Counter-Currents
1,590 words
Translations: French, German, Russian, Spanish
Racial Nationalists all know the dangers of “petty” nationalism. It seems silly for genetically and culturally very similar peoples, like the Scots and the English, to seek political separation while both countries are being colonized by Africans and Asians. It is shameful when whites ally themselves with non-whites to gain advantages over other whites in economic and political rivalries. And it is tragic when these differences lead to bloodshed.
White Nationalism is all about halting our race’s programmed march to extinction, whereas petty nationalism, by stirring up discord and strife, seems merely to be hastening our race to its doom.
But the solution to “petty” nationalism is not what I shall call “grandiose” nationalism, namely, the idea of the political unification of whites — whether of Europe (the “Imperium” of Francis Parker Yockey), or of Europe and Russia (the “Eurosiberia” of Jean Thiriart and Guillaume Faye), or of the whole Northern Hemisphere (the “Borean alliance” or “Septentrion” of Jean Mabire and Volchock). And if political unification is such a great thing, why leave out Australia, New Zealand, and the Southern Cone?
The essential feature of any scheme of political unification is the transfer of sovereignty from the constituent parts to the new whole. If sovereignty remains with individual states, then one does not have political unification. Instead, one has an “alliance” between states, or a “treaty organization” like NATO, or an “intergovernmental organization” like the United Nations, or an economic “customs union” like the European Common Market, or a hybrid customs union and intergovernmental organization like the European Union.
The principal benefits attributed to political unification are (1) preventing whites from fighting one another, and (2) protecting whites from other racial and civilizational power blocs like China, India, and the Muslim world. These are noble and necessary aims, but I think that grandiose nationalism is not the way to attain them.
1. Grandiose Nationalism is Not Necessary
Political unification is not necessary either to prevent whites from fighting one another or to secure whites from external threats. These aims can be attained through alliances and treaties between sovereign states. A European equivalent of NATO, which provides Europe with a common defense and immigration/emigration policy and mediates conflicts between sovereign member states would be sufficient, and it would have the added value of preserving the cultural and subracial distinctness of different European groups.
The threat of non-white blocs should not be exaggerated. France, the UK, or Russia alone are militarily strong enough to prevail against anything that Africa, India, or the Muslim world can throw at us — provided, of course, that whites are again morally strong enough to take their own side in a fight. A simple alliance of European states would be able to deter any Chinese aggression. Thus a defensive alliance between European states would be sufficient to preserve Europe from all outside forces, whether they be armed powers or stateless masses of refugees and immigrants.
As for white fratricide: the best way to defuse white ethnic conflicts is not to combat “petty” nationalism but to take it to its logical conclusion. If different ethnic groups yoked to the same system are growing restive, then they should be allowed to go their own ways. Through moving borders and moving peoples, homogeneous ethnostates can be created, in which each self-conscious people can speak its own language and practice its own customs free from outside interference. Such a process could be mediated by a European treaty organization, which could insure that the process is peaceful, orderly, humane, and as fair as possible to all parties.
2. Grandiose Nationalism would be Counter-Productive
Whenever White Nationalists speak of multiracial societies, we stress that forcing different races to live in the same political system is a recipe for tension, hatred, and conflict. But this truth applies to different European peoples as well. All forms of ethnic diversity within the same political system cause weakness and conflict. Thus political unification would actually heighten rather than ease tensions between European peoples.
Since the fall of the Soviet Empire, the tendency in Europe has been toward ethnonationalism, either by the Czech and Slovak road of peaceful partition or Yugoslav road of war and ethnic cleansing. What is a more realistic path to peace: putting Yugoslavia back together, then Czechoslovakia back together, then unifying them both in a single state, with all the rest of Europe — or allowing peoples with long historical grudges to completely disentangle their affairs and lead their own lives? What is more likely to produce European amity: a shotgun wedding or an equitable divorce?
A unified Europe would have many different peoples and languages in the same political system. But these peoples would not have equal influence on policy. The strongest and most populous nations would dominate. Thus a unified Europe would take on the quality of an empire, in which the most powerful nation would impose its standards and way of life on the rest.
NATO is dominated by the United States. The European Union is dominated by Germany. If NATO were to collapse and Russia were to enter the EU, the result would be pretty much what Hitler envisioned: a German-dominated Europe rendered autarkic and invincible by Russian natural resources. Germans and Germanophiles would rejoice at that outcome, but the French, English, and Russians would beg to differ.
The EU today is well short of real political unification, but it is already a source of tensions and discontent — between individual nations and Brussels, and between North and South Europe, which are finding a single currency and monetary policy to be a bad fit. If the EU tried to impose real political unity on Europe, its members would bolt, and it would face the choice of accepting dissolution or preserving itself through coercion.
If petty states can veto European unification, it will not happen voluntarily. Thus they must be deprived of their veto. Europe will only be politically unified by force, and that inevitably means one nation imposing empire on all the rest. European unity will, in short, be the cause, not the cure, of the next “brothers’ war.”
Some proponents of a politically unified Europe actually admit that their vision is incompatible with European subracial and cultural diversity. Thus Constantin von Hoffmeister and more recently Richard Spencer (both of them married to Russians) have extolled the emergence of a “homogeneous European man.” In Hoffmeister’s words:
The mixing of different European nationalities should therefore be encouraged. We must support sexual unions between Russian women and German men, Spanish men and Swedish women. Only by radically breaking down the artificial barriers dividing Europe can we create the new breed of man . . . [1]
While acquiescing to this sort of deracination and pan-mixia makes sense in European colonial societies, which were settled by Europe’s most rootless and restless, it makes no sense to promote this as a policy for the European motherland, which is populated by those who stayed behind. The New Right is about preserving differences, including the subracial and cultural differences between Europeans. Grandiose nationalism, however, would lead to the destruction of these differences in order to create a smoothly functioning white empire, whether its proponents recognize this outcome or not.
Thus grandiose nationalism is just a racialist, loosely Right-wing version of homogenizing modernity. But ethnonationalists beg to differ. In fact, we insist on it. We will even fight for it. Thus Europe will not be politically unified.
Fortunately, European amity and security can be reconciled with European political and cultural diversity simply through a defensive federation of sovereign European ethnostates — the more such states, and the more they reflect the underlying ethnic diversity of Europe, the better.
3. Dreaming about Grandiose Nationalism Undermines Real Nationalism
In Europe today, all the energy is in “petty” nationalism. Most nationalists, for example, are opposed to NATO and the EU. Thus when grandiose nationalists stand on the sidelines and cluck about “petty” nationalism, at best they are irrelevant, and at worst — if anyone takes them seriously — they might undermine the energy and commitment of nationalists who actually have a chance of accomplishing something.
If grandiose nationalists weaken real nationalism, they also strengthen the existing powers. Some significant grandiose nationalists oppose anti-EU sentiment because they dream that nationalists might actually “take over” the EU someday. But of course that will never happen unless “petty” nationalists make progress in EU member states. Thus the net result of grandiose nationalism — again, if anyone took it seriously — would be to strengthen the existing ethnocidal EU.
Of course, if political unification is really a good thing, then grandiose nationalists should also be pro-NATO as well, since maybe “we” can mount a “take over” there as well. Yet I know of no grandiose nationalists who are pro-NATO, perhaps because such a position would be mocked as transparent shilling for the existing anti-white global hegemon.
But many grandiose nationalists are pro-Russia. In fact, they are for NATO getting out of wherever Russia wants to get into. Again, it is easy to see how this serves the interests of existing anti-white powers, but harder to see how it promotes the long-term survival of the white race.
Petty nationalism energizes but divides people. How, then, should White Nationalists preserve the energy of petty nationalism while mitigating its dangers? The answer is to build upon the pan-European consciousness that already exists in the leadership cadres of “petty” nationalist groups across Europe.
Note
1. Constantin von Hoffmeister, “Our Motherland: Imperium Europa,” in Norman Lowell, Imperium Europa: The Book that Changed the World (Imperium Publishing, 2008), 24.
61 comments
Excellent article Greg. I’ve been thinking alot about this as well. While a Imperium has a romantic quality to it that I quite like, like you, I don’t think it will ultimately work. Not in the mother countries as you say, in the European diaspora possibly. But there again what we’re looking for is an ethnostate. A European NATO type structure as you describe would work well and I even have a name for it, “Confederation of Sovereign European Nations.” European nations can work together on the most important issues and as I see it that involves two main issues, national defense and immigration enforcement/border security. As far as foreign aid is concerned, building southern European nations a state of the art border fence and giving them a fleet of patrol boats would be a excellent investment for northern European nations. It helps them and helps the north ultimately, which is what I thought foreign aid was supposed to be about, not wasting money on India’s space program. Sorry bit of a tangent but ya know what I mean.
Cheers,
Ike
Personally, I’m in favor of “grandiose white nationalism” for the country currently known as the United States of America. I would love to see a white ethnostate established for the entire lower 48 states ( Alaska can join up to0 if they want). When people talk about white secession movements involving a state or two it drives me crazy. Think big I say. As for Europe, I’ll refrain from commenting because I don’t live there. However, I do wonder often about certain “what ifs”.
The United States of America should never have become quite as united as they are in the first place.
The United States should remain united. I think it is great that we have a large country even with all the problems we face.
I’d like to see power devolved to the states, at the very least.
I’m no expert on law, but theoretically their is supposed to be some power devolved to the states. However, we all know how that has gone the last few years.
This mixing idea of Hoffmeister’s is an absurdity that will never work. The multicultural regimes are trying something similar. Preserving our peoples is the only way in which a pluriversum empire can be formed.
Greatly disappointed in this article. I think it is wrong from beginning to end. I hope to enlarge upon exactly why in the coming days.
Thanks for the heads up.
One State to rule them all, One State to find them,
One State to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
Under the Parasites, under whose rule we die.
White mega-states are not ideal from the point of view of white internationalism, and not only because the mega-state would draw parasites to the center of power, a power that would have little effective opposition.
White internationalism means blood first, state second. The state is precious, but should not be so great that politically important white men mistake it for all that is really important, putting race in the shadow.
A system of explicitly white and pro-white treaties and treaty organizations to assemble together white nations that need each other is better.
the artificial barriers dividing Europe
The above statement is silly beyond words. The mind set of the separate European countries will ensue that we stay separate although we can federate together for our common interests but a new breed of man is a distraction when we need it least.
I don’t think we have much time. The French Army will be majority Muslim decades before the country as a whole is. The same for England and Germany I believe.
The Vision of balancing unity with diversity sounds right though.
Cant speak for Germany there, but thankfully the muslim presence in the British army is miniscule, less than 300, of course to the British government and usual talking heads, this is a disgrace, there should be more of course, to them, helping spread democracy across the world.
As being born in Europe as broadly construed, made up of individual unique countries, cultures and traditions. I certainly agree with the article that all these countries, and their people ought to be preserved, nurtured and a loose alliance as outlined above, draw them together in mutual support and nurture and not as as been suggested by the ‘Grandiosists’, that they be somehow be bred into a homogenise ‘whole’ to support another ‘superstate’.
I disagree:
http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/02/complete-disagreement.html
Ted says:
The Hoffmeister quote comes from your essay “Pan-European Preservationism” and ultimately from Norman Lowell’s book. So at least Lowell takes him seriously.
The issue is sovereignty, which is really the only guarantee of local autonomy. I see no reason why foreign affairs, defense, and space exploration cannot be handled by intergovernmental treaty organizations, as they are handled in Europe today.
All that pathetic infighting means that there will be no political unity without some sort of imperial conquest.
You are stacking the deck here, by comparing a very imperfectly run NATO to your own Imperium, which I guess will be run perfectly. Since all organizations can be run well or badly, the correct comparison is: Would a well-run European equivalent of NATO be able to provide all the security benefits of a well-run European Imperium? I think the answer is clearly yes.
I wrote: “Grandiose nationalists oppose anti-EU sentiment because, they dream, nationalists might actually “take over” the EU someday.”
Ted replies: “That would be an honest statement if the sentence began with “Some.” Yes, I know Lowell and others think this way, but I for one have always been vehemently against the EU.”
Duly amended.
I wrote: “The answer is to build upon the pan-European consciousness that already exists in the leadership cadres of “petty” nationalist groups across Europe.”
Ted replies:
The leaders of European ethnonationalist parties tend to be much more broad-minded and pan-Europeanist than their rank and file supporters. They are far more willing to contemplate territorial revisions in the pursuit of ethnic homogeneity than mainstream conservatives and liberals, who are often far more petty in their nationalism.
I do not think it is fair to lump today’s ethnonationalists with the people who started the two World Wars.
I don’t really think you have addressed the nerve of my criticisms:
1. That the security aims of grandiose nationalism do not require political unification.
2. That grandiose nationalism would suffer from all the problems of diversity that we complain about in multiracial societies.
There is also a third critique that I only touched on here, but which will be the topic of my next article: grandiose nationalists have no way of getting there from here.
Tell me, Ted, how you plan to reunify Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and then I will listen to your plan to unify all of Europe.
Ask yourself: how has the European Union formed? The answer is that it was created by a network of people at the top of the different European member states who believe passionately in the European idea and are leading their respective societies toward that goal. The same sort of network with the same sort of pan-European consciousness goals could exist among the leadership cadres of the various European ethnonationalist movements. Each society needs to be led by people who are passionately devoted to its flourishing and yet also can see beyond its narrow ethnic interests. Europeans have always found ways of cultivating such a leadership caste, for good or ill, and White Nationalists around the world need to put their minds to it.
“Tell me, Ted, how you plan to reunify Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and then I will listen to your plan to unify all of Europe.”
Err…since I’ve stated that people can have the right, at the local level, to break down into whatever homogenous group they want (which it seems even Lowell and Yockey agree with), I see no reason why those nation-states need to be re-unified. They can break apart even further, for all I care. If left-handed, red-headed Walloons wanted their own nation, they can have it. Local autonomy would satisfy the masses and the lower-level ethnonationalists.
The point is: what should the leadership aim for. What should be the overarching ideology. Promoting ethnonationalism feeds into the divisive mindsets that have led to many of our troubles. And to say that there is a distinction between the leaders and the masses in CURRENT ethnonationalist parties is misleading. The leadership cadre in ethnonationalist parties in many Euroopean states (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, UK being just some examples) show the same divisive attitudes as their followers. I just don’t see, facts on the ground, actual ethnonationalist leaders with any real pan-European consciousness.
As far as practicality goes, there likely is not an enormous gulf between our positions. I would propose a Confederation that lies midway between your ideal and that of, say, Yockey (although Yockey also allowed for local autonomy, so I wonder how far he is from your ideal as well). The difference is I would make the alliances and connections more formal. There would be a dual level – the European “Imperium” and the local Ethnonationalist autonomy, side by side.
The difference is more one of attitude than of pragmatics perhaps. Once you go down the ethnonationalist road, inflame the ethnonationalist passions, stir up the ethnonationalist historical grudges, there’s not going to be much willingness for a pan-European consciousness. It’s more likely to get the pan-Euros (the sane ones – regardless of Lowell’s opinion of von Hoffmeister, that simply isn’t a rational source – my citation of him was to refute his lunacy) to respect local autonomy than to get the ethnonationalists to respect the broader picture.
After all, in many cases, the ethnonationalism is to a large extent based on historical grudges against other Europeans, or a sense of national exceptionalism. On the other hand, pan-Euros look at all Europeans as their brothers, and are thus inclined to want to preserve them, and mediate between their differences.
In other words, promoting ethnonationalism is “feeding the dragon.” It’s dangerous and I think irresponsible, without making pan-Europeanism a prerequisite for supporting ethnonationalism. An ethnonationalist who is also pan-European – great. But promoting ethnonationalism while at the same time bad-mouthing “grandiose nationalism” is appealing to the worst aspects of European nationalism.
Again, I’m more concerned with attitude rather than nuts-and-bolts pragmatics. If Europeans see each other as brothers, they’ll fight if, say, the Chinese try and take Eastern Europe. If they are going to be rambling about “those damn [fill in the blank] across the border” they won’t fight. treaties or no treaties.
The paradox is that ethnonationalism can be allowed to thrive only after the ethnonationalists have proven themselves to be pan-European. Otherwise, I do not trust them. They’ve ruined us all with their squabbles before, and they’ll do it again, if we let them.
My sense is that inter-European ethnic squabbles would be considerably abated if Europe’s borders could be adjusted to better mirror its underlying ethnic composition.
We are in no position to allow or disallow ethnonationalism to thrive.
If we aren’t in any position to do anything about it, what’s the point of this post and debate in the first place? I thought it was a metapolitical website attempting to influence activists in particular directions?
About the squabbling: you’d think that re-adjusting borders to meet ethnic realities would help. But you may notice a lot of this squabbling is more about soil than blood: they want the land regardless of who is living on it. The “wrong” folks can be “cleansed” later. They fume about events from centuries before. Slovak nationalists want to level Budapest with tanks (Budapest being firmly within Hungarian lands), and the Hungarians hate the Romanians, blah blah blah. I think that a disinterested pan-Europeanist with a big stick would have more success getting resolution there than with these numbskulls.
Question: if the ethnonationalist leadership were capable of making peace by balancing borders with ethnicity, why don’t they agree in principle about it now, so they can focus on the extra-European threat? Get them together, they can shake hands, and agree that if and when they come to power, they’ll adjust the borders by doing X,Y. and Z.
I wouldn’t hold my breath. First, they really hate each other. Second and more important, their base support among their fellow ethnonationalists is based to a large extent by hatred of the Whites across the border. That’s the fundamental basis of today’s European ethnonationalism in many countries.
What you’d have to hope for is that if they come to power, they’d kick their supporters to the curb and make deals that would alienate the followers who they’v been agitating for years.
Maybe better not to build a foundation on intra-White hatred to begin with?
You are modulating your language from “permitting” to “persuading” which means you are conceding my point.
Taking into account the reality of intra-white hatred is not the same thing as building on a foundation of intra-white hatred.
I still don’t see you proposing a realistic alternative, because ignoring white ethnic differences is no more realistic an option than the present multicult pretending that racial differences don’t matter and will be someday be overcome.
The problem of sovereignty needs to be considered. If a sovereign ethnonationalist Jobbik Hungary decides they feel close to their “Turanid brothers” in Turkey, want to import millions of Turkish workers, and sign an alliance with Turkey against, say, Greece and the Balkan Slavs, can they do it? If a sovereign France decides that, hey, we are tired of nationalism and lets invite back the North Africans and the Negroes, can they do it? Or will force be imposed upon them by other European states? While states can have a degree of local autonomy, there needs to be a veto power on issue involving High Politics and there needs to be some sort of overarching administration with teeth. Changes in High Politics policies would need to be agreed upon by the majority of nation states in the Confederation – and the chances that most of them will agree to become multicultural is a lot less than the likelihood of one single nation “going rogue” and enacting anti-White policies.
The fact of the matter is that the nations will have to give up a portion of their sovereignty, not all, but an important fraction. There is no other way, unless we are going to have more intra-European wars to bring the recalcitrant rogue states back in line. If the ethnonationalists don’t like it, they have only themselves to blame, their predecessors couldn’t see beyond their own noses, and wrecked our world for their short-term benefit. The ethnonationalists of the past brought colored colonial troops to European soil, to kill Europeans. That can never be forgiven or forgotten. Even today, the ethnonationalists in Central-Eastern Europe see other Europeans as a major problem. They cannot be trusted with full sovereignty.
Imperial France during and after WWI is not what I or anyone else here would call an “ethnonationalist” regime.
Again, you are comparing a malfunctioning ethnonationalist regime with a perfectly functioning European political union. But let’s compare apples and apples. Let’s say that France is corrupted and goes rogue on immigration. Would it be better or worse for whites if Europe’s immigration policies were centrally determined, and the central government becomes corrupted by business interests and opens the borders to cheap, non-white labor. Since all regimes can go bad, it seems prudent not to put all of our eggs in one basket.
That picture makes me cringe, I want to point out that the last generation before the 2048 tipping point in America is taking place now. This is the future of our grandchildren. I still think that the best bet of survival for our race is a new Imperium in Russia.
I have a persistent vision of someday North American Whites having to flee across the Bering Strait to Siberia. If we be a very good thing if we stayed on good terms with the Russians – the exact opposite of current trends of course.
It would make a good novel. Think of it, the trek up through non-white America, Canada, Alaska and finally over the Bering Strait. There’s a lot there, how I wish Jack London were alive today.
I noticed Richard Spencer’s drift then slide toward a the super state idea with apprehension. To my mind it seems to be part a strain of thought that wishes for politics to simply go away. How is it that so many people can’t see the rise of barbarism in the governing class of the once European states and recognize the importance of taking them back?
Today Hungary, tomorrow, West Virginia.
I don’t have a problem with a “council” overseeing certain aspects of an Imperium–provided certain hard guidelines are put in place to stop the most obvious methods of subversion.
As we stand, one could say that Europe is already in an emergency setting whereby several regimes (US, Russia, China, Israel) have the ability to do great damage, if not destroy it. That alone is enough to enact a Dictator with the -singular- task of a complete security reform.
I think it’s insane that Germany sells nuclear subs to Israel, that Russians have Nukes pointed West, and that American NATO keeps its boot on Europe. Until these genuine threat-points are considered, it hardly seems worth worrying that Europeans are suddenly going to race-mix themselves into oblivion.
Small quibble but the Germans supply nuclear weapons capable subs rather than nuclear subs which implies nuclear powered propulsion. Well that’s how I read it so I looked it up thinking that can’t possibly be true! However, good point, it is still insane.
The position you’ve set forth here is what I have come to distinguish as the ‘conservative’ position within Identitarianism. Alllow me to explain, any burgeoning, new philosophy of life which seeks to overcome the hegemony of the existing paradigm must seek to replace the existing paradigm in its totality and establish a hegemony of its own. In short, it replaces the old paradigm’s poles with poles of its own. In our case, the egalitarian ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ poles must be replaced by ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ Identitarian poles.
The Imperium Europa current within the Nouvelle Culture (or ‘New Right’, if you wish) is that ‘progressive’ pole. Of course, the term ‘progressive’ is sure to raise the ire of those who insist on holding onto a cyclical view of history; but the term, in itself, is inconsequential. Call it the revolutionary, Futurist pole — if you’d like. To me, the Imperium Europa viewpoint is, by far, the most compelling current within the ‘New Right.’ And the recognition of it as our ‘progressive’ pole is an act of no small importance. For as Alex Kurtagic has shown, conservatives always loose. [https://whitelocust.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/why-conservatives-always-lose/] Conservatives are always dragged along by their vitalic counterparts. Our enemys know this and that is why they insist on designating us as some type of reactionary or conservative. Essentially, they ingnor the ‘progressive’ pole of Identitarianism for it is there that their true competition exist. In so doing they gatekeep those revolutionaries who’s place is naturally in our camp!
It is obvious to me that for Identitarianism to begin to make real headway it must be capable of capturing the imagination of 21st century Europeans with a radical disposition. Our discourse shouldn’t be about simple preservation; but, instead, it should be about creation, evolution, metamorphosis. Where our forefathers explored and created; do we wish to mark the step? Preserve? Maintain? Embalm? “Germany”, as we know it, didn’t come into existence until 1871. Similarly, a politically and administratively integrated “Italy” didn’t exist until 1870. Nationalism is about creation; otherwise it is impotence.
The battle is now on a global, planetary scale. Any political project must take that into consideration. Against a global opposition, why do we insist on infinitesimal divisions? You could posit that Spain has a moral right to absolute sovereignty — but what about the moral right of Catalonia? What exactly constitutes a ‘regional people’ as opposed to a ‘national people’? To quote Guillaume Faye: “It’s advisable to dialectically transcend semantic problems — and affirm the historic legitimacy of a single, European people, historically bound, whose different national families resemble one another in having, for thousands of years, the same ethno-cultural and historical origins.”
What about here in North America? Should we consider ourselves Americans first? Or perhaps we should try to resuscitate dead forms? Southern Nationalism? Something new, practical in size, you say? An ethnostate in the Northwest? Why not an Indian reservation for Whites? No, thanks! I am an European on the North American continent — and I carry Europa in my heart.
“‘Fatherland’, ‘community’, ‘race’ have metamorphosed into project. They are no longer a memory to be preserved; they are before us, not behind. ‘What we want to become’ — rather than ‘what we are’ — has become the question.
Europe, despite current appearances, continues to be the only reality with potential historically to mobilise the European population. This is much more than so in respect of either the tangible and concrete nation-states — devoid today of any vis politica — or of those regional tendencies that will never come to represent even vestigial resistance to the formation of already moribund nation-states. In this sense — and contrary to ‘Western’ propaganda — struggle for the construction of Europe is the most ‘realistic’ political position currently available.”
– Daniel S. Forrest, “Suprahumanism: European Man and the Regeneration of History”
Now, to refute a few specific criticisms:
1. I was not even aware that “creating a homogeneous European man” was even a position until I read this article. It’s an absurd position to hold…One that I’ve never heard any other Imperium Europa advocate call for.
2. Being an advocate of an Imperium Europa is not synonymous with being pro-EU. Anyone that is pro-EU is obviously wrong.
3. I’m with the author on his frustration with the pro-Russian sentiment among some Identitarians. Putin is most definitely not “one of us”. Being pro-Russian is not synonymous with being pro-Imperium. To insinuate that this sentiment is peculiar to the “Imperium crowd” is disingenuous.
Anyone interested in reading more about the Imperium Europa idea needs to check out Daniel S. Forrest’s absolutely brilliant work, “Suprahumanism: European Man and the Regeneration of History.” It has supplanted Guillaume Faye’s “Archeofuturism” as my favorite metapolitical work.
My position is not “conservative” it is just realistic, and your position is not “progressive” but simply unrealistic: irrelevant to actual nationalism and destructive if anyone tried to put it into practice.
It is unrealistic positions that always lose.
Well, at least, you’d have to admit I’m in good company: Giorgio Locchi, Daniel S. Forrest, Guillaume Faye, Francis Parker Yockey, Oswald Mosley, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle.
I appreciate your candidness in setting out the truth as you see it and I hope that my comments can be appreciated similarly. By explaining your position as the “conservative” pole within Identitarianism I was trying to get at the fact that it is completely reliant on past forms. If we were having this conversation in the 1870’s your position would require that you speak of the immoral entities of “Germany” and “Italy” trampling upon Bavarian, Hessian, Tuscan, and Sicilian Identities. Today we consider the current realities of German nationalism and Italian nationalism undeniable. This just shows it’s all in how we think about it. Should we think in terms of past forms or according to present necessity? When petty nationalist insist — against the geopolitical reality of the necessity of great autarkic spaces — that we take a step back and adhere to a 19th century conception of Europe I can’t but think why such conservatism? The only way out is through — we cannot turn back the clock, and why should we want to?
“Born of Europe, they must return to Europe.” — Pierre Drieu La Rochelle
Was Pierre Drieu La Rochelle a French patriot or a traitor? According to a strict conception of French nationalism he is obviously a traitor; but according to such a strict conception “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” are quintessential French ideals. Surely a step above such a narrow viewpoint is necessary.
I can appreciate your concern over preserving the richness of Europe’s regions; but I think Guillaume Faye and Daniel S. Forrest have presented compelling cases that an Imperium Europa could preserve and foster these regional differences. I’d like to cite a passage from Forrest’s “Suprahumanism: European Man and the Regeneration of History” which I found instructive:
“It is convenient to distinguish between two different ways of posing the ‘national question.’ One, developed in France, sees a nation essentially as a construction operated by a state, and bound ab initio to a restricted horizon, a closure: historically, the closure and separation from Empire. This attitude cannot but immediately give rise to the problem of fixing national borders: in this case first for the natio francorum without; then, for the political and cultural identities within those borders, on which ‘reduction’ is operated. This policy of self-exclusion without (from the Imperium), and homologation and repression of internal identities and differences within, was pursued by French absolutism — and to its ultimate consequences with the French Revolution. Subsequently it was emulated by all the democratic revolutions in Europe, to the point when all nationalism based on ‘the masses’ and exclusion of ‘the other’ arrived, necessarily, at contemporary one world universalism.
Contrary to appearances, the one world ideology — which today impregnates the dominant culture and the political praxis of international institutions — is only superficially in contradiction to the presuppositions of the form of nationalism described above. Withdrawal into oneself implies, intrinsically, recognition, sooner or later, of equality among nations. The dream of political universalism is but the reproposal, on a global scale, of the very process that led to the formation of the nation-state.
Where the memory of the Roman imperial model persisted, and where the project of a Holy Roman Empire as restoration of the classical order remained politically active through the Middle Ages — approximately in Italian and Germanic areas — the process of ‘national’ unification did not take place (except partially and on a small scale) until the Romantic Age: during the nineteenth century. It assumed a deeply diverse aspect.
In this case, it is not the state that builds a nation and stimulates a national consciousness, but rather a national consciousness which, in its maturity, seeks to express itself politically through one state. Belonging to the German or the Italian nation was not, initially, a fact on which to build national consciousness, but rather an idea (in its political sense): a spiritual attachment to a project that needed to be defined and was linked to an old imperial vision of a hierarchically organised cosmos.
This attitude was clearer in the case of German nationalism, perhaps because its territory lacked natural borders. This is precisely why ‘being German’ was an ideal, and why German nationalism was the movement that carried forward that ideal. Novalis was wont to say: ‘There are Germans everywhere.’ Wagner, considered the foremost poet of German identity, could write to Franz Liszt: ‘Believe me, we do not have a fatherland and, if I am a German, I certainly carry Germany within myself.’ Again: ‘German is whoever acts according to his own convictions.’ Germany became, like Rome or Greece, a mystical fatherland.
Today, the situation of Nietzsche’s ‘good Europeans’ is analogous. Europe does not enjoy real existence. Europe is only the destiny of those who recognise themselves as part of it. Furthermore, it is precisely to this ‘ghost’, to this choice of culture, values, civilisation (i.e., the regeneration of history) — to this myth — that the faith of the good European is addressed. Ultimately, it is also contrasted with the jumble of states and petty-states inhabiting our continent, together with their squalid supranational bureaucracies.
There is another reason why European nationalism associates itself with the second model described above: the very same idea of Europe amounts to a transfigured re-emergence of the imperial vision. The unification of Europe on the model of the Jacobin nation-state — and in direct opposition to regionalist tendencies (even perhaps forcing linguistic, cultural, and administrative homogenisation) — is unthinkable. There is a further reason: the non-existence of the matter of Europe’s borders. Europe is not a territory, but rather a destiny offered to all who can trace an ethnic and spiritual relationship to it. This consideration helps clarify how un-European, in this sense, are institutions like the Council of Europe, an institution of which Turkey is a member today — and perhaps Israel tomorrow.
The third dimension of the European myth, besides heritage and commitment, is that of a project. The existence of a project clearly does not imply it should be realised within a specific period of time. However, it is important to stress how its mere existence as project makes Europe a historically active reality. Since the end of the Second World War, all have had to confront this reality in one way or another — even if only to oppose, sterilise or try to retrieve it for their own interests. As project, Europe may be considered — from an existential point of view — the destiny and destination of all those who feel part of it. As Nietzsche remarks:
‘O my brothers, your nobility should not look backward but ahead! Exiles shall you be from all father- and forefather-lands! Your children’s land shall you love: this love shall be your new nobility — the undiscovered land in the most distant sea. For that I bid your sails search and search. In your children you shall make up for being the children of your fathers: thus shall you redeem all that is past. This new tablet I place over you.’ [Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None.]
‘Fatherland’, ‘community’, ‘race’ have metamorphosed into project. They are no longer a memory to be preserved; they are before us, not behind. ‘What we want to become’ — rather than ‘what we are’ — has become the question.
Europe, despite current appearances, continues to be the only reality with potential historically to mobilise the European population. This is much more than so in respect of either the tangible and concrete nation-states — devoid today of any vis politica — or of those regional tendencies that will never come to represent even vestigial resistance to the formation of already moribund nation-states. In this sense — and contrary to ‘Western’ propaganda — struggle for the construction of Europe is the most ‘realistic’ political position currently available.”
At the Euro Canadian blog, which seems to have vanished, Frank Salter, who is always worth taking seriously, made the point that we have lost the state. For white people, the state has been our only real group survival strategy. But it doesn’t work any more: there is no white state that explicitly and genuinely supports white ethnic genetic interests. That means our situation is tragic: we have no group survival strategy, and we’re headed for destruction.
Obviously that can’t be spun as a positive, but Frank Salter’s further point was that at least we should accept the positive side of our predicament: we don’t have to worry about the state any more. Let the people who control it and insist on directing it in ways incompatible with our long term survival worry about how their weapons may get broken our blunted. We ought to feel free.
To the extent that we have any concern with states, size is not the issue. Big, little and small, they are all under anti-white control, and that’s what’s killing us. So the one important aspect of the state is its constitution, specifically the safeguards it gives to our ethnic genetic interests, and whether those safeguards work.
I think that’s right.
Assuming it is right, asking the French, for example, to accept a successor state that might be bigger but would be less French is pointless. (It might also be harmful; white people need more culture mixing, less homogeneity and less ethnocentricity like we need a hole in the head.) What would be to the point would be a new chamber of French ethnic interests, with the power to repeal legislation harmful to the descendants of the Gauls.
Or if that proved ineffective, someone other safeguard that worked. But in any case, until we have passed through this crisis, our concern with states ought to be figuring out how to stop them being used as bludgeons against us. After we prove we know how to do that, and we have all our states properly modified, then we can go back to worrying about borders if we want to.
Very, very interesting…
I don’t know if you’re familiar with William S. Lind but Vox Day, via Castalia House, just published a compendium of his articles in a book called On War by William S. Lind. In it he covers the generations of war; 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.
What exactly are these generations of warfare? In a quick summary:
1st: Peace of Westphalia, States, Line-formations (IIRC)
2nd: French Tactics, WW1
3rd: German Tactics, WW2
4th: Stateless actors, terrorism, asymmetrical
As can be seen, the 1st thru 3rd generations of warfare are between state actors. The 4th? Stateless.
This isn’t limited to just warfare, however. It also manifests itself in political and social terms (i.e. conquest via mass immigration). I can’t do justice to the paradigm, I can only behoove you to pick up the book yourself.
With that, I would say that – maybe a non-state solution is the answer? Consider European identity. We can all relate to it on the macro-level even if we sub-divide into smaller entities. This would be precisely a 4th generation style of politics and war… a state need not be necessary for us. We just have to undermine the current anti-white system with 4th generation tactics – which are impermeable to state forces via one caveat: states must use devastating force to win a war (near genocidal policies).
Pardon my loose and shoddy narrative… your post jogged my mind and I wanted to get it out.
The Council of European Canadians hasn’t vanished. You just typed in the wrong url. Here it is: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/
Thank you.
Your comment says it all for me: I don’t see our races have an interest in conflict between Caucasians and Asians, but quite the opposite. I believe we have countless common enemies, we have common ideals, we have common goals, we both have a history of civilisation, we are both peoples who evolved in the Northern Hemisphere, both of our peoples have a somewhat high average IQ, etc.
Unfortunately we will never get rid of “the bosses”so vested interests will keep us in conflict but if there are enough “Chinese Nationalists” and Siryako Akda from the Philippines out there perhaps enough of our respective races will survive to carry on and rebuild.
Peace and good will to you.
“White Nationalism is all about halting our race’s programmed march to extinction, whereas petty nationalism, by stirring up discord and strife, seems merely to be hastening our race to its doom.”
That definition of White nationalism is accurate. As far as I know, White nationalism is unique. There is nothing like it elsewhere. I support White nationalism, because it agrees with my ideas.
“But the solution to “petty” nationalism is not what I shall call “grandiose” nationalism, namely, the idea of the political unification of whites”
I agree. The political unification of China also proved to be a disaster. Some people might disagree with me on this, but the point is that political unification of our peoples tends to be part of the problem as it tends to cause stagnation and regression. (If China would have been more divided, there woud have been more political diversity which would have allowed for more innovation and cultural diversity which could have led to a greater diversity of ideas which would have made the sinosphere more successful rather than being so rigidly and even boringly homogeneous, and I mean all this in a non-liberal sense.) Political unification leads to monoculture and bulldozing of traditional culture. Some fear that if one is not part of an empire, one will be absorbed by another empire. I do not fear this, since I believe that strong alliances can contain empires or keep them at bay.
“protecting whites from other racial and civilizational power blocs like China, India, and the Muslim world. “
Communist China (a.k.a. Red China) is the problem. Communism creates a mind-set that is dangerous for any race. I don’t think the Chinese are necessarily the problem. The Chinese themselves do admire the West, and I don’t think they will really have anything against an alliance with the West once they have been freed from the communist propaganda machine.
“Political unification is not necessary either to prevent whites from fighting one another or to secure whites from external threats. These aims can be attained through alliances and treaties between sovereign states.”
Right.
“it would have the added value of preserving the cultural and subracial distinctness of different European groups.”
The political unification of China is destroying the distinctness of different Han Chinese groups (people tend to think of the Han Chinese as one, but that is not necessarily the case). I hope you Europeans won’t experience this and make the same mistakes as us.
“A simple alliance of European states would be able to deter any Chinese aggression. “
I wouldn’t be too confident of that. Underestimation of China is perhaps more dangerous than overestimation of China. I wish China weren’t so powerful and that it would be easy to overthrow the government, but it isn’t and therefore the only option left for someone like me is to turn to Whites. I don’t have anything to lose, because my nation is already lost. White nationalists are much better organised than any Chinese resistance to the government. Seriously. China is doomed for the time being, but I have hope. I believe that we can learn from each other, and that we can remove the threat of Red China together. I don’t think Chinese nationalists can overthrow the government on their own. We need foreign aid, and I think the same is true for White nationalists. You need foreign allies. Even if there were only 3 White nationalists, and you had strong foreign support, then it would be possible for White nationalism to become mainstream. Some White nationalists have told me that even if the Chinese support them and the majority of Whites don’t, then Whites will still go extinct. I don’t believe that. A tiny minority can start a revolution, especially when they have foreign support. Most Whites, like most Chinese, are just people of the herd. They mindlessly follow whoever leads. So, don’t mind that you are outrageously outnumbered. Only focus on how to win, and you shall win.
“As for white fratricide: the best way to defuse white ethnic conflicts is not to combat “petty” nationalism but to take it to its logical conclusion. If different ethnic groups yoked to the same system are growing restive, then they should be allowed to go their own ways. Through moving borders and moving peoples, homogeneous ethnostates can be created, in which each self-conscious people can speak its own language and practice its own customs free from outside interference. Such a process could be mediated by a European treaty organization, which could insure that the process is peaceful, orderly, humane, and as fair as possible to all parties.”
I envision a China divided into different ‘ethnostates,’ which are absolute monarchies. ‘Grandiose nationalists’ oppose my vision of course, but China has tried unification long enough now. It’s time to try something else; to try something completely different from what we already know and that might actually solve most of China’s major problems that the communists can’t solve.
“Whenever White Nationalists speak of multiracial societies, we stress that forcing different races to live in the same political system is a recipe for tension, hatred, and conflict. But this truth applies to different European peoples as well. All forms of ethnic diversity within the same political system cause weakness and conflict. Thus political unification would actually heighten rather than ease tensions between European peoples.”
This is also true for China. Let’s pick one of the many examples: Hong Kong people have an entirely different identity from other Han Chinese, and trying to integrate them into the PRC will only heighten rather than ease tensions between HK people and mainlanders.
“A unified Europe would have many different peoples and languages in the same political system. But these peoples would not have equal influence on policy. The strongest and most populous nations would dominate. Thus a unified Europe would take on the quality of an empire, in which the most powerful nation would impose its standards and way of life on the rest.”
True for China as well.
“If the EU tried to impose real political unity on Europe, its members would bolt, and it would face the choice of accepting dissolution or preserving itself through coercion.”
China is preserved through coercion, because the communists can’t accept dissolution.
“Some proponents of a politically unified Europe actually admit that their vision is incompatible with European subracial and cultural diversity. Thus Constantin von Hoffmeister and more recently Richard Spencer (both of them married to Russians) have extolled the emergence of a “homogeneous European man.”
That is also what they are trying in China. They are trying to create a ‘homogeneous Han Chinese man.’ They want us all to intermarry, forget our traditions, etc. Of course I am not going to give up speaking Cantonese and feeling Cantonese. They can wish we did, but we won’t.
“The New Right is about preserving differences, including the subracial and cultural differences between Europeans.”
The definition of the New Right for Asians like me would be: The New Right is about preserving differences, including the subracial and cultural between Han Chinese, and other East Asians.
“Grandiose nationalism, however, would lead to the destruction of these differences in order to create a smoothly functioning white empire, whether its proponents recognize this outcome or not.”
True. See what happened in China, the Great Leap Forward, and that wasn’t even the end of it. We are seeing more and more destruc tion of Han Chinese traditional cultures (notice the plural). Cultural Revolution! A ‘revolution,’ or rather a process of tremendous destruction and decay, that never ends as long as the communists are in power in China.
“Thus grandiose nationalism is just a racialist, loosely Right-wing version of homogenizing modernity. But ethnonationalists beg to differ. In fact, we insist on it. We will even fight for it. Thus Europe will not be politically unified.”
I agree, and that is why multi-ethnic empires like China will and must crumble.
“Fortunately, European amity and security can be reconciled with European political and cultural diversity simply through a defensive federation of sovereign European ethnostates — the more such states, and the more they reflect the underlying ethnic diversity of Europe, the better.”
This is what I propose for the sinosphere, and it is also what I propose for Eurasia. I would like all northern peoples to work together to save their civilisations from destruction and southern peoples.
“In Europe today, all the energy is in “petty” nationalism. Most nationalists, for example, are opposed to NATO and the EU. Thus when grandiose nationalists stand on the sidelines and cluck about “petty” nationalism, at best they are irrelevant, and at worst — if anyone takes them seriously — they might undermine the energy and commitment of nationalists who actually have a chance of accomplishing something.”
Of course that isn’t petty nationalism. It’s just ethnic nationalism. I consider ‘grandiose nationalists’ petty nationalists as well. I support racial and ethnic nationalism, but I don’t support closed-minded nationalism (a.k.a. petty nationalism). Racial and ethnic nationalists can be petty nationalists, but they aren’t by default. When so-called ‘grandiose nationalists,’ i.e. racial nationalists who desire political unification at all costs, consider ethnic nationalists petty nationalists, that is just projection.
“But many grandiose nationalists are pro-Russia. In fact, they are for NATO getting out of wherever Russia wants to get into. Again, it is easy to see how this serves the interests of existing anti-white powers, but harder to see how it promotes the long-term survival of the white race.”
I have noticed the phenomenon that ‘grandiose nationalists’ tend to support empires. The American, Chinese, and Russian empires are all part of the problem. None of them is worthy of support. People seem to have a hard time comprehending that China is an expensionist monster, just like America and Russia. White nationalists might support the Chinese and Russian empires because they are opposed to the American empire, but they are supporting systems that are part of the problem. I am opposed to the Chinese empire, because my own people is suffering from it, in almost entirely the same way as the Tibetans and other minorities who, unlike the Han Chinese majority, are even exempt from the one-child policy (free breeding for minorities, restricted breeding for Han Chinese, doesn’t that sound familiar to any of you?). I do acknowledge that some peoples have a natural tendency to be imperialistic, but I think that these imperialist tendencies should be directed towards the non-Eurasian world (i.e., wherever those who aren’t either European or East Asian are living on this planet), so that we can focus on keeping low-IQ non-Eurasian populations at bay.
”Petty nationalism energizes but divides people. How, then, should White Nationalists preserve the energy of petty nationalism while mitigating its dangers? The answer is to build upon the pan-European consciousness that already exists in the leadership cadres of “petty” nationalist groups across Europe.”
I would like to extend that consciousness to a northern conciousness which acknowledges that all northern peoples have, in contrast to the rest of the world, underwent a unique evolution that significantly increased their civilisational abilities and their average IQs. This might help us to create an alliance, whilst there will exist ethnic nationalism among northern peoples. It is in fact the case that when people don’t live together, they like each other more. ‘Familiarity breeds contempt.’ However, I do admit that it is possible for high-IQ ethnic groups to live together peacefully, but it will require tremendous effort. Multiculturalism, different ethnic groups living in the same country while retaining their cultures (which might mean keeping their own cultures pure and authentic and marrying only with their own), is perhaps only possible for high-IQ ethnic groups. Social identity processes (e.g., ethnic loyalties) might make it more difficult for people to acknowledge reality, but it is not impossible for people to acknowledge reality, especially when they have the brains for it.
Franklin Ryckaert wrote this comment, and I agree:
”As for the idea of a “Borean Alliance”, only uniting the white peoples of the North is not enough. Australia and New Zealand should also be included. And what about Argentina and Uruguay? (both “whiter” than the present USA), not to speak about our brothers in South Africa, now being slowly genocided? Ideally such a White World Federation for which I would suggest the name EUROSPHERE should include: Europe, Russia+Siberia, North America (Canada and the USA), those parts of South America that are predominantly white (Argentina, Uruguay, South Brasil, part of Chili, Costa Rica), Australia and New Zealand and South Africa south of the Orange River (exclusively reserved for Whites). Nato should be abolished and be replaced by a Eurospheric Alliance, a purely defensive militairy [sic] alliance for the protection of the Eurosphere. There is no reason why the Eurosphere could not have friendly relations with the rest of the world (for which I suggest the term ALLOSPHERE). Eurosphere and Allosphere could share the planet in peace.”
I would like to extend Ryckaert’s idea on the basis of the fact that northern peoples have more in common than southern peoples. My idea might be termed ‘Eurasiosphere,’ a federation which will protect all northern peoples, that is to say East Asians and Europeans, from preying common enemies; those enemies might include several southern peoples, and possibly Jews.
—————————————————————–
FINAL WORDS
I think this is a great article, and I am beginning to like this site more. I recently wrote an article in which I touched upon themes that are related to those of this article. Some might ask why an Asian like me is interested in White interests or why an Asian like me supports Whites. I am pro-White and I don’t see the point of being anti-White. I admire Western civilisation and history, and I acknowledge that we have many common interests, and definitely many common enemies. I don’t support miscegenation between our peoples, and to some extent not even between ethnicities of the same race, but people are free to disagree with me. Some Whites have said that I shouldn’t be on the side of Whites, but I will stay on the side of Whites no matter what happens, because I support truth. I am against anti-Whites, including anti-White Asians, because these people are just tremendously misguided (if not completely delusional). I support pan-European preservationism, and my ideal is pan-Eurasian preservationism (i.e., Caucasian-East Asian biracial preservationism).
Ethnic nationalism doesn’t necessarily negate racial nationalism for me. I acknowledge that humans have a natural tendency to divide themselves on the basis of ethnicity, religion, language, etc. It’s my humble opinion racial nationalism isn’t necessarily opposed to that. What I understand by the term “petty nationalism” is closed-minded nationalism which is opposed to things that could be in our national interests from a broad-minded perspective, a good example of which could be trying to develop good diplomatic relations with our neighbouring nation-states. Petty nationalists might have a tendency to isolate the nation from the rest of the world, to cause unnecessary wars, etc. In my estimation ethnic nationalism or separatism isn’t necessarily petty nationalism, but the article seems to use petty nationalism as a synonym for ethnic nationalism or separatism. Probably the point was to debunk that petty nationalism, understood as a synonym for ethnic nationalism or separatism, isn’t necessarily bad. I believe the break-up of nations is a natural process which will hugely accelerate this century, and I believe that ethnic separatism (synonyms: ethnic nationalism, ethnonationalism, local nationalism, localism) will become increasingly important.
I believe that the break-up of diverse nation-states such as China is ultimately inevitable. Pro-unification forces can postpone the break-up for some time, but they cannot do this forever. Eventually when there is a weak moment or a weak spot, human nature will take over, and the nation will break up. Empires don’t last. They can be built with blood and sweat, but empires are relatively irrelevant entities which have always quickly faded in the history of mankind. Before nation-states, we had something like people states; the people were the state, and wherever the people was, that is where the state was. People states are extremely mobile in contrast to nation-states if the latter is understood as merely a geographical entity (although a nation is the people from an ethnonationalist perspective).
Monarchs used to represent peoples and their identities, and protect their interests. Monarchism tends to be extremely conservative, identitarian, rightist, ethnic nationalist, and traditionalist. Nationalism which does not support monarchism is often not so radical, but nationalism which does support it is often very radical and much further to the right. An authoritarian (dictatorial) regime can survive for some time, but it won’t last. Monarchy will last, because it actually does its job reasonably well. Although monarchy is easy to maintain, it has always proved to be hard to install. It will require an extremely far-right revolution to restore monarchy. I don’t think most people are far enough to the right to grasp this yet, but I believe we can take small steps in the right direction.
A common objection to my ideas is that I would be a race-mixer, but nothing could be further from the truth. I am principally opposed to race-mixing, but I do acknowledge that people have the freedom to disagree with me on this. I don’t feel the need to argue over race-mixing, because there isn’t much to argue about on this issue. I simply don’t see our races having an interest in mixing, but quite the opposite. Likewise, I don’t see our races have an interest in conflict between Caucasians and Asians, but quite the opposite. I believe we have countless common enemies, we have common ideals, we have common goals, we both have a history of civilisation, we are both peoples who evolved in the Northern Hemisphere, both of our peoples have a somewhat high average IQ, etc.
I don’t see how our commonalities would change in even 10,000 years. By that time we might have evolved a bit more in a certain direction that is idiosyncratic or typical of our peoples if we manage to stay pure for all those millenia, but the majority of commonalities won’t change. I don’t think the Negro race and other peoples will disappear in the mean time. Threats to the northern-evolved peoples will remain quite stable, but I will call it petty nationalism if we can’t get ourselves to see we might have some interest in working together. It is narrow-minded to think that we’ll be better off if we continue with this 19th-century mind-set of division among northern-evolved peoples who pretty much happen to be the only hope for humanity if we are deeply concerned about civilisation. Somehow that 19th-century mind-set has managed to survive into this day and age, but I perceive it as my mission to challenge this mind-set and to provide another perspective which I hope is more reasonable than that old mind-set which I seek to challenge. I have no problem at all with peoples cutting themselves off from multi-ethnic states. I believe ethnic nationalism and racial nationalism are hugely overlapping (if not entirely identical).
My problem is with people who get overly concerned about things that might be extremely counterproductive at best and entirely defeatist at worst. People are free to disagree with me on the necessity of an alliance between northern-evolved peoples (chiefly East Asians and Whites), but I do think that if we do not manage to become allies and sacrifice everything for this goal, then we will end up as enemies who will cause mutual destruction, and do the work of our enemies and the lower races for them. (The rising tide of colour is a danger to all human civilisation.) I think it is much more important to focus on keeping the lower races at bay, and preventing miscegenation between them and us, and encouraging our races to work together, but without creating a melting pot (which would be a disaster and destroy our traditional diversity), because although cooperation is one of our interests, a melting pot surely isn’t. People need to get it right that cooperation/alliance between our peoples doesn’t necessarily imply/mean a melting pot. That is what our enemies are trying to make us believe. We shouldn’t be fooled by the enemy narrative.
“The rising tide of colour is a danger to all human civilisation.”
Indeed, and the Yellow is part of that danger. I for one am not interested in some Asiatic “advising” Europeans, and would expect that Asiatics would – and should – not appreciate my input. This is all warmed over Derbyshire-ism – the “Arctic Alliance” and such nonsense.
Even if this one person is sincere, she (I assume this is the same person from Duchesne’s blog) is literally one-in-a-billion. I have my own experience with Chinese, who have behaved like a more intelligent form of Negro: seething with anti-White animus, wanted to take what the White man has, with the “colored chip on the shoulder,” and, in America and Canada, etc. always complaining about “racism and discrimination.” All Chinese I have known believe they have an inherent right to live in White lands. If you ask them if China should open up to immigrants in similar fashion, it is always, “no, no, China is too crowded.”
But, hey, China has that gender imbalance. Here’s the solution – there must be millions of nice sub-Saharan African women ready and eager to move to China and marry all those lonely Chinese men. Just like Chinese “have the right” to live in White lands, then, certainly, Negroes have the right to live in Yellow lands. Why not? But hey, we can be reasonable. First, every person of full or part Chinese ancestry (regardless of place of birth and citizenship) living in America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe can leave and go to China. After that we can reconsider this “northern alliance.” After all, such an act of good faith will go a long way to building cross-racial trust, no?
Derbyshire is a miscegenationist. I am not.
Of relevance:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/race-purists-are-they-slightly-nuts-jared-taylor-responds-to-john-derbyshire
Not a miscgenationist? Great! Then, I look forward to you promoting:
” First, every person of full or part Chinese ancestry (regardless of place of birth and citizenship) living in America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe can leave and go to China. After that we can reconsider this “northern alliance.” After all, such an act of good faith will go a long way to building cross-racial trust, no?”
If you leave both groups in the same territory, all the “awkward squad” Derbyshire types will run to the Asian women – with mathematical certainty.
Of relevance:
http://www.amren.com/news/2010/04/the_rise_of_asi/
http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-chinese-threat.html
I have said this in my article, and I quote:
“I’ve heard people talk that there isn’t any ‘Chinese communist menace,’ and they often seem to believe that anyone who says otherwise is a fear-monger. I believe that these people are living in a state of denial, because the Chinese communists have ‘Great Plans’ for the world. If today HK and Taiwan fall, then tomorrow the world might fall. The Chinese communists are trying – and have always tried – to take over the entire world. This must not be underestimated.
I don’t understand why Westerners don’t seem to be very concerned about this, and instead seem to imagine China as a friendly trading partner. All countries in Asia have an uneasy relationship with China, so they know what China really is, and more importantly, what China really isn’t. Yet the West, with all its race-obsessed liberals and greedy capitalists, doesn’t seem to realise that the Chinese communist menace is a reality in Asia today, and a reality in the West and the rest of the world tomorrow.”
Another article (not written by me), that I favourited on Disqus, might also be of interest to readers: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/wake-america-china-real-threat-12204
A good commenter said, and I quote: “The American military wages war for Jewish interests not for Chinese interests. The foe that might be is not a threat compared to the enemy that is.”
That’s great. We agree that the Chinese are a menace. Since the West has already damaged itself with attempts to “ally” itself with an entity (including the race and not just the nation state) bent on dominating it, perhaps further attempts at “alliance” are not prudent? Perhaps it is understandable that Whites view Chinese attempts at infiltrating racialism with the same healthy does of skepticism shown toward Jewish attempts.
I think if you were sincere, you’d be putting all your energies preaching pro-White and racial nationalist memes to your own people. Most of all to the Chinese diaspora in the West. Can they please leave?
@Theodore: Sincerity is not the issue here I think, only a lack of organization in her thoughts. A nationalist should really only be concerned with his/her own people and not make unqualified statements about friendship. However, looking at the whole world in terms of friends and enemies can be quite demoralizing, particularly given the situation of true nationalists in most developed countries. It’s quite natural I think that many might want to be able to show a mutual appreciation and respect with groups who are not necessarily their opponents. And after all, lumping everyone into generic categories of White and non-White is very simplistic and seems rather hollow. We don’t need alliances with non-White nationalists, but there’s no reason not to cooperate whenever it’s possible. As for the Chinese ‘threat’, at present I doubt that would manifest itself in anything more than economic competition, and as we all know, the profit of corporations and governments in the West does not necessarily help Whites one bit. So I think the ‘Yellow peril’ is largely exaggerated. I’m more concerned about the Kosher one.
@John Kellner
The claim that my thoughts aren’t organised amounts to saying that I am anti-Chinese. My thoughts are often misinterpreted as anti-Chinese, but quite the contrary is true. I believe that being pro-White and pro-Chinese aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, just like I believe being pro-Dutch and pro-German aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. ‘Biracialism’ might be the right term to describe my views on the two races. A White majority in the West and a Han Chinese majority in China are my ideals. I do not support mass migration or other policies that will challenge these ideals, but I support using multiculturalism or any other ideological framework to preserve the traditional majority group.
As Prof. Duchesne says in his latest article:
“I object to the current double standard which says that only non-Europeans have a moral right to protect and enhance their ethnic interests. I am for a level playing field in the Canadian multicultural arena, with European Canadians enjoying the same rights as other ethnic groups in the defense of their heritage and cultural lineage. It is that simple.”
That quote should give people a clue that all roads lead to Rome.
@Theodore
The problem in China is not race. It’s ideology. Western liberalism and Chinese communism are two sides of the same coin.
@Theodore
Multiculturalism is gaining a foothold in East Asia:
http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/taiwans-growing-multiculturalism/
http://www.smc.org.ph/administrator/uploads/apmj_pdf/APMJ2012N1ART5.pdf
An AmRen moderator sent me these links:
http://www.amren.com/news/2014/07/afro-chinese-marriages-boom-in-guangzhou-but-will-it-be-til-death-do-us-part/
http://www.amren.com/news/2012/06/african-migrants-rioted-in-china-today-after-a-man-died-in-police-custody/
We’re becoming more ‘progressive’ in other ways as well:
http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/straight-man-cancer-sexism-with-chinese-characteristics/
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/905874.shtml
Those are your problems, not ours. The Chinese living in the USA – China being a major source of immigration to America – is our problem. Interesting that I am yet to hear anything about how to deal with that. Or is being burdened with an alien minority the price we have to pay for this wonderful alliance (that I do not want nor ask for)?
Why not? I won’t seek more enemies than those necessary. I am for ‘Chinese’ diversity, as long as Euros have our own white homelands.
Stemming from sovereign European nations, I am all for good understanding and neighboring relationships with other peoples.
Don’t forget the Whites of South Africa.
There is always “letters from South Africa” on Face Book.
Wow.
That’s the kind debates that we need. This is one of the ‘Big’ debates that we need to focus on, in this civilized way. This wouldn’t have been possible only a decade ago. Everyone was too tangled up with their own State nationalism then. Now, in 2015, with our pressing urgences at the gates, we are starting to take them seriously.
Definitively the ‘Europe of the Peoples’ hypothesis makes more sense to me than that of ‘Imperium’. It focuses on reality, on real things. For instance: multiculturalism fails to see humans as social beings, and thus that ties with people around us matter (be relatives, friends, members of the same ethnic group, civilization, etc). The Imperium hypothesis and the like seem to downplay the depth of such relationships. That’s what the Soviets did and how they thought. They failed because they thought reality could adapt to them, instead of them adapting to reality. A dangerous mindset in my opinion.
So, the Europe of the Peoples definitively is the way to go. We only can benefit from the definitive transformation of the past empires (namely France, UK, Spain, etc) into European nations, side by side with Scotland, Catalonia, Brittany, etc. But Catalans (like me), Slovaks, and Scots, etc also have to make an effort and reconcile with French and Castillians/Spaniards, Englishmen, etc.
Last, what we will need, is policies committed to constantly pointing at our enemies. To constantly remind us who our enemies are, thus bringing us more and more together, while maintaining our internal diversity. We will need a good deal of effort to make us, both ‘large’ and ‘small’ nations, forget about our internal/secondary quarrels and disputes. This is possible, but I guess things need to get much worse before we really do something in this regard (apart from overthrowing our ruling elites). Unity could come in the form of a series of treaties (on common defense, commercial exchange, etc) among ‘equal’ nations.
This is the only project that I see that can ultimately create enthusiasm among most of Europeans. I have to remark the good work done by Generation Identitaire in this regard.
Some significant grandiose nationalists oppose anti-EU sentiment because, they dream, nationalists might actually “take over” the EU someday. But of course that will never happen unless “petty” nationalists make progress in EU member states.
I think the evidence shows that it has been much easier for nationalists to make progress at the EU level rather than in the constituent nation-states. In the 2014 European Parliament elections, parties to the right of the Christian Democratic bloc won 22% of the seats, significantly higher than in most national parliaments, particularly in the three biggest and most important EU nations, Germany, France and the UK.
In France the Front National finished first with 23 of 74 seats, or more than 30%, compared with only 2 of 577 seats in the 2012 national legislative election. In the UK, UKIP also finished first with 24 of 73 seats compared with no seats in parliament in the 2010 national election. In Germany three rightwing parties (AfD, NPD and Familie) won 9 of 96 seats compared with no seats in the Bundestag in the 2013 election.
Due to the proportional representation rather than first-past-the-post electoral system, and the willingness of European voters to take a chance on rightwing parties at the EU (but not the national) level, nationalists are much better represented in Brussels than they are in Paris, London, Berlin etc. So from a nationalist point of view it would make a lot more sense to strengthen the powers of the European Parliament, and hence the EU, at the expense of the national parliaments and nation-states rather than vice-versa.
Ironically, the transfer of power from the periphery to the centre is most vehemently opposed by the most likely beneficiaries of such an action, the nationalist parties themselves. But if the eurozone is to hold together, and most Europeans–even the Greeks–want it to, then a fiscal union and a move towards a true European federation is inevitable. So it could be a case of nationalists losing the battle (against the EU and the euro) but winning the war (for more power and influence at the highest levels of European politics).
And if there’s one thing–maybe the only thing–that the various European nationalists can agree upon, it’s severely limiting or completely shutting off non-European immigration. Which can be best achieved at a Europe-wide level. It was treasonous regimes in the nation-states, like Blair-Brown in the UK and Zapatero in Spain amongst others, that opened the floodgates to mass Third World immigration, not the faceless bureaucrats of Brussels who have no power to do so even if they wanted to.
But in a future, much more powerful European Parliament with nationalists holding the balance of power, Brussels could stop non-European immigration into the EU once and for all. Perhaps a great trade-off could be made between nationalists and the centre-left European establishment: in exchange for the continued free-flow of people within the EU, possibly the issue most dear to the Eurocrats’ hearts, immigration from outside Europe would be halted completely and permanently. So, for example, Poles and Bulgarians would still be allowed to migrate to the UK, but Pakistanis and Nigerians wouldn’t.
Yet I know of no grandiose nationalists who are pro-NATO, perhaps because such a position would be mocked as transparent shilling for the existing anti-white global hegemon.
I think it’s important to differentiate between globalist organizations on one hand, like the UN, IMF or World Bank, and civilizationist ones on the other, like the EU and NATO. NATO is clearly a ‘Western’ alliance, with 27 of its 28 member states being majority white (the exception being Turkey). I’d like to see NATO grow into a pan-European worldwide alliance eventually encompassing all of Eastern Europe and Russia, and possibly even the white-majority nations of the Southern Hemisphere; Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Uruguay.
This future NATO would be the linchpin of a ‘Fortress West’, an implicitly white defensive alliance united against the non-white world. Turkey could be either kicked out or grandfathered in as the sole exception to this rule. Fortress West would allow the free movement of people and goods within, while maintaining high tariffs and an immigration ban without. Such an arrangement could reverse the demographic decline of white people in the US, as white immigrants from elsewhere could replenish their numbers and maintain a white majority in the US indefinitely.
But first of all and most importantly, NATO must eventually expand to include Russia. Vladimir Putin at one time wanted Russia to join the alliance but was foolishly rebuffed by Western leaders.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/853851/Putin-wants-NATO-to-let-Russia-join.html?pg=all
A post-Putin Russia could be brought into NATO, which would then be more militarily powerful than any Chinese-Indian-African-Latin American-Islamic non-white alliance that could ever be arrayed against it. It would effectively make the Arctic Ocean a Western lake, and would shift the alliance’s centre of gravity from the North Atlantic to continental Europe. The main strategic beneficiary of this expansion would be the EU in general and Germany in particular. Some German defense officials make the case for Russia in NATO here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/open-letter-it-s-time-to-invite-russia-to-join-nato-a-682287.html
Though the US would remain the dominant military force within an expanded NATO, the era of Anglo-American hegemony would be over. A Franco-German-Russian continental bloc could successfully challenge the English-speaking powers for the military leadership of a united West, just as an expanded and centralized EU could usurp America’s heretofore political and economic dominance.
The endgame of all this, as I see it, would be the preservation and unity of all the white-majority nations worldwide. And American leadership would be replaced by a German-dominated Europe within an EU-dominated West within a world dominated by Greater NATO, aka Fortress West.
Sadly, I think if the European Parliament actually had sovereignty, that voters would send fewer nationalist representatives there.
Greg’s argument against the EU is centered around the idea that:
1) Treaties and alliances can adequately fill the role that union now occupies. He cites NATO repeatedly as an example.
Treaties and alliances can be willfully abrogated by the more powerful signatories. Moscow’s disregard for the Budapest Memorandum in it’s dealings with Ukraine is a stRiki-Eiking example of this. And NATO was more accurately speaking an American protectorate rather than a true alliance.
2)He says that non-European threats are exaggerated and can be somewhat easily countered by a concert of major European powers.
If the threats from abroad are exaggerated why do we need special treaties and alliances? Europe’s safety goes well beyond military matters. We need diplomatic unity and a political culture that can sustain it. Sufficient military strength requires an adequate economy to sustain it too. Union creates strong and important interests that bind the nations of Europe to their collective well-being and the policies necessary to insure it. Finally, the main military threats to Europe come from the US, Russia and Israel. Only collective European defense can act as a deterrent against them.
3) Greg further argues that inter-ethnic tensions tend to be aggravated by union, north vs. south in particular, that ethnic diversity is threatened and “modernist” homogeneity engendered.
Tension always will exist to some degree. Recall European anti-Americanism during the cold war as well as American and British anti-European sentiment during the same period. Much present day tension is created and inflamed by old-style nationalist and modern nationalist parties, not the mere fact of union. Arguably things would be worse without a union. The present north-south divide is largely the result of the euro crisis, which was caused by American inspired financial attacks, not by any structural defects in the currency union. Much of the focus of Euro-scepticism is on current troubles and ignores decades of solid progress and achievement on many fronts. As for the uniqueness of sub-groups, national unity did not cancel regional differences, neither will continental unity cancel national ones.
4) Greg next worries that a dominant European hegemon (i.e.Germany) will create and lead an empire over Europe, establishing a hierarchy among member nations, allowing for force to prevail over consensus. The resulting German dominance of this area will be irksome to Russia, the UK and France. Infighting will heighten the possibility of secession and bring about disunity rather than unity.
Inequality exists within nations, both regional and social, as well as within alliances. I see no reason why European unity should be singled out for this. Force is always a factor in relations between nations to one degree or another. Like water finding its own level, it must be accepted as simple reality. Disunity works in favor of extra-European hegemons like the US and Russia. Which raises an obvious question: What is so bad about German dominance? Why is French, Russian and British dominance legitimate but German dominance problematic? German dominance is greatly exaggerated anyway. Germany is much more likely, because of force of circumstances, to be deferential to it’s Euro partners than any of the alternatives. (For the record, I am not German, I am not arguing ,pro domo.)
To be continued….
This was an excellent article, and I am in complete agreement with Mr. Johnson. I also enjoyed reading the contrasting opinions. The concept of grandiose vs. petty nationalism is obviously controversial.
The picture is scary. Even if it was revealed there was nothing malicious said by the darker children, it’s still scary. The picture reminds me of a conversation I had with an Afghan friend. We talked about a lot of things and he told me once that there were a minority of fair haired people in Afghanistan (Aryans) that the typical Afghan children used to make fun of. I didn’t say anything. What is there to say? But I can tell you from personal experience that depending on how bad it is, that kind of thing can leave scars on someone for a lifetime. My sister was taunted a lot in school and she came home miserable and crying all the time. She didn’t know how to handle the creeps. I don’t think it was ethnic related, but seeing that little boy in that picture makes we wonder what school would be like for him and others like him. The stronger ones will probably be alright, it’s the sensitive types that are more vulnerable.
Of course, while the Jews have played such an outsized role in starting world wars and carrying out massacres like the Holodomor, they have also fought very strongly against the blow back they call “anti-Semitism” and like to talk about remarks or negative treatment directed at them in school or the army, but I don’t think they’ll have much sympathy for that blonde haired little boy. The negative comments I’ve heard Jewish acquaintances make about blondes (“I don’t like blonde people”) or that I’ve read from famous Jews like Einstein who referred to Germans as “the blonde beast” only reinforces my feelings.
Well it’s a subject that I hope continues to be explored. What is the kind of United Europe model that will make most people happy or draw support?
My own proposal/thought experiment would be the idea of a fully integrated Euro military–and that no nation/region is allowed to have its own. This grand army of course could not be used against fellow nations and could only act against outside forces.
If there was to be conflict between regional powers, then they would be required to hire mercenaries or private citizen soldiers–as heavy arms (tanks, missiles etc) would all be banned within the union. So if you want to fight–fight head on like a man without relying on technology and bombings.
The main issue here is that all intra-European conflict would have to be resolved without the military threat-point–which has traditionally been the greatest threat and cause of hatred and destruction.
Get this:
“I believe that being pro-White and pro-Chinese aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, just like I believe being pro-Dutch and pro-German aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. ”
Let’s see: equating the White-Chinese racial and cultural divide with that of two extremely similar European peoples – Dutch and Germans, both Northwestern European Germanics.
First the Jews try to infiltrate White racialism, and now the Asians are doing it. On the one hand, I’m glad they are so clumsy in their rhetoric, but the naive White man seems to fall for the oriental flim-flam nonetheless.
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
Edit your comment