A Cautionary Tale
French translation here
Imagine that in 2025, the United States as we know it disappeared. Internal corruption and imperial overreach made the regime incapable of dealing with a number of crises: spiraling government growth; continued economic stagnation; droughts, floods, and earthquakes; racial conflict exacerbated by massive non-white immigration, blatant anti-white discrimination, and desperate economic scarcity; and, of course, the ruinous costs of a new series of wars and interventions in the neighborhood of Israel.
The federal paychecks and handouts stopped. Blacks and browns ran amok, and the federal government could do nothing to stop them. By default, sovereign functions devolved to states, counties, cities, even warlords — anyone who could provide law and order. The official secessions began at the periphery: Alaska and Hawaii went first. But eventually the United States was reduced to just thirteen states: New England, plus New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia, and Delaware. The capital was moved to New York City.
Among the newly freed states, many of those with overwhelming white majorities reorganized themselves as white ethnostates, adopting humane and pragmatic policies of separating from non-whites and resettling them outside their borders. Some of these states — Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming — joined into a Northwest Republic. In the South, the Confederacy was reborn and began resettling blacks in New England, where they were still well-loved. Most of the Midwestern states remained independent republics. A Mormon theocracy popped up in Utah, and God decided that Mormons were to be a white people after all. Those portions of California, Texas, and the other Southwestern states with large Mexican populations dissolved into chaos, but white control was slowly reestablished through bitter ethnic warfare against savage gangs and drug cartels.
By 2035, the free states were mostly at peace, and the rump of the United States had survived its crisis and reached an equilibrium of sorts through the emergence of a political strongman who managed to clamp down on ethnic and ideological conflict and lash his sullen subjects — the vast majority of them non-white — into rowing in unison again.
As for the rest of the world: the collapse of American power was a blessing overall. The disappearance of NATO and the European Union led to the resurgence of nationalism across Europe. Jews and European Leftists tried to resist this by stoking petty nationalistic resentments between Europeans and by organizing non-white insurrections under the banner of Islam. Although there was a great deal of bloodshed and destruction, ultimately the violence worked in Europe’s favor, since it unified Europeans behind a swift and decisive program of ethnic cleansing of non-Europeans. Europe was no longer unified, but it was entirely European.
In the Near East, Israel made an abrupt about-face in its foreign policy. Without the United States to subsidize its economy and fight its wars, Israel was forced to launch a “Good Neighbor Policy.” The globe laughed. Then, one by one, countries started making “such deals.”
In the Far East, China emerged as the world’s only superpower. Consequently, the Japanese re-armed overnight, complete with a nuclear deterrent, and the Koreas reunified with a South Korean economy under a North Korean nuclear umbrella.
At New York University, a professor with ties to the US government and intelligence apparatus, began dreaming of how to restore the glory of the empire. His strategy was quite clever.
First, because his goal was to restore something old and terrible, he had to sell it as something entirely new and wonderful, a completely new paradigm of political theory. Since it was anything but new, it had to define its newness in non-essential terms. To protect itself from criticism, it had to present and fuzzy and moving target, cloaking itself in obscure jargon and constantly redefining itself in the face of resistance.
Second, because the politics of identity now ruled the world, and the people of the former US states thought and spoke entirely in identitarian terms, he had to cast the restoration of the American Empire as a new form of identity politics. Since America had split apart on racial grounds, it could not be unified in terms of racial identity. Besides, his goal was not racial integrity but power, and power required that he unify people of different races into a single large machine. For power politics, the natural units are not nations or races, but continental blocs. Hence the ideology of “North Americanism” was born.
Third, because the intended targets of resurgent American imperialism were naturally skeptical of North Americanism, they had to be given something bigger to fear: the world’s sole superpower, China. Thus North Americanism presented itself not as another form of imperialism, but instead as an anti-imperialist movement, in solidarity with other anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist movements around the world, all of them unified by their fear of China.
How can the small countries of North America resist Chinese imperialism? Why, through unifying themselves with the rump of the United States. Not, of course, in a reborn American Empire. But merely in a defensive North American Confederation. But the North Americanists tip their hand when their proposed Federation starts looking exactly like the old United States, and their geopolitical outlook clones American ambitions down to the smallest warm water port. Would members of this new Confederation be allowed to secede? Because it started to sound like an “unbreakable union.” You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Fourth, since the reborn American Empire requires not just the unification of different racial groups, but also the unification of different religious groups — including large numbers of Muslims whose religion requires the establishment of a Muslim theocracy — the North Americanist ideology also embraces elements of Traditionalism. Traditionalism teaches that all religions are ultimately founded on the same esoteric truths, regardless of their exoteric differences. But if religions differ only on exoteric and thus less important matters, this offers the prospect of religious tolerance, particularly a politically neutered Islam, which would serve the larger interests of power politics. The aim is to install Traditionalists at the top of all religious organizations, then have them implement the policies of their Unknown Superiors. Talk of Traditionalism also serves a dual purpose, since it appeals to many New Right identitarians who find the Traditionalist critique of modernity compelling.
What would New Rightists and identitarians around the globe make of the ideology of “North Americanism”? On the one hand, they would find its rhetoric and stated goals very appealing. They would approve of its critique of modernity and liberalism, its identitarian language, its critique of globalization and colonialism, its warnings about the dangers of a unipolar world under Chinese hegemony, its engagement with Traditionalism, its frequent references to such writers as Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schmitt, Benoist, Faye, etc. It is designed to be appealing in precisely this manner.
But ultimately New Rightists would reject “North Americanism” on ethnonationalist grounds. We regard racial and ethnic identities as more fundamental than any others, including religious and regional ones. Our goal is to preserve our race and our distinct ethnic identities by creating racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands.
We are not interested in joining with other races into empires which serve the interests of small elites at the price of the destruction of distinct peoples. We do not wish to rule over other peoples or to be ruled by them. We regard colonialism and imperialism as bad deals for all involved: first, for the conquered, but then for the conquerors as well, who also lose their identities in the end.
We regard Traditionalism as a way of understanding how different paths might lead to the same truth. We do not think of it as a mechanism whereby religions can be neutralized and controlled from the top by political elites.
New Rightists would eventually see North Americanism as a manufactured ideology. Its intellectual murkiness and inconsistencies would suddenly become intelligible when it is seen as merely a tool to promote a new version of the race-denying, race-destroying imperial power politics that we so rightly reject.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 535 Ask Me Anything
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
Notes on Strauss & Husserl
The Honorable Cause: A Review
Remembering Oswald Spengler (May 29, 1880-May 8, 1936)
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 1: Política y Metapolítica
Remembering Richard Wagner (May 22, 1813-February 13, 1883)
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 164
If Eurasianism is merely a ploy to revive a Russian Empire, wouldn’t that be better than what we have now? If Eurasianism is just an attempt to revive the Soviet Union, we should praise it, as capitalism has been far more destructive to national borders and ethnic homogeneity than Soviets ever were. Do you really think Putin is merely a tool of the powers that be, mostly internationalist Jewish? I think his behavior demonstrates that he is thinking beyond being a willing cog in the US led globalist project.
