Did you say Legitimate Preference?
There exists a genetic-cultural group from which every one of us
emerged; a group without which neither our parents nor our ancestors
could have been born. We owe this group three things: Life itself, the
ways in which we can lead that life and the fellow human beings with
whom we can partner to keep that way of life going.
Legitimate Preference could be defined as the disposition of mind
which makes us systematically and exclusively favor the group to which
we owe these three things, rather than to those groups to which we owe
nothing.
It is my hope that this notion may bring an antidote to the mortifying
and persistent tendency that is developing among whites: A feeling
ranging from distrust to disgust towards the idea of belonging to a
genetic family in the first place.
At its most severe, this tendency pushes our white contemporaries to
parade in the sky of moral ideas, forbidding their fellow men to defend
their genetic interests; to further their genetic legacy and secure their
future prosperity. As if we should pay a tax on being born white, and
return to racial indistinction as soon as possible.
To all those who fight for this morality of death, Legitimate
Preference brings bad news: We will pay back nothing and will take
everything that is ours.
To be elated by everything that is not ourselves is a tendency that
should mark some marginal individuals or a passing adolescent quirk; an
example of what does not work, but the prolonged adolescence that
seems to be a characteristic of our time has amplified and worsened this
one-sided tendency, leading us to adore the other as an ideal. It is like an
absurd joke that goes on forever; to our absolute detriment.
Convinced that this improves the atmosphere of the world, whites fall
into racial renunciation as one falls into a swoon.
50 years after the beginning of this anti-racist theater, men and
women indisposed by their own genetic reality, continue to have their
anti-racist tantrums.
In the face of this, Legitimate Preference will act as a special kind of
swooning salt; it will shock and rudely awaken those who are asleep,
while giving courage and aid to those already awake.
Those who consider that morality must serve our genetic interests will
see this as obvious, and the anti-racists will swoon – to no effect.
The observation on which Legitimate Preference is based could be
stated as follows: There exists no generic homo sapiens on earth. We are
all varieties of homo sapiens. Subspecies of this group, if you prefer.
Today’s politically correct fiction insists that:
‘Races don’t exist’
Meanwhile, in the laboratories of the forensic police, the term
‘Ancestral Group’ is used. This observation is simply the reality of the
existence of separate races, which some of our racial compatriots need to
deny to reassure themselves of their worldview. Until now, and under
normal circumstances, Legitimate Preference could be conceptualized as
a spontaneous attitude. Advancing the genetic and cultural group to
which one belongs did not previously require permission. What makes
the creation of the concept of Legitimate Preference now necessary is the
cost -for whites- of living in multiracial Western societies.
That cost entails the loss of their ancestral land, the destruction of
their quality of life, the jeopardization of their enduring existence, their
identity, their security and their prosperity.
If you believe that the implementation of Legitimate Preference
would endanger universalist egalitarianism, you may as well confirm it
immediately; it is the exact opposite.
This being said, one should not handle this concept with the
indifference of those who enjoy the vain satisfaction of shocking others.
In this respect, the first objective of the Preferential approach is
precisely to overcome the concept of ‘racism’.
A concept can be forgiven for being shocking, provided it holds a
credible promise of improvement and brings forth a vision of that
promise. This is what I have tried to achieve throughout the chapters that
follow. Legitimate Preference is not only a practical response to the
global rise of anti-white, anti-Western hatred; it is also a conception of
the common good that learns from the drama of multi-racial societies. In
this area, the classic solutions practiced over the last 40 years have not
paid off, yet the work of political activists has never succeeded in
changing the reality of the invasion of Western European territories.
Is there any other way, therefore, to move towards a restoration of the
territorial rights of Europeans?
Since the idea of a white cultural and genetic nation is no longer at
home in the West, why not revive it where no elite (nor any people
complicit in their own replacement) can reach it? Namely, in the hearts
of Europeans. After all, what is more legitimate than what we feel
throughout our lives? And what could be stronger than a legitimate
feeling that has been censored for too long?
What could be more persistent than a deep and legitimate feeling that
has become a personal ‘religion’?
Well before igniting the desire for territorial re-conquest in people’s
minds, it is necessary to already have an established community of mutual
aid and to publicly assume what is in one’s heart. Legitimate Preference
is first and foremost a legitimacy that dares to speak the truth in public
and to pool material resources to demonstrate the power of adherence to
this cause.
