Category: history

Of Declines and Falls

Not always an alien influx followed by racial admixture.

One of Der Movement’s favorite memes is the idea that national decline and the fall of civilizations always have an external racial basis – i.e., the decline and fall occurs as a result of some sort of alien influx followed by “racial admixture.”

A look at history provides many counter-examples.  Consider the Italian Renaissance, centered on North-Central Italy, particularly Tuscany-Florence. The great intellectual ferment there changes the world and then essentially vanished, all without the influx/admixture model being relevant.  What happened to the great Italian artists like Michelangelo and the all-around figures like Alberti and da Vinci?  Where are the great German composers today?  After Nietzsche and Heidegger, what happened to German philosophy?  What happened to French culture and French martial glory? Where’s the English Dickens and Shakespeare today?  Isn’t it true that the Third World influx into Great Britain occurred after, not before, they lost their empire?  Spain lost their empire, but that empire was formed after they had thrown off centuries of Arabic rule; it wasn’t that the “Arab influx” was responsible for Spain’s fall.  Does anyone really believe Portugal lost their empire because of “an influx of Negro blood?”  Was it really possible for a small nation like Portugal could maintain their lead in exploration and colonization after larger European nations got involved?  Did “racial admixture” lose the Netherlands most of their overseas possessions?  Did the transformation of Scandinavians from Vikings to SJW social democrats involve “racial admixture” or did the alien invasion of that part of Europe occur after the behavioral and cultural changes?

In these cases, to the extent the problem was biological, it was internal – dysgenics including the counter-selective effects of war, Frost’s genetic pacification, and the breeding of the unfit and the botched – as well as cultural/historical (Spengler?).  In many cases, alien influx and admixture, when it has occurred, was the consequence, not the cause, of decline. One can speculate that the Ancient World was similar.  In some cases of course, admixture may have caused decline (Ancient Egypt?  The Middle East?) but that’s as much the exception as it is the rule.

But Der Movement can’t get is head around such ideas, just as their heavy breathing about Paleolithic/Neolithic differences in Europe typically doesn’t understand that such differences were in place long before the beginnings of the Ancient World’s Classical Civilizations.

I would invoke “cognitive dissonance” here, but that implies some sort of cognitive process to begin with.


A note:


It’s a bit humorous that the same Alt Right that has disdain for S. Italians also has an obsessive man-crush on Julius Evola who is described thus:

Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola was born in Rome to a minor aristocratic family of Sicilian origins.


Again, I could say “cognitive dissonance” but that implies some degree of cognitive function, and I’m not sure how much of that Der Movement actually has.

Trump, Russia, and the Virginia Protest

The usual stupidities.

The whole fabricated (I think) Russia scandal is yet more evidence of Trump’s omega male ineptness.  Assuming for a moment that there is no real “meat” behind this “scandal” then how did it come into existence?  There are two threads here, overlapping and synergizing with each other.  First, after they got over the shock of the election, the Left/System started fishing around for an explanation that could comfortably exclude the possibility that working-class/middle-class White Americans have interests that have been ignored or attacked.  So, they fixated on the easy explanation – it was dem dere nasty Russkis!  Second, Putin and Russia have long been bogey-men to a whole set of vested interests: Jews, old Cold War warriors, Neocons of all ethnic origins, anti-White leftists who see the multiculturalist Putin as an implicitly White leader of an authoritarian “White” nation, and Asian imperialists who covet Russia’s Far East. So there was a great deal of pressure in formulating a narrative of Russian interference being directly responsible for electing Trump with the collusion of the Trump campaign.

Now, if Trump was really a competent “alpha male” and if he had competent people on his staff, these accusations could have been – should have been – effectively refuted from the very beginning and then subsequently treated with dignified scorn if they had continued post-refutation.  Instead, the Trumpites floundered around helplessly, stammering half-assed justifications, letting Trump make a jackass of himself on Twitter, and letting the whole narrative grow like a wildfire while Trump obsessed over Schwarzenegger’s ratings on Celebrity Apprentice and concentrated on his Diet Cokes, double-sauced meat dishes, and two scoops of ice cream on his chocolate pie.

Someone needs to tell Perriello that he has no right lecturing Spencer about the Civil War- an event in American history during which Spencer’s paternal ancestors were in this country and Perriello’s paternal ancestors were not. So this half-dago should just shut his filthy mouth.

It was ironically a massive showing of Northern Yankees, Irishmen, and Italians with a few Southerners in attendance as well.

Lulz.

Spencer said the event had been planned back in March “over cocktails” and in explaining the chants in support of Russia added: “There is a common brotherhood that stretches from Portugal to Siberia, and includes North America. Even though we’re very different, we obviously have common ancestry and there’s that tie of blood.”

That’s right – and Siberia belongs to Russia, not to grasping diseased Orientals who pimp out their “women” to omega male White race traitors.

Political Violence, 2017

It’s Weimar time again.

I’ll say some positive things about Trump and more so about the Alt Right. Trump may be a no-good pathetic cucking imbecile, but his campaign, followed by his election helped contribute to this situation.  I agree with Spencer that the political violence ultimately derives from more fundamental issues than just Trump, White dispossession is triggering a backlash.  But even so, something had to trigger that this is occurring now, and that something is Trump.  He may no longer be useful – we’ll see about that – but he’s already accomplished his major utility.  I stated, many times, that the utility of Trump is to promote racial chaos and balkanization, which is the reason I voted for him.  So, whatever else happens with Trump, I don’t regret that vote (despite some buyer’s remorse).

Now, the Alt Right.  I have criticized the Alt Right and will continue to do so. However, I have to say that the emergence of political violence is in part derived from the youthful exuberance and on-the-ground-public-action generated by the Alt Right.  To control space, you need “boots on the ground” and for that you will need the youth.  You can’t build street troops with a majority of middle-aged and elderly men; so if the juvenile jackassery of the Alt Right brings in the youth, that’s great, but then they need to get serious and disciplined, and Pepe and Roissy won’t do that for them.

The Alt Right should be a narrowly defined recruitment tool for Millennials; it is not “the movement” not should it be considered any important core thereof.  But it serves specific purposes.


Then we have this (emphasis added):

What’s truly incredible: even now, the American Right is still fighting with one hand behind its back, receiving no support from its supposed political leaders, including Donald Trump.
Though President Trump has gone out of his way to praise his non-white supporters, he has not once specifically praised the European-Americans who were at the core of his winning coalition. Even worse, he has not once defended his supporters who are being attacked on the streets and fighting in his name.
Trump may be President of the United States, but it is still very dangerous to wear a MAGA hat or Trump shirt in some cities.
In contrast, Leftists of the most extreme variety still enjoy adoring MSM coverage and official support from academia, as well as a “hands off” approach from law enforcement.
Consider Yvette Felarca (*) of By Any Means Necessary, an extreme Left wing activist in Berkeley who has been quite open about using violence in the past to shut down speech with which she disagrees [Middle school teacher with history of instigating violence plays key role in Berkeley riot, by Victor Skinner, EAGNews, February 2, 2107]. The Daily Californian went out of its way to describe libertarian activist Lauren Southern as a “controversial right-wing speaker” and a “right-wing radio host.” But Felarca was simply identified as a “BAMN organizer” and quoted about how her group is “here to stand against… the whole Trump administration.” [Free Speech Rally in Berkeley results in several injuries, 20 arrests, April 15, 2017]
Of course, the “whole Trump administration” doesn’t seem to care too much about what is happening one way or the other. Even Attorney General Jeff Sessions, though he is taking action on immigration, has not cracked down on “antifascist” or extreme leftist groups around the country who openly declare their intention to attack Trump supporters. There has been no effort to secure free speech on campus by withholding federal funding from universities who deny the First Amendment.
And far from standing with his populist supporters, President Trump is reportedly on the verge of dismissing Breitbart head Steve Bannon, which threatens to sever his link with his populist base.


How’s that “4-D chess” coming along, Roissy?


*As Asian by the way.

Silk Road News: Behold the Buffoon

Trump the chump.

“Why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are working with us on the North Korean problem?” asked Trump.

Gee, I don’t know, you stupid bastard, maybe because China actually is a currency manipulator? What the hell does “working with us on North Korea” have to do with it?  Are those poor delicate Orientals going to get their feelings all hurt and refuse to help?  And, actually, who gives a damn about North Korea?  Make it plain to them that any attack on us will be retaliated a thousand-fold.   You may argue that their fearless leader would rather see his nation destroyed rather than give up power, and so would not be rationally dissuaded by threats.  That may be so, but you can hardly deny nations like North Korea (and Iran) the right to have nuclear weapons when (a) having such weapons is a hedge against consequence-free attacks against the nation, and (b) Israel is allowed a nuclear arsenal with complete impunity. Let’s stop the fantasy of a “nuclear free world” and allow nations to have some sort of nuclear umbrella to bolster defense.  As regards North Korea’s “instability” – let the Asians handle it.  If they cannot do so, that proves their ineptness; if China can’t handle North Korea, then let’s bring back the days of White colonialism and let Western powers run the affairs of Asia.  They can’t have it both ways. They want to be independent?  China wants to be viewed as a “great power?”  Fine.  Handle the situation in your own backyard; on the other hand, don’t extort economic concessions from the USA for doing what you should be doing in the first place, if you had any sense of great power responsibility.

Also, why is everyone getting all hot and bothered over gas attacks in Syria? Yeah, the USA dropped two atom bombs on Japan, the wonderful Allies firebombed German (and Japanese) cities, the USA used Agent Orange in Vietnam – let’s lay off the moral posturing, shall we?

IMPEACH THE CUCK!

More Silk Road News

Yellow and Brown in stark contrast to deluded White.

Note the lawyer – the Asian-African alliance against “European EGI” continues, as the Silk Road brings more chaos and misery to a long-suffering Europe.  When will we be free of the Yellow Peril?

Meet Doug Chin: anti-White extremist.

The Jew-Asian alliance as represented by two individuals:

Even Derbyshire of all people criticizes the typical racial whining from hate-filled anti-White Asian activists (aka – typical Asians).

The British government persecuting a native to please the Jews.  Keep in mind Israel/Palestine is one stop along the Silk Road – British groveling to Jews is a natural subset of British subservience to Asian interests.  Jews and Asians, Asians and Jews, it is all one.

The Black Hole of Calcutta was a small dungeon in Fort William in Calcutta, India where troops of Siraj ud-Daulah, the Nawab of Bengal, held British prisoners of war after the Bengali army captured the fort on 20 June 1756. 

John Zephaniah Holwell, one of the British prisoners and an employee of the East India Company, said that, after the fall of Fort William, the surviving British soldiers, Anglo-Indian soldiers, and Indian civilians were imprisoned overnight in conditions so cramped that many people died from suffocation and heat exhaustion, and that 123 of 146 prisoners of war died.

Anti-White and anti-British hatred erupts in 1967 Hong Kong, another lesson for the British people about the deadly nature of the Silk Road.

Silk Road News History: Blood is Thicker than Water

European solidarity against the Asian threat.

At Amren of all places (emphasis added):

The British and French quickly learned their intelligence was faulty; the Chinese were much better prepared and positioned than expected.

The forts opened a murderous fire so accurate and deadly that French and English officers were convinced Europeans must be manning the guns. The H.M.S. Plover, Admiral Hope’s command gunboat, was so badly shot up that almost the entire crew was killed or wounded, and the admiral was seriously injured.

Commodore Tattnall observed all this. He was aware, of course, that his orders limited him to observation. However, according to one account, he was so sickened by the slaughter of his fellow Europeans that he exclaimed, “I’ll be damned if I’ll stand by and watch white men be murdered.” He bent American neutrality to the breaking point by sending his steam launch alongside the embattled Plover and offering to carry off the wounded. The offer was quickly and gratefully received, and Tattnall left a contingent of his men on board the Plover as he began ferrying casualties away from the scene.

When he returned to the Plover, he found that some of the Americans he had left behind were black with gunpowder. Tattnall took the scene in and asked, “What have you rascals been up to?” One replied, “Well, sir, after you left there was nothing much for us to do so we thought we would man the guns for a little bit.”

Apparently drawing inspiration from the rage that their commodore had expressed at seeing racial comrades severely used by the Chinese, the sailors expected–rightfully as it turned out–that Tattnall would not object to their taking over from the mauled British crew and firing on the Chinese… 

…Nevertheless, watching British and French sailors and marines being cut down by the Chinese stirred him to forget old animosities and disregard his orders. Asked to explain himself, Tattnall famously stated “Blood is thicker than water.” The comment reflected the 19th century sense of racial solidarity, and electrified Europeans on both sides of the Atlantic.

White American Tattnall made common cause with British and French sailors against the Chinese inscrutables – something we need to actualize today as well.

All hail Tattnall!  And to those who say “that was a long time ago,” how about those who bring up 19th century British “geostrategizing” as somehow relevant today?  If that’s relevant (*) then Tattnall’s actions are also relevant.

*Of course, the old British “geostrategy” included the maintenance of their Empire.  So, hey, if the British want to recolonize India and Hong Kong, more power to them.  Show the dusky hordes how a country is really run.

I also note how the Silk Roaders claim that “there is no such thing as European solidarity” while at the same time considering Asians, and subsets of Asians (e.g., East Asians), as a cohesive whole.  So, the Silkers want the atomized British, alone and separate from Europe, to engage in a special relationship with Asians.  The Silk Road mantra: racial solidarity for me but not for thee.  How about turning it around – Europe as a whole making an alliance with India alone or with Japan alone against the rest of Asia, or at least against China?  Why not?  Cue the long rambling potty-mouthed Silker posts sprinkled with “F-bombs” and personal insults.

Revisiting Pan-European Preservationism

Some new thoughts on some of my old ideas.

Given the recent ethnonationalist broadsides at Counter-Currents, it is time to revisit and reanalyze my essay on pan-European preservationism, which is of relevance to the issues brought up in the aforementioned Counter-Currents piece.  I’ll examine parts of this essay, sometimes putting sentences from different sections together so as to address particular issues in their entirety.  Of course, the original essay is at the link.

As a long-time “pan-Europeanist,” I have read a number of critiques of pan-Europeanism focused on that ideology’s alleged opposition to the preservation of differences that exist between various European peoples. Further, it is said that pan-Europeanism believes that all whites are identical and interchangeable; therefore, the pan-European worldview has been viewed as fundamentally incompatible with intra-European ethnoracial activism. These critics do not distinguish between a pan-Europeanism that does value, and wishes to preserve, intra-European differences and a more panmictic version of pan-Europeanism that does not… One meme asserts that pan-Europeanism means that all whites are “fungible/interchangeable.” I do not believe that most responsible pan-Europeanists hold that view. I certainly do not. I believe in a mixture of racial conservationism—making certain that extant ethnoracial stocks are preserved in significant numbers in specific territorial states—and racial palingenesis—which supports eugenics as well as the acceptance of new, stabilized Euro-breeds that may occur in the European Diaspora and that can constitute new ethnies and expand the range of European-specific genetic and phenotypic biological diversity.

When the two ideas are in conflict, racial conservatism trumps racial palingenesis, since the original stocks, once lost, can never be recovered. Hybridization, if it occurs in Diaspora regions, should be carefully monitored so as to create productive new stabilized strains while, at the same time, not resulting in the elimination of parental stocks. This pan-Europeanism, which values and wishes to preserve intra-European differences, can be contrasted to other viewpoints.

One can occasionally encounter a more panmictic vision of pan-Europeanism. For example, in his otherwise useful and interesting preface to Norman Lowell’s important book Imperium Europa, Constantin von Hoffmeister writes:

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… 

Von Hoffmeister’s overall pan-European vision is positive, I agree with much of it, and he should be commended for his support of Norman Lowell, who is a real fighter for our race and our civilization. However, I do not agree with the specific viewpoint quoted here, which does not represent the totality of pan-Europeanist thought. I believe that we should not be in the business of encouraging mating between Russians, Germans, Swedes, Spaniards, or any other groups within Europe. One could imagine Russian, German, Swedish, and Spanish nationalists—people who may otherwise agree to the basic premises of pan-Europeanism—objecting quite strongly to the idea of a general panmixia involving their respective peoples.

We already have here in America an experiment in intra-European cross-breeding, which may produce productive and useful stabilized blends—all at relatively minimal costs to ethnic genetic interests due to the relative genetic closeness of Europeans. However, responsible stewardship of our ethnoracial-genetic patrimony requires that we at least maintain the original ethnic stocks in their European homelands. If these stocks are completely hybridized out of existence, the loss would be permanent and irreversible. I do not believe that the genetic diversity that currently characterizes the extant European ethnies should be lost; while additional stocks and additional diversity may be created in the Diaspora through cross-ethnic mating and breed stabilization, the original genetic strains of Europe need to be preserved.

Indeed, it is wrong to completely erase any legitimate differences between peoples, including groups that are relatively highly related: Norwegians and Swedes are not interchangeable, Englishmen and Danes are not interchangeable, Germans and the Dutch are not interchangeable, Italians and Greeks are not interchangeable, Spaniards and Portuguese are not interchangeable, and Russians and Poles are not interchangeable. And while the differences between the major subraces are certainly greater than that between groups within each subrace, one cannot draw a line within Europe and say that one group of differences are completely inconsequential, and another group of differences are absolutely essential. At the intra-continental level, it is a difference of degree. This can be contrasted to the wider gulf that exists between continental groups, differences that are magnified, in a synergistic fashion, by the overlay of the great civilizational divides.

Given recent controversies about Hoffmeister, that is all relevant.  I essentially still agree with what I wrote there, but I do want to defend Hoffmeister against attacks coming from self-interested Asiatics and their White extended phenotypes.  Yes, I have some areas of disagreement with Hoffmeister, but broadly speaking, we are on the same page – pan-European Futurists.  So, from my perspective, sometimes he may go too far, use overly bombastic language, and make some poor interpretations of history and where we should be going, but he is still “one of us.”  That can be contrasted to Asian imperialists who covet the Russian Far East and who want to colonize the West and who think that screaming about “the Jews” will give them the cover to achieve their objectives.  As if being subjugated by Asians is going to be better than being subjugated by Jews.  How about we be subjugated by no one and follow our own destiny, thank you very much.

Now, do I still hold out hope of cooperation between different types of racial nationalists, as suggested as follows?

I would argue that—at least theoretically—a person can be, at the same time, both pan-Europeanist and Nordicist, or pan-Europeanism and pan-Slavist, pan-Germanist, ethnic nationalist, etc., so long as the all the latter “ists” in question are of a “defensive” nature, and that the pan-Europeanism respects and values narrower particularisms. Of course, even if this is true, it is natural to expect that certain levels of ethnic interests[1] would be more important to an activist than others (e.g., a Russian may be a Russian nationalist first, a pan-Slavist second, and a pan-Europeanist third)… An optimal outcome would be if pan-Europeanists, Nordicists, pan-Slavists, pan-Germanists, ethnic nationalists, and all the other “ists” and “isms” within the white activist framework can work together in a productive fashion to achieve common objectives, even if fundamental points of important disagreement remain. If the majority of such people share a common goal of European, Western survival—albeit with different emphases, strategies, and tactics—then this could be a starting point to consider the possibilities. Given the immensity of the task before us, it would be helpful to at least be “in the same book,” if not “on the same page.”… Indeed, if we reach the point in which Basque separatists can work with Spanish nationalists, Irish Republican nationalists with Ulster Protestant Unionists, Padanian separatists with Ausonian nationalists, Flemish separatists with Wallonian nationalists, Hungarian nationalists with their Romanian counterparts, pan-Slavists with pan-Germanists, and American pan-Europeanists with American Nordicists—all in the cause of white, Western survival—this will be a development which will give the enemies of white, Western survival cause for grave concern…This essay is an open call for a paradigm shift in the relations of the varied types of (Western) ethnoracial nationalism to each other, a shift in the direction of increased cooperation. For approximately the last ten years there has been (sometimes acrimonious and mostly online) debate between proponents of these various “ists” and “isms” with no furthering of those objectives we all hold in common. Careful consideration of the possibilities for cooperation in areas of overlap should occur, and hopefully, these possibilities will become manifest in real-world collegial, productive endeavors. We can and should be able to move forward together to achieve our common objectives. The status quo has not been productive.

The answer is no.

While such cooperation is still desirable, I have long since given up any hope that it is plausible, at least in the current activist climate.  My original essay can be reasonably seen as a conciliatory overture to those other “isms” of racial nationalism; unfortunately, unless I missed something, this conciliatory attitude has never been reciprocated.  Hence, my pessimism as to whether such cooperation is truly possible.  Ethnonationalists have an almost hysterical aversion to the idea of any sort of integration or serious cooperation between European nations.  This may be at one level a somewhat understandable, albeit pathologically inflamed, reaction to the excesses of the EU.  However, I also suspect it has origins in feelings of disdain for other Europeans, an exaggerated sense of worth inherent in identifying with a particular ethnic group, an inability to get over historical grudges from long ago that are no longer relevant in today’s world (and folks call me “bitter”), or some other sort of baggage.  Nordicists definitely have racial contempt and disdain for non-Nordic Europeans, so there’s not much probability of cooperation and compromise from that direction.  Both ethnonationalists and Nordicists are firmly in the “narcissism of small differences” camp.  Pan-Germanists are similar; if you’re not Germanic, obviously you are no damn good.  Pan-Slavists also hold grievances about past history (cooperation among Europeans will cause those German tanks to start rolling in again, no doubt), and my experiences in dealing with some Eastern Europeans suggests they have some sort of inferiority complex toward Western Europe.  I cannot forget the hysterical enthusiasm of some Eastern Europeans “normies” for membership in the EU, despite my earnest and repeated warnings to them about it.  The general attitude was “now we’ll be taken seriously, now we’ll be considered as European by the West.”  Why should the more healthy Eastern Europeans care what the more degenerate Western Europeans think about them?  In some Eastern European people – the “normies” – this sense of anxiety manifests itself in a desire to “become Western European,” but for the more nationalist-minded, the opposite occurs, and a hardening of anti-Western European feeling occurs, resulting in extreme pan-Slavist attitudes.  HBD/race realists are not racial or ethnic nationalists at all, but Judeophiles and Yellow Supremacists, so nothing can be expected from that quarter.  And the new sickness of Silk Road White nationalism is simply whitewashed Asian supremacism and Asian imperialism, so hostility to pan-Europeanism from them is to be expected.

I may be accused of a Frankfurt School-like pathologization of ideological opponents…whatever. What I have just written is what I believe to be some of the underlying issues.  If these folks were being rational, then they wouldn’t start screeching about my wanting to insert “one million Russians into Ireland” and other such stupidity.  It I see hysteria, I call it hysteria. Stop acting irrationally if you don’t want to be called irrational.

I am talking here about pan-Europeanism.  It strikes me that one problem in these debates is a lack of agreement on definitions; if we cannot understand what the other side means by their arguments, then we are just talking past each other.  To my mind pan-Europeanism is not “a new Roman Empire” or some sort of impossible panmixia, but rather:

Perhaps pan-Europeanism is best viewed as a flexible meme and not as a rigid set of specific polices; it generally promotes the idea of mutual respect among the varied European peoples, and therefore attempts to search for solutions that will allow for the biological and cultural preservation of all Europeans worldwide. Pan-Europeanism asserts that all persons of European descent should have a “seat at the table” when decisions are made about the fate of the West and its peoples. Pan-Europeanism, properly considered, can be consistent and compatible with concerns about narrower ingroups: Nordicism, pan-Slavism, pan-Germanism, or whatever ethnic or subracial nationalism one wishes to consider. What pan-Europeanism introduces to these other ideologies is an additional concern for the broader European family. What if an individual does not care about the broader family of Europeans, and has an interest solely in his ethnic group or subrace? There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with that; everyone has the right to define the limits of his ingroup as he sees fit, and invest in that defined ingroup as is appropriate.

Yes, that is all true, but given the aversions and hostilities discussed above, in the end it becomes meaningless.  It is certainly possible for someone to be both a dedicated ethnonationalist and pan-European, but, practically speaking, I don’t see many such people around.  The supporters of ethnonationalism (pan-Germanism/Slavism or Nordicism or whatever) seem to define their identity not as a positive in and of itself (which they claim to do but really do not) but rather as something in opposition to an undesirable “other.”  So, rather than saying “I’m a proud Irishman and have as my first priority saving the Irish but I’m also deeply committed to saving all Europeans, and let’s end this Irish-English feud” we instead get paranoid fantasies of “the Russians are coming” and of course the endless grievances against Great Britain.

In summary, pan-Europeanism is an ideology which respects, strives to preserve, and fights for the interests of, all peoples of European descent worldwide—whether these peoples are of single ethnic origin or if they are of “combinative” ethnic European ancestry. There is nothing in this definition which asserts that panmixia must take place and certainly nothing which can be characterized as a lack of interest in preserving various ethnies (keeping in mind, of course, that “ethny” is not always the same as “ethnic group”). To say that pan-Europeanists in general do not see an intrinsic value in individual ethnic groups is simply not true. Thus I argue against the assertion that pan-Europeanism means that all whites are “fungible” and “interchangeable” and that this will lead to a panmixia resulting in a complete loss of biological and cultural particularisms. Instead, pan-Europeanism is better viewed as a cooperative effort, aimed toward the objective of Race-Culture preservation and renewal, an effort that recognizes both the differences and the commonalities of Western peoples.

That’s always been my focus.  But it’s easier to look for outliers who talk about “new Roman Empires” and mixing Swedes with Spaniards, than to deal with more nuanced perspectives. If, for example, the ethnonationalists were truly interested in collegial cooperation, then they’d actually focus more on my vision instead of the “amalgamation-empire” group.  I doubt they want cooperation, after all, as ethnonationalists why cooperate with those “strange folks over there.”

In October 1948—the dangerous year of Stalin’s blockade of Berlin—Mosley spoke to an enthusiastic meeting of East London workers and called for “the making of Europe a Nation.” Yet, as he said in later years, making Europe into a nation with its own common government did not make him feel any less an Englishman, and an Englishman of Staffordshire where he was born. All other Europeans, Normans and Bretons, Bavarians and Prussians, Neapolitans and Milanese, would through his idea remain Frenchmen, Germans, and Italians, as would Britons remain Britons, yet they would all think and act together as Europeans.

In those later years he also proposed a three-tier order of governments in Europe, each with a different function. In fact this was taking the best part of the old fascism, the corporate state, and the best of the old democracy, creating something higher and finer than either, through yet another synthesis. The corporate state had envisaged the nation like a human body, having a head, with a brain, with all members of the body working together in political harmony. Thus in Mosley’s vision of the future nation of Europe the first tier, the head, would be a common government—freely elected by all Europeans—for Europe’s defense and to organize a single continental economy. The second tier would be national governments for all national questions—elected as today—and at the third level many local governments for the regions and small nations like Wales and Scotland. They would have the special task of preserving the wide diversity of Europe’s cultural life: regional democracy with a new meaning.

While I may quibble in detail with Mosely’s plan, the fundamentals are sound.

Charles Lindbergh, in a famous pre-war essay on aviation and race stated:

We, the heirs of European culture, are on the verge of a disastrous war, a war within our own family of nations, a war which will reduce the strength and destroy the treasures of the White race, a war which may even lead to the end of our civilization. And while we stand poised for battle, Oriental guns are turning westward, Asia presses towards us on the Russian border, all foreign races stir restlessly. It is time to turn from our quarrels and to build our White ramparts again. This alliance with foreign races means nothing but death to us. It is our turn to guard our heritage from Mongol and Persian and Moor, before we become engulfed in a limitless foreign sea. Our civilization depends on a united strength among ourselves; on strength too great for foreign armies to challenge; on a Western Wall of race and arms which can hold back either a Genghis Khan or the infiltration of inferior blood; on an English fleet, a German air force, a French army, an American nation, standing together as guardians of our common heritage, sharing strength, dividing influence.

Note Lindbergh warning us against Asia, Lindbergh warning that Europeans need to stand together against Asians.  One could only imagine how repulsed Lindbergh would have been by the madness of Silk Road White Nationalism, in which Asians are allowed to colonize White lands, and cringing Europeans are bossed around by Chinese girls with guns (although perhaps Charlie would laugh at the impertinent stupidity of it all).  In any case, Lindbergh wanted a united “Western Wall of race and arms” – so much more is that needed today.

Keep in mind that if all Whites worldwide are counted, the total number would be hundreds of millions less than what one can find in single – single! – Asian nations such as China and India.  There are entire European nations with populations smaller than what can be found in single – single! – Asian cities.  And these Asiatics are not the pushovers of the past; China and India (and Pakistan and North Korea) are nuclear powers; these are hate-filled populations burning with hostility toward Whites and dedicated to the denial and destruction of the West. They really could care less about European concerns and we first have to safeguard our existence and then we’ll be able to safely safeguard our uniqueness, including at the smallest levels of nation and region.

Also of relevance are Greg Johnson’s comments at the Counter-Currents website:

If you go back far enough in history, you find times, such as the high Middle Ages, when there was a sense of the unity of the European race. Petty state nationalism is a far more modern phenomenon…During the high Middle Ages, there was a sense of European Unity as “Christendom” that was not explicitly racial but was implicitly so. The first Crusade in particular was an expression of this sense of unity. Of course even then Christianity was not coextensive with the European race, for there were Nestorian and Arab and African Christians, but the average European did not know that.

If you go back even farther, you find the essential genetic unity of all European peoples. The concept of “whiteness” today can be seen as an attempt to recapture that essential unity… In North America, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, the mixing of recently differentiated European stocks is bringing us back to that original unity.

Whiteness also is natural as a unifying concept in the face of non-whites, particularly in the colonies…In the end, though, the political validity of the concept of whiteness has nothing to do with its temporal pedigree, but with the fact that all whites are perceived by our enemies as essentially the same, thus we are treated as the same. Our skin is our uniform in the global struggle for domination.

For some reason Greg seems to have moved away from this position and now is in more favor of the “petty state nationalism” he at one time criticized. Of course, everyone has the right to change their mind; however, my views are more in tune with the quote above than in more recent support for ethhnonationalism.

One thread which is often prominent in modern pan-European thought is the work of its foremost post-war proponent: Francis Parker Yockey. It is therefore important to take a brief look at some of Yockey’s relevant statements on this issue.

In The Proclamation of London Yockey wrote…considering the issue of preserving intra-European differences:

Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy in the European Imperium…

That seems to me very clear.  Unless you believe Yockey was being dishonest, then that statement suggests that one of history’s leading pan-Europeanists was perfectly comfortable with local autonomy. 

As another example of what can be done to balance broader and narrow concerns:

As a general model for balancing broader and narrower particularisms, one could envision—along the lines of Norman Lowell’s Imperium/Dominion split—an overarching pan-European, Western Confederation resting on the framework of internally autonomous states that safeguard their narrower biological and cultural uniqueness. Regardless of these details, the fundamental point remains that all parties to preservationist solutions need to have their voices heard; in particular, all groups that make up the Western family of peoples need to join in this endeavor and participate in the process.

Salter’s views are also relevant. A pan-Europeanism that respects and preserves genetic and cultural differences, while also respecting genetic and cultural similarities, is wholly consistent with ethnic genetic interests. For example, in On Genetic Interests, Frank Salter cites the Civilizations of Huntington as possible core units of ethnic genetic interests for defense against other genetic/civilizational entities. Note that Salter speculated that Huntington’s “Orthodox” eastern European bloc may be considered a subsection of the West…Of course, the fundamental threat to the interests of all Euro-Americans originates from both elite non-Western groups (e.g., those of Asiatic origin) coupled with a mass of alien lower types (e.g., those of African and Latin American ancestries). In Europe itself, the threat also includes mass migration across racial and civilizational divides from north Africa/Middle East as well as from groups similarly invading the USA (e.g., there is a growing “Latino” population in Spain, and of course sub-Saharan Africans are present as well). Certainly, the narrower particularist viewpoint can be expressed in ethnic genetic interest terms, and that it is valid as far as it goes. But it misses the larger point: the threat is not superficial or temporary but fundamental and encompasses the totality of Western civilization and all of the European peoples. The worldwide racial crisis exists and the fundamental issue remains: European-descended populations are threatened with replacement by Third World peoples.

Again, Asians are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

In any case, it should be clear I support local autonomy and the sovereignty of the nation state for local issues.  But there are issues that transcend the nation state.  Despite my differences with him on other matters, it seems, remarkably enough, that Durocher and I agree on this.

In Imperium Yockey wrote, at different places throughout the book:

If any Westerner thinks that the barbarian makes nice distinctions between the former nations of the West, he is incapable of understanding the feelings of populations outside a High Culture toward that Culture…

…But the greatest opposition of all has not yet been named, the conflict which will take up all the others into itself. This is the battle of the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century. Here stand opposed the ideas of Empire and petty-stateism, large-space thinking and political provincialism. Here find themselves opposed the miserable collection of yesterday-patriots and the custodians of the Future. The yesterday-nationalists are nothing but the puppets of the extra-European forces who conquer Europe by dividing it. To the enemies of Europe, there must be no rapprochement, no understanding, no union of the old units of Europe into a new unit, capable of carrying on 20th century politics…

…Against a united Europe, they could never have made their way in, and only against a divided Europe can they maintain themselves. Split! divide! distinguish!—this is the technique of conquest. Resurrect old ideas, old slogans, now quite dead, in the battle to turn European against European…

…The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro, however, shows to Europe a very important fact—that race-difference between white men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Europe, where hitherto the race difference between, say, Frenchman and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Europe, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestani from the Russian Empire…

I agree wholeheartedly with Yockey here. The last part suggests a hypothesis.  Just as differences in innate personality and life experiences can determine why one person is Right and another Left, perhaps the same influences affect the choice between being a pan-Europeanist or one of the narrower “isms.”  With respect to life experiences, is it possible that (negative) experiences with cross-racial diversity would make someone more prone to support pan-Europeanism?  If your life experience is one of Whites broadly defined up against non-Whites that would tend to suggest a pan-European perspective.  If on the other hand, your life experience is with a more homogenous population, particularly one that is ethnically/subracially homogenous, that would focus attention on narrower concerns.  Even more to the point, imagine someone whose only experience with “minorities” was with members of some European group *(or groups) that is numerically smaller than the person’s own in-the-majority European ethnic group.  Then “us” vs. “them” is here intra-European, and if those cross-ethnic experiences are negative, then the feelings of hostility and disdain are amplified.

For most of European history, the biggest enemy was another European people.  “Most” is not “all” – there were of course times when the enemy were rampaging Afro-Asiatic hordes and those threats were truly existential. But in general, typically for most of their history, Europeans fought Europeans, laying the groundwork for many of the attitudes and grievances that still plague us today. Consider the history (and island geography) of England and it is not surprising that ethnonationalism is well developed in the English Right (Mosley notwithstanding).  But today we live in a global age of The Clash of Civilizations, and Europeans need to understand that the old ways are over – something Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color foretold as far back as the 1920s. The past is prelude, but it’s now time to write the story of the future, and that is the story of The West Against The Rest – West being broadly defined as all Europeans worldwide.

The following quote from Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe summarizes the palingenetic objective that we could, if we so wished, strive for:


Our European Mission is to create the Culture-State-Nation-Imperium of the West, and thereby we shall perform such deeds, accomplish such works, and so transform our world that our distant posterity, when they behold the remains of our buildings and ramparts, will tell their grandchildren that on the soil of Europe once dwelt a tribe of gods.

That this tribe is not homogeneous, and contains within itself smaller tribes with unique and valued characteristics, is a given. But I believe, nevertheless, that this greater Western tribe does exist—and that together we can achieve great things, if we only can take the essential first steps forward. 

Well, all true, and narrow petty nationalism is not going to get us there. Unfortunately, I do not see much progress in the directions I support.

Of relevance to my points is this except from a Bolton Counter-Currents article:

Our Race Relations commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy, whose qualifications for that job consist of her acumen as a squash champion, stated that although she is proud of her Irish heritage, she will be keeping a close watch on the European Students Association. What makes an Irish or a Celtic dance society acceptable, but not a more generalized “European” society that includes Celtic plus other European heritages?

In order to become acceptable the association would presumably have had to form separate but affiliated ethnic groups for each European ethnicity, with say one member forming an Irish branch, another the Slavic branch, one the Italian, branch, another the Swedish branch, then forming an umbrella group but without the name “European.” Presumably “White” or “Aryan” would also be unacceptable so one is left wondering exactly what name would be acceptable. The conclusion must be that none would be acceptable. Anything of a “European” character is going to be innately objectionable.

Isn’t that interesting?  The same holds for the American school and university system.  And what does that tell you?  It tells me that organizing on an ethnic basis – individual atomized European ethnic groups – is NOT considered a threat by the system.  Organizing on a pan-European, racial basis, with an emphasis on a “European” character, is deemed a threat and considered unacceptable.  I think there’s a lesson there if you think about it.

And that’s not only in schools.  In the USA in mid-March we have St. Patrick’s Day marches – all acceptable, all celebrated, with politicians of all types marching joyously.  No problem. Irish, Italian, German, whatever…no problem.  Guess what would happen if someone – even a “normie” – tried to organize a “European-American” march.  Permits denied!  Neo-Nazi! Denounced by every politician!  Anti-fa violence!  Media in an uproar!  

Interesting, isn’t it?  And why should racial nationalists play that atomization game?

Finally, I would like to make an important point here, related to certain alien individuals who take it upon themselves to preach to Europeans about what we should or should not do, and if the reader takes away nothing else from this essay, then do take away this.  It is up to Europeans, and Europeans alone, to decide what their relationships to each other will be. We can support each other, hate each other, oppose each other, ally with each other, come together or come apart, but in the end it is about us, for us, and by us. Ourselves alone. Questions of pan-Europeanism vs. ethnonationalism vs. Nordicism vs. pan-Slavism vs. HBD race realism vs. Hoffmeisterism vs. whatever – those are questions for us to answer. Those questions are not addressed to anyone else – not to Jews, Iranians, Russian-hating Japanese, Chinese “maidens,” mestizos, Negroes or what have you.  If these others have an opinion on those topics, then, fine, express your opinion and move on.  Similarly, if I have an opinion on, say, Chinese-Japanese relations, I will express it, once, and then move on to my own business.  I certainly wouldn’t try to weasel my way into Asian nationalist groupings and attempt to sway their ideology to my liking – and I certainly wouldn’t expect to be welcome there (unlike how pathologically Universalist Whites welcome non-Whites into the business of White nationalism).  And even if these others seem to be sincere, and argue that somehow our racial business is their business, how can we know for sure?  How can we be sure they are not actually arguing in favor of their own racial self-interest at our expense? Some would say that is ad hominem.  So it is.  What of it? I would argue that ad hominem is not always a fallacy, particularly when it shines a light on questions of Cui Bono?  It’s not as if these people are offering fresh perspectives and novel ideas to advance the pro-European position.  Instead, they take sides in ongoing debates, simply parroting pre-existing positions, typically (from what I see) to advance their own racial agenda.  They are not essential and they are not helpful; at best they are a curiosity and at worst they are enemies in the ranks – Kipling’s Stranger in our midst.  It is one thing to have allies – alliances imply cooperation between distinct groups – it is another thing entirely to have these people actually as part of our own groups, blogs, groupuscules, etc.  Non-Whites intimately involved in White racial nationalism is not an alliance, it is an infiltration.  And between alliance and infiltration is a world of difference.  Finally, the interpretation of the fact that these types are almost invariably opposed to pan-Europeanism is an exercise I’ll leave to the reader.