In a 2011 article, he argues that white nations should reconnect to pre-war intellectual efforts of creating an Aryan (Indo-European) meta-identity for Europeans, providing a unifying sense of common rootedness in prehistory and coherence beyond strict ethnonationalism, inseparable from the ethos and achievements of all that is Western Civilization.
Thanks to recent developments in the field of ancient DNA, it is now beyond doubt that white people have a unique claim to this charged epithet, that assertively relates and transcends our ancestral heritage beyond the period of written history, through the various strands of paganism, into the Iron and Bronze Ages in a unique continuity of spirit, blood and soil dating back thousands of years. In this context, Andersen's article serves as a good stepping stone to exploring our deep past, and knowing why we do it. Below is a translation from Swedish:
...
"While committing his atrocities, Anders Behring Breivik posited a number of questions to the broad movement critical of mass immigration - can Europeans unite behind your ideology, is the identity you offer them attractive enough? Even though we find mass murder of children utterly despicable, the question is highly relevant, and should be taken seriously. Breivik opined that cultural conservatism under the banner of Christianity is the only realistic alternative; such that it would be comprehensible to many Europeans, avoid burdensome historical liabilities and allow necessary alliances with conservative Jews and Christians from the Middle East.
One may ask, however, whether this is enough to satisfy the need for a meta-identity and provide an answer to the question "who am I?". The environmentalist movement differentiates between ordinary environmentalism and deep ecology, and for Europeans to be able and willing to survive, they need a correspondingly "deeply identitarian", attractive and positive answer to the question of who they are. The political discourse/monologue in Western Europe takes place in a shallow plane, a lot is taken for granted, economy and crime are discussed, but who "we" are is rarely spoken of. This is also true in large swathes of the anti-immigration milieu.
Today's post will therefore, in fragments, outline an answer to which meta-identity we should choose, in whose name we should fight the struggle for Europe. This meta-identity is the Indo-European, often referred to as the Aryan. It has been noted that one should avoid negatively loaded monikers, and this is generally true. But it is likewise true that you should pick your battles, and reconquering this term is a battle worth fighting.
"The future belongs to those with the longest memory." - Friedrich Nietzsche
As Nietzsche notes in a "deeply identitarian" passage, "long memories" are of central importance. The Indo-European heritage is such a long memory which roots our origins in ancient history. It associates to a folk of natural aristocrats, to Nordic paganism, Roman imperialism, and the Anglo-Saxon tradition of freedom. Historians have also shown how Christianity went through a fruitful "Germanization" in the Middle Ages, which makes the Indo-European myth compatible both with pagan and Christian identity. Historically, the term connotes to features that today are somewhat taboo, but are critically important to the survival of the Europeans.
"Ich bin Arisch" - Sido
The Indo-European, or Aryan, meta-identity has the same possibilities to influence other peoples and migrant communities as the Counter-Jihadism Breivik proposes. Interestingly, there is a clear dividing line between Arabic and Indo-European culture and mentality. As Alexander Dugin notes, the Eurasian project overlaps with the Indo-European world to a great extent. Therefore, such a meta-identity makes possible good relations with everything from Indians to Russians (with a wider definition of the term, you can also include everything from the Finno-Ugric peoples to some minorities in the Middle East. We are thus dealing with a political myth, and those have a degree of flexibility).
Worth mentioning is that there is a great deal of research done on our Indo-European ancestors, by authors such as Dumezil, Benveniste and Wikander.
But what does it mean to be an Indo-European, or, using taboo language, an Aryan? The word is often translated as "the noble", or by Nietzsche as "the lords", and it testifies of a culture of natural aristocrats. In an era when many are feeble-minded consumers of trash food, trash culture and trash news, it is worth reminding oneself that the aristocratic ideal is hardest on the aristocrat, most difficult for the one willing to realize it. In our time, striving to be noble is as revolutionary as it is, in the long term, an attractive and necessary project.
The Indo-European identity is also connected to a specific worldview. That the relation between high-born men and the gods would be like that toward slaves was foreign to our ancestors. FK Günther writes:
"The pagan north Germans, who still believed in that the divine was present in all "men of high mind", were called Godless (gudlauss or gudlausir menn) by their converted countrymen, who were spiritually more simple, and therefore could not understand inner spiritual power or strength."
To be one of the "noble" implicates a specific view on the relation to the surrounding world, and it is no coincidence that the very potent civilization which Spengler calls the Faustian, arose in this environment. One may connect several secondary aspects of the Indo-European worldview to this, like the importance of reciprocity, the view on death, the creation of order, and the feeling toward nature and beauty. Combined, they constitute a revolutionary alternative to the modernity leading Europe toward its grave."