If what we want is a sense of collective power, we must appear as
something impossible to repress.
The ingredients for this recipe are always the same: discipline and
positive affect.
Examples abound of movements that gather around common beliefs.
Whether they are called a cult or a religious movement, they rest on these
same two pillars: transforming what they believe in into everyday politics,
and associating it with a positive affect; that is an experience of joyful and
enthusiastic feelings that influence you to act and make decisions.
The success and the number of followers of some of these
communities prove that this can be achieved, even with irrational bases.
Would it not be possible to do at least as well with a rational one? Or is
the rationality of our approach paradoxically an obstacle to its success?
Some chapters in this book address the need for strategic
communication to address this risk, which I believe is a real one.
Nietzsche stated that the absurdity of a thing was not a reason against
its existence, but probably a condition for its success instead.
In a way I believe this to be true. Being right often leads one to rely on
the supposed power of truth, but truth has no power. Truth is not a power.
The rationality of our cause is, most likely, not enough on its own.
It is very likely that Legitimate Preference is only truly born out of the
intensity of an emotion, such as a feeling of absolute injustice or
unacceptable waste of something.
It will become easier as we become more numerous to assist our
genetic community, every day, at every possible opportunity, and to find
the opposite inadmissible.
This book is not just a repetition of what you know already. I believe
that the repetition of the forbidden obvious is a bit like a book within a
book, so I hope you will forgive some of the already-known things that
you will find in the following pages.
It was also my desire to propose a concept of identity that was not
overly intellectualizing. In a self-defense situation, the instructions must
be simple. I have never found it effective to over-analyze the issue, using
learned notions and anecdotes from the past to legitimize the cause of
European identity. I have also found that ordinary people are afraid to
break the law with what is in their hearts. The prospect of being socially
ostracized easily overwhelms them.
But if there was a law that allowed people to punch you in the face,
would you obey it? No. Well, there’s no law against preferring your fellow
European. So you can put down this book and start right now.
But if you have some time on your hands, there is a sequel. Our
dematerialized means of communication will not bear witness to what
our age inflicts upon us. This technology is designed to devour our most
precious commodity: time, and to rewrite the facts by erasing that which
troubles the minds of the masses.
Leaving a written trace of it is more necessary than it seems. I had
initially thought of doing without it, but it is not relevant to make a
method without describing the problem it solves. Describing a problem
is to give the angle at which the axe of the solution will strike.
Many whites find that in all countries built by whites, false minorities
have settled in and become the majority, especially in prisons. The whites,
who are really in the minority globally, are called ‘majority’. This prevents
us from thinking about the real demographic situation. The politically
correct scientists assist this general denial, by affirming that races are
fictions. This is technically false, as we have said.
The most appalling abuses committed against whites are presented as
legitimate anger, having a sociological explanation. When they are not
simply ignored or downplayed. Different dissidents on the right and on
the left, in need of an audience, spread the idea that the media would try
to divide us, to provoke a ‘civil war’, a trap to be avoided absolutely
according to them.
Indeed, what a paradise it would be if only the media did not
periodically mention the enrichments of diversity.
However, whether it is in prisons, in our cities, in our villages, in
schools, etc., all the indicators of what white people of all ages are
suffering tell a different story: The media do not encourage division at all.
They are silent about anything that might stir it up.
A site specialized in the diffusion of this embarrassing information, is
consulted every day by hundreds of thousands of white Internet users in
France, who want to be confirmed that they are not dreaming; it is a
strange nightmare born from the certainty that we are not dreaming. But
what do we do? Apart from becoming dependent on the anguish itself?
The official narrative repeats that everything is not too bad.
If you have been a victim of an attack involving soldiers of Allah and
you need psychological care, we could suggest you talk about it with… a
Muslim psychologist. Able to listen with kindness, he could be satisfied
with checking your adherence to the dogma of living together. And this
is indeed what happened just after the Bataclan attacks.
According to the experts, hate is on the side of the whites, and justified
anger is on the side of diversity. Hate, anger. Two words that carry within
them a whole pre-made analysis. One is a disgusting moral ugliness, the
other a legitimate revolt whose origin must be understood in order to
relieve it.