Also, it is obvious that political ideologies rooted in ethnic nationalism have failed disastrously, harming the whites grievously. An ideology rooted in something that embraces a complex composition of identity such as dasein is worth a try. Attempting to reconfigure the Third Political Theory would be a very challenging task, if not impossible task. Currently there are is no real political future for Neo-Yockeyism or whatever form a new Fascism would take.
No ideology is perfect, but currently there is no better alternative to modernity than the Fourth Political Theory.
The breakup of the Soviet Empire was a wonderful thing from a racialist and ethnonationalist point of view. Many peoples gained control over their homelands, and the European core population of Russia rid itself of vast numbers of non-white and off-white people, including millions of Muslims. Most of the problems since the breakup of the USSR (Chechnya, Dagestan, Georgia, South Ossetia) have arisen from the fact that ethnonationalism was not taken to its logical conclusion.
I don’t think that Putin is a some sort of Jewish or globalist pawn. I think he is the best political leader in the white world today. He is an important brake on Jewish and American power. But he is still wedded to the logic of empire, holding onto restive Muslim populations in the Caucasus for economic and strategic reasons.
Eurasianism strikes me as an ideology of shoring up and expanding Russian imperialism, under the guise of fighting American imperialism. Yes, many of the former Soviet republics have faced great problems since independence, including the menace of Americanization. But if I were a citizen of Estonia or Ukraine, I would still prefer to face those problems as independent nations — which could also enter into alliances with Russia, BUT ONLY WHEN THEY ARE BASED ON MUTUAL INTERESTS — which is a far cry from being a province or satellite taking orders from Moscow.
Ethnonationalism is the most powerful force in the world today and the only hope for our race. The idea that “Dasein” can be the foundation of a Fourth Political theory strikes me as dubious. Heidegger himself was led to the Third Political Theory by his account of human existence in Being and Time. Race is not a scientific abstraction. It is a concrete reality that can be seen by the most naive observer. So too with ethnicity. To claim that these are somehow inauthentic abstractions compared to the concreteness of human existence is to construct a straw man.
I don’t think that Putin is a some sort of Jewish…
Just look who is the head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Fradkov
Fradkov was born near the city now known as Samara, to a family of Jewish origin on his father’s side.
I agree with Greg here. Putin may not be a ‘tool of the Jews,” but he is certainly no racial nationalist, nor is he any sort of ethnic Russian nationalist either. What Putin cares about is: a “strong Russia.” If that Russia can be built with a predominantly Slavic, ethnically Russian population, fine. If it can be built with a predominantly Central Asian Muslim population, that’s fine with him as well. If it can be built with millions of Chinese swarming over the border, taking over the economy of the Russian Far East, and intermarrying with Russian women, well, all fine and dandy as well. This vision of a “strong Russia” is aracial. Further, since Putin and the Eurasianists want to build empire, even under the absolute best case scenario, the optimal outcome for ethnic Russians would to be a majority in a multiracial state. An ethnically homogeneous Russia is not possible, given the logic of empire. After all, the rulers need to accommodate the ruled populations, and co-opt those populations’ leaders. Thus, if Russia wants to rule over Asiatics, then those Asiatics must become citizens, with the right to live anywhere within the empire they choose, intermarry with whom they choose, etc. I don’t see that mirror-image of America as anything to support. I would think that an ethnonationalist Russia would be in a better position to upset the multiculturalist globalist applecart than a multicultural, multiracial “Russian” empire.
And racial nationalists need to get over their “white knight” syndrome. Reagan, Buchanan, Paul, Putin…who’s next? Ted Cruz? Thomas Sowell? It’s pathetic and embarrassing and it reeks of desperation, always latching on to some sort of public figure who is “really one of us,” or who is “playing a careful strategic game against the Jews,” or who is “the vanguard against globalism.” A marginalized group with limited resources cannot afford to waste those resources supporting those who champion ideals that are anathema to what the marginalized group believes – in our case, supporting champions of constitutional patriotism. Enough is enough. There is no easy way out, none of these public figures are the “man on the white horse” who is going to save us. Instead, more likely, we need to save ourselves from THEM.
It would be nice if big nations didn’t push around little ones, but that is an unrealistic expectation. A pan-nationalism where everyone respects the boundaries of everyone else is a pipe dream. An independent Chechnya would probably become an American pawn like Kosovo. The collapse of the Soviet Union paved the way for Soros funded groups to weasel their way into power throughout the former Eastern Bloc. We cannot allow total Americanization, which is synonymous with liberalism, to go on over peccadilloes about the existence of nations. National sovereignty is worthless if a nation’s heritage is going to be looted from the inside. Living under Russian domination is terrible, but living under American domination is even worse.
Moreover, nationalism is an enlightenment byproduct that doesn’t necessarily preserve the ways of our ancestors, consider how the unification of Germany or Italy harmed the regional traditions of the various smaller sovereignties that were stripped of authority and goaded into the “nation.” Nationalism has the same issues as an Empire with the added poison of Enlightenment thought. Even the best of Third Political Thought calls for an Imperium, and Yockey himself realized that America was the true threat to European heritage. Indeed, Yockey spent the latter part of his life encouraging Arab nationalism against the US/Israel axis.
Is nationalism really an “Enlightenment product”? Were there not nations long before that? Did these nations not struggle to maintain their identities and independence and control of their own destinies?
And if nationalism really is an Enlightenment project, is that so bad? I am through with blanket condemnations of “modernity” and the Enlightenment.
I treasure modern religious tolerance, the ideal of reason as the arbiter of public disputes, and the real progress created by science and technology.
Sure, we can point to environmental disasters caused by science and technology. But is it really the science and technology, or their misuse by selfish, short-sighted men? And when we clean up these messes, the solutions generally come through better science and technology, rightly used by wise men for the common good.
Sure, we can point to pathological individualism and the nihilistic absurdities of making freedom an absolute, like the stupid cow who indignantly declared to the world that “nobody can say that transexuals aren’t real women,” because that contradicts the axiom that “women can be whatever they want to be.” Well, that’s a parade I want to rain on. Note to women: you can’t be whatever you want to be. And that goes for guys too, no matter what Tony Robbins or Roissy say.
