerful role in legitimizing such an idea, making it morally acceptable. And it seems that fragile boys, deprived of sound models and educated to be “nice”, are only too prone to be exploited and manipulated.

Once they became aware of the intentions behind the actions, once they knew about the plan to change them against their better will, boys were shocked and angry. More than a joke, it was an attack to something they instinctively cherished. Their integrity, their identity. Something at their core was targeted. Doubtlessly, girls’ more or less secret attempts to “fagify”–to subtly change their sexuality through manipulation–gave them a first-hand experience of what a world of “influence”, behind-the-scenes workings, really looks like.

The Need to Adapt

We are fed up with people who want to “change” us, not to mention those who want to replace us. We have no desire to be “changed” by whoever is socially savvy or powerful enough. We want to be acknowledged, respected. Sometimes we even dream of being everlasting, in one sense or another.

Heirs of a long ancestral chain, products of multiple fertility wars and rounds of sexual selection, we want our children to be like us. We want them to succeed as bearers of what we are. Between our most glorious ancestors and our future children, we want to find continuity, not a brutal split letting our children identifying as something alien. They would still be “our” children as they would carry some genes from us, but be more and more remote by culture and ethnicity.

Compared to the time scales of astronomic history, biological history or even mere human history, our lives appear short. The universe may not be eternal stricto sensu, it started with a Big Bang and could end without the energy required for sustaining any form of life, nonetheless its time scale seems infinite compared to ours. We long for some of its eternity. Having children is a way to keep the chain going and be part of something greater than ourselves. It is also a way of identifying to what we belong to. If our children are “like us” in a satisfying sense, our identity lives on after our deaths.

However, according to the laws of evolution, standing immobile and being “the same” as much as we can may become maladaptive. Sticking to inefficient solutions, to laws that go against our interests because they would be laws of “our” countries, to behaviors that lead to failure after failure, is not fit. Too many “right-wingers” tend to repeat again and again the same behaviors, assert again and again the same views. There is no plague like those experienced activists who claim to be right merely because they were militants for a long time and never ask themselves how liberals can be effective as they are. How did Marxism become touted as it was? Why is political correctness so pervasive? Why is the official narrative so difficult to remove from people’s minds?

Biological history is full of species that disappeared. When Europeans started to travel extensively and colonize the world, they brought dogs, cats, and other continental animals: our evolved companions, fruits of a harsh selection, exterminated or at least greatly endangered many insular species. The latter were accustomed to a specific equilibrium inside their own ecosystem. They lost many abilities or did not develop necessary abilities because they were not pressured by a harsh selection. When new animals appeared, whether dogs, cats, or even skilled human hunters, many of them proved totally unfit and weak–too weak to survive as a species. They disappeared. A handful of cats were enough to destroy the whole species of the Stephens Island wrens and almost destroyed the birds of Macquarie islands. The same goes for human history. Whole peoples have been utterly decimated while others were assimilated into a newer people. Some genes passed through the new mix, but as a whole or defined set, a people ceased to exist. Not because of a lack of identity, but more broadly because of the conditions they lived in they found themselves unfit and failed to efficiently adapt.

From Tribes to Tribes

As White Europeans with an identitarian awareness, we are surrounded by powerful hostile identities. Elite Jews, Muslims, feminists, and even our liberal “brothers” who want to believe that Islam may become another part of the melting pot but consider us second-class citizens if we dare voice what we think. Tribes constantly pushing their agendas, perpetually steering and narrowing moral norms by accusations of “anti-Semitism”, “racism”, “sexism”. Amongst these organized, recognized, and well-funded groups, we have no tribes but our families and friends. Muslims and feminists have their own identitarian awareness–they know in their guts they belong to a tribe and have a double standard, one for inter-group relationships and (at least) another for the people outside of the group. By contrast, White liberals don’t form a proper tribe. They don’t have ties thick enough, nor do they feel a consistent enough solidarity for their liberal fellows. Denouncing the “far right”, along with terrorists (but not Islam) and some other purported bad guys, is not a sufficient condition for forming a tribe.

History started with bands, tribes, clans. Sometimes those raised to a higher organizational level as empires. After the invention of the printing press and the rise of Protestantism, Europe developed an increasingly individualistic culture until the end of the eighteenth century. Then, sadly, the individualistic and sophisticated culture of the Enlightenment turned too weak and unstable to be maintained. So we went back to tribes with nationalism while still developing universalistic projects. Colonization, for example, had the aim to “civilize” everyone on Earth, thus turning every human being into the individual Enlightenment thinkers wanted. The latter projected onto the whole world their own model of human happiness as individual happiness. As such, they exemplified a strong tendency to universalism and muted individualism. Projecting their own tendency and set of ideals to the entire world, they made a powerful case for “spreading the Enlightenment.” A generous and naive posture that would feed alien and eventually hostile identities. Without the roads, teachers, buildings, and medical treatment Europeans brought to Africa in the nineteenth century, how many present day Africans would be alive? Not a lot. Still, many of those Africans live today in Europe and keep mercilessly pushing their own agenda against us.

Human history started with tribes. European culture was the only one on Earth able to create truly individualist societies, but today we are heading back to tribes. An ever-increasing number of young Whites try to join whatever tribe is available: they can feel the balance of power is shifting and would rather convert than lag behind. One converts to Islam, another tries to climb the social ladder in a mainstream political party, another becomes an Orthodox Christian. Or, if one is gay, joining a feminist/LGBT group can be a rational move. Feminist SJWs are striking by their violent, ever-rancorous behavior, nonetheless they also have a sense of group identity and are part of a group strategy. They network, undoubtedly serve some powerful interests, co-opt one another in college, and in the media. Putting their ideas aside and focusing on the in-group results, isn’t that a success we should try to understand, maybe emulate? We should definitely study the strategies of every group that makes it. Even if they are outright hostile to us–what matters is how they succeed. There is no glory out of maintaining inefficient behaviors by sheer loyalty. What does mean “being oneself” when you are endlessly losing ground? I would better look at what the winners do.