More and more people are noticing this insistent music, which
encourages white women to question motherhood heavily. White women
only. Hundreds of brands forcibly ‘marry’ them with African bodies in
Orwellian advertising posters, which treat our women as if Macron were
their role model. (He becomes strangely feverish whenever he is
surrounded by young, muscular black bodies). Advertising overvalues
non-white virility, while the media easily equates white virility with
political extremism. A whole mental atmosphere adds up to anti-white
resentment and contributes towards the creation of an irreversible slope.
The voluntary endangerment of the biological group to which we belong
is the basic anthropological trend of the 21st century.
A few marginal works evoke this precise subject to a niche audience,
but a cast-iron lid remains shut on these issues across the globe.
Many right-wing intellectuals present theories to try to explain these
phenomena. Like you, I have spent far too much time listening to them.
Liberalism and capitalism are analyzed from all angles. The
immigration invasion is presented as a consequence among others, of
these two paradigms. Their analyses, sometimes useful, are articulated
with other analyses. But they never lead to a concrete daily practice that
could improve our situation. The great sovereigntist argumentative
recapitulation leads again and again to the defense of cultural and
national identities. Yet the problem is quite different.
The cultural and national identity is important, since it emanates from
the biological identity. It is the flower of it. But biological and cultural
identity occupy two distinct ranks. The biological identity is the wood
from which the house is built, the national and cultural identity is the
patina that emerged on its surface.
To know the solidity of the whole, or to face what threatens the
structure, it is the wood that we must look at. The surface is important,
and we may be attached to it for excellent reasons, but it is not the real
target of the aggressions that are aimed at us. We sometimes see our
differences too much, but to many other people, we are all the same.
When a white man is raped by a black man in a Western prison out of
pure racial hatred, (which is very common according to Human Rights
Watch), his national identity does not have time to exist.
And if you think about it, these very particular rapes about which all
Western societies put up a wall of silence, are indicative of the volcano on
which our society is sitting. Terrified of facing up to what this really
means, and how we have let the wolf into the fold.
Some, like the pro-Algerian communist Alain Soral, who defined
himself in the home of talk show host Thierry Ardisson as a suitcase
carrier for the FLN (an ally of the FLN’s murderers), have made people
believe in the revolt of nations against global governance.
But the only revolt that has taken place is that of the Western elites
against their own people.
The Western leaders have simply elected another people. They show
us concretely what the opposite of Legitimate Preference is, while the
people validate their choice by putting them back in power.
Each minister of the Interior who has to try to manage the chaos of a
multi-racial society in a new way to distinguish himself from the previous
failure, can only press the same broken buttons like a deranged
automaton that has to pull out a nail while hitting it.
The more that sociology fails to explain anything, the more the
socialist ‘priests’ organize sacrifices to it. Do I really need to specify who
is being sacrificed? The response to our situation is no longer solely
political. It has become racially communal.
There is no longer one singular interlocutor; we are now facing an
atmosphere. And it is globally anti-white. Under these conditions, to
remain only with the revolt of the nations (against globalization) and not
to globalize white solidarity in turn, is to lose immediately.
In the propagation of this very particular hatred, how can we not see
the resentment of the weak against the strong, synchronized by the
means of the Internet into a global phenomena?
This resentment will not stop with more rationality, or better
economic exchanges. We are facing people who often have neither the
desire, nor sometimes the cognitive means to understand our point of
view, to wish us well or to understand our real intentions.
Some manifest their desire for revenge only verbally and for the
moment this is the majority; but the minority that take physical action
never sleeps, and is unlikely to remain idle.
Already, indoctrinated (white) sociologists are producing scientific
fraud that is then disseminated by the media. According to one not-socredible study conducted by these militant ‘scientists’ in France, the most common first name given by third generation French North Africans to their children is …
Nicolas.
Astonishing, isn’t it?
It is also just a tiny bit completely false.
This article, published in April 2019 in the journal ‘Population et
sociétés’ by Patrick Simon and Baptiste Coulmont, sought to ‘prove’ to us
that the integration of this community is going surprisingly well.
One French sociologist, aware of the obvious fraud at play here, has
verified the following figure: There are in fact 11 third generation
Maghrebians with this name in France…
Lying is the first verb of the mestizo ideology.