This may well be the spawn of modernity and the Englightenment. But isn’t the cure for it more Enlightenment? That is to say: a greater understanding of nature? No, our ancestors did not need modern science to know that there are real distinctions between the races and the sexes. And yes, modern technology feeds dreams of becoming whatever we want to be. (That’s science fiction.) But modern science can deepen our understanding of how the races and sexes differ, which is an important feat.
Pre-scientific experience tells us that the races and sexes are different, and if we trust our senses more than the “authority” of experts, we are immune to the appeals of “scientific” race deniers as well as of scientific racists. But too many of us obviously do not trust our senses or common sense. Hence the credence given to utterly irrational theories about social construction or the advantages of miscegenation — theories that can only be combatted by better theories on the field of science.
Despite regional differences, the Germans and Italians in the 19th century had more in common than not: they were peoples, and it was logical for them to form ethostates, if only to resist the depredations of larger states. One can deplore the loss of regional cultures and dialects due to national standardization. But nationalists were on both sides of those fights. There are ways of preserving regional differences within larger states, and indeed, Bavaria is still different from Prussia, Tuscany from Sardinia. And one has to ask if, say, Venetian identity was safer under the control of the Austrians or under the control of fellow Italians? Because in a world of large nations and empires, that is the kind of choice that small countries often face.
Now, for the Estonians, there is no greater Estonia they can join. So they need to gut it out as an independent state and hope that through alliances with other, larger states, they can maintain their independence. But when a Bavaria or a Tuscany or an Austria has the choice of joining into a larger national state or going it alone in a hostile world, one has to understand the appeal of German or Italian nationalism.
How funny that NYTrad is now arguing for just straight-up imperialism. And what is to stop me from rejecting the “Duginist” imperial idea and instead turning to the far more likeable ideas of Empire (which is distinguishable from imperialism) offered by Evola, Vial, Benoist, or Faye? Nothing, of course. And the forms of Empire these thinkers envision would do far more to preserve ethnic and racial identity as well as traditions than so-called “Eurasanism.”
Greg Johnson, I actually agree with you on the issue of modernity; many things in the modern world are actually valuable and represent real improvements. This is actually why I am with the New Right instead of Radical Traditionalism (even though I have an appreciation for the thought of some Traditionalists), because the New Right is not against everything in the modern world, it rather more realistically aims to create a better modern world; that is my own preference as well.
Concerning the issue of nationalism, the problem is that there are different ways of defining the term. In a very specific sense, nationalism can be said to be a product of the Enlightenment (exemplified by the Jacobin form of state and sovereignty), and this is the sense in which people like Edgar Julius Jung and Evola used the term when they attacked “nationalism.” How interesting this becomes when we then see that, for example, Jung still supported the idea of separating different ethnic groups and the sense of Fatherland, which he reconciles with the idea of a federalistic Empire. If, however, “nationalism” means nothing more than ethnic separatism, it is a very ancient idea. Of course, these complexities of varying definitions oftentimes go unnoticed by those merely using rhetoric.
Thank you, Greg, I couldn’t agree with you more on this issue. I would like to add a few remarks of my own on the matter. Firstly, I do not believe that what Dugin is trying to do is quite the same thing as reviving the USSR, but even if he is it is doubtful that his new state would be as respectful of ethnic differences as the old Soviet Union. However, even the old Soviet Union only preserved ethnic identities because of the circumstances (political, economic, etc.) of its time and place; in other words, by accident rather than intention. Granted that some nationalists managed to get into positions of power in the Soviet system, which is why in its later stages the Soviet government tolerated nationalist Communism. However, this occurred by luck rather than by original intention; the older Soviet leaders for the most part intended to eradicate nationalism and ethnic identity (this should be obvious in their concept of a “Soviet New Man”).
Concerning Dugin’s “Eurasianism” or “Fourth Political Theory,” I should say that using “dasein” as the basis for human categorization is actually rather ridiculous. This concept, although it does have a meaning, is ultimately rather vague and malleable in terms of interpretation and application (I think this is especially obvious when we see that Leftist philosophers sometimes try to use Heidegger themselves). Because one can use the “dasein” concept to formulate different conceptions of identity which disregard ethnic, cultural, and racial differences and focus on a murky understanding of “being-there” (and I have already seen this kind of thing done by some people who read Dugin), it can thus be the basis of distorted and deceptive philosophies which no longer focus on concrete and real group identities but rather on some abstraction, even if in theory it was supposed to avoid abstraction. It is culture, ethnicity, and race that are truly real, concrete, and felt by normal human beings and has always been a basis for collective identities across human history (although of course there are other group identities based on religion, ideology, political group, etc.), not just the context in which they exist; although living in a specific context determines many important facts of human existence, it is never the sole and most powerful basis of collective identity.
As for ethnic nationalism, the statement that “it is obvious that political ideologies rooted in ethnic nationalism have failed disastrously, harming the whites grievously” is too manipulative for my liking, whether it was intentionally or not. While this statement is technically true, it actually depends, firstly, on how one defines nationalism and secondly on which political ideology we are looking at. Some ethnic nationalist political ideologies actually were not destructive at all and advocated peace between nations; it is thus arguable that ethnic nationalism is only destructive when it is combined with chauvinism and imperialism, not by itself (and ethnic chauvinism is definitely something that can be removed from ethnic nationalism). Ironically though, even if ethnic nationalism was inherently chauvinist, it is also rather obvious that political ideologies that were not rooted in ethnic nationalism were and continue to be far more destructive than any form of nationalism whites have ever seen.
Also, some people who advocate ethnic and racial separatism have objected to the term “nationalist” because it can be very misleading (such as certain New Right thinkers like Sunic), since it is sometimes equated with ethnic hostility while in reality they advocate mutual respect between ethnic groups. Whether or not one wants to call New Right and/or Identitarian thinkers such as Benoist, Sunic, Krebs, Vial, etc. nationalists, it is clear that they advocate ethnic-racial separatism while simultaneously advocating cooperation and respect among different ethnic and racial groups wherever possible. Thus there no reason to assume that their ideas or their form of ethnic-racial separatism would lead to disaster for whites (quite the opposite in fact). They also generally reject Fascism and “Neo-Yockeyism,” since they have entirely new visions in mind (you can go ahead and read their works if you don’t understand).
