We see a young Swedish nationalist who defines himself as a Scandinavian nationalist, who states “the European people are our brothers,” who travels around Europe, who meets with and learns from nationalists in places as varied as France, Italy, Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states, and who understands that the problem is wider than that of any one European nation or area, and needs to be resolved at the level of Europe as a whole.
Different levels of activism.
Following up on comments about a Counter-Currents podcast, I’d like to tie those comments in to a previous analysis of genetic interests across various degrees of ethnic relatedness. Note that the TOQ piece is essentially an extension of Salter’s work. In On Genetic Interests, Salter’s Fig. 6.1 shows scenarios of the various approaches to divide up investment in genetic interests along a continuum of Self-Offspring-Ethny-Humanity. However, just as “offspring” can be made more descriptive by actually distinguishing between various gradations of extended family, so can “ethny” be more descriptive by distinguishing between levels of ethnic and racial gradations. If Helmut is a Bavarian, what is his ethny? Bavarian? German? Germanic? Nordic or Alpine (whatever the case may be)? Northern European? Northwest European? Central or Northcentral European? Western European? European? Caucasian? What?
Well, it depends on perspective. Given the right context, his ethny can be any and/or all of those listed above. Given, however, the cultural aspects involved (which directly affect genetic interests through influencing sociopolitical, military, historical, economic, and demographic decisions and activities), including the “clash of civilizations,” and given that it, really, are only European populations that are threatened (of those listed above), it would seem that the reasonable outer-limit for Helmut’s ethny would be “European” – with an ethny range of Bavarian-European for this hypothetical ethnic German.
Let’s consider again the Hagberg case. I wrote:
We can consider what Hagberg gains from his attitude. He is able, as he explicitly states, to learn from European activists, and find out what worked for them and what did not. This enables him to improve his activity in his own nation. He may be able to give advice to these other people, and observe how approaches developed in Sweden work, or do not work, in other European nations. He makes like-minded friends and allies who may be in a position to offer much-needed assistance to Hagberg and to Nordic Youth at some point in the future (and, of course, vice versa). There is sharing of all sorts of information, warnings, and covert help, which could make a “life or death” difference to struggling racial nationalist dissidents. There is the advantage of spreading memes and discussing and debating them, to strengthen one’s arguments and to evolve a more powerful position. Therefore, we see advantages gained by pooling ideas, assistance, and resources. There is the morale boost in knowing one has comrades and supporters in other lands. If nationalists come to power in these other lands, they may be in a position to offer more concrete, large-scale support, or even just abstaining from interference – “liberal multicultural democracies” would no doubt attempt to crush any Swedish/Scandinavian nationalist government, while other nationalist governments would not. Further, nationalist European governments may agree to the repatriation of any of their co-ethnics living in Sweden, if such is desired by Swedish nationalists. As Hagberg states, the problems in Europe ultimately need to be solved at the broad European level, it won’t work in only one nation alone. A one-nation-only solution is unstable and would be targeted for destruction by all the globalists still in power. If nationalists come to power in one nation, then they must make it a priority to spread their good fortune, if for no other reason than self-preservation. Of course, on the ultimate interest scale, Hagberg shares genetic interests – in the concentric manner – with other Europeans, so helping these others rebounds to one’s genetic interest. On the proximate level, there is of course untold value in preserving Western High Culture and protecting the West from “the Rest.”
And what does Hagberg lose from his attitude? Practically speaking, nothing. It’s all gain and no loss. It’s not like he is abandoning work in his own nation to help others. The only “negative” would be that “movement” fetishists may criticize him for thinking that Europe exists to the East of Berlin and to the South of Vienna; if so, such criticism is a strong indication that Hagberg is doing something right. Again, it’s all gain and no loss.
More reading on related topics can be found here.