Counter-Currents
The Great Debate
Greg Johnson & Gregory Hood on Ethnonationalism vs. Imperialism
Cyan Quinn
Plato and Aristotle from Raphael’s The School of Athens
318 words
Mark your calendars! On Sunday, June 11th, Counter-Currents will celebrate its 13th birthday and launch our annual fundraiser. A select group of Counter-Currents writers, donors, and friends will be gathering on the 10th and 11th for a celebration.
One of the highlights of the weekend will be a debate between Greg Johnson and American Renaissance’s Gregory Hood on the topic Imperialism or Ethnonationalism? Which way to victory?
So none of you miss this historic occasion, we will stream the debate live on Saturday, June 10th, on Odysee (here) and DLive (here) at 10AM Pacific, 1PM Eastern, 7PM Central European time.
Greg Johnson introduces the topic here:
One of the fundamental divisions in the White Nationalist movement is between ethnonationalists and imperialists. Ethnonationalists want a world in which every distinct people has the right to a sovereign homeland. Imperialists want a single white racial state. Wilmot Robertson makes the case for ethnonationalism in his book The Ethnostate, whereas Francis Parker Yockey presents the case for imperialism in Imperium. Other advocates of imperialism include Sir Oswald Mosley, Jean Thiriart, and Guillaume Faye.
Read Greg Johnson’s defense of the Ethnonationalist position here: “Against Imperialism.”
Read Gregory Hood’s fresh statement on the Imperialist position here: “The Challenge Ahead” “What I want is a united Western Civilization-State that will ensure the physical survival of our race.”
Everyone can participate in the live chat. Send a superchat to ask a question to our participants! This is going to be a lively, interactive event, and we want to hear from all of you!
If you are a paywall member or long-time contributor and would like to join us in person, but have not yet received an invitation, please email [email protected] immediately. Registration closes this Friday June 2nd. This celebration is open to those who are known to us as a thank you for your support over the years. We couldn’t do it without you!
15 comments
This debate is going to be awesome, absolutely cannot wait. 🙂
1945 has shown the “fruits” of our lack of racial unity. Now we still live under the shadow of that jewish victory. To me then it’s simple: racial unity or racial death, but I’m always open for new perspectives.
I am looking forward to it very much also.
However not quite everyone will be able to listen at a reasonable hour. Australians will need to stay up until one in the morning on the West Coast or rise at three on the much more populous East. New Zealanders have it a little better, setting their alarm clocks for five. Obviously we are only a small slice of the potential audience, perhaps not even twenty million white folks, but where feasible two or three hours later in California would make the timing a lot friendlier for the bulk of us without perturbing our more numerous North American and European cousins. Many Counter-Currents livestreams are in fairness already so scheduled.
This promises to be an excellent event.
On the matter of “imperialism” (a strange use of the term, but OK, comes from Yockey – perhaps “white racial nationalists” vs “white ethnonationalists” would express the binary better), I repost an apposite comment of mine (to Johnson’s essay linked above) from earlier in the year:
Lord Shang
… I believe universal ethnonationalism is the morally ideal (though not at all utopian) resolution to problems of race and ethnicity (ie, of global political organization in light of sociobiological realities). But it is not an ideological absolute. I think Dr. Johnson makes a reasonable case above that the attempt to create a white imperium is an undesirable pursuit at this time. But times could change, and white preservationists might have to revise their strategies in light of such changes.
Certainly, I agree with Hood, however, to the extent that he is merely arguing that racial loyalty for whites should trump interethnic hostilities (more of a problem in Europe than for whites outside of it); that racial nationalism should supersede ethnonationalism. But for now, the two can be and likely mostly are mutually reinforcing (obvious exception: Ukraine/Russia).
Split the diff: The model is a reactionary liberator who has the rousing effect on national consciousness that Napoleon did.
At the risk of possibly violating online etiquette, I’m going to repost another comment of mine […]
No, I don’t want you (1) repeating yourself and (2) going way off topic on this thread.
Although I agree with Greg mostly, he really, really, really needs to use a nonwhite, non-European example to make his case. I have seen interesting nonwhite arguments in comment sections saying only Europeans and Asians have ‘ethno-states,’ as if the rest of the world is simply untroubled by its own multiculturalism, which is obviously ridiculous.
I have also seen Indians make an interesting case about their subcontinental empire being an example for the European Union to follow because it is true that there are no actual ‘Indians.’ They are rather a litany of various ethnicities, tribes, sects and nations within India who all proudly and voluntarily fall under the banner of ‘Indian’ like no other place on earth with even a close second. I work with two such ‘Indians’ who see each other as subhuman because one is Punjabi and the other is Telugu even though they look the same to a raceologist like me, yet speak completely different languages, so much so that they use colonial English as a lingua franca.
Some of it is really nitty-gritty because ‘ethnicity’ within a race can be just as subjective as language vs dialect vs accent vs affectation/bastardization. Where does one draw the line? There are micro-nations within larger states that have no chance of statehood like the Sorbs of Germany, which even Hitler tried to assimilate, and also storied tribes like the Sami, or other endangered tribes of the Urals. Then there are fractious tribes in the North Caucasus. Does it make sense to have statehood over autonomy here?
Mormons and Alawites have basically created their own ethnicity, or will eventually do so with enough time, propagation and insularity. They will undoubtedly not be the last incipient religious separatists. Just like within the many WN divides there is the LARPing paganism vs the performative Christian/Catholic revival. Neither has any futures-market besides the secular inertia of Christianity, which all of Western Civilization already follows.
I believe that blood and soil need to be decoupled because one of them always changes hands, while the other is nearly impossible to revive once it is corrupted. As long as the nation is preserved it can withstand the collapse of the state or be completely relocated, as was the case when colonial empires collapsed throughout the 20th century of various European peoples (French Pied Noirs of Algeria, Portuguese of Angola, Germans of Eastern Europe/Central Asia etc).
So this fake entity called the ‘United States of America’ or ‘Canada’ or ‘Australia’ etc will not outlast Anglophone whites. All we have to do is stay united in whiteness and it matters not whether we live within an ethno-state or a fake civic imperialism. Yet the silliness of liberal democracy has made separatism between whites about abstract politics (‘liberal’ vs ‘conservative’) or fake regionalism despite the differences being superficial.
Good comment (though this reader is unclear which “Greg” you’re referring to!).
White North America can become a true “Western Civilization State”; indeed, the Ethnostate many of us want to carve out of the dying carcass of the USA would be just that (albeit definitely “Anglophone” because that’s what most white Americans are). But it would be sad to see the incredibly valuable [true] diversity of indigenous Europe homogenized into some kind of supra-ethnonational regime, one which would probably have to adopt English as its lingua franca, which in turn would inevitably orient it – even more than is already the case for Europeans – towards America, leading to ever greater Americanization (which is not a good thing, even if the “America” in question is White America).
Let White America create a Western Civilization state; but let the Old Continent return to a Europe of Fatherlands!
Yup, this is the best solution for both Old Heritage Europe and European Heritage N. America.
After all the trouble the Anglo-Saxons have caused on the continent English should be banned in public writing there, and audible English should be punished by old ladies with canes striking the offenders and approving glares and tuts from onlookers. Let the Sassenach whisper or learn a second language. As a lingua franca Italian (it’s Latin light) would be much more acceptable across Western Europe with German in use as the second language in the former Hapsburg areas of Central Europe and Ukrainian in the East. English as the one-world language needs to be dethroned.
At the turn of the 2oth century it wasn’t clear if it would become an American or a German century. Who could have imagined then that the very fate of our race would hinge on which path was taken? But what I wrote above is observation, not prescription. A European superstate will see its inhabitants conducting much of their affairs in English, especially with intracontinental “open borders” (such as we have between our own states) shuffling people around ever more, which will naturally orient Europe towards America even more than at present. We don’t want that. We want deep ethnonationalism to recrudesce in each old fatherland, though such ethnonationalisms must be disciplined by a Continent-wide foundational racial nationalism (“no more brother wars!”). I suspect that deep rooted ethnonationalism on top of general white nationalism would be stronger over time than a simple, flat racial nationalism, especially if it’s some kind of revolutionary attempt at creating yet another New Man (yes, New Fascist Man is better than New Communist Man, but I prefer the ‘old’ white men of our noble past).
European nationalism is a funny thing. I’m starting to think colonialism was used as a way to deflect Europe from ‘Brother Wars,’ which obviously backfired spectacularly in the 20th Century with the most internecine wars imaginable, and then the most cooperative cuckoldry imaginable in peacetime with the former colonial subjects pouring in under the guise of ‘rebuilding’ (parasitizing) it. This is one of those inevitable civilizational crises that is cyclical rather fixable.
We in the diaspora are the product of this violent outsourcing of post-colonialism under the putrescence of ‘liberal democracy,’ which is basically a dichotomy of post-colonial subjects (and their white collaborators) vs post-colonial settlers. There is really no difference between any of us in the diaspora because it is all interchangeable civic nationalism (Aussie vs American vs South African etc).
Before this latest Eastern European disaster I pondered whether a cold peace between European states like Germany and France was optimal to the forced alliance network (NATO/EU) because Third World migration is a neoliberal consensus now, but I have no idea because modern war and postmodern peace have not been kind to Europeans. At least with European rivalries there was a bit of jockeying and eustress from Natural Selection, whereas now we are forced to absorb a hostile socioeconomic underclass (actually all classes now) into our societies the more successful it becomes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French–German_enmity
Will there be an mp3 upload for those of us who missed the live show?
Maybe
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