Finally, I should say that New Right intellectuals are fully aware of Heideggerian philosophy, yet they have come to the far more reasonable conclusion that it is more realistic to focus on genuine and real bases for group identity such as ethnicity, culture, and race. And it is for this reason that the Identitarian New Right should be the direction we take for the future, not Dugin’s very questionable “Fourth Political Theory” (and it is absurd to even think in terms of his very artificially fabricated “political theories” to begin with). By the way, it seems to me that Dugin’s ideology is not even as popular in Russia as he makes it out to be; fortunately even the average Russian will not be seduced by some mumbling about “dasein” but will be driven by what he can see and feel. In any case, I don’t see why any of us should fight for an ideology (“Duginism”) we don’t even believe in. The time has come for us to stop compromising and dilly-dallying with ideologies that we don’t even believe in and do not directly achieve the goals that we desire.
I doubt Dugin believes people are going to charge into battle literally yelling “Dasein!” However, I think Dasein embraces a far more nuanced conception of identity than a singular focus on race, ethnicity, or culture, indeed I think it subsumes all of these things, that people will die for a “Russianess” that has little to do with borders and Enlightenment political forms, and everything to do with the history, blood, and heritage, which is a far deeper and more powerful force than the singular focus many white nationalists suffer from. I agree that the race is to be preserved, nowhere does Dugin say “let’s let in all the Arabs and Africans and miscegnenate with Slavs.” Racial and ethnic groups remained separate under non-nationalist empires, you cannot say that folks like Metternich or de Maistre were saying mix it up. The throne and altar conservatives despised nationalism, yet they were not multi-culturalists by any stretch of the imagination.
Also, my references to Yockey show that he was moving towards something very much like the Fourth Political Theory, dependent on large blocs and seeking alliances with people resistant to the American order. People who believe in sticking to the Third Political Theory fail to realize that their own heroes were moving away from it.
Also, Greg’s contention that we can fix the problems of the Enlightenment with more Enlightenment reminds me of liberals who will admit that liberalism has led to issues, however they see the solution to be more liberalism. Taking more of a poison will not negate it. Also, ask Lega Nord what they think of the Italian nation. I’m sure there are plenty of South Tyroleans who would much rather be Austrian than ruled by incompetents in Rome like Silvio Berlusconi.
What we need is a workable counter-Enlightenment philosophy, Dugin has it.
My impression is that your viewpoint represents the primary if not the sole perspective within Traditionalism. Your strain of Traditionalism prioritizes every tradition EXCEPT the physical survival of European man.
Physical survival is a tradition too. White nationalists emphasize race because they understand that no Euro traditions worth preserving can be unless physical survival comes first. Physical survival is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restoring the Western traditions that are worth restoring.
Do yourself a favor, and quit citing Alexander Dugin. The man is pulling an agenda a mile long.
And of course much good came out of the Enlightenment. If you admire anti-modern, anti-enlightenment societies so much, move to Afghanistan where they shoot teenaged girls who want an education based on commandments from their God.
NYTrad: “I doubt Dugin believes people are going to charge into battle literally yelling ‘Dasein!'”
I never said that, so it’s irrelevant to my point. Dugin does, however, intend for people to take up the concept of “dasein” as the key concept upon which to understand human types; in other words, as the core idea of a new political ideology.
“I think Dasein embraces a far more nuanced conception of identity than a singular focus on race, ethnicity, or culture, indeed I think it subsumes all of these things…”
This is your interpretation and not necessarily Dugin’s or that of some of his followers. The concept of “dasein” could be and has been used to deny the importance of race and ethnicity in favor of another form of identity (ironically, there’s also the question of whether Heidegger even intended for his idea to be used in such a manner).
“I agree that the race is to be preserved, nowhere does Dugin say ‘let’s let in all the Arabs and Africans and miscegnenate with Slavs.'”
That race is to be preserved is your opinion, not necessarily Dugin’s. Show me a statement from Dugin from his book The Fourth Political Theory or some other work or speech related to this recent philosophical/ideological phase of his (meaning, this “Eurasianist” and “Fourth Political Theory” phase, not when he was, for example, a National Bolshevik several years ago) where he openly and frankly denounces miscegenation and asserts the importance of maintaning the white-European racial type. Truly I have not seen such a thing from Dugin these days. Quite to the contrary, I have seen him absolutely refusing to support racial separatism (even though he admittedly doesn’t take a clear stance on the matter) and some of his followers (“Eurasianists” or whatever you want to call them) even denouncing the concept of race and supporting racial miscegenation (even though they still oppose globalism and culture-mixing; but that hardly solves the issue). This hardly seems like the political group of a man who is really concerned about racial preservation.
“Racial and ethnic groups remained separate under non-nationalist empires, you cannot say that folks like Metternich or de Maistre were saying mix it up. The throne and altar conservatives despised nationalism, yet they were not multi-culturalists by any stretch of the imagination.”
Metternich and de Maistre are not Dugin; you cannot go about equating them as some kind of argument in the latter’s favor. Also, I am fully aware of the traditionalist viewpoint; I thought my references to Evola and Edgar Jung made that obvious.
“People who believe in sticking to the Third Political Theory fail to realize that their own heroes were moving away from it.”
I suppose that’s a matter of interpretation, but then let people who believe in Yockeyism or the so-called “Third Political Theory” come here to defend their stance. I personally should rather be classified as an Identitarian or a “New Rightist” (if you prefer), not a “Fascist.”
Thanks for this, Greg. It needed to be said.
My primary concern is that white nationalists will waste precious resources, whether in the form of money or intellectual energy, or spiritual energy for that matter, on yet another ideological blind alley. We saw a fair amount of that with the Ron Paul diversion, where many white nationalists ended up carrying water for the libertarians, rather than the other way around. I haven’t made up my mind about Dugin, but needless to say I have my concerns, and your piece does a good job of raising those sorts of questions.
But whether Dugin offers any value or not, it is clear that we need to develop an unshakeable sense of ourselves and a viable vision to go along with it. This needs to manifest itself in an unimpeachable foundation of racial ethno-nationalism. The edifice built upon that foundation must go much further, but without the certainty of exactly who *we* are, I have to believe that corruption is inevitable. We’ve seen this play out again and again.
The core purpose of our endeavor is to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, and to develop a civilization that is compatible with the soul of our folk. Without that, we could just move to Vermont and call it a day (though even it will inevitably be “enriched” in the not too distant future), but obviously we aspire to something far greater.
If we don’t get it right, we face the literal and final loss of our people, and all of the beauty and possibilities that can flow from it. We dare not get it wrong.
There will be temptations along the road, various siren songs to distract. Again, libertarianism is an obvious culprit here. It could be something like Dugin, though I still hold out hope for him, and need to learn more. Perhaps the most dangerous moment could come at the most thrilling, during a real secession scenario. The problem is that implicitly white states, or even vaguely pro-white states, have proven themselves to be easy prey for anti-white enemies that know exactly what they want, and are determined to get it.
