What lies buried shall be unearthed, and who has been rendered oblivious shall be invited to remember. Working towards this is the main task imposed on us.

Editor’s Note: This was the second place essay from Radix Journal’s 2015 essay contest on identity.


“Why I’m An Identitarian”—am I at all, in the first place? Is it conceivable not to be? Hailing from Germany, the geographical center of the European continent, the economical heartland of the iniquitous behemoth that is the European Union, and currently zeroed in as some kind of heavenly landing pad by a tsunami of so-called “refugees” I do not exactly deem it appropriate to try at length and “discuss the writer’s personal journey to these ideals.” Neither do I take European identity for a mere ideal, which would imply that it was something to strive for but never actually embrace.

On the contrary, I believe that European identity is—to put it dramatically—the essential matter of which white people of European descent consist, no matter where on this planet fate let them grow up and live their lives.

In the following, I would like to try and concretize this notion by interlacing several trains of thought that sprung from reading matter and day-to-day perception alike. This is not meant to illustrate some sort of Homeric “journey” (thus merely serving as a means to glorify the author) but rather to corroborate the assumed perennial character of European identity.


First of all, the topic in question—European identity—must not be seen by itself as an abstract entity. Such an attitude would take the term off its hinges, which are historical-ethnical (“Europe”) and philosophical-psychological (“identity”) alike. Thinking through European identity thoroughly must acknowledge the ambiguous nature of this term and gets even more complicated by the conflicting ways of interpreting its two components as well as the compound itself.

“European” is in itself a fairly anodyne adjective that, without the proper contextualization, may refer to anything from, of or related to Europe or even—horribile dictu—the European Union. It must be made clear and unmistakable what is meant by “European” in the very context of our radical approach, seeking “to uncover the heart of the matter” (quoting RADIX’s “About” page). In this context, “European” means no less than what is called “Aryan” by many White Nationalists, such as Michael O’Meara: based on or stemming from the threefold ground that is Europe as an entity, consisting of ancient Greek science including philosophy, ancient Roman culture including the metaphysical spirit of Sacrum Imperium, as well as ancient Germanic tribalism and regionalism constituting a peculiar kind of “particularism in unity.” As they are used in a decidedly political, that is agonal, way to eliminate this deeper pan-European meaning of the term, attributions of mere geographical or bureaucratical meanings are to be rejected without hesitation.

“Identity”, on the other hand, must by no means be confused with “identification.” Indeed there is a grave difference between the two terms, as the latter describes a process (originating from Latin identitas and facere, thus “making the being” with the meaning of adopting the being of a collective or an idol to a certain degree) while the former refers to a mode of being itself—idem entity, “that very same being.” It is thus in a dialectical manner of circular reasoning not only the being in a certain place at a certain time but also that particular place and time themselves since both can only be considered existent as they are perceived by a sentient entity. As Heidegger derived in Being and Time, being is only thinkable against the background of a limited lifespan. This makes identity not a mere mindset or way of life, but instead the subliminal base of both which is, indeed, timeless. It may superficially be seen as a person’s self-conception, but that is only a confusion of cause and effect. Also, attempts of slicing it into different aspects like “cultural identity” (let alone modern abominations like “gender identity”) fail to recognize identity’s metaphysical and thus meta-temporal character—as Nietzsche realized, culture can only unfold in a certain “milieu.” We may sum up that ethnic, cultural, environmental, and many other influences—over ages and generations, hence its close association with tradition—blend into the identity of a given race, and on a mesolevel, the said identity’s shades within the different peoples of that race, making up its rudiments of existence as well as (dialectically, again) the most “radical” criterion of distinction, by differentiating one race from the other in other than physiognomical terms as identity always implies stability and homogeneity.


With this set straight we are prepared to face the essential questions of our time, may we deem it Kali Yuga or not: “what we are trying to accomplish and how we should understand ourselves” (Richard B. Spencer).

Our first and foremost concern is to take back the very term of identity from the enemy. In defense of their depoliticization habit, deconstructivists may always argue that identity itself (or each one of the many splinters their “social sciences” have shattered into) was changeable. If the majority of the German people has succumbed to the incessant moral blackmail with its National Socialist past and is now frenziedly welcoming hundreds of thousands of immigrants in an insane attempt of atonement (“There is a historical subtext to this: We who once wanted to exterminate a people are now embracing the one pouring in”, as Christiane Hoffmann of the leftish “Der Spiegel” magazine put it), and if most of the white peoples around the globe wallow in white guilt and are “so sorry” about whatever they allegedly did centuries ago, then is not just a mere shift of—otherwise undamaged—identity from Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community) to Schandgemeinschaft (infamy’s community)? That is not the case. Identity is not constituted by Democratic machination, not discussable, and thus not affected by whatever deviations the distortions of mass media and governmental propaganda do evoke.

Besides that, the European identity of the European peoples can not vanish or be broken. The only effect postwar westernization and postmodern globalization had on it was to bury it under a tremendous layer of empty values and meaningless words, from universalist human rights to moral obligations to care for all of the Third World. But we are talking something timeless here, and in doing so may even summon Howard Phillips Lovecraft as support against the malevolent:

That is not dead which can eternal lie,
and with strange aeons, even death may die.

H. P. Lovecraft – “The Nameless City”

What lies buried shall be unearthed, and who has been rendered oblivious shall be invited to remember. Working towards this is the main task imposed on us.

As well as identity itself is perennial, so are the efforts to reinforce and re-erect it. Richard Spencer’s remark about the origin of the term “Identitarian” (“first used by French sociologists in describing a ‘repli identitaire’ (‘identitarian withdrawal’ or lack of assimilation) among immigrants”) identity is the exact antithesis of assimilation which, in turn, would be identification (see above). It is this polarity that brings us back to the very roots of today’s Identitarianism, i.e. the concept of Ethnopluralism that German-national-revolutionary-turned-Swedish-socialist Henning Eichberg (aka Hartwig Singer) drew up in the early 1970s and which was afterward prominently raised by French philosopher Alain de Benoist and the whole French Nouvelle Droite:

According to their theses, stability and homogeneity (see above) are the basic needs and thus basic rights of any given people. To reach this condition in a preferably peaceful way, full-scale segregation should be ordered until every people had its distinct place to dwell in its own way without interference from outer powers. This simple, yet effective idea still is what consistent Identitarianism must be about nowadays if it is not be allayed and watered down to liberal slogans like “Less and more selected immigration!” instead of “Immigration no more!” and “(Unruly) Foreigners out!”. It would, by the way, also support the demand for establishing a “White Republic” (O’Meara) for European Americans only somewhere in North America.


These days, the genuine Identitarian movements in continental European countries have mostly come to a halt. In France and Italy, where they had been most prolific during the last five to ten years, their ranks are waning. Their positions have been occupied by more radical and activist social-revolutionary groups, most prominently the Neofascist CasaPound Italia, which in turn adopted the “pan-European comradeship” approach. In Germany and Austria, the Identitarian movements are still alive and kicking, although their numbers are small and they seldom go into action against what they lately started framing as der große Austausch (“The Great Replacement”).

The crisis of identity is exacerbating by the day, and there is no time for petty egoism. If the Identitarian movements want to last in their current form, they need to shake off their moderateness and internet activism to embrace a more consistent and uncompromising attitude towards a government and media hostile towards its own people. In the United States, where the Identitarian concept has yet to be established, activists are well advised to watch carefully how things turn out this side of the Atlantic Ocean. Regarding European identity as a whole and its implications for our struggle to preserve the races of European heritage, perhaps the Swedish martial industrial masters Arditi said it best:

No disease has ever been cured
Unless its cause is known
This is equally true in medicine as in politics
And on our way to find the reason we are ill
This is the absolute essence:

Let the word Discrete be replaced by DECISIVE
Let the word Fair be replaced by GREAT
Let the word Freedom be replaced by UNITY
And let the word Community be replaced by BLOOD

Arditi – The Absolute Essence