Category: Imperium

The Ethnic Genetic Interests of Imperium

Optimizing European EGI

By Imperium, I obviously mean Yockey’s overarching idea, not his book. In the debate between “Big Europe” pan-Europeanism, as exemplified by Yockey, and atomized ethnonationalism, where do ethnic genetic interests (EGI) fit in?

First, let us clear up misconceptions about Yockey, misconceptions that assert he advocated a complete European panmixia in which all distinctions between Europeans would disappear.

English, German, French, Italian, Spanish — these are now mere place-names and linguistic variations. Like all of the other rich products of our great Culture, they will continue but they are no longer political terms. Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy in the European Imperium, now that the oppression of vertical nationalism is dead. Anyone who seeks to perpetuate petty-statism or old-fashioned nationalism is the inner enemy of Europe. He is playing the game, of the extra-European forces, he is dividing Europe and committing treason.

Treason now has only one meaning to Europe: it means serving any other force than Europe. There is only one treason now, treason to Europe. The nations are dead, for Europe is born.

“Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy…” – hopefully that clarifies the dishonest “Yockey wanted to eliminate all intra-European particularisms” argument.

We also need to keep in mind that Yockey wrote this several years after the end of WWII; faced with the undisputable poisonous fruit from the ethnonationalist tree, Yockey championed a militant pan-Europeanism, an ideal which he would likely have championed anyway (even without the war and its aftermath) – although perhaps with less stringent rhetoric – because he saw a United Europe as the next step in the organic evolution of the West. But no doubt his ill-concealed rage toward those who questioned, in any way, his vision was in part due to the devastation he saw around him – although I must say I agree with him that those who continue to try and divide Europe are indeed traitors (intentionally or not).

Small-minded and short-sighted “activists” today, who have forgotten the lessons of two world wars, instead look at the EU and recoil at any idea of European unity.  One cannot just look at what’s right in front of them, but also look toward the ages. That’s something that today’s “movement” pygmies are incapable of doing. In any case, Yockey suggests eliminating European nations as political entities, with Europe itself being the only political entity with real sovereignty; on the other hand, Yockey allows for local autonomy in this scheme, preservation of local cultures and, presumably then, preservation of the ethnic stocks actualizing those cultures.

There are of course EGI costs and benefits to Yockey’s imperial scheme.  Let’s consider EGI, in a qualitative sense, along the ethnonationalist/pan-European continuum.  What are the options? We need to find the “sweet spot” where maximum genetic interest can be obtained at the ethny level by balancing interests and investments at both the racial and ethnic levels.  Of course, there is not (as of now) any calculable metric to give us any definitive answers here, even if we accept that answers may change in a context-dependent manner.  As noted above, the arguments will necessarily have to be, at least for now, qualitative rather than quantitative.

Now, Yockey’s vision (and the somewhat similar ideas of Mosely) are not the most extreme manifestation of pan-Europeanism   Probably von Hoffmeister’s ideal would be classified as such; read this:

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…

(Constantin von Hoffmeister, “Our Motherland: Imperium Europa,” in Norman Lowell, Imperium Europa: The Book that Changed the World (Imperium Publishing, 2008), 24)

One can envision then a continuum in which at one end we have von Hoffmeister’s panmictic vision of pan-Europeanism; on the other end we have the Counter-Currents scheme of extreme ethnonationalism, in which balkanized European nations and regions guard their sovereignty from their neighbors, and are ready to go to war – including ethnic cleansing! – against fellow Europeans who in any way offend them.  So, the endpoints of the continuum are here:


…and I’ll fill in some other viewpoints in a qualitative, impressionistic fashion.


CC = Counter-Currents

CvH = Constatin von Hoffmeister

FPY = Francis Parker Yockey

TS = Ted Sallis

NL = Normal Lowell

C = Center

OGI = On Genetic Interests discussion of “civilizational blocs” as one political approach to EGI (this is not meant to be a comprehensive and/or current summary of Salter’s views, which may well be slightly more in the ethnonationalist direction, although I cannot speak for him)

BSS = “Black” SS – as per Coogan, the more Nordicist and Germanocentric portion of the SS 

WSS = “Waffen” SS – as per Coogan, the more pan-European faction of the SS (not necessarily the same as the Waffen SS proper)

AH = Adolf Hitler

MC = Montreaux Conference of 1934



Note that is not the final word, it is my interpretation, and things may certainly change with more data.  But that is a reasonable starting point for discussion.

Thus, Mosely may be around where Yockey is, or perhaps a bit toward the left, Spencer the same. 

Note two things.  First, this is a Far-Right continuum along the ethnonationalist/pan-European axis.  The Far-Left EU is discussed below.  Second, as this is a two-dimensional spectrum, the fact that two points are near each other does not mean they agree on other issues.  For example, I (TS) favor the pan-European approach, but one that allows for national/local sovereignty to some extent, and the definitive preservation of ethnicities and their cultures.  Lowell, with his Imperium vs. Dominion dichotomy (large-scale Imperium vs. local rule Dominion) is similar, although we may disagree on other issues.  I favor an authoritarian national socialist regime; Lowell favors libertarian capitalism.

Is it fair to describe Counter-Currents as more extreme than Adolf Hitler and the “Black” SS? The Nazis wanted to dispossess the Slavs and reduce them to the level of serfs; Counter-Currents publicly endorsed the idea of European nations ethnically cleansing each other in particular circumstances.  As genocide is more extreme than enslavement, the placement on the continuum is in my opinion justified.  

The “Waffen” SS and the Montreux conference is on the ethnonationalist side of the equation: although these SS men were more pan-European, they were still Germanocentric followers of Hitler, and they promoted the idea of a Europe of nations (led by Germany of course).  The Montreux conference promoted a Fascist International ideal of pan-European cooperation, but cooperation amongst ethnonationalist movements, each retaining their full sovereignty.  In OGI, Salter discussed the idea of civilizational blocs that are fairly permeable internally but closed to the outside, yet EGI is fully compatible with ethnonationalism and no clear cut definitive recommendations were made there.  Thus, that discussion in OGI is slightly to the pan-European side of center.  Those further to the right on the continuum have already been discussed.

Where would the EU fit in this scheme?  Actually nowhere, as this continuum is for pro-White, rightist planning, while the EU is orthogonal to all of this an anti-White, leftist creation of globalist elites. If we were to judge, however, strictly on the criterion of relative sovereignty, then the EU would be in between my ideal and that of Yockey.  The EU is less extreme than Yockey in that in retains European nations a political entities, but it is more extreme than my vision in that it dictates even local matters, it promotes migration between EU nations, and essentially today the entire enterprise can be summarized by the vision of the harridan scold Merkel, standing astride Europe holding a rolling pin, grinding down opposition to her radical race replacement agenda.  I would certainly suggest more national independence than that!

Extreme ethnonationalism would attempt to maximize EGI at the ethnic level, while foregoing racial European EGI as a whole in the global context.  Extreme pan-Europeanism would do the opposite: maximize racial EGI of Europe vs the Colored World, while sacrificing ethnic EGI, which would be significantly degraded through the proposed process of panmixia.  Of the two, I would argue that extreme ethnonationalism is actually more self-contradictory, since extreme ethnonationalism can actually damage the specific ethnic group practicing it.  Salter talks in OGI how Hitler’s extreme ethnonationalism damaged the German people as a result of his wars, and the reaction of other nations against him.  Also, since European ethnic groups are relatively similar genetically (some more than others)  with some kinship overlap between neighboring states, an extreme ethnonationalism would harm the people practicing it, from an EGI standpoint, because they would be in opposition to people fundamentally similar to themselves, while more alien peoples of other continents may well benefit from intra-European strife.  Extreme ethnonationalism, by attempting to maximize narrow gross genetic interests, can backfire on those practicing it and result in a net loss of genetic interest.  The Germans had Hitler; now they have Merkel.  Their extreme ethnonationalism boomeranged into suicidal Universalist altruism.  Perhaps if Hitler was a dedicated pan-Europeanist, and one without a “zero sum game” ethnonationalist attitude, the German people –and all Europeans – would be better off today.

That said, both extremes are sub-optimal for European EGI.  For example, I cannot see a logical argument as to why a European panmixia is necessary to actualize an Imperium capable of safeguarding the interests – ethnic genetic and otherwise – of all European peoples.  If it is not necessary, then the foregone ethnic-specific EGI is wasted for no reason.  Indeed, one can argue that the prospect of a panmixia that eliminates ethnic-specific particularisms would spark an ethnonationalist backlash as groups attempt to safeguard their uniqueness through a “narcissism of small differences” campaign against their fellow Europeans.  Occam’s razor for civilizational planning: do not multiply complexities beyond necessity.  In the absence of a convincing argument in favor of panmixia (if there is such an argument I would like to see it produced and fairly evaluate it), it is an unnecessary complication.  But those who would critique that threat to European ethnic diversity are hypocrites if they do not equally denounce the “ethnic cleansing” of Europeans promoted by the extreme ethnonationalists.  Such genocidal lunacy obviously is detrimental to the EGI of all Europeans.

One can envision charting on the x-axis the ethnonationalist-pan-European continuum (ethnonationalist on left, pan-European on right) and on the y-axis the net effects on both ethnic-level EGI and racial-level EGI as two distinct lines.  In general, the ethnic-level EGI line would start highest at the ethnonationalist side of the continuum, although I argue (see above) that extreme ethnonationalism is corrosive of even narrow ethnic interests; however, for the sake of argument, let’s consider a simple downward slope moving from left to right on the graph (from ethnonationalist to pan-European).  On the other hand, the racial line slopes upward as one moves rightward in the pan-European direction.  Of course, things are not that simple even here, given how ethnic and racial interests overlap; the racial is composed of the ethnic, and kinship overlap confuses ethnic interests with that of other ethnies in the racial.  But again, for the sake of argument, we can consider a simple mode.  We can then envision a graph like this.

Envision the ethnic line as blue and the racial line as red.  There will be a point of intersection – the “sweet spot” – in which there is an optimized balance of ethnic and racial genetic interests (and, likely, interests in general, including the important proximate interests, particularly High Culture). The question remains, where is this spot, and or course it is unlikely we will agree on an answer, although most people would likely agree that the spot is not at either of the extremes (although, theoretically, it could be). Again, this is a qualitative, impressionist argument (similar to Salter’s genetic interest plots in OGI), but one needs to consider it nevertheless, even knowing that without the (impossible) option of side-by-side testing of alternatives, we are making educated guesses, or, more optimistically, informed and logical estimates.

There is always going to be a trade-off between narrower and broader genetic interests.  Of course, it goes without saying: context is important.  The “sweet spot” is obviously going to change based on context and circumstances.  If the overall race is secure, but your particular ethnic group is threatened then, obviously, the cross-over point at which the genetic interest lines intersect will fall closer to the ethnonationalist direction.  On other hand, race-wide crises would necessitate shifting the intersection point in the pan-European direction.  In particular, if your ethnic group is relatively secure, but the race as a whole – that includes ethnic groups relatively similar to your own, for whom you share some (somewhat more diluted, but still substantial – particularly given the numbers involved) genetic interest – is threatened, then the intersection point needs to be far to the pan-European direction.  If both race and ethnic group are secure, more investment in self and family is prudent’ if humanity as a whole is threatened, one must look toward that (while still giving preference to your own people, so defined).  In the current situation, both ethnic group and race are threatened for all Europeans, so a balanced approach is best.  What’s optimal then?

I would propose that my vision of a balanced pan-Europeanism, formulated with EGI in mind, in which local sovereignty is retained and intra-European differences are preserved, while enfolding all the peoples of Europe in an Imperium to safeguard their existence, actualize a High Culture, and reach the stars, is the sweet spot” between the extremes.  Lowell’s Imperium Europa has many of the same advantages.  Although we cannot know this for sure, without an actual side-by-side testing of schemes that is impossible, it is logically reasonable to conclude that a balanced approach would preserve European EGI than both panmixia as well as lunatic ethnonationalist schemes in which atomized Europeans ethnically cleanse each other in bloody warfare.  Although the OGI point, not far away from mine, may also serve.

Again, a balance is needed, which I believe my scheme exemplifies.  Ethnic and local particularisms (biological and cultural) are preserved, intra-European borders are preserved, intra-European demographic flows are restricted, but, at the same time, one has an Imperium, which cuts off all flow from the outside, and sufficiently integrates Europe – for defense, foreign policy, racial matters, top-level cultural and science/technics issues, etc. – so as to safeguard the entire and prevent EGI-corroding intra-European feuding.  There’s no ethic cleansing in my scheme, nor any panmixia.  It is certainly a reasonable and viable candidate for the “sweet spot.”  The bulk of both ethnic and racial genetic interests are conserved, some compromises are made, and political mechanisms would need to be put in place to ensure the long-term maintenance of the balance between ethnic and racial level interests.

This is the beginning of the analysis, and I see it a good start.

And what about Yockey’s Imperium idea?  Assuming he was serious about the commitment to local autonomy and preservation, then his authoritarian Western state could do a reasonably good job at balancing ethnic and racial European EGI, although other ideas may be more optimal (or not).  We do need to remember Salter’s warning that a permanent solution to preserving and defending EGI is likely impossible.

We do the best that we can.


Some Thoughts on Orlando and Brexit

Several thoughts.

A Muslim NEC, son of an immigrant, commits the largest mass shooting in American history, and, allegedly, declared allegiance to ISIS.  On what does America focus its outrage? Answer: a fragment of a tweet by Donald Trump (who wants to temporarily shut down Muslim immigration precisely to prevent more incidents like this).  One really can’t make this stuff up.  Always remember: Trump Derangement Syndrome is a symptom of America’s anti-White racial illness – hatred of Trump is a proxy for hatred of Whites.

The Left says that “inaction is still a political decision.”  Yes it is, and although they are talking about gun control, the same can be said about immigration restriction.

What?  Fulford restraining himself from posting pictures of bikini-clad women in Orlando?

Cognitive dissonance part one: VDARE goes on and on about how there should not be Muslims in America, yet they engage in foaming-at-the-mouth praise over the ignorant  “Bengali castaway” “Razib” Khan, who is of Muslim background.

A mass shooting in a Florida gay bar?  Der Movement had better conduct a head count, to make sure all of its august personages are still with us.

This blog endorses Brexit; the British should determine their own destiny, and the current EU is an anti-White monstrosity.  Having said that, a “European Union” that preserves particularisms and allows for local autonomy – what Yockey supported – is a good idea if controlled by racial nationalists.

Cognitive dissonance part two: what to make of folks who worship the “Cult of Saint Francis” (of Yockey) and yet oppose Yockey’s fundamental idea of a European Imperium?

An Ethnonationalist Idiot

Behold an idiot.

An idiot commentator at Counter-Currents states:

Northern Europeans are better than Mediterraneans at creating wealth. Northern Euros aren’t going to want to prop them up.

Rephrased to be accurate:

Currently, Northern Europeans are better than Southern Europeans at creating wealth. Northern Euros aren’t going to want to prop them up.

There is no such thing as “Mediterraneans.”

Now, comments such as those fall into the category of the Professor Michael Hart school of racial nationalism.  Hart envisions an American White Separatist (sic) State that is essentially exactly the same as the current America (including being multiracial!) except that it would have no Negroes. Retards like the above commentator envision a White Imperium exactly like the current Europe except that the aliens would be gone and nationalists would be in charge.

Well, that’s not what I have in mind.

Any limited amount of internal national sovereignty would be predicated on each nation and people pulling their weight – economically, militarily, culturally, etc.  No one is going to “prop up” anyone else.  If anyone fails in their obligations, they lose their sovereignty until such time that they are straightened out, and during that period they will be run by the external centralized state.

But wait, some would say, these differences in performance are innate biological differences.  What can you do?  To the extent they are innate and biological (some of it is cultural, but then, what creates culture?), then this must be changed as well.  Eugenics is required.  The more degenerate any European stock is, the more dire need it is of the proper ruthless culling and selection for improvement.  Lazy, hedonistic, unproductive “Meds” will have no place in any Imperium; those types will be selected against in favor of their more productive co-ethnics.  The same goes for “Nords” like Merkel and those crying for joy at the sight of arriving refugees.  

Eugenics is compatible with EGI, as Salter clearly stated that sub-optimal alleles should be replaced to boost fitness of the overall distinctive genome.

Why does anyone believe that an Imperium is going to tolerate national incompetence or liberal race cuckery?

European Colonialism as the Empire of the West

Speculative interpretation.
As previously noted, I’m skeptical of the full Spengler/Yockey theory of cyclical history and highly specialized High Cultures (e.g., Classical and Western being completely unrelated) – particularly Pessimism and Inevitability (the basic problem with all memes of inevitability: if accepted, they become self-fulfilling and are therefore essentially tautological and unfalsifiable).
However, I do believe that Spengler and Yockey had a point with the very basic premise of cyclical High Cultures.  Let’s assume that Yockey’s interpretation of Spengler’s philosophy of history has merit.  We then run into a problem.  We are clearly in the Winter of the West, terminal decline.  What happened to the Fall season of the West, of Empire and Caeserism?  What happened to that Authoritarian Empire of the West promised and promoted by Imperium, that golden age that would precede Winter?
Yockey, I believe, miscalculated, perhaps due to an optimism inconsistent with his slavish adherence to Spenglerian Pessimism. Thus, by the time Yockey wrote Imperium, the Age of Empire was already over, and Winter was dawning.
What I am saying is this: the Empire of the West was nothing more or less than the age of European Colonialism, the European overseas colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Americas.  That’s it.  Done, finished, and over with, destroyed by the world wars.  Just as the French Revolution and Napoleon mark the dividing line between Culture and Civilization for the West, so do the World Wars and Hitler mark the dividing line between Empire and Winter.
It makes sense, really.  The West had long been compromised by petty nationalism and by the Spirit of Money.  Therefore, the Empire of the West was a pathetically haphazard series of colonial adventures, for the most part motivated by mercantilism and national rivalries.  Built on a house of cards, it all came to a swift and premature end, as that same petty nationalism and defense of commercial interests led to the England-Germany rivalry, two world wars, and the collapse of the West.  Poor Yockey, looking forward to an era that had actually recently ended.  Dreaming of an Empire of a United West, when the real Empire was the competition of the colonial offices of the nations of Western Europe.  Yockey, dreaming of an Age of Authority, when instead money and commercial interests ruled.
Well, it’s over.  We need to save the Peoples of the West, so these Peoples can begin the process of building a new High Culture on the foundation of the ruins of the West.  But to do so, we need to learn the lessons of the past.  Any idiots who think that the future can be built on the same petty nationalism which led to our downfall – these are indeed idiots, or perhaps traitors.
But, to summarize: Yockey’s expected Empire never took place because, if we accept the cyclical history that his views are based upon, then that Empire had already been actualized in the insipid form of the European overseas colonial system.  

The Hitler Question and the Cult of Saint Adolf

The Hitler question answered.
These days the only websites/blogs I check regularly are The Occidental Observer (KMacD and others there always have something interesting to say), and VDARE (solely to find Steve Sailer posts to mock over at my anti-HBD blog).  However, given the crisis in Ukraine, I decided to checkout Counter Currents.  I did see (and previously commented on) Greg Johnson’s criticism of Putin, of which I approve.  But I also saw the following, which deserves commentary on the Hitler Question.
…Your comment on Germany’s intentions in World War II for the Ukraine should make every pan-European reconsider any undue love for the Third Reich. I recall seeing a picture of a sign held by National Socialists at rally, reading “Der Russe muss sterben, damit wir leben.” “The Russian must die, that we might live.” This flies in the face of pan-Europeanism and white unity, and makes me wish fellow white nationalists would look to better models than such a divisive role model like Adolf Hitler.
Greg Johnson:
Hitler was right on almost everything, and if Ukrainians of all people can see past his errors and give him serious thought, what’s your excuse? What’s anybody’s excuse?
My excuse is that I value the nations of Europe, and don’t support subtracting from them due to petty nationalisms. You’ve observed yourself, within the comments of this very article, that some of us hate Jews more than they love their race. The same situation can happen within the Ukraine. The most anti-Jewish leader in modern history is inspiring them to forget that the same man would have erased the Ukrainian nation from the Earth. What did the Ukraine do to deserve this from Germany?…
…I am not saying we cannot give Hitler “serious thought,” but given his wishes to do away with whole European nations, Hitler does not deserve the reputation he holds among some white nationalists. Part of that serious thought is recognizing vital flaws in his designs for a post-war Europe.
In this exchange (excerpts of the original reproduced above), I side 100% with Dan. The American “movement” is fossilized by rigid dogmas: certain European ethnies/subraces are “good” and “pure” and “white,” while others are cringing admixed swart subhumans; all great civilizations and accomplishments came from those “good” groups, etc. – and of course, the slavish worship of Saint Adolf is one of the most rigid dogmas of all.
Before the Hitler admirers have apoplexy over my blasphemy, let me say a few things in favor of the “man against time” (or whatever it was that crazed old hag said about Uncle Adolf).  If forced to decide on a “good guy” vs. “bad guy” Manichean label for Hitler, I would choose “good guy.”  The basic principles of national socialism are excellent (I myself am a national socialist, but not a Hitlerian) and Hitler’s domestic policies were sound.  Of course, there are problems: much of Mein Kampf reads like the unbalanced ramblings straight from Ostara magazine (or from typical modern “movement” texts), and the “Fuhrer principle” put too much despotic power in the hands of one man (in On Genetic Interests, Salter rightfully critiques the defective political institutions of historically fascist regimes).  But, that said, with respect to Germany itself, Hitler does deserve the high reputation he enjoys in the “movement.”
The basic problem occurs when we extend our analysis to the broader continental and global racial and civilizational spheres. While there was a dim undercurrent of a broader “White nationalism” in Hitler’s thought, he was, at essence, a German Imperialist, and a pan-Germanic Nordicist.  For people who like that sort of thing (e.g., most of the American “movement”) that’s all well and good.  But for pan-European activists such as myself (and, apparently, this “Dan” fellow as well), Hitler’s narrower racial focus was and remains a serious problem.  It’s not a peripheral issue, but it is central to Hitler’s views on race, and central to his actions in the sphere of foreign policy.
Hitler’s foreign policy was as bad as his domestic policy was good.  Yes, I know, the apologists will say, “but he had no choice.”  That is not true.  Reading Hitler’s War, by David Irving (who cannot be viewed as harboring any anti-Hitler bias), one can easily see that Adolf had several opportunities to change course – WWII was not inevitable had he given up his fixation on territorial expansion within Europe and had, for example, agreed to the British offer of overseas colonies and integration into the Western European colonial arrangement. 
Then there is the “Icebreaker” argument: that Hitler’s invasion of the USSR forestalled Stalin’s offensive against Europe, and saved all of Europe from being submerged into the Bolshevik morass. To the extent this is true, it was serendipity: after all, Hitler had been planning a German colonization of the East from the start of his political career, two decades before Stalin began massing troops on the USSR’s western frontiers.  Hitler’s idea to dispossess the Slavs and turn them into a helot race was a fundamental part of his grand racial-geopolitical vision – it wasn’t merely a reaction to Soviet troop buildups or derived from an altruistic desire to “save Europe.”  One can point out as well that by dividing Poland with Stalin, Hitler brought the USSR closer to Western Europe, and, of course, starting WWII over the Polish Corridor wasn’t exactly part of any “grand plan” to forestall a Soviet invasion.
More fundamentally: were there any other ways to deal with the Soviet threat to Europe?  Everyone knows that Yockey dedicated his book Imperium to Hitler, the “Hero” of the Second World War. I disagree with Yockey – there were no heroes in that war, only greater or lesser villains.  But Yockey had something else to say in Imperium about another leader of that era, one considered by most in the “movement” to have been nothing more than a blustering buffoon:
The end of capitalism and nationalism was symbolized by the creation and the genius of Benito Mussolini, who proclaimed in the teeth of the apparent world-victory of 19th century ideas, the organization-will and Inner Imperative of the 20th century, the Resurgence of Authority, and Ethical Socialism. Precisely when the materialistic ideologists were playing logical exercises with international politics, and creating a stupid and useless “league of nations,” this herald of the Future defied the still born nonsense of Geneva, and re-embodied the will-to-power and heroism of Western man. Over the paeans of democracy,” Mussolini spoke of the corpse of democracy.
The Duce was aware that the lazy, hedonistic “Med” Italians were too inept and degenerate to impose their will on Europe by force, unlike the more dynamic and disciplined “Alpine-Nord” Germans. Thus, Benito chose a more political route, which most likely was the correct approach.  He maintained diplomatic relations on good terms with the Western democracies – until the Ethiopia war – while beginning the process of trying (unsuccessfully) to build a Fascist International (e.g., the Montreux conferences).
Those conferences had their problems, but those problems could have been dealt with if Hitler had been willing to “play ball,” had Mussolini not been annoyed over Austria and if he didn’t have the need to fear Hitler and German expansionism (which he did, one reason for his eventual alliance with Hitler), and had all involved understood the need for a more generalized definition for “fascism” (a topic for another day). The potential was there, it just needed proper leadership and it needed a spirit of cooperation instead of the usual rightist fractiousness.  It needed, in the last analysis, someone willing and able to fuse the racial and socioeconomic aspects of fascism.  Hitler alone could not do it, and Mussolini alone failed.  Together, they may have succeeded.
An alliance between Fuhrer and Duce to build a Fascist Alliance in Europe, supporting groups like the Romanian Legionary Movement (with strong backing from Germany and Italy, Codreanu could have come to power, rather than be murdered by state authority), could have built a strong anti-communist alliance throughout Central and Eastern Europe – a blockade to Soviet expansionism. Perhaps, not fearing European German expansionism, Great Britain and France could have joined some sort of anti-communist alliance.  If not, the situation may have evolved into a three-way Cold War of Fascism vs. Marxism vs. Liberal Democracy.  Or, perhaps, other options, for better or worse, could have been on the table.  But, instead, the absolute worst outcome happened: another world war that, after the damage done 1914-1918 in the first Great War, completely wrecked the White World.
It wasn’t like any of this couldn’t have been foreseen: in The Rising Tide of Color, Stoddard warned of the consequences of yet another round of fratricidal intra-European conflict.  But Saint Adolf was intent on his hegemonic eastern expansion. Hitler cared for Germany and not for Europe; he cared for Germanics and not for Europeans.  And because of that, ALL Europeans, including the Germanics, are suffering for it.  For that, above all else, Hitler deserves to be critiqued and condemned.
That the “movement” cannot readjust its views on Hitler to incorporate the bad along with the good means that: (1) they can’t get over their fanboy man-crush on Hitler – the Cult of Saint Adolf, (2) they have incredibly bad judgment, and/or (3) they essentially agree with Hitler’s views on race and agree that the cost/benefit ratio of German expansionism and colonization at the expense of other Europeans was worth it.
Regardless, that’s not my view, and another reason I believe that the American “movement” has got to go.
It’s time for an objective racial-historical-political reevaluation of “the meaning of Hitler” – a man who was neither a demigod nor a monster, but an interesting, dynamic, world-historical leader who had profound effects on the course of White history, and the future that we face.
The Old Movement, decrepit and fossilized, adhering to rigid dogma with religious fervor, is incapable of such an assessment, as much as they are incapable of anything else.  A New Movement, one would hope, would be different and better.

The Old Movement, and its Cult of Saint Adolf, needs to die, so the White Race can live.