Counter-Currents
Identity vs. Globalism in Stockholm:
The 2013 “Identitarian Ideas” Conference
John Morgan
2,683 words
No American of European descent who sets foot on the sacred soil of Europe can help but feel a powerful connection back to his European heritage, no matter how far in the past it might be, nor can any such person who is not deluded escape the feeling of urgency that grips those who experience first-hand the death spiral in which this continent is currently locked. Such have been my feelings over the past several weeks, after I arrived for the first time on the European continent, specifically in Sweden.
The purpose of my trip here was to assist with Identitarian Ideas V, the fifth in a series of conferences in Stockholm sponsored by the Swedish identitarian organization, Motpol, which shares personnel with Arktos, the publishing venture of which I am a part.
Although I do not have a drop of Scandinavian blood in my veins (my background consists of various Germanic and British ethnicities), I cannot help but be impressed by what I have witnessed since coming here. Despite decades of radical liberalism, the Swedish people remain a proud, beautiful people, and when walking down the street in a Swedish city it is as if one is walking among Nordic gods and goddesses. The Swedes still have a sense of their own identity, even if time is drawing short for a real reawakening, if present trends continue: out of a total population of 9 million, 2 million are already immigrants, with more arriving by the boatload ever year, eager to benefit from the Swedes’ generous social programs.
As a European-American, I share the same feeling being in Sweden that Philippe Vardon spoke about at the conference – namely, that I feel at home anywhere on the continent of Europe, as it is my ancestral homeland, and is therefore a part of my own identity that can never be lost.
The theme of Identitarian Ideas V was “Identity vs. Globalization,” and the venue, as several of our Swedish hosts pointed out to me with a smile, was a place typically used by Swedish artists of a Leftist persuasion. It thus gave them great pleasure for us to occupy the space, even for a brief time. The event took place on Saturday, June 29.
The program began with Professor Paul Gottfried of Elizabethtown College, doubtless the most prominent paleoconservative intellectual in America today, who spoke on “‘Cultural Marxism’ and the Frankfurt School.” Prof. Gottfried began by contrasting the various branches of Marxism that have emerged over the last century. He pointed out that Communism as it was realized in the Soviet Union and by those governments which followed in its Marxist-Leninist footsteps tended to be quite socially conservative, by today’s standards, and that orthodox Leninists would no doubt have treated cultural Marxists in their own societies as dangerous subversives. Ironically, cultural Marxism can only thrive in a bourgeois-democratic society of the very type that Marx sought to overthrow.
The bridge from Marx to cultural Marxism was the Frankfurt School of Weimar Germany, which later migrated to the United States to escape the clutches of the National Socialists. The Frankfurt School promoted a form of Marxism very different from Bolshevism, and which was intended to take root specifically in the nations of Western Europe and North America. Prof. Gottfried pointed out that all of the major thinkers of the Frankfurt School were Jews, and indicated his belief that their efforts to attack the very foundations of Western civilization – the family, sexuality and gender roles, hierarchy, and so forth – was at least partially due to their conviction that Western bourgeois civilization is inherently anti-Semitic and must be destroyed in order to make the world safe for Jewry.
Interestingly, however, Prof. Gottfried believes that the founders of the School eventually came to regret the outcomes of their own efforts. He briefly recounted his experiences in studying with one of the Frankfurt School’s luminaries, Herbert Marcuse, while a graduate student at Yale in 1964. He recounted an anecdote in which Marcuse was derisively dismissive of a feminist rally that occurred on campus; those who laid the groundwork for cultural Marxism, he maintains, were repelled by the very social trends that they helped to initiate. But Prof. Gottfried’s view of the Frankfurt School was not entirely negative, and he claimed that the critical tools that they helped to fashion can be just as useful in the hands of the Right as of the Left; he pointed out that some of his own critics have referred to him as a Right-wing exponent of their doctrines.
The next speaker was the Swedish lawyer and Arktos staff member Tobias Ridderstråle, who spoke on “The Facts in the Julian Assange Case.” Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks, the organization which has caused great embarrassment to the American government in recent years with its release of large amounts of classified U.S. documents. Assange has been taking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for more than a year now to escape extradition to Sweden to face two accusations of sexual misconduct by Swedish women. Mr. Ridderstråle, with great humor, detailed the flimsiness of the evidence that has been brought against Assange and the strangeness of the charges that have been made in the Swedish courts, pointing out that there is most likely an ulterior motivation behind them. Although Mr. Ridderstråle did not specify what this motivation might be, it is clear that the American government is most likely the one pulling the strings behind these developments in an attempt to discredit and retaliate against him. While Assange did not come across as a saint in this talk, it was clear that there is more to his case than meets the eye.
Following this was the 20-year-old Austrian student Markus Willinger, who is currently studying at the University of Stuttgart. Willinger is the author of the recent Arktos publication, Generation Identity: A Declaration of War Against the ’68ers. Willinger gave a rousing call to action, telling the audience that his generation has been victimized by the extreme liberal policies that were enacted by the earlier generation that had come of age during the student revolts of the late 1960s (their counterparts in America are known as the “baby boomers”). If these trends do not change soon, Willinger explained ominously, his may be the last truly European generation to inhabit this continent. He detailed how the policies of the ‘68ers were a reaction against the fear of another fratricidal war breaking out on another European continent, which was not a bad notion in itself, but the ‘68ers completely misdiagnosed the problem by believing that the blame for the world wars lay with Europe’s own traditional values and culture. In order to regenerate Europe, its youth must take to the streets in the same way that the ‘68ers did, only this time in defense of traditional Europe rather than in opposition to it. He also said that this time the revolutionaries must fight for the right of all peoples to their unique identity, and not only the European identity, since the problem of identity is a universal one today, when every part of the world is confronted with globalization. His talk was extremely well-received by the audience, which consisted largely of young people, and we can hope that many of them were stirred to action by his words.
Next was another speaker on the theme of identity, Philippe Vardon, who is one of the leaders of the Bloc Identitaire of France, a youth movement which was one of the first identitarian groups. It stands for the right of the French to their traditional identity in the face of mass immigration and globalization – neither the USA or Allah, as Vardon said. Generation Identitaire gained international notoriety in November last year for their occupation of the mosque at Poiters, at the site where Charles Martel had turned back the Muslim invaders in 732. After showing some video of this, as well as his group’s storming of the headquarters of the Socialist Party in Paris last May, Vardon expressed appreciation at being able to address the conference at all, explaining that he had recently been turned back at the airport during an attempted trip to Canada by the police.
Vardon pointed out that, although his group stands opposed to the liberal policies of the ’68ers that Willinger had spoken about, they also have other concerns, such as opposition to the phenomenon of the commercialization of women’s bodies found in surrogate motherhood. Vardon explained that while the 20th century was that of ideology, the theme of the 21st would be identity, and those efforts which attempt to preserve it in the face of the new global consumer-culture. There is not an obsession with the past, he said, quoting Dominique Venner, but rather with that which never passes away. He also explained that the identitarians are opposed to totalitarianism, favoring direct democracy, since they believe that if the people are consulted, they will naturally choose the course of protecting their traditional identity. Vardon referred to his people as “alter-Europeans” who favor a new political order in Europe based on local communities rather than on international blocs. But the most important element, he said, and the most important training that must be given to the youth is action, on both the political and grassroots levels. He called for nothing less than the establishment of a counter-society, proclaiming that “the streets are our headquarters.” (The text of Vardon’s talk has been made available at Alternative Right, alternativeright.com/blog/the-streets-are-our-headquarters.)
The conference next moved to the geopolitical level with Manuel Ochsenreiter, who is the Editor-in-Chief of Zuerst!, a Right-wing news magazine in Germany which has a circulation of 70,000. Ochsenreiter has garnered attention in recent years for his coverage of the ongoing war in Syria, a country with which he has been intimately familiar through his many visits there, which began prior to the outbreak of the conflict. Ochsenreiter has been one of the few Western journalists to report from the Assad regime’s side. Using many of the photos that he has taken there to illustrate his points, Ochsenreiter pointed out the many falsehoods that have been reported by the Western media, such as when it was reported that fierce fighting was taking place in the streets of Aleppo: according to Ochsenreiter, who was there, life was going on as usual in the capital on that day, with only the sounds of fighting being audible from the outskirts of the city. He also recounted the story of a hospital he had visited which had been attacked by rebel artillery, but which other Western journalists had completely ignored in their reporting. The same has been true for many of the other atrocities committed by the rebel forces, such as the ongoing executions of Syrians and foreign journalists, not for the “crime” of supporting Assad (since many of those murdered do not support him), but rather for failing to support the rebels. For the Syrian people, Ochsenreiter explained, this war is not a civil war, but rather a war of the Syrian people against Islamist extremists, most of whom have come to Syria from elsewhere (many of the rebels do not speak Arabic, he said). Prior to the conflict, Ochsenreiter says, many of the Syrians were either ambivalent about or even negative towards Assad’s regime, but when faced with the brutality and extremism of the rebels, most have realized that they are much better off than they will be if the regime is toppled.
Next on the agenda was yours truly, who spoke on “The Past, Present and Future of Arktos.” I described the birth of Arktos in 2010 out of our previous company, Integral Tradition Publishing, and how we ended up establishing our office in India in order to keep our overhead costs low. We have managed to publish nearly 60 unique books in four languages since that time, and have established ourselves as the home of the European New Right in English (although we are not limited to that, of course). I also described how our books have attracted attention from across the political spectrum, from the pages of The American Conservative (which reviewed Paul Gottfried’s War and Democracy in April) to the liberal countercultural magazine AdBusters, which ran excerpts from our edition of the Finnish radical ecologist Pentti Linkola’s book, Can Life Prevail?, in their May/June 2011 issue, simultaneous with their calls for what later became the Occupy Wall Street movement. This means that Arktos has been enjoying some success in attaining its goal of reaching readers outside of the usual crowd who would normally never pick up a “radical Right-wing” text, which has always been part of our intention in doing Arktos. I also described a few of our upcoming projects.
The last speaker of the day was the Swedish author Lars Holger Holm, who was introduced as a “Renaissance man,” with his extensive knowledge across a wide range of subjects. Holm spoke about and read from his new book, Gotisk, co-authored with the Dane, Kenneth Maximilian Geneser, which was recently published in Swedish by Arktos. The book describes the ancient Gothic past of Scandinavia, in particular their leader chieftain Theodoric, and his words, which evoked the age of their ancestors, seemed to have a hypnotic effect on the largely Scandinavian audience. As the conference came to an end, the Norwegian neofolk group Solstrom gave a live performance, providing the perfect musical accompaniment to our verbal efforts to define the essence of the European identity.
After the end of the conference proper came my favorite part of any such event, which was the opportunity to meet and speak with the members of the audience, many of whom number among Arktos’ clientele and with whom I usually only have contact through the Internet. I am always impressed by the many intelligent people from a wide diversity of backgrounds who appreciate what Arktos and our colleagues on the “alternative Right” such as Counter-Currents are doing. For me, meeting our audience on this occasion was even more exciting, as I would estimate that at least 90% of those in attendance were under the age of 40, which is in sharp contrast to similar events I have attended in the United States. This is not to criticize the efforts of our wise elders, but it was refreshing to see so many of those who will help to shape the future of Europe who were willing to sacrifice a beautiful summer Saturday in Stockholm to hear what we had to say.
In conclusion, I can only say that my experiences here in Sweden have given me great cause for hope, but also a great deal of envy in regard to what we are lacking in America. The efforts of the European identitarians, by overcoming the baggage of the “old Right” and by offering fresh perspectives and a genuine identity rooted in traditional values to the youth of this continent, are beginning to bear fruit, and I believe they will shake European civilization to its foundations in the coming years. On the other side of the Atlantic, while there have been many promising developments in the United States in recent years, we have yet to see anything approaching a real alternative culture or community based on these principles arise, nor have we seen much street-level action. But I believe this has to be the way forward throughout the Western world. Publishing books, running Websites and holding conferences are indeed important, but if this doesn’t eventually lead to activity in the real world, we will remain nothing more than a cult on the margins of society. As a traditionalist, I naturally believe that riding the tiger of modernity is important, but I also don’t think it’s time to withdraw from the battlefield just yet. Let us draw inspiration from our European brothers and sisters who are still in the trenches, undergo an inner transformation in how we conduct and understand our lives, and set about the task of reordering the world around us.
Videos of all the talks from the conference are now available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtCUj4nkms1FOFZYEFwCyogAeYHkiISE8
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
56 comments
This is so refreshing. Thank you. I wish I could have been there. I feel there is no hope for North America at all. It is all in fighting. When I pursue blogs that say they are for white people, I am just flabbergasted, especially North American blogs. ( some exceptions). They are so caught up in sex that I am laughing all the time. Between feminists and men’s rights blogs it is just almost despair. “I’m superior, no I am.” As far as I am concerned be superior. Now what?
Blame the jews , blame the puritans, blame England blame gays, blame not gays.
I am going to the garden to eat worms. I need protein.
rhondda makes a strong point concerning the essential triviality of most blogs that deal with the White race from a positive perspective.
A theme they like to address in the most abstract of terms – “Where are all the women? – is done so in the abstract, third person voice because they dare not stand in front of a mirror, take their clothes off, and see who is responsible for their sad state of affairs. They dare not write a thirty line biography – one line for each year of their lies – stating what they had done during that year that made it an improvement over the previous year.
Simply reversing their question leads us to the truth: “Why don’t worthwhile women want anything to do with you?” – leads them to return to their grandmother’s basement, and play HALO with ever greater intensity, retreating to a synthetic universe where they are demigods.
(The structural issues involving women and our social system are being dealt with at the-spearhead dot com.)
So, we have the best Ideas, and the worst people out there representing us, as a response to their self-selected nihilism. (HT: Greg Johnson).
What do they do then?
They blame the Jews – more accurately, Judaism – pretty much from a monocausal perspective. Yes, they did it to us,. but also yes, we let it happen repeatedly, to the point that it is now cheered on by all too many of us – a perfect sign of Collapse.
To the monocausalists – Children, one and all – we state that as long as you blame them, and don’t DO ANYTHING about it, you pretty much deserve the lesson, which you will keep getting until you get The Lesson.
This is what separates Harold Covington from all who came before. Only Covington, having fallen down every rabbit hole White Nationalism has to offer, grabbed the looking glass and smashed it, asking one question to all answers…
“And THEN What?”
Seeing what is possible – becoming part of the living foundation of a new nation – simply horrifies people who can not do a thirty line biography, while living in Grandma’s basement and playing World of Warcraft. Essentially, the people rhondda refers to are the culls of the process of racial evolution.
Their choices of interpersonal impotence – relationships with women – and impersonal ineffectiveness- sad, pathetic lives where they live in a monocausal Reality, always as fat, helpless little babies, always as professional victims, always with an excuse, never with an explanation- says all you need to know.
A thirty line biography, with each line ended with the Covington Question – “And THEN What?” – creates a Freudian Mirror where they can begin to see themselves a other people see them, and it is not a pretty sight.
Not a pretty sight, at all, which, come to think of it, is a good summary of most White Nationalism to date.
Which is, in part, is what the Identitarian Model seems to focus on stepping over.
Rhondda, thanks for your kind words. I agree that experiencing a bit of the European movement, as an American, was a welcome breath of fresh air.
Fourmyle, yes, I do think the identitarians are trying to avoid those pitfalls.
So is this Identity merely cultural or racial as well? Can Nigerians become Swedes in time? If not, why not? I mere note that the word White or Race were never mentioned. The word Nordic was, but that is often used in just an aesthetic sense and not as any kind of identity.
Identitarians(!) aren’t “totalitarian” but favor direct democracy. That sounds very, very bad. Conservatism of all ages and climes has a realistically low opinion of the average man. We of the Far Right are so far Right that we become Leftists as well. Sounds like these folks don’t have the Ideology that will take them that far. A convenient detour avoiding race leaves them in the lowlands. Reality is circular but they have fallen off the flat earth of their choosing. But as long as they avoid the “baggage” of the Old Right, then it’s all good, right?
Read the text of Vardon’s talk at Alternative Right. I don’t know where you get these ideas about the conference from, but Vardon is not saying anything like what you imagine was said (or not said).
It’s good that you pointed out Vardon as an example. I hate it when people have negative reactions which are completely unwarranted, which seems to happen too much when it concerns the “New Right.” Even if John Morgan did not mention race in his article (and maybe he should have, but a person does not necessarily have to constantly mention it to care about it), it doesn’t mean that racial issues are not a concern to Identitarians; they obviously are, as anyone who has done a little reading will notice quite quickly. Also, anyone who knows who Paul Gottfried is will know that he addresses the issue of race quite often in his works and advocates racial separatism. I’m not even going to say anything at the moment about Jaego’s comment on totalitarianism, which makes ridiculous implications. I would not have thought that people who spend so much time reading things on Counter-Currents could say things that sound so ignorant.
@ Jaego
I disagree, this form of fundamentalism within the white nationalist movement (or however you describe it), is something that unfortunately has plagued us for too long.
I have seen this phenomena as long as i have been following the movement, its become a constant theme, were new new ideas or approaches, are constantly criticized for not being extreme enough. And yet the most extreme members or organizations have been around for a long time now and they clearly haven’t got the “magic formula” as measured by the total failure of the right over the last 60 years.
And to point out that the National socialists managed it in the 30’s, is meaningless today, given that since the end of the war, national socialist groups have formed in almost every white country, and all have met with absolute failure. They have been reduced to pinning all their hopes on some type of daus ex machimna, to carry them to power.
And yet the evidence is all around us that whites even if placed in the worst situations such as South Africa, do not suddenly “awaken”, they either run away (white flight) or bury their heads in the sand and hope for the best, with precious few exceptions.
I would go so far as to say, that those groups who have had the most success from our perspective, and gave the system most cause for alarm, did so in the face of extreme criticism from our own side.
But to the victor go the spoils, those who achieve real success out there in the real world, are the ones we need to be learning from. Those who keep advocating the most extreme positions (and by that I dont mean Radical), will be judged not by how they present themselves, but through how much they take the movement forward.
And i have seen effectively ZERO success coming from these “hard liners” for a very very long time now….
Good points generally; there’s a reason I support the “New Right” (generically). I should add, however, that race is an important issue, and one which the European New Right does address. The most important New Right intellectuals have made it clear that they believe race is real and that race-mixing must be opposed (which is not “racism”, as some other commenters foolishly say); while rejecting biological reductionism and making clear they recognize that cultural and spiritual factors are of very great importance in identity, not just race. I believe that ultimately, if one cannot successfully argue for cultural identity and rejecting multi-culturalism (here I am strictly limiting this term to culture), one will have only insufficient arguments to support racial identity and reject multi-racialism. Neither factor can be neglected without committing a fundamental error.
As A.K Chesterton said, If they don’t name the Jew, their message isn’t true. Likewise, if the word White and Race aren’t used, don’t believe them. Call it fundamentalism if you will, but for lack of this clarity, our Race is now in dire straits. Sure Skin Head and KKK type White Nationalism doesn’t help us, but neither does disembodied high brow intellectualism – whose adherents are too lofty to speak of race or claim kinship with their lesser brothers. All your higher things rest on lower things. The Head has to learn to be grateful to the stomach and the feet. But the Head gets bored and thinks itself too good for these lower realities and wants new ideas not the same old fundamentals. Thus the Sages of old Greece and younger France and Germany taught us to beware of “intellectuals”. They are not whole men and are liable to become hired guns and whores.
From my vantage point, some of these ideas “feel” like conservatism. Do you really blame people for being skeptical? The danger is that any emerging revolutionary energy on the right in Europe is going to be dissipated into what is essentially a variant on conservatism. They invited Paul Gottfried, a conservative (and a Jew). It’s not clear what that man has to contribute to any revolutionary body of ideas. And they obviously don’t exclude Jews from their activities. Jewish involvement alone is sufficient to guarantee total failure if their goal is to clear Europe of non-Euros. But it’s their time, money and effort. Let them have at it.
Jaego,
I don’t plan on arguing with you about whether or not the Jews have the major role in causing our problems again because I know it’s pointless. As for A.K. Chesterton, it’s really funny that you should mention him, because he wrote in his book “The New Unhappy Lords” the following: “As Jewish influences are discernible at all levels, it may be asked how far is it a Jewish conspiracy. Gentiles, and Gentile bodies, including entire governments, have been so closely associated with what has occurred that it would be manifestly unfair to describe the plot, or series of plots, as the work of Jews and to leave it at that… The vast majority of Jews in the different countries are law-abiding citizens leading highly respectable lives, accepting the social customs of the peoples among whom they dwell and showing themselves to be well-disposed and kindly towards their neighbours” (p. 199).
Chesterton goes on to argue that a minority of Jews have been involved in subversive activities and conspiracies along with Gentiles (but it is only a minority, not Jews as a whole). As you know, I don’t really think Chesterton’s general views are agreeable because he’s one of those people that argues for a kind of global conspiracy that I regard as unrealistic to explain events. Nor do I think that Jews should be living in Gentile countries, even if they are law-abiding or conservative. However, I’ve decided to quote him just to introduce a new viewpoint into a topic where people seem to be irrational and unthinking. You probably have not even considered all the different directions of analysis that you can take anti-Jewish arguments and conspiracy theories.
As for the issue of race, John Morgan mentioned it in comments and writings in the past. That’s good enough for me, and it should be good enough for you. As for the people at the Identitarian conference, I am not familiar with all of them, but I believe that they probably mentioned the racial problem at least to a minor extent in some of their writings if not at the conference. It is likely that the majority of them, if not all of them, consider biology (race) as an important factor in identity, a topic which is almost always brought up in “New Right” works.
Finally, as for intellectuals, it is funny that you should make such a comment. All of your favorite right-wing movements in the past have relied heavily on dedicated intellectuals to support them and legimitise their views philosophically. National Socialism, even though it could have been of better quality ideologically, would have hardly gotten anywhere without people like Hans Gunther, Alfred Rosenberg, etc. (the list is large, believe me) in their movement. I am fully aware that some (and I stress that it is only some) intellectuals are fickle, too disconnected, and unreliable. However, if you think political movements can gain success without intellectual backing in one way or another you are a fool.
Lew,
Whether or not some ideas discussed there are conservative does not change the fact that they are generally revolutionary (also, “conservative” is a very vague word whose meaning is only relative, especially considering that even many revolutionary Fascists have called themselves “conservative”). As for Paul Gottfried, I am disappointed that you don’t know anything about him and that you would come out and attack him without researching him even a little bit. Gottfried, even though he is Jewish, values the interests of white Americans (and Europeans) much more than Jewish interests. In fact, he seems to not care about Jews at all. He’s practically a white nationalist, and he handles the issue of race frequently and explicitly in many of his works.
Lucian,
I’m very familiar with Paul Gottfried. I haven’t closely followed him for years, but I used to follow him as he is a well known paleo-conservative intellectual in America. Calling a Jewish conservative a Jewish conservative is not an attack. It’s calling him what he is. Unless Gottfried has become much more radical in the last few years while I haven’t been paying attention, I believe it’s fair to call him a conservative in the American sense of that word. His work has value, but that’s true for many conservatives.
Gottfried does care about Jews. The record shows he flips out about anti-Semites. In the now notorious 2006 Amren conference, Gottfried sided with the Jews who complained that Don Black and David Duke at the conference.
Lew,
You’re right, Gottfried is a conservative, but he dislikes modern American conservatism (which is why it is misleading to say he is simply a “conservative” in the way Americans use it today) and he also sympathizes and associates with more revolutionary people. About the Jewish issue, he does care about Jews, but not as much as he cares about whites in general. If you read some of his commentaries on Jews, such as those in his “War and Democracy” book, you can see that he puts white American interests over Jewish interests and is even hostile to Jews that support multiculturalism.
Jaego, in deigning to respond to you I feel as though I’m indulging an obvious troll, but for the record: quite obviously, no one at an identitarian conference would claim that a Nigerian can be a Swede. I didn’t explicitly discuss such issues in this report since, first of all, there are plenty of other sources already available which provide an introduction to what identitarianism is about, and second, I assume that anyone with an IQ above 70 would be able to figure out that it is one of their concerns without it having to be explicitly stated. The difference is that the identitarians, unlike folks such as yourself, don’t want to continue the endless, dull rehashing about race and the Jews that is expected from certain quarters out of some spastic, paranoid need for reassurance.
Lew, one only needs to watch the video of Prof. Gottfried’s lecture to see its relevance, and also to see that he is much more than just a “conservative.” His thinking is quite radical in many respects. As part of his talk, he discussed the ethnic motivations that played a role in the minds of the Jewish Frankfurt School thinkers who had such a destructive impact on our culture. When was the last time you heard a Republican or other mainstream conservative ideologue question the role that Jews have played in American history?
Deign away. I spotted your Neo-Conservatism a while back when you used the term Islamism and refused to explain why. In any case, I’m sure Herr Gottfried has you all well in hand. Direct Democracy? The Jew can relax when he hears such music to his ears – the lowest political system of all as David Lane said. Oh, but David Lane wasn’t an educated talk/think shop like you? But Plato said it too. Tell us more about Direct Democracy! Let us dine on your words.
Jaego, I knew I was being an idiot for bothering to respond to you at all. A mistake I won’t be repeating.
Try as might, I simply could not get a handle on just what kind of people these speakers essentially were. Are they white nationalists, just under a different name? Or are they “paleo-conservatives” like the American Dr. Gottfried — not specifically “racialist” but simply the European version of right-wingers? And what of Dr. Gottfried himself? Is he truly a staunch pro-white advocate (aka Racist and proud of it) or one of those paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan who believes America is “just fine” as a multi-racial melting pot just so long as whites’ social, cultural, and political rights are “protected”? These questions are mostly rhetorical, but some here may wish to sharpen the focus on these individuals a bit more.
Now, one more thing. I was deeply disturbed by Mr. Morgan’s statement here:
Here’s how I interpreted the section in bold: “…we ended up establishing our office in India in order to make use of non-white workers who cost us less in wages, no differently than how the big US corporations do it. In short, it was more critical that we at Arktos cut our labor costs (except for we whites at the top) by not using white workers when brown ones would do just as well and for a whole lot less money.”
Perhaps this is not the case, and my apologies if it is not, if all you’re doing is availing yourself of lower “infra-structure” costs, rather than human labor. But even then, going all the way to India just for that purpose – itself – does not make much sense. For the record, I buy Arktos books all the time. But, frankly, this statement is a revelation to me, if it is what it apparently sounds like.
In a podcast interview with John Morgan (I believe it was with Richard Spencer on one of the incarnations of the Alternative Right podcast), Morgan stated he relocated to India because he (Morgan) could afford to live cheaply there, not because he was using cheap Indian labor. It’s impossible to live in Ann Arbor, Michigan (where Morgan previously resided) for anywhere neat the cost of living in India. So, in effect, Morgan outsourced himself to cut costs.
Thanks for saying this. It is what I thought too.
Magnus, the speakers at our conference can’t be described using one term because they come from diverse backgrounds. We had a paleoconservative, identitarians, and others. They were there to speak on a specific theme, not to represent a unity of thought or approach. Although of course we think that all of the speakers had something relevant to contribute. But naturally they may not be in agreement with each other on everything (although the points of agreement surely outweigh the disagreements).
As for you being “deeply disturbed” by my comment about our operations being in India, BlackSun is correct – I and my colleagues relocated there because it was cheaper for those of us who started it to live there (after having tried to work for several years from the West, which wasn’t working out), not because we went there to hire Indians. We have contracts with a couple of Indians who deal with our accounting and with local attorneys who have helped us with the legal ins-and-outs of operating an office from there. We have to work with them because obviously they are the only ones qualified and with the credentials to deal with the Indian bureaucracy. But in terms of our book production, no Indians are involved at any stage of the process (apart from the fact that a couple of our authors are Indian), and that was never our intention in going there. We currently have three full-time staff members at our Indian office: myself and two Swedes. This may not make sense to you, as you said, but it has certainly worked out very well for us over the last few years, and there is no question that it was a good move. That doesn’t mean we will necessarily stay in India forever, however.
Magnus, I neglected to answer the part of your comment when you asked “Are they white nationalists, just under a different name?” The answer is a most definite no. The European identitarians/New Rightists/etc. are aware of WN, but I have yet to meet a single European who regards himself as being one. Those I have talked to say that they regard themselves as being Swedes, Norwegians, Germans, French, etc., and that this is the identity they are defending – they have no interest in being “White” and regard the notion as being a chimera. That is not to say that there aren’t Europeans who are WNs, I’m sure there must be, but I haven’t met any who would apply that moniker to themselves. The Europeans I know view those of European descent worldwide as having common interests, of course, but they do not accept the idea that there is a single identity that does or should unite them all.
John Morgan, I do not think it is accurate to say that right-wing Europeans “have no interest in being ‘white’.” On the contrary, they generally recognize that they all belong to a similar racial type (whether one wants to call this “white” or something else is only a matter of terminology) which makes them relatable to each other in ways that they cannot be related to other races; they recognize that their race is one significant factor differentiating them from other peoples in the world who are of a different racial type. I think what is important is that they do not reduce their identity to race – rejecting biological reductionism – and also place value on cultural differences both between themselves and others. This is why they are not “white nationalists” in the sense of reducing everything to being white (and neither am I, for that matter). I am sure you are aware of this, since you know that what I am saying can be drawn from the works of popular New Right authors, including Krebs, Faye, and Venner. You may be trying to say something similar to me, just with what I think is the wrong wording.
I think what is important is that they do not reduce their identity to race – rejecting biological reductionism – and also place value on cultural differences both between themselves and others. This is why they are not “white nationalists” in the sense of reducing everything to being white (and neither am I, for that matter.
I’m not a WNst in that sense either. I think American WNsm really suffers from not having fully developed theoretical foundations that everyone regardless of some differences can buy into (it’s one reason CC/NANR is a VITALLY important project). In my experience, the name itself — WNsm — is serious stumbling block and source of confusion for many people, not sophisticated people / specialists like you who are advanced in their learning but ordinary people.
For good or ill, the name implies “nationhood” based on “white” which can be legitimately confusing and off-putting because other things matter and whites are so culturally diverse. What makes me doubt WNsm more than anything is when I come face-to-face, in the real world, with other whites I feel no cultural affinity with.
I don’t think WNsts should stay wedded to that label and maybe ought to do away with it. The question is, in an American context, what’s better? This isn’t an issue in Europe because they have their various historic “identities.”
Lucian, yes, I think we are saying the same thing, although in my original comment I was just reporting what I have heard during conversations with European Rightists in recent weeks, not giving my own view. I imagine that most of them would agree with you about biological reductionism, but at the same time, that is not what I have been hearing. When I mention White Nationalism many of these people tell me that they can’t relate to it because they consider their identity as being Scandinavian, or German, or French, or whatever – not “White.” This may go hand-in-hand with seeing biological reductionism as problematic, but the issue I keep hearing from Europeans about it is that it is also a question of identity.
at least 90% of those in attendance were under the age of 40
Perhaps they have finally noticed that the open border policy is undermining the social services that they could once take for granted, and as for a pension, well no harm in dreaming.
I think it’s very cynical to assume that the young people in attendance were only there because of some perceived threat to their own share of the socialist pie. The people who were in attendance were there because they care about the future of Europe’s identity. And they all despise the socialist nightmare that Scandinavia has become, at any rate. I can say this with certainty since many of them are known to me personally. If they were all obsessed merely with their own personal gain, I can assure you they wouldn’t have been there at all, since being outed as a “Rightist” in Scandinavia these days is about the worst thing that can happen to one’s social standing.
What is the difference between Bloc Identity and the National Front? Why don’t they just start French Dawn or French Jobbik? In looking to Europe, as an American, I don’t understand why the all Euro rightists are not adopting the clearly successful Golden Dawn model.
That said, I’ll go ahead and voice what is becoming my standard complaint about the new right’s overall approach: framing white survival in a global context when other ethnic groups don’t muddles the objective.. Us first. Our side first. Take our own side. It’s a very different proposition than we are for everyone.
It does not appear to be an academic consideration for the rightists who subscribe to this view. They practice what they preach. In his comments, Vardon said he’s down with the Tibetans and Chiapas Indians. If I ever get to hear him speak, my first question will be “how has supporting Tibetans helped get the Muslims to pack up and leave France.”?
There’s more to our politics than just deporting racial-cultural foreigners to make our societies better. We need to support and cooperate with non-white nations if we want to achieve our goals as peacefully as possible and make them lasting. When right-wing groups attain power in white nations, they need to maintain good or at least reasonable relations with non-white nations wherever possible. Do not forget that we will be trading with these nations in the future, that they are the ones who will have to take in deportees, and that they can endanger our existence if they are all hostile to us. It would not hurt to have some allies among other peoples too.
I should be clear that I agree with you that it should be “us first,” but someone placing white/European interests first does not mean that he should not want to help peoples of other races when it is desirable. Finally, there is another strategic factor involved in declaring that you intend to help Third World peoples: it gives you a political benefit because it helps to nullify claims by the mainstream media that you are merely a “white supremacist racist” who supposedly intends to do horrible things to non-whites around the world. Of course, I do not mean that we should be lying, since there are many reasons to carry through the declaration in actuality, but only that there is a clear benefit in merely saying it. Surely you can see that much. Not only that, but there are people who care about or sympathize with some non-whites who already have joined us or would be willing to join us (meaning, the racial-ethnic separatist position), and they would obviously be discouraged if we take a careless position. We need to look like (and preferably also be) reasonable and humane people, in short.
Help Third World People? Am I reading this right? We are bankrupt and headed for extinction and you are still talking like this? Your head is way up in the clouds, a perfect example of the unbalanced intellectualism I warn against – as did the Hero many, many times. Obviously a Complete Man is a thinker, but He is also many other things as well.
Or perhaps you mean we should just say that we are going to help Third World People but not really intend to do it? That is better by far. The Chinese never make any such declarations. They make agreements with the various Strong Men and Chiefs and then they extract whatever it is they need. I remind you of our precarious situation. If we were ever to recover, then perhaps we could. I’d really prefer the old way of Christian Charity though. It might be slower, but it is the way Free Men operate. As it is, the Government takes our Money and gives it to other people for their own purposes. You don’t really want to continue that do you Lucian? There’s nothing about it in the Constitution. Maybe you want a new Constitution like Obama does? I do too, but it wont be anything like yours….
Jaego,
As soon as I began writing that comment I knew this was coming. You’re clearly not paying enough attention to what I am saying. Why would I want to help Third World peoples when we are bankrupt and all messed up? That’s neither reasonable nor humane. We need to restore economies, create new social orders, and establish new political leaderships with new laws based on our worldview. We need to clean up our own messes in our own countries. When we have stability, order, and prosperity and can actually afford it, only then do we spare a few resources to help others – and not vice versa. Anyone who would suggest otherwise is insane. The real question here is, simply put, is whether we are supposed to advocate an “us first” policy or an “us only” policy. I will choose the former because it is a better strategy, but others – who apparently don’t want to learn from past mistakes – seem to want the latter.
The strategic rationale as you describe it is compelling. Vardon mentioned that people take it for granted that every Congolese tribe has a right to live as a tribe free from forced integration with outsiders. Once you find a person who agrees with that, assuming the person is intellectually honest, it’s a short step to securing a commitment to a parallel ethnic separatism for Euro peoples the world over, or in Europe at a minimum. If the person is not honest, you can expose their maliciousness quickly. The view that the Congolese shouldn’t have to put up with forced integration but Euros should is malicious.
The approach is not problematic as long as “us first” is the guiding principle. But is it though? It doesn’t seem that it is for at least some of the people who use the “global” principle. One of the speakers discussed in this article is a German editor who apparently writes about Syria from an Assad POV for thousands of readers. How does his spending time traveling to Syria and sympathizing with Assad help Germans to evict non-Germans and get out from under the globalist heel? Is that a fair question?
Turks in Germany have seized whole neighborhoods. And we know from the recent NSA stories that Merkel and the German government are heavily entwined with American intelligence and that serpent’s nest in Washington DC, even more than people realized.
So given the many problems facing Germany, it’s hard for me to understand how a man with the talent to edit a publication with thousands of readers gets any value for Germans by discussing Syria. Unless Germany for Germans is not his mission or his sole mission.
I doubt he covers Syria because there are Syrian journalists covering the plight of the Germans since, I assume, there are no such Syrians reciprocating his good will. There is no one coming to Germany, photographing Turks taking over, and then returning to Syria to spread the word in Arabic. Assad and his supporters are for themselves and their proven allies not the globe.
Full marks to Lew for this one, which returns us to the central focus of our efforts – “What does this mean for the White race in America?”
A concern for the Tibetans – that Game is over, they lost – for the people of the Chiapas Rebellion – that Game is over, they are tolerated as useful distractions that “prove” the tolerance of PRI – seems too similar to the misguided and displaced altruism that, when displayed inappropriately, is always part and parcel of our social downfall.
I reduced all of my policy issues to one overriding consideration, which keeps it safely removed from the hollow ineffectiveness of the abstractions our Enemies have chosen for us:
“What does this mean for insuring my Posterity is on the expedition to Alpha Centauri?”
Everything is a footnote to that Goal, and that is where the compass of my moral considerations always points.
Note I said “Goal.”
Not “Dream,” not “Vision,”….
Goal.
Yes, they lost and we are losing. Yet people in our Camp are still talking about aid to the 3rd World as if we were still on top. We must become Fanatics to save ourselves now. No Nations are built without such fanaticism. Israel wasn’t nor was America. We can learn from our Hispanic Brothers of La Raza, their motto being, “For our Race everything, outside our Race, nothing.” That they are enemies doesn’t mean we cannot learn from them.
We could have had a colony on Mars by now if not for Johnson’s “Great Society” abomination. Our Heritage has been stolen from us. If people aren’t infuriated, there is something wrong with them. Yet there are those in our Camp who want to prove to our tormentors that we are good people. The absolute Weakness of Spirit is terrifying. We are good People, they are not. Let us find Strength through Joy and do what must needs be done.
“What does this mean for insuring my Posterity is on the expedition to Alpha Centauri?”
In politics, it’s always the next generation that matters. I like your formulation because of the emphasis on our posterity still being around physically to go on to new heights culturally. You have a pithy summary of what I can’t seem to say. Secure survival first, then go on to new heights for cultural achievement.
Lew, there is no organizational connection between Bloc Identitaire and the Front National, although some of BI’s members are in contact with them and obviously they share similar goals. Marine Le Pen, for example, praised the identitarians’ mosque occupation (and took some heat because of it). But I think the difference is that the FN is a political party which appeals primarily to older people, while BI is more into street-level activism among the youth. Although some identitarians, incuding Vardon himself, have taken part in local elections, so they are hardly apolitical. Concerning their strategy, why don’t you ask them? Although certainly what they’re doing seems to be working. France is not Greece (not that the Golden Dawn has really enjoyed that much success – they’re still a long way off from holding power in any real sense).
Also, when you complained about the “New Right’s” approach, I should point out that identitarianism does not regard itself as being a part of GRECE (there has never been an organization of the name “New Right” in Europe) or any other NR organization – in fact, Vardon explicitly denied that his group was NR in conversation with me. They do take a great deal of inspiration from Guillaume Faye – who has explicitly denied having any sympathy for the pro-Third Worldism of GRECE – although being in favor of identity worldwide and being pro-Third World are two very different things.
John Morgan,
Do they field inquiries from random Americans with an interest in their project? Also, I can’t speak, read or write French. Their web sites are all seem to be in French
Lew, I imagine they might, although I can’t say for certain. Philippe Vardon is on Facebook, and he knows English.
Thank you for an excellent piece. Very inspiring.
Despite the comments from the armchair critics and concern trolls here, European Identitarians are clearly doing something right and are leagues ahead of American rightists.
Time to pay attention, get off your backside, and do something.
Speaking of armchair critics, I missed your last book, run for high office and other public activist projects.
Your intentions here are transparent. Let’s hope they don’t put off genuine soon-to-be activists.
You and other trolls are free to make such comments anonymously and with impunity, but in real life your sort aren’t tolerated.
Yes, do something. White Nationalism has to be brought into the Mainstream of Conservative thought, a kind of Whig Party for the 21st Century focusing on Trade and Foreign Aid; perhaps a revamped Neo-Conservatism, one that is White friendly. Men of good will ($) of all races will be eligible to join of course – that is not even up for question. What to do with the poor Whites or Crackers will be of our main concerns of course. It’s already a problem in South Africa and is becoming one in Britain and the United States. Perhaps reservations? Or work camps if they are in debt? We are nothing if not compassionate. That distinguishes us from the Neo Cons and Liberals. We want nothing but the best for our own rabble.
Thanks for your kind words, WG. Although the negative voices seem to want to drown out the positive ones at times, I feel confident that most Counter-Currents readers are intelligent and perceptive enough to see how the identitarians and our other speakers are helping us towards the goals that most of us share.
The number of armchair critics and concern trolls that have been drawn to this post like yellow-jackets to sugar-water is very revealing.
Our adversaries are clearly very afraid of an Identitarian-like movement taking hold in North America, since Identitarianism is currently progressing quite well in Europe.
Thank you, again, John (and Greg), for an informative—and inspiring—report.
If I was any form of troll, my comments would not have been appearing here for the last 2 1/2 years.
Just saw your comment about Gottfried at the Amren conference. Now I know who Gottfried is – and the danger that high end White Nationalism is being subverted. David Duke is mainstream White Nationalism. Any attempt to marginalize him is a blatant attempt at subversion. The situation is even worse than I intuited.
I have to say that it is generally not a good idea to go about calling people trolls or other names (however tempting it may be to do so or even if they may deserve it) and assuming that the person in question is completely dismissable. A person who disagrees may simply be uneducated, misguided, or may have not thought out the matter at hand too well. This is what one has to consider first before creating an atmosphere of belligerence. From what I understand, Counter-Currents is a place for discussion of different ideas and strategies, and thus obviously people will have many disagreements and they should be able to discuss them with each other politely. Nobody should be afraid to express themselves on this site whatever their views may be (so long as the person is in our general line of thought, of course) and should be able to have constructive debates and conversations with others. I wish I didn’t feel the need to say this, but I don’t like the situation that has developed on this article.
Yes, well said. The same arrogance that has destroyed our Academia now infects our Movement. Why wouldn’t it since our intellectuals come from that milieu? Unless they take strong inner steps to rectify themselves, they will just be a millstone around our necks.
Glad to hear that you were talking theoretically and about the far future in regards to charity… Though I still don’t know why a Nation should just give money to other Nations – it would be like a club collecting dues and not using them for the activities of the club.
Is Europe really doing that good? Most of its New Nationalism or Identitarianism is overtly or covertly controlled by Jews. Only the Golden Dawn is Free and Glorious.
It took the Elves ages to learn to not trust Sauron no matter how reasonable his words and beautiful his appearance. In the end, the Elves were nearly crushed, begging the Gods to save them.
Jaego, you should be aware that although I object to people calling each other trolls (which is really because I’ve seen done too much in the past and to people who were obviously serious, however disagreeable), I am not going to hesitate to say that you are largely responsible for creating the atmosphere of hostility. Practically every comment you made on this article contained something that someone else would find insulting on some level; it’s something you need to stop doing. It’s no wonder so many people are pissed off at you, and they seem justified in being so.
I would say it’s always a good idea to identify and confront personalities like yours (and your associates), which have infected WN movements in the US for years and continue to do so, an observation based on 17+ years in nationalist politics in the US and Europe.
It’s easy for you to do what you’re doing, anonymously, on the internet. In real life, face to face, it would be much harder for you to create such mischief. Which is why I think it is imperative for WNs (or American Identitarians) to move to a “flesh and blood” organization. Characters such as yourself will be less tolerated.
One of the qualities I like about the Identitarians is the level of cooperation amongst different ages, cases, and groups, all with the same objective. Plus, the creative ways in which the Identitarian activists get their message across. This is currently not possible in the US. I wonder why.
Lucian, I do not use the word “troll” lightly. But sometimes we have to call a spade a spade.
We want to be open-minded, but as the saying goes, “Be open-minded, but not so far that your brain falls out.” When someone postulates that the identitarians believe that a Nigerian can become a Swede, that person is either A) a troll or B) hopelessly stupid. And such people need to be called on their bullshit.
Incorrect. Go back and look: I ASKED whether a Nigerian could become a Swede in time. And then asked if not, why not. If you can’t explain what Identitarianism is to a beginner, then you don’t understand it either. If you refuse to explain, then that is also revealing – and makes one wonder if you can explain it or if it makes sense at all to a White Nationalist.
Am I an idiot? No, I like to play the role of the little boy who sees the naked emperor. You didn’t have to play the part of the naked emperor – but you did. You could have answered my questions instead – if you were able to.
The role of the little boy who asks obvious questions if essential in any movement or party. If there is nothing to hide, then just answer. Maybe I’m ferreting out what I consider to be bullshit or maybe I really don’t know. A little bit of both this time. And I’m sure other people had similar questions. Looking back at the thread, I see that they did and I provoked a valuable discussion, though I still want to know more about the Direct Democracy, Gottfried, Identitarian definition of race, etc.
Jaego,
Gottfried may support ethnic separatism for Euros in some abstract sense, but he has always opposed EXPLICIT pro-white advocacy in the political sphere in America. OPPOSED, not supported.
Also, again, Gottfried sided with Jews and against Duke/Black in a public dispute at American Renaissance in 2006. This blatant slight is not something to overlook in my opinion. Jews never would.
Jews are not monolithic. While many Jews cackle about destroying white civilization and do everything in their power to bring it about, a small number of their smarter and wiser co-tribalists realize that only whites can build the kind of civilizations Jews thrive in. Hence, they support white civilization on the basis that it’s good for the Jews. I suspect that Gottfried and the Jews who attend American Renaissance fall into this category.
One of Gottfried’s objectives is to make sure any intellectual projects that he participates in stay friendly to Jews, and bend to Jewish interests as he understands them.
Thanks Lew. And Whites like Jared Taylor feel we just can’t make it without such Jewish Angels and thus a subtle capitulation is effected. It’s very sad. It would be one thing if such Jews really wanted the best for us, but as you say, it’s just a far seeing self interest. To love in a disinterested way seems almost beyond them and everyone else except Whites. And this beautiful faculty will be the end of us unless we can balance it out with self interest first.
Lucian: I don’t regret my words. All my life I’ve seen the results of premature consensus, one arrived at by psychic coercion and not hammered out by strong words. If White Nationalism is too frail to withstand this, then we’re already finished ere begun. There are a number of ways that premature consensus is created. The “everyone already knows” meme is a classic. I’ve gone to introductory classes and lectures only to face the assumption that everyone is already supposed to know the basics. Of course no one wants to be a dummy so that assumption is assumed. Of course they don’t know the basics but what a GREAT way to have the basics validated without being investigated. Instant consensus creation.
This kind of thing is a pattern in White Nationalism. A lot of people don’t want us to be and others are intent on capturing the infant movement for their own ends. A couple of months ago we had a fellow saying how Hezbollah and the Golden Dawn should be seen as the same by us. Crazy, no? Please don’t say no.
It is not really the triumph of Communism, but the triumph of Jewry. Communism was just a vehicle they hijacked, joyrided in for a while, and crashed, after which they found new vehicles. Talking about the triumph of Communism, like talk of “Cultural Marxism,” strikes me as a euphemism for the Jewish problem, which we need to talk about straight-up, neat, and without the mixers and cute little umbrellas that conservatives think are clever camouflage, but which dilute the message and confuse the intended audience. Jews are never fooled by such euphemisms. But whites are, sending them off in the wrong direction when we do not have time to waste. Therefore, employing euphemisms, circumlocutions, and proxies for the Jewish problem is a COMPLETELY failed strategy. But conservatism is nothing if not the repetition of failed strategies in search of different results.
I attended the event and I have to say it was nothing short of excellent! Great speeches ranging from intellectually stimulating political theory to interesting current events. I have to single out Manuel Ochsenreiter as he deserves praise beyond most in this time of the last man. He really puts his fellow “mainstream” journalists to shame, as they sit on their ass in safety harking back the script of the international elite he is on the ground in Syria witnessing checkpoints, riding in tanks with the army and visiting hospitals with the dying and wounded. If you have not seen his speech from II5 I urge you to do so.
During the event I had the privilege to speak to both prof Paul Gottfried and John Morgan. Both where very eloquent and forthcoming with everyone wanting to share their homespun solutions to our predicament (like me), surely, it must have been a bit of a test. A big thanx to everyone involved, It was truly inspirational.
Ps.
John, It seems we where both right about the origin of James Bond. This is the guy I was drivelling on about by the way.
“Popov was noted as a ladies’ man – while in the US, he lived an extravagant lifestyle. He has been cited as among Ian Fleming’s muses for James Bond.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusko_Popov
“Fleming knew Popov and followed him in Portugal, witnessing an event in the Estoril Casino where Popov placed a bet of $40,000 ($624,344 in 2013 dollars) in order to cause a rival to withdraw from a baccarat table: Fleming used this episode as the basis for Casino Royale.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspirations_for_James_Bond
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment