Counter-Currents
3,056 words
The following is the text of Gregory Hood’s opening statement in the “Ethnonationalism vs. Imperialism” debate with Greg Johnson that was held at the recent Counter-Currents Spring Retreat. Dr. Johnson’s opening statement, which preceded this one, can be read here.
It’s not a question of whether you want to live in an imperium or not. You’re going to live under an imperial rule of some kind. The only question is whose it’s going to be.
There is no sovereignty that states have right now because there is someone who can say “no” — and that someone is America. Until that problem is dealt with, it’s very difficult to talk about any European country being fully sovereign in any real sense, at least in the way that nineteenth-century nationalists would have taken for granted.
The fact is, there’s always going to be an empire that sets the tone for a particular civilization. Now, what do I mean by empire? An empire isn’t just something that governs multiple nations. An empire is something that governs from a divine or a moral ideal. It has a purpose. It sees itself as having a purpose.
The entire post-war world is built on the ideas of certain myths about the Second World War. Fundamentally, everything that we have comes out of that: the belief that Nazism wasn’t just about the defeat of the Germans, but was about defeating the inner racists that lie within all white people. That is why we have to have a government which is constantly looking for racism and combating ethnocentrism, because if that gets out of control, we’ll repeat the Second World War. That’s what they believe, and this belief has only grown stronger with time. More people are fanatical about punching Nazis today than there were in the 1950s — than the guys who actually fought the Nazis.
In fact, I’ve always said that this is something of a religion, but now it’s literally becoming a religion. Happy Pride Month, everyone. We even have our own liturgical calendar. If you actually add up all the special holidays that go with intersectionality, I think we have more holidays than the Vatican.
More than that, we even have our own imperial banner. You know what I’m talking about: the intersectional flag. And I’ll tell you what: From Washington, DC to the Netherlands and to Germany, it’s still flying proudly. All the national sovereignty and states in the world have done nothing to stop a flag that didn’t even exist two years ago. But that imperial banner flies high — and I think it means more to a lot of average people than their so-called national flags do. That’s disgusting, but it’s the truth. And that’s a testament to the power of media, which is the most powerful tool the regime has. So if we’re going to talk about convincing people, we have to deal with that problem: How do we convince the masses? Control the media. And we can give them whatever we want. If you don’t believe me, go protect trans kids. Try telling that to somebody two years ago.
The entire system is inherently anti-white. That is what it’s built on. That’s where it gets its moral foundations from. But more than that, there’s also a bureaucratic impetus. And this creates the kind of global non-governmental organization (NGO) class that we see, which is more powerful than sovereign states. For example, we have a “nationalist” government in Italy. But what has happened in Italy recently? Migration has increased. Why has migration increased? Because there is a vast apparatus of judges and activists and NGOs that can work against the government. So who is sovereign, and why did they do this? Because every migrant who is brought in is worth thousands of dollars to these NGO workers.
You have to deal with that apparatus — let’s call it the imperial apparatus — before we can talk about anything regarding sovereignty. You have to replace one imperial order with another.
Just declaring your independence is not going to cut it, because we’ve seen countries try to do that before. How many nationalists have been elected so far? How many coalition governments have we had? What’s happened? At best, you slow things down.
You can buy Greg Hood’s Waking Up From the American Dream here.
There is a time limit here, friends, and if we don’t actually reverse it, this is all for nothing.
Let’s be honest about decentralization, too. What was the great populist triumph? Brexit. What happened after Brexit? Non-European immigration increased dramatically. Let’s say plainly that Brexit was a complete disaster. And this came under the Conservative government that has ruled for more than a decade. So much for entryism. So much for proceduralism.
Let’s look at the secessionist movements that are being advocated right now, such as in Scotland or Catalonia. These aren’t Scottish or Catalonian nationalist movements in any way. Why do they want to secede? So they can bring in more migrants than even the governments that control them now want to bring. Thus, decentralization in and of itself has no value whatsoever, especially because what they want is to actually move closer to the imperial ideology. They’re mad about the remnants of the unitary states that they have to deal with.
This brings up another question concerning the idea of ethnonationalism. Where does it start? Every people gets their own nation. Okay, well, does Cornwall get to secede? Does Wales? Does Northumbria? These are all secessionist movements that really exist. But if you actually believe in your ethnic nation, at some point you’re going to want to draw the line, because in any such order, the country that can prevent the most secessionist movements and control the most territory is going to be the strongest.
You can say you want independence for your own nation, but if you’re willing to let groups within that nation break away, especially in marginal cases where you don’t have something like a 90% majority, I suggest you don’t actually love your nation all that much. You don’t want it to be powerful. You don’t want it to be strong. So do you really want it? And what’s the point of it?
What’s going on with the European Union? I would submit that the national populist movement of 2015-16 has completely faded. Marine Le Pen had to run away from her support for France leaving the European Union because it was killing her electorally. There used to be some talk of the Netherlands leaving the European Union. That’s gone away. The fact is that most people want the European Union. Saying that you want to pull out of the European Union is a vote loser. The question we have to deal with is not the European Union; it’s that it’s not a European Union. It’s an anti-European Union.
What do we have going for us, at all? There are two things right now. First of all, we have the fact of white identity. This is the basis — the moral basis — of the post-war order, albeit in a negative sense. They’re actually doing the work of defining it for us in a positive sense.
There’s a reason why, when you walk around Europe, all the magnificent statues are essentially ruins — remnants of an older, greater time. What’s created now is of no worth. Why? Because it’s designed to have no worth. It’s designed to demoralize. It’s designed to beat you down.
What are the values that are preached? Dependence, victimhood. These are the things that give more power to the imperial regime. These are the things that give more power to the transnational NGO class.
When you see some guy who has been psyopped into essentially sexually mutilating himself and crying about how somebody didn’t recognize what gender he is, and how that scarred him forever — that is the model democratic citizen. That is the model imperial citizen. A person like that has no country. But they are in every country. They comprise possibly the majority in a lot of these countries. And we’re going to have to deal with them at some level.
We have to overcome that ideology. We can’t preach an ethnic loyalty that exists on paper, but which these people have no part of, because they don’t feel it at all.
The second thing we have going for us, other than the idea of white identity being important, is that we do have the fact that there is no current conflict between Western European and Central European nations — say, between France and Germany. This is something that would have once been unthinkable. Now, again, the problem is that if you really believe in ethnic nationalism, you have to ask questions such as: Who should own Alsace-Lorraine? Who should own South Tyrol? There’s not necessarily a right answer to this. There’s just us and them. So, unless you have a compelling answer for why one people or another should own a particular place, you end up retreating to the ground of saying, “We’re just going to have a referendum,” or, “We’ll poll people on that.” But does national territory change depending on how the referendums go? And what are the referendums, after all, except contests over who has more media power? Isn’t that the root of our problem to begin with? And unfortunately, for a lot of these regions, if we asked them about what flag they want to put up, they’d probably put up the intersectional flag rather than any national flag.
Greg Johnson said that nationalist governments, or conservative nationalist governments, might be the ones who are most willing to help out other pro-white forces, or at least other pro-nationalist forces. Well, my boss, Jared Taylor, is on your side, you’ll be happy to know. But it wasn’t the liberals or the antifa who prevented Jared Taylor from going to Tallinn. It was the conservative nationalist government of Poland.[1] And why did the conservative nationalist government of Poland ban him from Europe — first for three years, and then when that expired, extending it to five years, and moreover not offering any reason or even telling him about it? It was because he made a speech supporting the current government of Poland. And the last time I was in Hungary, I was running around like a lunatic cleaning up everybody’s messes. Why? Because there was a nationalist government there that didn’t want any part of it.
And the fact is — and this is a tough question — if you say, “I don’t have an interest in white identity, I only have an interest in my own particular ethnic group, or my own particular nation-state, ” why are you even talking about this? Why are you talking about white identity? That’s the last thing you should be doing, especially if you’re worried about elections. You should be running away from this stuff. You shouldn’t even be watching this debate. You know why: Because the best you can hope for, if that’s what you’re doing, is carrying out a holding action against forces far more powerful than you. That’s why we have to deal with this at some level.
We have to have an ultimate goal. This isn’t a game. We’re talking about identities and saying, “Oh, we can pick this identity or that identity.” If you have to think about what your identity is, it’s not all that real, is it? You should simply know. And identity, fundamentally, is not just about your self-image. It’s also how people see you.
How do the people in power see us now? They see us as white. And that holds true in whatever country you are in. When they come after you, it is not because you’re Polish, or Hungarian, or German, or whatever else. It’s because you’re white, and it’s only because you’re white. That identity means more than the identity you share with your fellow citizens of another race within your country. And it means a heck of a lot more with those in power.
Imperial order can only be replaced. It can never be repudiated. We’re not talking about empire or independence. We’re talking about which empire, full stop. White identity is emerging now from the circumstances of this time. It’s not asserted as something that could be or once was, and then we work backwards. It’s something we have to deal with every single day.
Ultimately, there are many tactics we can use to get to where we’re trying to go. You could have tribes where you’re trying to work on a small level to have some sort of independence from the system. You could have secession efforts that would allow you to throw up barriers between you and the empire — but again, that’s a bit of a holding pattern. You could have what I think could be the model going forward, where you have what I’ve called the Bismarck solution: some sort of a nation-state that leads an international effort to overturn the current empire, the current imperial order. Or, you have a vanguard of whites who, acting as whites, establish a white homeland to protect the physical existence and ensure the upward development of the white race. This is the identity that matters right now, especially in the United States, which, for better or worse — and again, as an American, I’m sorry — mostly for worse, determines the international order.
Sometimes, some extremely online guys will think of some creative ethnic differences between American whites. That’s fake. There are no real ethnic differences that white Americans get upset about and fight amongst themselves over anymore. And if you’re not getting upset and fighting about them, then frankly, they’re not part of your most important identity. The important identities are the ones you actually want to fight for. Ethnic identities that aren’t a return to bad old nationalism aren’t that strong to begin with. And it’s certainly not something people are going to sacrifice for. But that doesn’t mean that cultures can’t continue to exist. And it’s certainly only those with a strong white racial consciousness who care about the continuity of specific cultures.
You can buy The World in Flames: The Shorter Writings of Francis Parker Yockey here.
But ultimately, from an American point of view, you have to talk about White Nationalism, not ethnic nationalism. And fundamentally, unless you solve the American problem, everything else we’re talking about is just fantasy, because they are the ones — the ones in DC — who can say “no” to every single project that has been mentioned.
Ultimately, what we’re talking about is more than just calling for a white homeland. And ultimately, what we’re talking about is something even more, something even greater than calling for a white homeland that will unite all whites. I’m positing that as an ideal. But I’m saying that as a dream, as something people can always be working towards. Something like what the Communists used to say about the classless society, the Sorelian myth that drives us forward. The sacred myth, in fact.
But we also have to have identitarianism as a philosophy, as a way of looking at the world, as a historiography, as a system of analysis. We do not have that now. And if you have something where you say, “How can these circumstances be interpreted for the defense of my [ethnic] group?”, that can be useful, but it’s not a way of understanding the world. It’s not a way that’s going to mobilize people around the world to work for a common cause. And I have news, friends. We aren’t a majority in those 52 nations. And I don’t think we’re ever going to be a majority, or even a sizable minority, in those 52 nations. But you have a lot of racially aware white people in those 52 nations. If you could somehow unite them behind one thing, there’s a lot that could be accomplished with that.
Why even talk about something so idealistic as a white homeland? As a place where we will be safe as whites, where our common culture as Europeans will be defended, where white Americans for once can do something that’s actually productive instead of standing in the way of our European friends? Because right now, we’re in a system where the soft totalitarianism that everybody talks about is rapidly becoming hard totalitarianism. America is not a free country.
And certainly in Europe, I don’t need to remind people about the certain speech laws and the restrictions on political organization that I have to deal with every day. People are going to have to start going to jail. They are going to get beaten up. They are going to be facing hard repression. And it’s not because they’re accelerating their tactics. It’s because liberties that were once taken for granted are rapidly becoming illegal as the system tries to hold on, and as the imperial faith becomes ever more fanatical. We have to have something that is higher, that we will cling to no matter what, and that we are willing to suffer everything for.
This is one struggle. We are one people. We are moving toward becoming one people. And that is the only thing that can justify what has happened over the last century, and everything that we are going through. I am not willing to say that anyone won the First or Second world wars, or that it was anything other than two tragic civil wars where people butchered each other instead of focusing on the enemy that matters, and the only enemy that ever matters.
The West works best at a time of unity, from the Greeks fighting off the Persians to the Crusades. That is our destiny. We have to have a vision of that elevation, and we have to have a system of analysis that profound if we’re going to ask people to sacrifice everything for it.
So this is an ideal: the empire that was and will be, the imperium that comes from above and is directed from above. And I say that a people who has a holy mission and a state which will protect them — that is the only thing worth striving for, worth suffering for, and worth dying for.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Note
[1] In May 2023, Jared Taylor was barred by the Polish government from entering the European Union’s Schengen Zone while he was on his way to speak at a conference in Tallinn, Estonia. Mr. Taylor wrote about the affair here.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
33 comments
I wear a black t-shirt with SPQR in white letters.
XIV VERBA
Looking back into the Glorious Past can be interesting and instructive, but since the situation in the past is not identical to the situation in the present, it is of little practical use. My compatriots also like to remember the great empires of the past, Attila, Kültegin, Cenghis Khan, Edige or the Osmans and others, but this can do little to fix the fact that Urumçi and East Turkestan are now in the hands of the Chinese, Syrian and Iraqi Türkmens are killed by Arabs, and the Türkic peoples of the Caucasus, the Steppe, Siberia, and Edil-Ural are colonized by Russians and as part of the Russian army are fighting against Ukrainians who have done nothing wrong to us. One can admire the past and its heroes, and also I have a T-shirt with Attila Kağan, but this alone is not enough to correct the situation here and now.
Turks are the enemy of Europeans.
But Russians, Americans, Chinese and Arabs are enemies of both Europeans and Türks.
Intriguing that you sympathise with this current of political thought, given that the Turks are an Asiatic nation.
Bombastic, passionate, full on and superb rhetoric and I agree with the threats you list and the stark reality we face. My heart says, ‘I’m all in 100%’ my head says ‘we are a fragmented and demoralised bunch pitted against each other for reasons you state’ and I can’t see any kind of unity anytime soon. I pray to God I am wrong.
Thank you Gregory for this brilliant statement.
Do you both (Greg & Gregory) find anyway to augment both parts of your argument to find a synthesis?
It is shocking (but quite typical for both alt-right and “conservatives [Sargon, etc]”) ignoring Switzerland. Countries with the best anti-immigration laws among all Western countries.
And the assessment of Italy is hardly correct. Matteo Salvini, being Minister of the Interior from 2018 to 2019, calmly sent and did not accept migrants, after which the globalists and their local cliques untwisted their pawn from the “right” – Meloni, in which Salvini is only the Minister of Infrastructure.
The Salvini League and the Brothers Meloni are different parties and the current Minister of the Interior is (supposedly of course) an “independent” politician. Thanks to their dominance in the media space, globalists and their local cliques managed the mechanic of pluralistic ignorance in the right direction: a very large promotion in the media space is perceived by voters with similar preferences as strong reliability in aggregating votes from their own kind, and vice versa, much less (in comparison) promotion as insufficiently strong reliability in aggregation and, accordingly, the emergence of a decent tendency to fear (as sort of collective illusion) that many others will not vote for it and the party, even if it passes, will be weakly influential (see my comment in “How Do We Secure Ethnic Continuity?” by Ruuben Kaalep).
Circa 30% of Swiss have immigrant or migrant backgrounds.
Even much (±85%) of foreigners resident have European origins, so this 30% of swiss is also in much is white. Naturalization data support this:
«In 2004, 35,700 people acquired Swiss citizenship according to Swiss nationality law, a figure slightly larger than that of the previous year (35,424), and four times larger than the 1990 figure (8,658). About a third of those naturalized are from a successor state of former Yugoslavia: 7,900 Serbia-Montenegro, 2,400 Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2,000 North Macedonia, 1,600 Croatia. 4,200 were from Italy, 3,600 from Turkey, 1,600 from Sri Lanka, 1,200 from Portugal, and 1,200 from France.» — en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland
But many of them are just Europeans from another European countries, like Germans, Italians, French, British, Greeks, etc.
Even though they managed to stop woman suffrage until 1972 and children still came home for lunch well into the 1980s.
In Germany most kids still come home for lunch. The number is decreasing and an ever larger number has to order pizza, but well.
I was in Switzerland two years ago. I was under the illusion until then that it was the closest thing to a functioning multinational state because of its traditional neutrality, but it really isn’t anything I expected. There are tons of nonwhite immigrants too. I saw more tension there than even the Balkans. There were more displays of nationalism there than anywhere else in Europe besides Albania/Albanians. It is primarily from EU immigrants flying Portuguese or Italian flags. But the constituent nations (German, French, Italian, Romansch) do not like each other whatsoever. Yet it is even more complex than that because many of the nations have migrated and assimilated into other regions. This was strangely noticeable during the FIFA Cup that I videotaped. When ‘Italy’ (Africans in blue uniforms) defeated ‘England’ (Africans in white uniforms) there were riotous celebrations deep into the night of Italian flags and music in Lausanne (the French region), yet every car had Swiss plates and none of them spoke Italian. I suspect this sort of thing also occurs in Scotland between ‘Catholic’ (Irish) parts of Glasgow in its ‘Old Firm’ football rivalries (Celtic/Hibernian vs Rangers FC) and ‘Protestants’ (Scottish). Also, Salvini is not an Italian nationalist but a separatist for Lega Nord (Padania), which makes Meloni a natural rival.
I was shocked seeing the Mayday Demonstration in Zürich, with red flags and portraits of Mao Zedong, Stalin, Trotsky, Che Guevara and Kurd terrorist Öcalan. The most demonstrators were not of Swiss origin.
Italy’s soccer team was not very African by any stretch.