Therefore, we must know exactly who we are and what we want in order to stand a chance. Once we do, we can dispassionately choose whatever allies we care to treat with, without danger of becoming a footnote in our own project. But that is the key: it must be OUR project. Not out of personal ego, but out of necessity.
As an aside, I saw the kind words in another thread, and thank you for it. Time and circumstances are not such that I can do much writing at the present time, but I will attempt to step up my game next year, if at all possible. I’ve been mulling over various ideas, some of which remain inchoate, that may eventually prove to have value. Hopefully some of it will be worthy of the great writing we’ve come to expect from Counter-Currents. Thanks again, it is appreciated.
Thank you. This means a lot. It is not my best writing, but it needed saying.
A mighty fine essay indeed! Insightful, amusing and IMO lethal. With the essay title itself — “North Americanism” (lol, now that was good for a chuckle) — you end the fight with a kill shot. Is the Eurasianist going to get up for the next round and answer these points or tap out?
Who painted the picture used for illustration?
I’m not so sure that New Rightists should reject North Americanism. Before the British united the civilized part of North America during the French and Indian War the white French in Quebec armed and used the Indians against their white English racial brothers without a second thought.
There was King William’s War, Queen Ann’s War, Father Rale’s War and other actions for nearly 80 years. Living in central and western Massachusetts then was a tough go.
I’d rather live under North Americanism than a situation where the major security concerns of the Independent Republic of Texas is to import and arm Mexicans so that they can attack New England whites because there are Unitarian-Universalists preaching in Boston.
And let’s face it, that is what would happen. The whites in a dis-united country would come to conflict.
What a breath of fresh air! When I read the Dugin piece, red flags started waving frantically, Bells started chiming incessantly, sirens wailed forever and I screamed NO! I see where that is going. Europe joins Africa? North and South American whites get all the third worlders there? Nice try Dugin, using Traditionalism as a seductive ploy is smart, but no cigar. Please Odin, let there be political warriors in the New Right in North America!
Duginism and Eurasianism is nothing more or less than a Russian form of constitutional patriotism. It’s a mirror image of the American multicultural empire, but with a different underlying set of premises. Since Russians are somewhat less contaminated by suicidal ethnomasochism and hyper-liberalism, a multiracial empire has to be sold to them under the guise of a more traditionalist state. It’s still racial suicide – albeit a bit more culturally palatable. As for us, again, I don’t see how transforming Russia into a mirror image of America is helping our cause.
Rhondda: “Europe joins Africa? North and South American whites get all the third worlders there?”
I think many of us here are repulsed by Dugin’s “Eurasianism” because of its potentially ethnically destructive and manipulative nature. However, honestly I cannot imagine normal Europeans or South American whites (Argentinians, Chileans, etc.) actually being attracted to something as messed up as Eurasianism. And that’s certainly a good thing. As noisy as Dugin is, determined to make himself heard as widely as possible, I doubt his political vision could ever become a reality. Of course, that doesn’t mean anyone should give him a break; we should keep critiquing him.
As to what TS is getting at about who we are, knowing ourselves, I ran across the text of a speech by a true hero of our people, the incomparable Revilo P. Oliver. I’ll place it below, but my question is why these unique features of our people aren’t discussed much? We get some w/Kmac along the lines of pathological altruism, etc. but it seems to me that knowing ourselves is the ultimate way to defuse the bombing we get from people who aren’t us, as well as put to rest the things that always have us at each others throats (religion, for example). This is from 1966!
“Now I believe that this strange weakness, unlike so many of our peculiarities, is not a single congenital and hereditary idiocy. If that were true, we would not be here: our remote ancestors would have been eaten long before the dawn of history. It is compounded, it seems to me, of a perversion of seven different qualities; a perversion effected and fostered by certain misunderstandings in the peculiar circumstances that resulted from the prosperity, power, and world dominion we of the West achieved for ourselves and enjoyed in recent centuries. All of the seven elements of our mentality that I shall enumerate are good qualities, at least in the sense that they are born in us, that we could not eliminate them from our genetic heritage if we wanted to, and that we have perforce to accept them. We could comment at length on each of them, and it would be particularly interesting to contrast ourselves with other races at each point. But I must list them as briefly as possible, with only a word or two of explanation to make my meaning clear.
The first is imagination, which is highly developed in us, and vivid; an imagination which means, among other things, that we have a spiritual need of a great literature: both a literature of vicarious experience and a literature of the fantastic and marvellous that transcends the world of reality. But this gift bears with it, of course, the danger that we may not distinguish clearly between a vivid imagination and something that we can actually see in the world.
Second, the sense of personal honor which is so strong in us, and seems so fatuous and silly to other races. It is this, among other things, that gives us the conception of an honorable contest when men of our race meet as opponents in war. It gives us the knightly ethos that you see when Diomedes and Glaucus meet on the plains of Troy and in all subsequent history and story of our race. It also exposes us to the danger of behaving in knightly fashion to those to whom those standards are lunacy.
The third is the capacity for objective and philosophical thought, which is virtually limited to our race, and which enables us to put ourselves mentally in the position of others, but simultaneously exposes us to the risk of fancying that their thoughts and feelings are what ours would be.
The fourth is our capacity for compassion. We have a racial reluctance to inflict unnecessary pain, and we are ourselves distressed by the sight of suffering. That is, of course, a peculiarity that brings upon us the ridicule and contempt of the numerical majority of the world’s population, who are beings differently constituted. The savages of Africa, who are now your masters in the sense that you have to work for them every day, find the spectacle of a human being under torture simply hilarious. And when they see a blinded captive with broken limbs squirm as they prod him with red-hot irons, they laugh with glee — with a merriment, a real merriment, that is greater than the funniest farce on the stage has ever excited in you. You may search the vast and respectable literature of China in vain for any trace of compassion for suffering per se.
Fifth, our generosity, both as individuals and as a nation, which naturally brings on us the contempt of those to whom we give abroad.
The capacity for self-sacrifice is sixth; and that is, of course, highly developed in us, but it is a necessary basis for the existence of any civilized society. No people above the stage of unthinking savagery can survive in this world without some instinct or some belief which makes its young men give their lives for the preservation of the society in which they were born.
And the seventh and last is the sentiment of religion, which of course is common to all mankind, although here again it takes a distinctive form in us. For fifteen centuries the religion of the Western world has been Christianity, Western Christianity, and there is no other religion now known or even imaginable that could take its place. But it is simply an historical fact, which we must deplore but cannot change, that only a small part of our population today, 12 or 15 per cent., really believes that Christ was the son of God, that the soul is immortal, and that our sins will be punished in a future life. That means that the religious instinct, which is a part of our nature, finds in the majority of our people no satisfaction in an unquestioning faith; so that those frustrated instincts are available for exploitation by any halfway clever scoundrel, as the shysters and punks who now occupy the majority of our pulpits well know. When faith is lost, what Pareto calls the religious residue in a people becomes its most vulnerable point, its Achilles heel. It is the unsatisfied need for an unquestioning faith in a superior power.
Now, a perversion of all of these qualities in us operated during the centuries of our dominance to give us an utterly false conception of other peoples. We have imagined that by some magic we could convey to them not only our material possessions, but the qualities of our mind and soul. “
I saw an interesting either/or posted on a forum today that I’ll try and paraphrase:
To me, choice A is obviously preferable, but it was interesting to see the number of people who were more interested in Tradition &/or Reaction as opposed to their genetic-ethnic identities.
If racial preservation and development are not the highest value of a political order, then the race will inevitably be undermined.
I would choose the first, preserving the genes. But that’s really not a realistic scenario. If Europeans converted to Islam, that would do nothing except hasten the colonization of Europe by AfroAsiatic Muslims.
Exactly. If Race is the body of European Man, then Culture is the mind. The body cannot live without the mind. If we become Muslims, we become part of their body – which is multiracial.
In the past, Europe was saved by its isolation even though Christianity was also not against miscegenation. This is no longer the case needless to say.
The body can most certainly live without the “mind.” We were savages for the overwhelming history of our species.
Dugin has nothing to offer us, much less any sort of philosophy. He’s peddling a new justification for multiracial empire, and make no mistake about it, ALL empires that consist of radically different population groups will, in the end, become a multiculturalist project. Putin’s harsh crackdown on Russian nationalists, noted here and on other blogs, is indicative of this. We can’t keep Asiatics out of Moscow, when Moscow doesn’t keep out of Asia. The Russian people suffer and are demographically endangered? Well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
More Eurasianism on display:
The bottom line: when you emphasize your blood and culture links to Asia (real or imagined, emphasis on the latter), you delegitimize justification for keeping Asians out of your nation. Mass Turkish immigration to Budapest? Why not? I’ve really lost whatever respect I’ve had for Jobbik. What stupidity.
Yes, more of a poison may not be good. If building nations out of distinct, yet closely related, ethnies is an alleged problem, let’s make multiracial empires instead! If hatred of Whites is a problem, let’s identify as “Turanid” instead! If the White world was wrecked by intra-European conflicts of the two world wars, let’s reach out to other races and cultures, so that Hungary can get allies in revisionist territorial claims against Romania and the Ukraine. Turkish immigration to Europe a problem? Let’s identify Turks as our Eurasian brothers! Moscow invaded by non-Slavic, non-European Muslims? Let’s build a multiracial empire and generate close ties of friendship with even more Asian Muslim nations! And when, say, Iran or whatever asserts that acceptance of their population surplus is the price to pay for their “friendship” turn the Kremlin into a mosque for them. Yes, yes, the Duginists will say that’s not his idea, and cite Metternich, as if that’s relevant to today’s reality. Those that created the American Empire didn’t envision the mass Mexican illegal invasion either, nor horrors such as Detroit. But, it’s inevitable. The ultimate fate of an Eurasianist Russia is Russia to become Asianized. Asia won’t become Russified.
Yes, politicians in the guise of philosophers doing what politicians do best – “thinking”. George Bush’s solution to illegal immigration was to just legalize them. When America was strong we had a terrible struggle to Americanize the different European groups – some of whom already hated each other. But they think that it will be a breeze Americanizing far more alien populations now that America is weak. In fact that acculturation now in place is of the lowest form imaginable, that of EBT card and of hating the White majority.
Strategic alliances with non-Europeans are not equivalent to endorsing mass immigration and race-mixing. Jobbik is not going to open the flood gates and let all the Turks in. Jobbik is pretty much the most nationalist party in Europe. It is like saying that Hitler was pro-multiculturalism because he made alliances with Japan, against white Britain (a nation that Colin Liddell seems partial to). Critics of Eurasianism seem to confuse international geopolitical ideas with national identities.
Strategic alliances are one thing. But Hitler did not seek to justify his alliance with the Japanese by speaking of a common “Eurasian” identity.
Jobbik, however, is doing more than angling for alliances. They are pushing a new notion of identity, an idea of brotherhood with Turks based on common linguistic roots. But these premises lead to consequences far more sweeping than strategic political alliances.
I used to ignore Eurasianism/4PT because although I thought it was an intellectual fraud, it seemed a politically harmless one. But when Jobbik, a party with real political power, began talking about Eurasianism, I decided it was time to open a new front.
When Jobbik first came on the scene, I was disgusted with its petty nationalism: its biggest enemies are Slovaks and Romanians, not Jews and Gypsies within Hungary. Now, they are lifting their heads above petty nationalism, and what do they discover? Not a greater European identity, but a “Eurasianist” opening to the Turks, i.e., another vector of non-white — and Islamic — colonization. These people have infallibly awful political instincts.
For bad political instincts they sure do win a lot.
As to the Japanese, the Germans called them “Aryans of the East”, so they did acknowledge a common goal. Recognizing a common goal does not require the surrender of racial identity. Many Nazis admired Hinduism because of common Indo-European themes, however I doubt a German victory would have led to The Camp of the Saints. A shares goal with a shared enemy is not something that leads to mass immigration and miscegenation. We must recognize that the enemy is America and seek alliances. If we allow Americanization to continue, the entire world is going to look like the de Blasio family.
Common goals and values, which are the only legitimate basis of political alliances, are not the same thing as a common identity.
Complimenting the Japanese as the Aryans of the East is an analogy, not a claim of common descent.
Lothrop Stoddard wrote a bit about Pan-Turanism. You can read it here: https://archive.org/details/jstor-1944138
It is amazing how old ideas can become new again.
Dugin’s neo-Eurasianism isn’t directed at the North American populace, white “European” or otherwise. The gravity of “multipolarity” hasn’t sunk in yet for most of the “developed” world. What it means, as will become obvious in the coming years, is that Ideas, Ideals, Concepts, Doctrines will have clear defined borders just like (hopefully) peoples. What’s true for one community may not be applicable for another. “Eurasianism” is just a re-linking of Russian peoples with their past traditions before various “foreign” ie romantic, revolutionary ideas spread like wildfire throughout not just Russia but most of the world. The US, to my mind, is the inheritor of different Traditions– from a particular setting and age– that presently seem inadequate.
The US faces a unique set of challenges which will in all likelihood require equally unique solutions. Playing out different scenarios is wishful thinking. There are, however, unmistakable trends in demographics, but also in the trade and economic arena which are long-term with unavoidable consequences.
