Identitarians recognize that internal squabbles only weaken our civilization and distract us from the real problems at hand. We must develop a wider sense of identity and see ourselves as Europeans as much as we are Poles, Norwegians, or Spaniards. Europe is confronted by competitive and hostile forces on all sides – from the Middle East, from Africa, from Asia – even, it pains me to admit, from the United States, which in spite of its origins rarely has the best interests of Europe at heart. This means recognizing that we actually have much more in common with peoples who may have been historical foes than with those who are trying to subjugate and replace us in our own lands. While I am not going to pretend that there were not genuine problems between European rivals, we simply have to set these old conflicts aside and look at the bigger historical picture. Even the European Union is not a bad idea – what is bad about it is the way in which it has been implemented and the destructive neoliberal values that it upholds, but the general concept is a good one. The world is entering a multipolar phase. The Third World is rising, and is not content to allow itself to become the plaything of Western economic interests. In this new reality, Europeans will only survive if we stand together.
Sounds a lot like Richard Spencer…or Ted Sallis. Quite different from Morgan’s hyper-ethnonationalist stance a little while back. I obviously agree with Morgan here now as much as I disagreed with him back then. Will the real John Morgan please stand up?
Do these guys have any ideological foundation or are they all ideologically incoherent? Can they be trusted? What do they stand for? Is it all about “we’re all like real mad at Richard Spencer right now, so let’s mock pan-Europeanism by pretending pan-Europeanists believe that Russians are Irish are “interchangeable?” Is this all about personality and personal animus and competition? Looks like that to me.
But there are also various levels to identity. One’s identity can involve all of local, regional, national (perhaps), ethnic (which can be transnational, as with Hungarians), and civilizational (as in Europe) factors. Ideally, all of these levels work together and complement one another. One can be a Flemish regionalist, Dutch, a Belgian, and a European without any of those elements necessarily contradicting the others.
Well, yes. Concentric circles of interest, anyone? Sound familiar? The idea that one can be both a pan-European racial nationalist and be an ethnic nationalist at the same time – sound familiar? If Morgan believes this – does he? – then what was all the narrow ethnonationalist sound and fury a while back (that attracted a White-hating “I’m the enemy, silly” Asiatrix like a fly to shit *)?
That these fellows want to regurgitate all my talking points dating back to the early 2000s is fine by me – if they were consistent. But for all I know, a couple of weeks from now, Morgan will be raving again like his earlier piece.
These are serious issues that need to be discussed seriously and not based on inter-“movement” feuding.
As well, how can one separate race and ethnicity? What is ethnicity without race? Irishmen are White Europeans, not Black Africans. Even racially mixed ethnicities (e.g., Latin Americans, Central Asians) are defined by the particular mix of the constituent races. On the other hand, a race is composed of ethnic groups. Even if there were widespread interbreeding between the ethnic groups of a race a complete and even panmixia is unrealistic, so that distinguishable sub-groups would still be present.
*Interesting how non-White enemies of White racial interests support ethnonationalism for us…while supporting pan-racial solidarity for themselves.