Category: Identity

Stockholm and Morgan: Critical Points

Some comments on the Feb. 25 Stockholm Identitarian meeting as well as Morgan’s Counter-Currents article on the Alt Right.

Some of the speeches were just awkward or silly; no need for me to embarrass those speakers – and infuriate their fanboys – but focusing on those.  I’m also not interesting in hearing about “money and banking.” Although I have some interest in social credit/citizen dividends ideas, I’m afraid if I hear the words “federal reserve” or “fractional banking” I may start weeping.  Ramzpaul’s talk was terribly boring, so I don’t have much to say about it.

How about some more relevant speeches for the state of the Alt Right today?

Hoffmeister’s speech was more or less OK.  Putting aside the “He-Man” stuff – after all, I don’t want to sound like a bitter, neurotic, cranky old fart – the only problems with this talk is the error about Kennewick man, and also the suggestion that Whites had to be in America first in order to have a claim to the territory. For some reason, other racial groups feel no need to justify their own dispossession of earlier aboriginals.  I don’t see the Japanese agonizing over the Ainu, or see standard Negroes regretting displacing Pygmy or Khoisan populations.

Millennial Woes’s speech was interesting, and he admitted the profound “malaise” of the Alt Right since Trump’s election, and cited two legitimate reasons for this.  First, that the Alt Right doesn’t really know what to do next, and seems ill-prepared for the adult, disciplined work to build a real movement to take advantage of Trump’s breaking the “glass ceiling” of American right-wing populism.  Second, the constant attacks against the Alt Right by the System and leftist thugs.  Indeed, this speech legitimizes much of my criticism of the Alt Right – showing their ill-preparedness, both to move forward and to anticipate the obvious response of the Left to Trump’s victory and to the Alt Right’s brief ascent to prominence; their lack of discipline; and their current squandering of the golden opportunity handed to them by the events of 2016.

Kaalep’s (nice haircut there) speech started out well and degenerated into stupidity.  Err…which part of Europe dominated for the past several centuries?  That’s been the north, Kaalep’s “north star” “northern barbarians.” The “over-civilized” Greco-Roman world doesn’t run things now, and not for a long time.  It’s not the “Greco-Romans” who created the 19th century colonialism that is backfiring on Europe through reverse colonialism.  It’s not the Greco-Romans who started the two world wars that wrecked the White world, not the Greco-Romans that created the current EU, and who are running it into the ground.  The lazy and hedonistic PIGS countries – siesta-loving swarthoids with their palms out for handouts – are followers in the EU, not leaders. It’s those “northern barbarian” Germans, led by their Queen Merkel, who are today leading Europe to the abyss.  Instead of having one part of Europe dominating over the other, how about cooperation, with each nation and area maintaining their own identifies?  We don’t need historical revisionism that ignores the last half millennium, or self-serving “my nation will lead us out of the wilderness” navel-gazing.  I support Estonian nationalism, and Kaalep seems to be doing a fine job in his nation.  But it’s ironic that these ethnonationalist types have no qualms about ideas of domination when it’s their folks doing the dominating, eh? 

Now, I don’t want to be too critical here.  Kaalep seems like a sincere fellow, he’s doing good work for his country, he does think about Europe, and he means well.  The problem in general seems to be (shades of the American “movement”) one of too narrow perspectives. Any Euro-swarthoids there? Any Russkis (a giggling “Russian-American” doesn’t count)? They have the likes of Jorjani and Ramzpaul there, but no one from, say, Golden Dawn or Casa Pound was interested?  Are there no Identitarians from Spain or Portugal?  How about a Russian perspective that is independent of Putinism and Duginism?  How about the Ukrainians – what do real nationalists there think about having their sacrifices hijacked by globalists?  Maybe those folks were at the meeting and participated and I somehow missed it; but if so, Der Movement certainly isn’t popularizing such talks. More likely they simply were not there.

Do we always have to hear from the same people spouting the same things over and over again?  If you want a Europe-wide movement, how about having a Europe-wide meeting?

Now we come to Jorjani.  Let’s for a moment forget about the Iranian issue, partially manifested again by the pathetic potshots against the Ancient Greeks (NECs hold grudges, do they not?).  Let’s forget about all the ramblings of the last 2/3 of the talk. Let’s forget that he himself brought up an issue that I previously refused to discuss, his personal situation. Even though he brought it up, it’s not something to dwell on other than to say it is puzzling (for reasons which should be obvious).

Here my major objection is something which constitutes my objection #1 to the Alt Right – their ideological imperialism in the “movement;” the idea that the Alt Right and today’s racial activism are one and the same.  Non-Alt Right activists such as myself object to, and will continue to resist, the Alt Right’s attitude of dominance and entitlement.  I must say that the first 4.5 minutes of Jorjani’s talk constitute some of the most disturbing examples of Alt Right imperialism and premature centralization in Der Movement today. Alt Right corporation…I have a fairly good opinion of Spencer, but the rest of them?  The term “confederacy of dunces” comes to mind.  Who the hell are these people, and this pushy NEC, to be dictating to us all that from now on the Indentitarian Right, broadly defined, “is the Alt Right?”  I give an extended middle finger to that hubris.

Some would say – “it’s survival of the fittest” and if the Alt Right displaces other forms of racial activism, then that’s all for the good.  My reply is that fitness in a particular environment doesn’t always equal the best outcome from the White racial standpoint.  So, if Negroes out-reproduce and displace Whites from a territory, demonstrating superior biological fitness, is that the best outcome?  I would say no.  In a given environment, a roach or a bacterium may be more biologically fit than a human, but that doesn’t mean humans are then obligated to make way for insects and prokaryotes.  That the Alt Right is more fit for today’s pathological “movement” environment tells us we need to change the environment, not that we should embrace the metastatic fitness of the inept Alt Right.

The Alt Right, on the other hand, is a culture primarily of blogs, memes, podcasts, and videos. It has yet to produce a single book or other statement of principles that everyone involved would agree is the quintessence of the Alt Right’s worldview. This is a natural outgrowth of the anti-intellectualism inherent in Anglo-American political and cultural discourse…

Anti-intellectualism is putting it mildly.  But get this:

The American Right (just as the American Left, albeit in different ways) is absolutely obsessed with race: evolutionary theories, comparative IQ scores, crime statistics, and the like.

But at the same time it is anti-intellectual.  Does that make sense?  Actually it does, when one realizes that the “racial science” of the American Right is for the most part a combination of pseudoscience, science fiction, and Ostara-like fantasy.  The paradox of an anti-intellectual “movement” being at the same time obsessed with racial theories and “HBD” is no paradox when you realize that “racial history/HBD/race realism” is anti-intellectual hokum.

In no way can neo-Nazis be regarded as Alt Right or New Right.

You got that right.  Except instead of a cartoonish “neo-Nazi” instead use “principled national socialist.”

We can’t pretend that an Irishman and a Russian are interchangeable.

That canard again.  I want to know – who says that?  Who believes it?  Who advocates that? If ethnonationalists don’t want to be viewed as fundamentally dishonest then you guys really need to stop making the most absurd strawman arguments.

…and who in some cases have even called for political unification between America, Europe, and Russia, is a severe disservice to the diversity inherent in European civilization. 

Some sort of union or confederation need not imperil local distinctiveness. Even Yockey, that advocate of Western Imperium, specifically noted that local identities would be preserved.  

This is not to suggest that there is no basis for Europeans and those of the European diaspora around the world to work together towards common ends, but I believe this can only be rooted in the specificity of particular nations, regions, and traditions, otherwise we will simply be exchanging the cosmopolitan homogenization of global multiculturalism for a “white” form of homogenization. 

More ethnonationalist strawman arguments.  Who is calling for a general homogenization of Whites (other than Hoffmeister in the Intro to Lowell’s book, and I long ago sharply critiqued him for that.  One person.  One. That’s what you build an argument against?

The various European peoples and their offshoots have specific needs and identities, and these must all be respected and nourished under separate and unique institutions. 

Yes, and?

So while I would never suggest that studies of or concern with race are without value, I believe that ethnicity has to take first priority over race as we consider what we are fighting for.

Prioritizing ethnicity over race led to the two world wars that wrecked the White world, directly leading to our sorry state.  Are we supposed to let dishonest ethnonationalists lead us to the abyss again?

Which brings me to two more deficiencies of the Alt Right project, at least as it has played out so far: it lacks any solid economic or geopolitical viewpoint. It’s too focused on problems at home and on identity politics to be worried about the larger picture…I may have sounded very critical of the Alt Right in this talk, and indeed, I think it still has a long way to go before it can be taken seriously as a political movement worthy of contending for actual power, as opposed to the vague influence it exerts today.

You’re getting dangerously close to “old crank” territory there, Morgan.

I think a marriage between the ideas of the New Right and the techniques of the Alt Right can be a very happy and fruitful one.

I don’t know…given what I’m seeing, it’s just as likely we’ll get a marriage between the ideas of the Alt Right and the techniques of the New Right.

Let’s turn all of this around. Let’s consider the grand ethnonationalist Europe with all the atomized nations with their absolute sovereignty. Let’s take Ireland, since that nation has been mentioned. What if Ireland decides to ditch ethnonationalism and solve its “labor shortage” by importing one million hard-working African Negroes. Do they have the right to import Negroes into a nationalist Europe? Yes or no?

Another one (and more dear to the heart of the Majority Rights Silk Road crowd). Let’s say that Ireland decides to conduct a military alliance with China against England, with Chinese military bases on Irish soil.That OK? Yes or no?

If you say yes, well that’s quite interesting indeed, the “logical outcome” of ethnonationalism. If you say no, then you admit to limits to national sovereignty and a racial veto to destructive behavior of individual nations.

The JQ In A Nutshell

Brief and to the point.

Read here.  Emphasis added:

For Jews living in Western societies, however, the migrants aren’t the only outgroup. Western peoples and cultures themselves are an outgroup— see my book Separation and Its Discontents. Hence one would expect Jewish negative attitudes toward both immigrants and the host white culture. 

So Jewish attitudes could be analyzed as simply whichever outgroup summons up the greater hostility. And Jewish attitudes are primarily determined by their hostility towards whites.

Thus, to Jews, Whites are (outgroup) enemy number one.  Here we see Identity in its totality, a combination of genes, phenotypes, religion and other aspects of culture, history, and self-conception.  One cannot conflate Jewish Identity to any one of these things, it is all of them in combination.  Those who focus on one and try to ask “are Jews White?” miss the point entirely.  In the last analysis, Jews themselves view themselves as a separate people, and that is how they should be viewed by us.

The Importance of Identity

Who to you identify with?

The great deeds of our ancestors, he writes, affect us because they are seen as our own deeds. The history of other peoples can affect us to a degree, but not nearly as powerfully as that of our own, because with their heroes we lack a comparable identification. The value of identification with the heroes of national history is that ‘grasping the Fatherland as a whole warns us to be true to its virtues’. ‘In the enchanted pictures of national history’, Fritz concludes, ‘we become clear as to which destiny our people must fulfill, what the task is that is given to it’.

Julian Young, Friedrich Nietzsche. Cambridge University Press.


That was the (at least, early) opinion of Nietzsche, and it is a correct one.

Christianity, on the other hand, will have us “all equal before God.”

European Ingroup

Answering anti-White trolls.

I note that certain concern trolls are starting their usual song-and-dance on certain blogs. In response, I’d like to make a few comments.
One can say this about a European ingroup: Europeans form a broad continental population group with respect to genetics/biology andthey share a core civilizational history/High Culture.
That “and” is crucial; it is not one or the other in isolation, but both aspects of Identity in combination.
Let us consider the history of the EU. Let us put aside the fact that the EU as it exists today is a viciously destructive anti-White tool of Right and Left Globalists. Instead, let us consider the idea of a European Union, and how EU membership is viewed by the masses.
As regards the various diverse nations of Western Europe (e.g., UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc. – all the nations Yockey considered “the West”) there was never any racial or cultural concerns about including any of these nations. The only concerns were economic (e.g., underperforming “PIGS” countries) and political (grumbling about sovereignty and “diktats from Brussels”). 
With respect to expansion into Eastern Europe, apart from concerns about Roma and Muslim groups, there also were no racial or cultural concerns – the problems were economic (the idea that large numbers of Eastern European migrants would flood Western European countries and take jobs) and political (corruption, etc.). Concerns about Slavs, Hungarians, and Romanians were never essentially (or existentially) racial or cultural, and the legitimate concerns about economic migrants could be dealt with by ending the idea that EU citizens can freely travel between nations (a stupid idea to begin with).
In contrast, when potential expansion moved outside of Europe – Turkey being a major example (but even North Africans and other NECs have been mentioned) – then even mainstream politicians and the general population began strongly objecting, with racial and cultural undertones to arguments about “the death of Europe” and “the end of European civilization” and “they’re Asian (or African) and not European.”  Even the general population implicitly understands the line dividing Europe and non-Europe.  Even the mainstream implicitly understands the foundation of a European ingroup.  

One Advantage of Ethnonationalism

Advantage: the ingroup is not a matter of debate.

Readers of this blog know that I am highly critical of ethnonationalism serving as the core of nationalist activism. In contrast, I support a primary emphasis on pan-European racial nationalism (or “White nationalism”), with ethnonationalism serving as a secondary, lower-level emphasis within that broader racial nationalism.

However, I do admit that ethnonationalism has one distinct advantage over racial nationalism as it is practiced by the pathetic, dysfunctional “movement” – ethnonationalists have the advantage of a “ready made” and well defined ingroup, one that is not a matter of debate and endless nitpicking analysis. Thus, ethnonationalism side-steps all the sterile “debates” that typify the “movement” (e.g., “who is White?”) and more rapidly achieves pragmatic political objectives.

Thus, to a Hungarian ethnonationalist, it is clear that the ingroup is ethnic Hungarians. It does not matter whether these are dolichocephalic or brachycephalic, whether they be Nordic or Alpine or Mediterranean or Dinaric, whether or not a given Hungarian has an “admixture” percentage of 2.1345784562% East Asian or not, or what are the eye and hair colors of Hungarians, etc. They are Hungarians, part of the historic Hungarian nation, and that is sufficient. Certainly, cultural and other issues influence things as well as ethnic identification: a Muslim Hungarian may be rejected as well as one who has married, say, a Negro.  But that is part of the grand definition: a person who is ethnically and culturally Hungarian is considered a member of the Hungarian nation – and that’s it.

Racial nationalists – at least those who claim to be pan-European – could in theory do the same thing. They can side-step all the nitpicking that bedevils the “movement” and proclaim their ingroup to be those who are ethnically and culturally European, which is – or should be to any reasonable person – as obvious as saying that someone is ethnically and culturally Hungarian. Just as a Hungarian ethnonationalist would (or should) reject intrusive elements like Jews, Gypsies, and Turks, so could (and should) the European nationalist.

Thus, the advantage of the ethnonationalist is merely a relative one, due to the deficiencies of racial nationalists. These deficiencies could be corrected, given the will to do so, which means recreating a real Movement on the ashes of the failed “movement.”

I won’t expect that to happen any time soon, however.

Russia and Europe: The Putinista View

An important subject with no easy answers.
A certain blog has, in recent weeks, featured essays by a writer attacking the notion that Russians are “White.”  We are told that the Russian Identity is non-Western and anti-Western, non-European and anti-European, and that any Russians who are sincerely pro-White and consider themselves “White” (i.e., European) have to explicitly reject a specifically Russian identity.


“Russia must be viewed as a unique and original civilization that cannot be reduced to ‘East’ or ‘West,'” reads the document, signed by Deputy Culture Minister Vladimir Aristarkhov. “A concise way of formulating this stand would be, ‘Russia is not Europe,’ and that is confirmed by the entire history of the country and the people.”

Russia’s non-European path should be marked by “the rejection of such principles as multiculturalism and tolerance,” according to the draft. “No references to ‘creative freedom’ and ‘national originality’ can justify behavior considered unacceptable from the point of view of Russia’s traditional value system.” That, the document stresses, is not an infringement on basic freedoms but merely the withdrawal of government support from “projects imposing alien values on society.”

A rejection of multiculturalism and tolerance (not characteristics of the true West, but of its modern , deracinated degenerate form) would be good things, if they were actualized in policy. Unfortunately, Putin is a dedicated multiculturalist aiming at a mixed, Eurasian Russia.  Further, if Putin’s Russia was to truly follow the independent Third Rome path of a unique Russian High Culture, then there wouldn’t be this agenda to worship at the altar of Asia, and promote a “Eurasian Union.”
Well then, the Putinistas would argue that the “Eurasian Union” is just pragmatic politics.  Fine.  Let’s be pragmatic.   Let’s start by accepting the theoretical premise that Russia is neither East nor West, but its own “unique and original civilization.”  The problem is – pragmatically – Russia could actualize that “unique civilization” only if the nation had booming demographics, racial homogeneity and a commitment to maintain that homogeneity, as well as a robust civic culture that could maintain and promote Russian interests as an original, independent civilizational entity.
None of those attributes hold.  I’ll agree that Russian Identity is not Western (despite the fact that ethnic Russians are racially European), certainly not in the sense of those Western European nations Yockey identified as the West: Germany, England, France, Italy, Spain, etc.  And, not even Western in the sense of those westernizing (in a modern sense at least) ex-Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe.  We can agree on this.
But, again, pragmatically, Russia doesn’t seem to have the stamina and bright demographic/racial future to make it alone.  I do think that eventually Russia needs to choose between West vs. East.  Here, West = the true West, what was, and what could be in the future with a new High Culture.  As a nation that was a pioneer of space exploration, as a people that are racially European, the Russians can be partners in building the Overman High Culture.  Therein, their existence would be secure – and the unique aspects of the Russian civilization can exist alongside that of the traditional Western, as a whole greater than the sum of the parts.
But if Russia chooses East, then Russia is doomed, and the Russians are doomed.  They’ll be swallowed up by the Yellow and Brown tides of color.
A choice needs to be made.  West or East.  Survival or Death.