Europeans tend to be individualistic. We spontaneously condemn nepotism and favor merit. We care about reputation because, in a world where one has to exchange on a daily basis with strangers rather than members of the tribe, a bad reputation is enough to wipe out one’s business. Problem is those tendencies of ours tend to leave European societies vulnerable to various tribalisms and group strategies. Individuals enjoy a greater mobility than organized groups, because they are less dependent on their peers and less enmeshed within a nexus of relationships, but when they face organized groups and no State is there to efficiently defend them, they turn weak. Our individualism and love for freedom has been turned on itself at least since the 1960s. Speaking from my own generation, our sixty-eighter parents enjoyed full employment, hope, and a lot of individual freedom–as long as they stayed within liberal normative boundaries–while we were put in a much more competitive world. Organized groups are stronger and more efficient than isolated or not-too-dependent individuals.

What we can do

People around us are getting back to tribes, forming identities increasingly hostile towards us. Emotional decency seems to belong to the past: lobbies and group strategies are competing for the moral high ground, money, and power. When the French comedian Dieudonné rails against Jews or “Zionists” trying to put “their” genocide at a special, unreachable status, as well as putting themselves at the top of social hierarchy, he does so from a Black identity. Scorned by the mainstream medias after he performed a TV sketch mocking an Israeli colonizer, he replied that “during centuries, France sent hundreds of millions or Blacks to slavery, and comedians here haven’t been prosecuted for making fun of Africa or black people”–an explicit comparison between a suffering (allegedly) belonging to Jews and another one (allegedly) belonging to Blacks. Half-White himself, Dieudonné is hardly a supporter of our cause. He is only too happy to claim moral high ground in the name of slavery and Black identity. Dieudonné’s activities might be a blessing for us as long as we fight the same adversary, but he can hardly really be counted as someone on our side. Together with his friend Alain Soral and their association Equality and Reconciliation, they have set up their own group strategy, trying to “conciliate” French individuals of various origins and cultural backgrounds. Their project is appealing to Europeans enjoying an individualistic, shared-values system, but ER counts on Muslims to fill its ranks and cannot hide their tribalist tendencies. Is ER unstable? Maybe. But it is adapted at turning the tables by directing Muslims’ vehemence and aggression towards “Zionists”, plus some liberal bourgeois bohemian, rather than plain Whites.

Power is a game where allegiances can be reversed. Symbols can be used as long as they are efficient. As Dieudonné did, we should adapt to the current situation and seek alliances rather than ideological purity. Isolation is dangerous. We cannot afford being too individualistic, nor can we afford being too stubborn and inflexible, wheatever the ideological reasons invoked to do so. As individuals, we could be careerists, seeking for higher personal status and interest. But would it be fulfilling? I know Whites working in offices and tertiary industries who want more than being well-paid workers or puppets. They want to be part of a group they can identify with. Being isolated or with a few friends in an alien system, between hostile group identities, isn’t fulfilling nor sustainable in the long term. Whites who want more than a decent salary are following their better guts; they long for something that would make them both happier and more successful as members of a shared identity.

It is all about finding the right mix between identity and fitness. We long for an identity, for something that stems from within and binds us with the world. Living alone in a cold, alien system only turns one into a disenfranchised, anomistic individual, even if he manages to get wealthy. On the flip side, being a pariah upholding “far right” beliefs and symbols isn’t very efficient either. How can we conciliate our longing for identity with the pragmatic necessity to survive and reproduce?

In my opinion, the better and most realistic answer is the following one: start a new tribe. We may have to realize the same evolution, as a group, than Jews did some centuries ago. As individuals all over the world, sharing a vague identitarian awareness, we have to push. Push ourselves to be better, more competent, more confident, wealthier, but also push for networking and encouraging the identitarian awareness in our own breasts as well as in others. We have to form a diaspora of conscious Whites. In order to survive as a group, we should seek alliances, network with various people–both individuals that could truly be part of our tribes and “road companions” or even second-order allies. As we cannot afford being official for now, we have to be discrete but efficient. Making businesses, entering into the universities, we have to constitute networks and having our own fluxes of money, information and opportunities. Co-opt other members, encourage professional relationships: in order to survive and thrive as a group, we have to do just as the Jews did in an assimilationist Europe. We should master the codes of the official, politically correct discourse, become familiar with language games, steer quietly this or that institution according to our best interests.

A clear point today is that all Whites cannot be saved. You can’t help someone who truly wants to embrace “diversity” as a blessing and resents the “far right” for speaking beyond PC norms. Besides, many Whites don’t even deserve being saved. I wouldn’t give a damn to save a sixty-eighter who would rather let all blue-collar Whites be overwhelmed than casting an eye on their plight. Fortunately, we can find in history at least one example of an enduring tribe who survived as a particular group even when facing numerous persecutions: Jews. In order to achieve the same, as well as helping each other to climb the social ladder and take back what should belong to us, we have to accept the need for remaking a people. Thrive as individuals; network as much as you can; create fluxes of money, opportunities, and fellow travelers. We shall form an elite diaspora and shape a group identity by our actions. This way, we can push both our identitarian desires and our fitness in a harsh, competitive world riddled with hostile identities. Let SJWs burn themselves and officials betray each other while we shall dwell, in the middle of it all, but never alone.