Although these facts may worry us, this strategy of lies and hysteria
announces that we are facing an ideology that is not long for this world.
To tell the highest truth we can, is perhaps the best way to demolish this
fraud and concealment of reality.
All the more so since what we must bring to light is always present in
the collective unconscious of the peoples of the West. Our
contemporaries repress it for fear of being socially banished, but our
message is probably not entirely new to them.
Finally, Legitimate Preference can also offer itself as an antidote to
deviant altruism.
This is perhaps the first common good for us: to prevent the deviation
of our compassion away from our own people and towards third party
interests.
Although it does not seek to explain the reasons for this dysfunctional
altruism, but only to resolve it as a problem, Legitimate Preference makes
clear how this dysfunction may in fact be the result of a mere imbalance,
and not at all a vice in itself.
In fact, white ‘kindness’ must not be eradicated, but contained, framed
and re-educated.
Legitimate Preference is the framework in which it can be exercised
in a non-pathological way.
If it is true that our opinions are largely governed by genetics, is there
a ‘recipe’ for fixing white altruism?
Is it a new ideology, a new generation, or a new social configuration
that must be achieved to get us out of this rut?
This book will provide you with answers.
The first of these, if our goal is indeed the improvement of society and
progress, then we should behave like the cells of an organism. In biology
we speak of the ‘self ’ and the ‘non-self ’ of an organism.
This is why none of your cells ever work for another organism. Your
cells systematically ‘prefer’ you. Even if you are left-wing.
Against all moral or egalitarian protests, this rule also works on the
scale of human genetic-cultural groups.
This group, which includes our ancestors and descendants, is our racial
vessel. Think of it as a kind of temporal organism. By giving it your
Preference you are behaving as your cells behave toward you.
As we said above, ‘homo sapiens’ in itself does not exist on earth. We
all belong to a sub-category of this species.
Forensics demonstrates this by using DNA to classify suspects into
different ‘ancestral groups.’
Racial incompatibilities in the field of bone marrow transplants or
organ donations, demonstrate that these are not social constructions.
Some diseases, too, are specific to particular human groups, and make
ideologues uncomfortable, festering in denial. Our distinct way of
belonging to the species homo sapiens is thus a fundamental element of
what we are. Like all the sapiens, we are a phenomenon of speciation in
progress.
The different races may themselves simply be an ongoing instance of
speciation, whereby we may increase our genetic distance from each other
to the extent that we become truly different species.
Naturally, this perspective forces us to consider things in the very long
term.
At this point we can make the claim that the universalist leftist is one
who is opposed, thanks to the intellectual fashion of the day, to the
natural process of the diversification of the living, but of course would
never wish his own cells to adopt this ideological line and cease their
preference for him over the other.
The ongoing project of crossbreeding is fundamentally an
impoverishment for all groups involved.
This attitude has obviously been valorized by the philosophers of
French theory, through very fashionable concepts such as that of the
‘body without organs’ proposed by the philosopher Gilles Deleuze.
A concept that goes so far as to assert that the body and its organic
system would be the beginnings of fascism.
Preferentialism, which derives its operating model from the body
itself, was therefore already foreseen as the heart of what had to be
destroyed by the leftist intelligentsia.
To make moral conscience take precedence over biological continuity
is a deviation of the individual intelligence.
The individual conscience is the means by which we can escape a little
from the determinisms of the group to which we belong. This controlled
distance from the group allows us to taste the artistic and philosophical
experience, and a necessary and stimulating solitude. But the exacerbated
individual conscience can commit a dangerous error to the intelligence by
disassociating it from the genetic group of which it is the emanation.
Legitimate Preference is therefore an attitude of rebalancing.
Our individuality crosses the short time. It sees cultural changes easily,
and can oppose them if they are disadvantageous. Our genetic group goes
through a long time. It puts our sense of preference to the test. Every
individual is born in a state of debt towards it.
Legitimate Preference is the currency with which we can repay this
joyful debt.
Unlike financial debts, or religious debts (such as original sin), the
legitimate debt to our genetic group is indeed a joyful debt.
Because when you pay it back, you increase your individual and
collective power.
Legitimate Preference makes you realize that you are more than an
individual. You are a lineage that crosses time and conquers space.
It deserves to be given priority.
Order the book now at Amazon.