It’s important to make make distinctions (and priorities) about certain perceived pathologies in society. You can’t take on Islam, market nihilism, mass immigration and economic “crisis” (real or perceived) into one generalized Problem.
Yes, Yes, Yes. Beware Identitarianism, the Wolf in sheep’s clothing. There are some clarifications that White Nationalists can take from it, but by and large it seems always to veer away from Race and back towards other things – things inimical to our existence like Zionism or different kinds of globalism. Does it even exist? Both John Morgan and Lucian seem to focus more on how diverse it is as opposed to how it is coherent. Failing some grand definition, which may yet occur of course, it seems to be mostly more of the same old failure repackaged to confuse and divide us, who need unity before all else.
This repackaging may be unconscious in some cases. Consider this: Elite or “high culture” means despising ordinary White people, their history, traditions, and working against any possible future for them. Academia shares this same viewpoint. Thus the right wing intellectuals who seem so eager to serve us naturally end up betraying us. It is their culture, in their blood so to speak. All of their training gears to them do this. It become simple instinct below the level of awareness. Only a most profound introspection can begin to cure them of this. We need White Nationalists therapists to offer such racial therapy. And more: Priests who will test and initiate the graduates of such therapy. Any initiate unwilling to say use the word “nigger” for example in the ritual show his or her inability to be in communion with ordinary White people. It’s not about the Blacks in other words – it’s about us. The Initiate must choose: the future or the past. The White race or a comfortable life in tweed enjoying the respect of what passes for intellectuals in today’s dying world.
I am an elitist, and I hate being confused with mere snobs. I think that elitism and populism actually are entirely compatible, and what I stand for is a populist society run by elites for the good of all. See the following:
I agree with you, Plato, et al. But snobbery is one of the most powerful forces in human life. It’s the ego manifesting socially. And it affects all classes even street people who sometimes despise those who have left their august company and found a home. But obviously the snobbery of the Elite is by far the most dangerous because of the power they wield. I believe snobbery conquered the Anglo-American elite almost completely generations ago. Thus Elitism need not mean hating ordinary Whites and betraying White culture but it has come to mean exactly that. We need an a new type of intellectual and a new Elite class. The ones we have are just too far gone by and large. Of course any man can have an awakening but the process of transforming the personality to be in line with the new Truth will be grueling indeed since it is against the world as it now is.
You can be a member of the elite, and a good ruler, if you have had at least some experience with being on the other side. Being of the hoi polloi, I can’t pretend to know how these elitists should order their daily life; but I’d like to see them first personally experience some serious rites of passage before they can presume to understand what is good for me & mine. I can see why so many ‘trashy’ Europeans wanted to come here and start fresh even though it meant backbreaking struggle. Of course, things came full circle and most of us are now having to kowtow once again to our betters.
I think that making military service or other forms of national service mandatory for anyone with political ambitions would do wonders. Indeed, national service should be a prerequisite for simple political participation. Heinlein’s proposal in Starship Troopers of military service as a pre-requisite of full citizenship is quite reasonable.
Jaego: “Both John Morgan and Lucian seem to focus more on how diverse it is as opposed to how it is coherent. Failing some grand definition, which may yet occur of course, it seems to be mostly more of the same old failure repackaged to confuse and divide us, who need unity before all else.”
I have already mentioned the defining features of Identitarianism long ago. You are also forgetting that White Nationalism is itself an incredibly diverse group, perhaps even more so than what is called Identitarianism. On the other hand, I will point out that Identitarianism is just as coherent as White Nationalism in terms of the core idea (and ironically, in that sense they are actually very closely related, enough so that many Identitarians can also be classified as White Nationalists of a sort). Just like White Nationalists, Identitarians are united by certain essential principles even though they disagree on many other issues. Honestly, I am surprised that you repeating old nonsense that has already been addressed. And something about the manner in which you do it frankly strikes me a an attempt at intellectual subversion.
Don’t just refer to what you did, do it again. Authors must never tire of themselves. The core of White Nationalism is the survival of the White Race through having our own cultures and nations again. Some people support White rights and culture without being separatists. We like to think that are still works in progress. Some White Nationalists are Supremacists. Most of us don’t think that’s necessary – even though we might feel that our culture is the best. Why complicate an already complicate a difficult situation? Our Culture is the best for us and we love ourselves the most. This is enough.
Now sum up Identitarianism if it can be summed up. Maybe it can’t. Maybe it’s too early to do so. But as White Nationalists we reserve the right to judge any and all philosophies by our own criterion: Is it good for the White Race?
“Identitarianism” is a term that is used to describe people that are within the New Right. However, based on its defining principles it could theoretically be applied to people outside of the New Right as well, although it is technically confined to the New Right. Keep in mind that the New Right is something like the German Conservative Revolution; it is an intellectual movement that necessarily has people with different ideas (because nobody thinks exactly alike) but, like the Revolutionary Conservatives, New Rightists all hold certain principles that define them as being part of the New Right. Although, I would even say that the New Right is even more coherent than the Conservative Revolution in terms of its defining ideas.
The basic principles, ideas, and values of Identitarianism are in brief: supporting ethnic, cultural, and racial identity as some of the most significant forms of collective identity; supporting the sense of community and solidarity within ethno-cultural groups; maintaining that ethnic and racial groups have the right to live within their own territories or regions; maintaining that ethnic and racial groups have the right to reject immigration of undesired foreign ethnic groups and to maintain basically homogeneous societies within their territories; cooperation among different ethnic groups wherever possible and desirable; opposing multiculturalism, multiracialism, inter-racial miscegenation, economism, and the negative effects of globalism/globalisation (in the more acute, modern sense of the phenomenon). Many prominent Identitarians also support some form of democracy, although like I said before, they sometimes differ on the form of government they prefer. People in the New Right are often described as Identitarian because they assert these principles. By the way, have you read any of the New Right/Identitarian books or have you always just assumed that I was some “super-nerd” trying to assign readings to put you to sleep at night?
Thus the right wing intellectuals who seem so eager to serve us naturally end up betraying us. Thanks to Edward Snowdon we now know that there is no need for anyone to betray us for “they” already know more about me than I know myself. (Oh God I hope they don’t have any pictures!)
On the bright side, amongst us, there is nothing to betray whereas, thanks to that double edge sword, the internet, it is they who are being betrayed.
On the sad side our intellectuals won’t betray us but they might get tired and plain worn out.
Again on the bright side if Caratacus (Cardoc?) had not been betrayed he would never have made his famous speech and risen to such fame and glory. If Queen Cartimandua knew the power of Google she would never have betrayed him.
Of course if enough of us send in $10/month, buy their books and promise to read them (I do! Honest!) our intellectuals will never get discouraged.
The only long term hope for ethnic Russia is to combine in the Eurasian alliance with fellow Whites in Europe rather than attempt the ultimately hopeless alliance with anything Muslim or Chinese. The writing for all that is on the wall. If ethnic Europeans wish to continue on this earth as free people, Muslims, as well as the traditional Diaboli, must be contained outside of armed borders. The rest is just bs based on short term advantage at the expense of long term survival.
Personally, I find the idea of a fractured United States to be depressing. Ideally, I would like to see a white ethnostate that encompassed at least the lower 48 states-even if it had to be achieved with a great deal of suffering and bloodshed. Having more territory is always better than having less in my opinion. We should try to be humane as possible when it came to expelling the minorities, but it would probably turn into some sort of war anyway. There would probably be some sort of civil war between whites as well.
Beautiful. We have something similar coming out in novel form on TraditionalRight.com, but from a more paleo-con perspective. I’d like to see this expanded into a novel too. This is more my style.
My compliments go out to you for this piece! It’s very persuasive, and I don’t think you could have chose a better rhetorical device.
I had my doubts about the Fourth Political Theory and Eurasianism before, but I have to admit after reading this (along with “The Eurasian Idea”) the deadly—if not insidious—nature of it really sunk in.
I’m surprised there hasn’t been a stronger counter-argument from Eurasianists yet. Then again, I’m not really sure what they could say.
At the end of the day, whatever Eurasianists argue will not hold any water with the majority who frequent Counter-Currents. For us, the physical survival of our race comes first; we recognize it as the foundation from which all the beauty, high culture, and scientific, intellectual, and spiritual heights we cherish are born. Therefore, any ideology, theory, identity, or strategy that threatens or subordinates our racial survival will be rejected.
The iron question: are you pro-White, or pro-White Genocide? Applied: Is Eurasianism pro-White, or pro-White Genocide?
It seems clear to me that Eurasianism is not pro-White.
If we allow Americanization to continue, the entire world is going to look like the de Blasio family.
And if we allow Eurasianism to continue, the entire world is going to look like the Derbyshire family.
Can we opt out of both possibilities please?
Lucian: All that sounds fine. Thank you. As so defined, there is no logical contradiction between White Nationalism and Identitarianism. One is specific and one is Universal. Needless to say that might be a problem on the psychological level since the Universal is what’s killing us. And that ties into my points that people tend to go with the flow in order to get money, approval, sex, love, or just survival. So Identitarians may well find themselves cooperating and being coopted by existing Universal philosophies that offer all these things. How many of the Elite are willing to lose all for the sake of what’s right? How many of any class are willing?
That being said, I did enjoy the video of the young French Identitarians. And was impressed by their taking over the Mosque. Perhaps in France, Identitarianism will become a moving force. I certainly support them if they stay true to the Traditions of France.
I don’t mean to sound “isolationist” – the mantra of WW1. Of course we should maintain good relationships with other ethnes and races, with trade and travel as possibilities. But never again shall we let arrogant minorities shame us and beat us over the head with Universal principles. And anytime we let our guard down it will happen again. Why? Because we are Fallen Beings always looking for weakness in others. Yes, Whites too. And this is something White Nationalism can learn from Paleo Conservatism, the Conservatism of Burke and Stephens. Or we could learn it from the Traditionalists in a more universal context.
I have read some articles here on Counter Currents. I like Faye the most so far. I’m not against learning more and may do so at some point. But remember, there is something to be said for Beginer’s Mind and its fresh take on things. Logic is logic and a good argument can be made by anyone. And a bad argument can be seen even by one with little knowledge.
As someone once observed: the more data, the less knowledge. And to go beyond that, perhaps the more knowledge, the less Wisdom. Not for any logical reason, but the simple limitations of human psychological economy. There are exceptions: great Saints who are also great scholars. Or great Scholars who are also men of action, etc. But in general, people get bogged down in data and/or knowledge and often fail to digest them very well. The Jews understand these things very well. Compassion and Concern are limited resources – and they want all of it. They react very strongly when others like the Armenians try to use the word “holocaust” for example. Simplicity helps digestion. “Is it good for the Jews?” works wonders. Thus we must adopt, “Is it good for the White Race?” as profound aid in simplification and digestion.
Let’s Not Forget Holism
There is the issue of biological survival and an equally important issue of providing a matrix within which European man can develop and thrive. Can it really be said that one is a European man if he embraces the most toxic tenets of modernity? If he is unaware of the soul sickness brought on by his disconnection with the Divine? If he clings to a bastardized interpretation of “freedom” which, instead of representing a liberation from the shackles of the relativities of materialism, comes to stand for a disrespect for legitimate temporal and spiritual authority or the elevation of individualism above duties owed to the tribe? If he treasures the shadows of cutouts dancing on the wall of Plato’s Cave thereby cutting off all chances to ever glimpse the Sun?
The answers to the above are “no”, “no”, “no”, and “no”. Take a cat, feed him poisoned food, keep him in a state of agitation by delivering streams of offensive stimuli, confine him to a cramped cage for long periods of time, and the resulting creature would not really be a cat anymore. Take a beehive down from a tree, remove it from its loft above the flowered meadow, and smash it on a big-city sidewalk many miles away, and, for most, life would become hardly worth the struggles.
We have been victimized by the exploitative currents which course through the veins of modernity, by television and institutionalized “schooling”, by corporate profiteers and social engineers. Many exhibit Stockholm Syndrome, embracing the ‘values’ of our captors. Others accept bribes to actively promote an anti-European agenda. We are in need of fixing problems but must be wary of ourselves.
Count me among those who cry out for a nurturing, rather than an exploitative, matrix. We need points of refuge from McWorld, places of peace, places where noble hearts can recover and wage a restoration. And we need to protect our Identities, while remaining cognizant of our own corruptions. Should we succeed in protecting gene pools only to find ourselves in environments where we simply become the new purveyors of pornography, the exponents of liberte, egalite and illegitimate government, the new advocates for nonfood food, unbridled capitalism, and mere humanism, economism and scientism, we will be guilty of a great shortsightedness.
For me, evaluations of ethnonationalisms, multipolar governments, and strategic alliances must heavily weight the degree to which a holistic restoration of European man is valued. While it is clear that the further encroachment of McWord into human affairs is to be resisted, it is unclear whether those who have been infected by its deceptive propaganda can be appreciably cured. European-looking zombies approach, I swear it’s true, and they carry a sickness… and it is difficult to know where to turn.
Russia has some good things going on, or so it seems. But I am not yet convinced. I have also found wisdom in Radical Traditionalism and take hope that macrocosmic currents are also afoot to, shall we say, adjust imbalances.
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.
Edit your comment