Everything in our world is known in comparison with the rest. Perceived “tons” in the case of Switzerland are “trillions” in the case of many other Western countries. But there are facts and they are very simple:
I. Legal immigration policy in Switzerland is pro-white. Fact? Fact. In the case of many other Western countries, this is not the case, as you should be well aware.
II. Simply by virtue of the birth of children in Switzerland, the children of migrants do not receive Swiss passports. Fact? Fact. In the case of many other Western countries, this is not the case, as you should be well aware.
Due to the fact that Switzerland is surrounded by a de facto hostile EU, perhaps through illegal migration and the autonomy of some more liberal cantons, local NGOs and authorities somehow contribute to the preservation of a certain part of illegal immigrants in these territories. But even so, there are no “no-go zones” and Switzerland is known for its safety.
And last but not least, the Swiss team at that World Championship was all white.
As for the Salvini party, before the mass promotion of Meloni and her party, in the municipal elections, Salvini won many mandates in southern Italy. So, Meloni’s victory in the national elections is not at all as natural as you would like to imagine.
This is why biological whiteness is a dangerous concept for nationalists. You don’t seem to think that replacement migration into Switzerland is a problem if the replacers are biologically white. I think it is a problem, because Switzerland should be the homeland of the various Swiss communities. In short, from a nationalist point of view, all white people are not equal or fungible. Replacing the Swiss with people from the Balkans and Iberia is still a problem.
Agreed.
And in the long run, once the white melting pot ceases to grow, you’ll lose that majority as well.
We don’t need a bunch of Little Americas all over Europe.
The only viable way to maintain differences is the encouragement of ethnic prejudices. But then these same ethnic prejudices mitigate against us seeing ourselves as a racial whole. We need a civilizational creed or philosophy which emphasizes the obligation of the visitor to accomodate to the host, but not to expect to be treated equally, except perhaps after a long and difficult process of assimilation. I don’t know the current requirements but it used to take twelve years, demonstrated linguistic fluency, multiple referees, significant cash, and a recommendation by the local council before a foreigner might be naturalized in the Confederatio Helvetiae. Citizenship by blood was only for those with a Swiss father, another hurdle that the feminists eventually toppled.
Why prejudices? Do you think that differences are just fictions?
Certainly not, but there has for a long time been a small degree of international migration within Europe, a level which could be managed without too much harm. Switzerland, at one time, made it VERY hard, but not impossible, to join the nation, and it was always contingent. There was no certain path to citizenship. There was prejudice against foreigners and if for some reason you couldn’t look Swiss then you might find civic life intolerable, even if you’d jumped all the hoops. Prejudice is a society’s way of identifying the unacceptably racially different. In the olden days it operated pretty ruthlessly even in all white school yards to mark out the psychologically weak or unusual looking children.
Yes, to the two gentlemen above. My post was slightly hyperbolic at times, but not really. We are talking past each other. Meloni is indeed a natural rival to Salvini because he is a Northern separatist aligned with South Tyrolese German secessionists, while Meloni is an Italian nationalist. Italy is another artificial construct with many different languages.
If you want to be technical, it doesn’t take too many people to make a ‘ton,’ and any African on any ‘European’ club is one too many, and to me is ridiculous to cheer on. There are quite a few Turks in Switzerland. Why are they there? Switzerland never colonized anybody. Unacceptable. I don’t know how you can pretend that is ‘pro-white.’ I would say that is even more hyperbolic. Nothing can be called pro-white if it includes diversity at all. It can only be called less anti-white, like you said, relative to others. It was sickening being on a train and watching rowdy Arab Muslim youths being scolded for their grotesque behavior by Swiss-Germans. I could even understand enough German to hear them using SJW language against him and his ‘bigotry to foreigners.’ There should be zero of them there. My post was mostly about how Switzerland’s natural ‘diversity’ is itself a stretch because there is already tremendous tension between these nations, which are really just the three corners of neighboring states (France, Germany, Italy), just like Belgium, and really have no business being cobbled together like this in an unnatural union. These people do not like each other and they are not naturally ‘neutral.’
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jura_separatism
There was one other important European nationalism present in Switzerland via migration: Albania. In fact, the worst kind of Albanians: Muslim Kosovars. It’s kind of surreal to see Albanian nationalism displayed because it is ignored or possibly encouraged by the EU. That ugly flag in windows in Geneva. Western Europe is littered with them, along with Bosnian Muslims. I do not have a problem per se with European migration within Europe, and I much prefer it to nonwhite migration, but that comes with its own set of geopolitical/sociopolitical problems too long for this post. The ripest country in Europe that I visited was Slovenia and its already being inundated with Bosnians. Much better than Turks or Arabs, but still undermines the very ethno-nationalism Slovenians fought for against these same people. There is not much of a difference between any of these South Slavs linguistically or genetically, but their non-practicing religions are used as enough of a distinction to make it unworkable at a critical-mass. Young Croatians walk around with Catholic crosses tattooed on their faces in a country with crusader murals painted on every building, while ‘Islamophobia’ Neo-Nazi graffiti is all over Srpska. The minarets and call to prayer are as prominent in parts of Macedonia, Bosnia, Bulgaria (Ottoman Turk remnants) and Albania/Kosovo as Istanbul. Then there is increasing intermarriage between Northern European incels and Balkan Muslim women. Their families only accept it if they get circumcised and convert to Islam. I guess better than nothing and certainly better than racial intermarriage, but still not ideal. Third World immigration is used as a cherry on top to wash all of this down.
error
Higher consciousness, the part of the human brain capable of transcending animal instincts. Communists called it “The New Man”, and we know how it all ended. Well, maybe except for China, where Confucianism played a role in stabilizing the communist ideology through centuries old conformist and collectivist philosophy. This kind of change takes time, it cannot be rushed. The white race consciousness is a great goal for the future, but it’s time has not arrived yet, not for the multitude. At the present moment, a decentralized, ground up movement (rooted in things like ethnic and national identity, that took centuries or millennia to crystallize, and it also implies racial awareness) has its advantages, when compared to a centralized, top down approach, that would rely on constructs and states of mind that didn’t have time to grow and stabilize in the minds of the people. Most of the arguments in Gregory ‘s beautiful essay still hold in the minds of most people , if you replace the words “white race” with the words “human race”, and we are suddenly in a far left anti-white domain, it’s that easy to hijack and subvert a centralized system, just on theoretical grounds. Implementation would be even weaker. On the other hand , a global, ground up decentralized populist movement like the one in 2016 needed a lot of effort on the part of the anti-white globalist empire, and a whole global pandemic, in order to stop it. Do not fight the basic instincts, like the communists tried and failed, use them to your advantage. But it’s true that the leaders of the movement should be actively aware of the end goal, which is the long term survival of the white race , and in the background that should play a role in every important decision forward. A matter of opinion. As a caveat, I could be completely wrong and Gregory could be absolutely right. If you consider the Jewish example, they don’t make distinction between their race and their ethnicity, and that gives them an advantage. They do have a unifying religion though, and centuries of adaptation living as a minority in many countries. Once again it takes time in order to reach that level of racial consciousness. But I see Gregory’s argument.
‘[W]hite race consciousness is a great goal for the future, but it’s time has not arrived yet, not for the multitude.’
I’m not so sure.
I thinks Whites in America display ‘concern’ about their ‘Whiteness’ on a continuum and not always in expected ways.
Anti-White Whites are highly racially aware and are transferring that awareness to less-aware Whites. They want to exploit this transference by making these less-aware White embrace a negative view of their ‘Whiteness’, but the results of any process are variable.
In general, anti-Whites have been more effective recruiters for ‘White race consciousness’ than pro-White organizations because they have access to the means of cultural productions.
Our side just needs to find a variety of ways to exploit the anti-Whites ‘failures’.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” – Napoleon Bonaparte . Good point.
I agree. Everyone I know, who until even recently was a colorblind, humanoid, individualist, is now a highly racially aware white person of European descent. This is because there is a target on your forehead because your skin is your uniform. It is now all-pervasive. The vice grip of persecution is tightening because the vice grip of dispossession is tightening.
It isn’t clear to me how in this debate the approaches are at odds with each other. In Mr. Johnson’s opening statement he, in my estimation, argues for capturing the local energy. That makes perfect sense because every act of dispossession and persecution is felt on a local level. You organize, fight and stop it locally first.
At the same time we face massive international organization that is funded. I think Mr. Hood makes a great point that this is run from America. It is ultimately the capital of the Imperium that dictates the direction. It sounds like he is in effect arguing for European (white) American nationalism as the means to take the reins of the empire. From there, the capital uses its power to reform the provinces. Is there any doubt that new media messaging broadcast throughout America, Europe and the Anglosphere will not resonate with the vast majority of our scared, and confused people?
From a strategic standpoint though there is the clock. If Europe waits for Americans to succeed but we don’t, you have nothing. This problem is at once local and international. You also have varying scenarios. Canada is opening the floodgates. They need Asturiases and Oranias, as will Ireland and Sweden if they cannot rally in time.
I think these arguments are supplemental. I think there have to be local goals, actions and power structures and an overarching vision, goal and some ability to concentrate power efficiently and quickly. The American Imperium is doing what it is doing to be an empire. However, it is also doing what it is doing in response to rising rivals with huge populations. The anti-nazi/de-nazification aspect of post-war sociology is a great point Mr. Hood raises.
At the same time, you cannot discount the dehumanizing economic theories that ascended at the same time. It inverts the reality of wealth by saying spending and GDP size and consumption create wealth, (they don’t consider anything else as part of human well-being, so leave that aside). The managers actually believe that a huge population and massive spending created the post-war boom. They think that bringing in endless hoardes of helots who will buy refrigerators, cars, TVs, phones … and prevent the collapse of the housing price and pension ponzi schemes. Egalitarianism, may merely serve the real pathological view of this rabble we call an elite. That is, they believe humans are just substitutable cattle to graze and milk on a gigantic global farm where debt reckonings are forestalled by endless reams of new consumers.
Yet, globalization admits its failure because the third world is not growing in the third world. It is colonizing indigenous and European descended homelands in order to grow. They failed to ignite their growth locally. Otherwise, they want an army of imported helots to outcompete the Asian and South Asian population clusters.
I am wandering on. The point is, we must understand their economic motivations and consider that they are the underlying socio/psychopathy driving our dispossession. I have met billionaires who believe you just bring in new consumers to solve all problems. They believe this. The economic metrics are the measure for them. It is after all correct because they learned the math at MIT/Wharton/Harvard/… They think quantitatively not qualitatively.
I think both arguments and positions are not mutually exclusive. In the end we do need a global brotherhood. After all, our enemies have a global/international brotherhood. We also need local strongholds, which our enemies also have. They have above the law micro jurisdictions. Our enemy ultimately controls it via the American Satrapy, so Mr. Hood is right to see that as the head of the snake, the critical General which holds it all together with fiat money and a megaphone.
One last thing to say about this is that we must make friends with powers who will be sympathetic to our cause. Is Japan in thrall to the quantitative madness of the Occupied West? We must be our rock and source of strength, but we will likely need help from other powers. Is Hyundai/Korea happy that they were sued because American blacks steal their cars so easily. This rabble that occupies us is making mis-steps and pissing off powerful people. We must be wise in capitalizing on these events.
You make good points. If I were to create a ‘division’ between Greg and Gregory, it would be a division of labor, not a division of ideology.
It seems to me we can have an imperial religion, without an administrative empire.
‘Pro-White’, then, becomes our religion, becomes what binds us together as a people but how each localized White ethnie expresses themselves administratively varies.
And what constitutes ‘pro-White’ would be a matter of debate and discussion among our (metapolitical) hierophantic caste, one that would steer clear of making direct pronouncements about how Whites should use their power of self-determination, but, instead, focus on reaffirming and elaborating the ‘universal’ characteristics of ‘being pro-White’.
To me, ‘pro-White’ means ‘whatever makes White people happy’ and if one group of Whites assert that X makes them happy and another groups asserts that not-X makes them happy, it’s not the movement’s place to choose between them, only to affirm the essential unity of Whiteness in the disparity of choices.
As an example, I’ll look at abortion.
There are all kinds of good arguments why White women should not abort their babies. But lots of White women who neither hate themselves, or their Whiteness nor see themselves as every having an abortion support women having abortions.
So, in my definition of ‘pro-White’ and the idea of a separation of ‘church’ (metapolitics) and ‘state’ (local policy), I would not seek to interfere in a pro-abortion local policy.
Trying to tell people they are pursuing the ‘wrong kind’ of ‘happiness’ only seems to work if those same people know you respect their choice, no matter what it is.
Between Whites, we have to have trust and respect for all of the choices members of the race made, even the most anti-White ones.
But this approach only works if the choices of one White ethnie cannot dominate the (different) choices of another.
This is why I say that Whites need to set aside the constant shit-flinging around sub-racial issues and concentrate on the race and also why I say that all ‘post-liberal’ solutions to ‘liberalism’ will be built out of liberalism and not something else.
Globalization admits its failure – It depends on what the chief gobalists hope to achieve out of globalization. If the primary aim is to transform the West into a bazaar of intermingling racial groups with latent mutual antagonisms and little sense of historical identity, as a prelude to utter enslavement, they are well on the way to total victory. With feminism, anti-racist discrimination and preferential migration of non-European cognitive elites into the West, a hybrid breed is forming, trained to despise Western men in particular. This will be the overseer class.
Power comes from control of resources and the ability to project force; with autonomous weapons platforms and largely robot-operated factories and automated mines, human beings are less and less required to obtain power, other than as disposable servants to the machines.
Power isn’t the same thing as physical dominance. The jews have had power among Whites for centuries even though, by the standard of power you describe, Whites had technical control of the means of production for violence.
As for the end-game of the globalists, the mechanism is less relevant than the goal and the goal is always the same: jews rule with impunity and Whites are thoroughly subjugated or miscengated out of existence.
The problem for the jews is that no one has ever ruled with impunity, at least not indefinitely.
Part of what gives jews power is their intent to be ‘jews’.
I don’t think Whites quite have that intent yet. For far too long, Whites – especially elite Whites – wer at the top of the global food-chain and the result was a level of complacency and disregard for the race as a whole that is, possibly, unprecedented. But, then, most of the races of the world were never colonized by an anti-racial-solidarity Christian religion.
The jewish strategy shows that control over valued resources is more important in the long run than control over ‘territory’. This is not to say that control over territory is unimportant, merely that thinking in terms of ‘territory’ is unnecessarily limiting. This is particularly true for a group – like pro-White Whites – who control no territory but could, conceivably, have significant influence over a valuable resources (White people’s loyalty).
Which brings me back to the same problem I see over and over again: The Racial Right is an inadequate vehicle for White self-defense and White acquisition of political and cultural power. The correct posture for concerned Whites is more ‘leftist’ than ‘rightist’.
The true Right in the West is now jewish and imposes jewish values in the name of the moral authority of the jews.
Whites are either supplicants of jewish power or on the Left in this historical moment.
I think Hamburger Today makes the key point. White men, Men of Europe, must have the explicit intention to be European for the purpose of being the masters of our destiny – a destiny and existence that is explicitly and gloriously European. When I say European I do not mean the continent, but the European race that was forged in the crucible of the European continent and that is disbursed across the globe where our ancestors once boldly dared to explore and build. We are the Sons and Daughters of Europe. We are so as long as we think, speak and act like it.
Despite all the madness around us, we must have the will and the intent to be Europeans – for eternity. The locus of control can be ours, but we must seize and maintain control of it. We must not fall prey to the victim mentality. Only we can forfeit our identity and our desire to exist and with it, our destiny. Whine not for the many who will fall prey. We must stand tall, Centurions on this battlefield of existence, confident that the courageous and self-loving among us will rally to us and our common cause.
P.S. The importation of the alien cognitive elite will be the downfall of the architects of the system Antipodean describes, as will the degradations of the system itself.
I hope you’re right about that, but I think the whole system is so closely monitored now that they mould the narrative as required to avoid such a calamity. As an example and at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, listen to the conversation between National Conservatism founder and President of the Herzl Foundation Yoram Hazony and our former deputy Prime Minister John Anderson. which to the uninitiated just sounds like an American Israeli (no contradictions there) talking sense and owning the libs. To me he is leading a flanking manoeuvre to prevent European peoples engaging with their severely threatened racial identity. This is what the Jews must prevent at all costs. You have to hand it to these people, they are indefatigable.
It is true that ‘empire (multinationalism) is inevitable’ for now. Yet autonomy is developing in many places inching towards independence. These ‘empires’ have no choice but to placate these regions/nations within their empires until the inevitable secession. The most blatant example of this is Scotland, and then Belgium as one of the fakest of these civic nationalist empires, yet is so wealthy that its capital is also the capital of the European Union. It can only function because of a special layered law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communities,_regions,_and_language_areas_of_Belgium
It covers the linguistic division midway across Belgium, apportioning governmental power to the French and Dutch about equally. Then the ‘community’ part covers the German nation too infinitesimal to have any region yet still recognized with particularism. Despite all this Belgium is regularly goes for years at a time without a functioning government because of hung parliaments, which could never work in America. This is mostly because of the traditional cordon sanitaire of leftist/neoliberal Flemish parties forming a coalition with the Walloons to shut out the Flemish separatist majority. It defies any notion of a ‘will of the majority’ that democracy purports to be because the two largest parties in Flanders are denied a chance in government since there is no Walloon separatism. On top of this is a regular stream of nonwhite immigrants who shill for the union like they do in every European state (bedsides Catalonia) because it is in their interest to not allow whites to diversify their portfolio since it is easier to have English as the international language for them to learn.
So these ‘empires,’ like Northern Ireland, can only be maintained through a labyrinth of consociationalism and ethnic federalism/regionalism until the inevitable demographic nullification, sometimes stimulated like in the Good Friday Agreement, which was only meant to be an immediate stopgap to The Troubles. Autonomy paves the way for when the rotten structure of civic nationalism becomes unwieldy and unviable. India is perhaps the only example of genuine patriotism from disparate regions, nations and tribes, but even then is constantly beset by sectarianism. It doesn’t take much for these volatile tapestries to become unspooled.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment