Category: Imperium

Where Things Stand Indeed

Critiquing Strom’s piece.

Dr. Oliver made his assessment as part of a promotional film, After Fifty Years, for the National Youth Alliance — the predecessor of today’s National Alliance. The book the Youth Alliance chose to inspire young people was Francis Parker Yockey’s flawed but powerful Imperium — which is today still available from our Cosmotheist book store.

That’s a pleasant surprise, since Pierce was not selling Imperium back when I perused his book catalog.  He did sell books by McCulloch, as does your book store today. Don’t expect much support from so-called “White ethnics” by the way.  Why should they support you if you do not support them?  Why should they support people who despise them?  Good luck achieving your objectives while writing off a significant fraction of the American and world-wide European-derived population.

As we approach 2020, much has changed.

Has it?  Really?

Today, we have much more than Imperium.

Quantity wise, yes. Quality wise, hardly.

We have the great example of what Yockey, in that book, called The Hero of the Second World War — Adolf Hitler — and his titanic, even mythic, struggle — not yet finished, despite his martyrdom — against the Enemies of Life. We have that great example shining in front of us, and shining before the new generations of our Folk, more than ever now, as the tired myths promoted by our enemies deservedly and inevitably expire.

Sigh. Hitler worship is not going to get us anywhere.  Yes, I’m sympathetic to Saint Adolf’s struggles against “the Enemies of Life,” but we also need to be cognizant of the man’s majestic flaws.  Hitler stained his legacy by his propensity for hegemonic war against other European peoples.  An honest reading of history – including by authors like Irving who can hardly be labeled as biased against Hitler – will demonstrate that Hitler’s foreign policy was always aimed at territorial expansion to be achieved by dispossessing the Slavs.  His racial views were Nordicist and Germanocentric. I realize that none of that will trouble Der Movement, but the question goes back to whether you honestly want to achieve your ostensible objectives.  If you do, a more balanced appraisal of Saint Adolf would be helpful.

We have the life’s work of Revilo Oliver, the greatest of which he created after 1970 — after the age of 62 — when he renounced conservatism and Christianity, fully endorsed racial-nationalism, and promoted the National Alliance and National Socialism.

Oliver had some good points, but bad points as well – in the end, descending into Type I fetishism and dogma.

We have one of the greatest books of the 20th century, Which Way, Western Man? by the thinker and philosopher — and National Alliance member — William Gayley Simpson.

Another dogmatic and limited fetishist.

We have the life’s work of the founder of the National Alliance, Dr. William Luther Pierce, whose leadership had just barely begun in 1970. Dr. Pierce relentlessly wrote and organized and broadcast his works to the world until his death in 2002…


… — and Will Williams, the current chairman of the Alliance, has dedicated his life to not only preserving those works, but to vividly and repeatedly promoting them and making them available — again and again, week after week, year after year — to new generations of our people.

I’m not sure promoting all of those works is a positive.

Today, unlike in 1920 and in 1970, we have the ability to propagate our message to millions of our people via and our other outlets. It’s been a long time since our pages were visited fewer than a million times per month. 

The Internet shall save us!  We’ve been hearing that tired old tune for about two decades now.  The Alt Right was real prominent on the Internet…where are they now?  How is the NA translating that online success to analog activism?

We — and other racial-nationalists, many of them awakened and inspired by our work — have been so successful in doing this that the Jewish power structure is desperate to shut down our media operations by any means, fair or foul. 

Are you prepared for that contingency?

The hundreds of thousands of young White people who read our words are making themselves known. They have been censored, delisted, banned, and shadowbanned again and again and again — yet, on Twitter alone, they still number in six figures by my estimate and are growing by the day — young people who know that Pierce and Rockwell and Simpson and Oliver and Hitler will be the saints of the future — and its architects. As one wag put it, the only question is: “How tall will their statues be?”

Oh dear god…can you believe this?  Can we stop with this “we will win in the end” optimism that is backed up by 100 years of complete failure HOW are you going to achieve that future?

It is true that the hundreds of thousands who read our words have mostly been free riders. Most have not joined us, or sent donations. Some are doubtlessly intimidated by what the Jews have done to ruin the lives of conscious Whites.

How about a bit more self-awareness as well?  It’s also that these “free riders” have absolute zero confidence in the “movement” and its affirmative action leadership.  They see humiliation after humiliation, defeat after defeat, infiltration after infiltration, endless failure after endless failure. Why should they get involved?  Has the NA in its more recent incarnation been free of this? “Smoky Mountain SS” (or whatever he called himself) delivering NA files to the enemy, and then the DeCourcy fiasco.  Even putting the best face on all of that, it shows questionable judgment regarding the types of people in the organization.  That’s the same type of bad judgment that led to the Hermansson infiltration and the Disqus exposures for other groups.  Can you blame prudent people for not trusting “movement leadership?”  I won’t even get into the Gliebe and Walker era with respect to the NA, etc. – but you have to realize that anyone looking into the group online – the vaunted Internet! – can see (and smell) all the dirty laundry. Thus, people may agree with your writings and broadcasts but they do not believe that anyone involved has the character and competence to be effective leaders. Are they wrong?  Then prove it.  

To those of you who are in that category, let me say two things: 1) There is great safety in numbers. When 250,000 people are supporting the National Alliance instead of just reading our words, we will be strong enough to be a social force that few will want to tangle with, legally or otherwise. 

How are you going to achieve this?  How are you going to straighten your own activist core out, win victories, and be palatable enough to attract 250,000 people? Or 25,000?  Or 2,500?  Or even 250?

Then the fence-sitters will leave the fence in droves — and a quarter million will be just the beginning. They won’t have enough corrupt US Attorneys or jails to make a much of a dent in our numbers or our morale then. In fact, by then, we might have more than a few prosecutors on our side, as well as leaders in every field of our society — when these people see that someone’s finally doing something. 

Ah, the key is – “someone’s finally doing something.”  The problem is that this is not happening. Ball in your court.  Clean up your own operation first.  Can your group go several years in a row without some new scandal, infighting, arrests, embarrassments, etc.?

2) It is, using cryptocurrency — which is not hard to use, quite possible to support our efforts with perfect anonymity. Even we won’t be able to know who you are unless you want us to.

For people to go to the trouble of doing that, they need to have the confidence to know it’ll be put to good use.  NONE of the “movement leaders” have presented us with evidence to build that confidence.

Another reason for the free riders is, I think, a psychological peculiarity of White people: Despite our great propensity for free thought and individual innovation, we are deeply law-abiding people who respect authority and hierarchy. We need psychological permission from a leader before engaging in warlike acts, or going against convention, or going against powerful interest groups. But once that psychological “permission” is obtained, no one is a stronger or better fighter — and conqueror — and destroyer of his enemies — than the awakened White man.

That leader has to be someone respected – not a laughingstock.  Not someone who has more skeletons in their closet than a graveyard.

We need to position ourselves as worthy — and actually be worthy — of leadership. We need to be excellent in everything we do. We need flawless logic and sterling character. We need authenticity and honor. We need the authority that comes from knowledge and truthfulness. We need the moral authority that comes from wisdom — and from right living that will be an example to all who see it. We need to be unforgiving — and totally dedicated to stamping out each and every threat to our people’s existence, forever. We need relentless effort that never tires, never quits. We need to engage the “authorities” of our society and publicly challenge their corruption. Most of all, we need to be strong —for no one and nothing in Nature respects the weak.

Very good.  Get started.  You haven’t even taken the first step yet.

As William Pierce said, the National Alliance needs to embody a society in the making — embody, with excellence, every function needed to assume societal leadership when the time is ripe.

Too bad he failed utterly in achieving any of that when he was alive.

Have we done that yet? No. 


Are we ready to take on such in-depth leadership of our society now? No. No one is. But when the hundreds of thousands see that we are serious about doing exactly that, our cause, in the words of Dr. Oliver, “will move forward with the gathering momentum of an avalanche.”

Doubtful. Wishful thinking.

No offense Kevin, but there’s nothing here.  Granted, of course, I don’t expect you to publicly reveal your plans in any detail (but given the reality of infiltration and System surveillance, it would probably be known anyway), but how about some discussion of strategic direction, at least in general terms?  Again, there’s nothing here, except the usual praise for Hitler, Pierce, and other Type Is, obvious statements on how you need more supporters, calls for more effective leadership, and of course the type of overly optimistic “fascist” thinking mocked by Roger Griffin, exemplified by:

…young people who know that Pierce and Rockwell and Simpson and Oliver and Hitler will be the saints of the future — and its architects. As one wag put it, the only question is: “How tall will their statues be?”

Great.  And how is that future going to be achieved?  How are ANY of the steps required to even make the initial moves to get to that future going to be achieved?  Again, I’m not asking for details, I’m not asking for secrets or anything that can be leveraged against your plans, but just the broadest outlines of a winning strategy.  

But there’s nothing.  There’s always nothing. This is my point.  In 1969 Oliver talked about 50 years of failure and here we are after 50 more years of failure and all we can point to is how popular certain websites are on the Internet.  And when those get deplatformed, then what?

This Strom piece is a gross disappointment. It’s not enough to say that “you should all support the NA.”  It’s not enough to dream about a future in which we debate how tall the William Pierce Memorial Statue should be.  And it’s not enough to talk about what is needed about quality leadership.  You have to DO.  And the first step in DOING – and what you can do right now with the limited resources you have – is to run a professional, sane, disciplined organization that does not provide SPLC gossip every few months via some embarrassment, infiltration, scandal, infighting, or other incident.  Start by stop making avoidable errors. You need to have a different attitude toward the people you hire, the people you accept as leading activists. Warm bodies willing to live on a mountaintop somewhere are not enough. The attitude of “well, these are the only people willing to come out in the middle of nowhere and work for us” is not helpful.  Maybe that’s the problem? It’s a self-perpetuating cycle where the low quality of the operation attracts low quality people who lower the quality of the organization even more.  And this all repels quality people. Quality people are not going to be attracted by some micro-group, living out in the woods somewhere, with employees whose major attribute is a willingness to endure those conditions. [Note – I’ve repeatedly written that Pierce’s move out of the DC area and into the WV mountains was a gross error].

The first step is to break this negative cycle.  It would be better to take one step back in order to move forward than continuing down a wrong path.  Better to have three quality people to start with than to have 30 defectives. Better to take the time to build an infrastructure that inspires confidence than to push forward under current conditions with an infrastructure that gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you’re trying to lead a worldwide revolutionary movement out of a trailer park. I’m not trying to be overly harsh, just brutally honest.  It’s not like the NA under Pierce wasn’t pulling in money – it was.  It was just all squandered.  It’s not the fault of the “free riders” that that happened.

It’s not enough to “be strong.” You have to look strong as well. You need to project strength, integrity, and competence in order to inspire the confidence required to attract the supporters you want.  People are not going to come to you just because you say you need them.  People will not sacrifice for a leader or for an organization that produces nothing but embarrassment and failure. Again, the very first step is relatively easy and eminently achievable – stop making mistakes, stop the scandals, stop the bad judgment, stop hiring questionable people, stop with the attitude that anyone is better than no one (is a negative number higher than zero?). You need to build a record that inspires confidence. You need to stop all the “facepalm” episodes.  At this point, an absence of embarrassment and disaster can count as a victory.  Be prudent.  Yes, I know – “no risk, no reward”- but this is not what we are talking about here.  Foolishness and bad judgment is not reasonable risk-taking. Endless failure is not a reward.

Rethink your strategy and tactics.


The Salterian Ethics of Imperium

Analyzing the worldview of Francis Parker Yockey through the prism of Salterian ethics.

Previously, I discussed the ethics of EGI and of genetic interests in general (“Salterian ethics”) and would now like to discuss how those ethics can be utilized to judge a proposed biopolitical project – Francis Parker Yockey’s  idea of Imperium (a pan-European empire), as outlined in his book by that name. I had, some years ago, attempted to synthesize the world views of Salter and Yockey with respect to the genetic/biological and political considerations – essentially tracking with the first two sections of Salter’s On Genetic Interests, and now I will focus on ethical considerations, which was the topic of the last third of Salter’s book.

In my previous TOQ essay focusing on Salter and Yockey, I explained the difference between gross and net genetic interests, although I did not use those terms:

Alternatively, consider the possibility that a future, very finely grained, autosomal genetic analysis would show a clear distinctiveness between East and West England. A very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates and that members of those groups should consider themselves distinct ethnies, not intermarry, etc. However, the costs of such a scenario need to be balanced against the relatively small extra gain in raw genetic interest obtained. This pursuit of narrow regional intra-national genetic interest would result in a disruption of the organic solidarity of the English nation and people; if this disruption makes the English—all of them, East and West—more vulnerable to foreign interests and intrusive demographic expansions, then the costs would outweigh the benefits. Likewise, the legitimate pursuit of intra-Western genetic interests and particularisms needs to be balanced against the possible costs incurred by not presenting a united front against other civilizational concentrations of genetic interest.

The “…very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest” that “may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates” would be an example of a pursuit of gross genetic interests – a naïve attempt to maximize EGI without consideration of costs vs. benefits. Taking a broader view, and considering that larger entities may be able to better defend the genetic interests of the populace can lead to optimization of net genetic interests – maximization of EGI when costs and benefits are balanced out.

Yockey’s words…in Imperium are relevant here:

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 Turkestan! from the Russian Empire . . .

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 yesterdaynationalists 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.

Yockey argues that dividing Europeans against themselves, which in the context of an EGI perspective would be an unfettered pursuit of gross genetic interests regardless of the costs, would benefit only the enemies of Europe (and of Europeans) – hence, again from an EGI perspective, net genetic interests would be damaged. Thus, even though Yockey was arguing form a High Culture (and geopolitical) perspective, his comments can be reinterpreted as being consistent with a concern for net EGI as opposed to a blind pursuit of gross EGI.  From the standpoint of Salterian ethics, a focus on net EGI is reasonable, particularly from a “mixed ethic” perspective that also includes concerns for proximate interests (e.g., actualizing a High Culture).

See this for more on Yockey’s racial views, a topic that is relevant to the current analysis. Yockey’s views on race, taken at literal face value, are not very compatible with EGI. If, however, we interpret Yockey as being concerned with eschewing overly disjunctive divisions among (Western) Europeans, and if we view that in the context of preservation of net generic interests by fostering pan-European solidarity vs. outside threats, the seemingly stark incompatibility between Yockey and EGI essentially vanishes.  

My concept of “The EGI Firewall” is useful in these discussions. The firewall establishes the “floor” – the minimum acceptable EGI (or genetic interests more generally) consideration that absolutely must be incorporated into any sociopolitical scenario.  Thus, there is an absolute boundary beyond which one cannot cross without so seriously compromising EGI that the relevant proposal must be rejected.  For example, any scheme that would flood Europe with large numbers of non-Europeans would be completely unacceptable from any reasonable scenario that considers EGI as important and that incorporates Salterian ethics.  There has to be some foundation of EGI for any political project. The question is – where should this boundary be? There is of course no purely objective answer to that question, although the scenario just given does provide an example where most adaptively-minded Europeans would agree that the boundary has clearly been crossed. Of course, the scenario given is precisely the situation being actualized into reality today with the globalist EU and mass migration; it is certainly not merely some theoretical exercise.

From my essay on Salterian ethics:

Salter compares three ethics – pure adaptive utilitarianism (PAU), mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU), and the rights-centered ethic (RCE).

Obviously, the RCE would reject both Yockeyism and a biopolitical system based on EGI as damaging “individual rights.”  But the focus of this essay is to evaluate how Yockeyism can be incorporated into Salterian ethics (and vice versa), so the RCE, which is incompatible with Salterian ethics, is irrelevant. We are therefore left with the PAU and MAU ethics.

We can now consider the PAU and MAU.  From the perspective of gross genetic interests, one may question the appropriateness of Yockeyism for the PAU, as the PAU would lead one to favor “smaller is better” micro-states, independent of the effects of that choice on the long term stability of the genetic continuity of the peoples involved.  However, from the perspective of net genetic interests, if Yockeyism maximizes the power of the peoples involved through the establishment of a European Imperium, thus protecting these peoples from outside threats, then Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU. That would hold IF the system set up can safeguard the uniqueness of its constituent peoples. This safeguarding could be accomplished via the acceptance of a degree of local sovereignty (that Yockey agreed with) and the preservation of borders, with the Imperium being a confederation of nations and regions, each preserving their particular biological and cultural characteristics. One would in this case reject a single borderless state in which national and regional identities are erased and in which ethnic distinctiveness is lost via panmixia.  In order for this scenario to be stable long term, this characteristic of the Imperium – the preservation of the unique characteristics of its constituent parts – would need to be considered an absolutely fundamental and unalterable keystone of the state’s raison d’etre.  This is the EGI Firewall discussed above – a minimum absolute requirement for preservation of EGI, even at “lower” levels, as part of any political and social projects that are actualized.  I note that civilizational blocs are proposed by Salter in his book as one approach for protecting EGI, so the idea is not by its nature incompatible with EGI; it is a question of implementation.

Thus, Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU ethics under conditions such as described above, and with a firm understanding of net vs. gross genetic interests.

If Yockeyism could be compatible with the PAU, then it certainly can be compatible with the MAU, since the latter allows for other (proximate) interests, besides the ultimate interests of genetic interests, to be considered and actualized into policy, as long as the fundamental rights of genetic continuity are not abrogated. Here we see that an enlightened PAU that considers net genetic interests begins to converge onto the MAU, if the proximate interests under consideration are such that could actually contribute to EGI in some manner (e.g., actualizing a High Culture, as opposed to a mere concern for “individual rights).

So Yockeyism, with the proper caveats, and from the net genetic interests respective, could indeed be compatible with Salterian ethics.

El Paso and Other News

In der news.

It is too early to know for sure what the facts are from the El Paso incident.
A few points can be made at this early stage.  First, that a “movement” connection is a possibility tells you much about the Type I domination of Der Movement, Inc.  That possibility may turn out to be true or it may turn out to be false, but the plausibility of the possibility is itself an indictment of a pathetic, failed “movement” and its affirmative action “leadership.”

Second, one can one say about an anti-White homosexual pervert, running for President, denouncing the idea of White people defending their interests?

Third, it is also an indictment of the “movement” that a President whose apparent sole concerns are Israel, A$AP Rocky, Big Macs, and releasing Back criminals from prison is publicly labeled as a “White nationalist” or a “White supremacist.”

Now, as far as the second point goes, the System’s anti-White animus is “baked into the cake,” but as regards points one and three, that’s on the head of the Quota Queens who have made a mockery of White racial nationalism.

Read or listen to this.

I look forward to Strom’s forthcoming “After 100 Years” piece that may be – perhaps by coincidence – an answer to my recent challenge to him to tell us how his organization is planning to reverse the disasters not only described by Oliver in 1969, but all that has occurred in the 50 years since then.

One point for right now.  Strom is fond of repeating that the National Youth Alliance was the predecessor of the National Alliance.  Historically yes, but ideologically no.  The NYA was founded, as Oliver alludes, with Yockey’s Imperium as its ideological foundation; the NA has completely ignored Yockey and Imperium in favor of typical Type I Nordicist dogma.  Now, I understand, and have often critiqued, Yockey’s errors about biological race.  Oliver had done the same yet that didn’t stop Oliver from praising Imperium for its strong points despite its known weaknesses.

Strom needs to realize that we need to step beyond Pierce’s Hitler-worshipping Nutzi Nordicism, his warmed over doctrinaire Germanic national socialism, and implement fresh approaches more in line with sanity and reality (and, no, “Cosmotheism” – essentially Pierce’s political views given a religions veneer – doesn’t fulfill that role).

Good to see our “White supremacist President” is accomplishing something.

MAGA! Pepe!  Kek!

The atrociously disgusting subhuman Durocher, the subject of a fascinating stylometric comparative study I performed, is back with his usual hyper-Nordicist “interpretations” of population genetics

Of course, that is at the site of a White-hating HBD Jew who supports Hispanic immigration into America.  In any case, one should always note the fundamental dishonesty of Durocher from the perspective of both commission and omission.  Commission is the lies he peddles in his pieces; omission is his refusal to discuss the reality and implications of East Asian/Siberian admixture in Northern Europe.  Omission can also be applied to the findings of my stylometric analysis (that is also apparent to anyone who has normal hearing when listening to podcasts).

My low opinion of Durocher is confirmed once again.

Der Movement’s Spenglerian Cycle

Welcome to the Interregnum.

WWII was a dividing line in American Far Right activism – all that went before (KKK, America First, Silver Shirts, etc.) was swept away in their old forms and all had to begin again.

Can we outline a Spenglerian cycle of the post-WWII Far Right activism?  The following is a crude outline.  Of course, there will be overlap; persons and groups do not fit neatly in only one era, but instead we will consider the period when the person or group and their ideas was dominant, or at least representative of the broader “civilizational” scope of that era of “movement” history.  And, of course, there will be overlap between American and European activism, as Yockey straddles both. And here I refer to racialist groups, not merely anti-communist hyper-nationalist groups like The John Birch Society or the Minutemen (the latter of which were interesting in their own right).

Spring: Francis Parker Yockey and Imperium.  The European Liberation Front. Post-war Mosely – Europe a Nation. From the end of WWII to Yockey’s death. New creative forms of racial-civilizational nationalism. An abortive attempt for Type II domination of activism.

Summer: Rockwell and the American Nazi Party.  The National Renaissance Party reaches its peak. The National Youth Alliance.  The rise of Carto. Evola – Ride the Tiger. From Yockey’s death to the full ascendance of William Pierce and the formation of the National Alliance from the ashes of The National Youth Alliance. The Type Is take charge permanently.

Fall: Pierce and the National Alliance. The original American Dissident Voices broadcast with Strom and Pierce. The rise of David Duke. Taylor begins American Renaissance. MacDonald’s trilogy. On Genetic Interests. The abortive attempt to renew a Type II Spring and Summer with Legion Europa.  From the early 1970s to the early 2000s. The death of Pierce – harbinger of the end. Type I domination with some Type II rebellion.  

Winter: Spencer, Johnson, the rise of “game” and the “Alt Right.”  Beavis-and-Butthead White Nationalism. Demented sicknesses like Silk Road White Nationalism. VDARE.  Derbyshire and Sailer.  The HBD menace.  Fossilized “movement” dogma. Arthur Kemp. A lack of any memetic originality coupled with contending self-interested leaders squabbling over scraps. Trumpism. The Interregnum we are now in. The Dark Ages for the “movement.” Type IIs to the monasteries to preserve civilization from the sniggering barbarian retardates.

A Prospective Imperium

Broad comments, not fine details.

With some of the hysterical nonsense coming from some folks over the ocean regarding “Imperium,” I would like to make a few comments concerning this, and how an Imperium does not necessarily mean that local sovereignty is completely lost and historic nations are eliminated.

I am not going to get into fine details – falling into the trap of “fascist delusion” that Roger Grifffin (with some justification) mocked in his work.  I will just outline the broad details to demonstrate that an Imperium need not entail complete loss of local sovereignty and the erasure of Europe’s ethnic and cultural distinctions. 

Consider an Imperium roughly analogous to the early American Republic – the USA in the decades in between 1783 and 1861.  There is an overarching federal structure, composed of individual states that retain considerable local sovereignty and which each have their unique histories, cultures, and economies (compare, for example, antebellum Massachusetts or New York to Virginia or South Carolina).  The federal structure was responsible for foreign affairs, national defense, and those domestic issues of a scale that involved multiple (or all) states together.  But there was a strong “states rights” principle. The federal government had a legislature composed of representatives from the member states – Senators representing the states and Representatives representing the states and more specifically representing districts (“regions”) within those states.

The Imperium in some respects would be more integrated than the early USA, in other aspects less, and in some aspects, the level of integration may fluctuate over time given circumstances.  There may be somewhat less integration with respect to military – one could envision individual nation states within the Imperium having their own military forces, which are then contributed to the Imperium as needed (e.g., like NATO).  Or there could be separate individual and joint forces, with the individual forces contributing to the joint force in times of crisis (the joint force could have the everyday job of guarding continental borders).  Economic integration is another point where it may be less in the Imperium, at least at first, than in the USA.  A fundamental problem with EU economics is the distinction between the more productive economies of the Northwest of Europe and the less productive economies of the South and East – the example of the German Ants vs .the Greek Grasshoppers.  Until such time that the South and East can pull their own weight economically, a less integrated continental economy – sans any common currency – would be prudent at first.  Although some degree of oversight and continental autarky would be encouraged.  More integration?  The old paradigm of a “states’ rights” USA fell apart primarily because of slavery and the US Civil War.  There are some things that an individual nation within the Imperium could not do – like importing alien peoples for whatever reason, including cheap (or slave) labor.  There has to be fundamental understandings – one cannot have a federal structure containing states whose entire fundamental existence is so different, and potentially incompatible, as what occurred in the early USA.  An objection to my analogy would be that the early USA system was not stable, evolving into a situation of greater federal power, and loss of basic sovereignty to the constituent states.  The instability – and eventual devolution to conflict and loss of local sovereignty – can be avoided by preventing states moving in directions that are so divergent from that of others that continued co-existence along these lines would be impossible.  So, yes, different cultures and economies are fine, but fundamentally aliens systems are not.  An Imperium based on racial nationalism simply cannot allow its states to become multiracial, to import aliens, to go back to the bad old days.  Needless to say, foreign policy would be an Imperium-wide effort.  There would also be voluntary pan-European projects, in culture, science and technics, space exploration, etc.

One area where the Imperium would be less integrated than the early USA and the current EU would be regarding the flow of people.  Internal borders would be maintained. .Just because different nations are part of the same broad general federal structure, does not mean that peoples from these different nations would have the right to freely immigrate to other nations within the Imperium. To safeguard the uniqueness of Europe’s peoples and cultures, in general, people would live within their own nation states.  Internal migration would be limited – the exception, not the rule. This point would need to be one of the absolute fundamental principles of any Imperium.  The underlying objectives are not economic, or, broadly, “standard of living, “or “freedom.”  It is the preservation and advancement of the Race and Culture, and the individual ethnic groups and cultures that form that greater Race-Culture.  The free flow of people within the Imperium would threaten that project and cannot be allowed.

I would also advise the reader to consider the distinctions between Imperium and Dominion broad vs. local sovereignty) inherent in Norman Lowell’s Imperium Europa idea.  Those ideas are in some ways similar to the general view here, and we cannot forget that even Yockey was willing to allow for local sovereignty and freedom for the regions making up his Imperium.

Friday Follies

“Movement” madness.  In all cases, emphasis added.

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien is a favorite author of New Left “hippies” and New Right nationalists, and for pretty much the same reasons. Tolkien deeply distrusted modernization and industrialization, which replace organic reciprocity between man and nature with technological dominion of man over nature, a relationship that deforms and devalues both poles.

Dat right!  Let dem dere Chinese do dat technology, we’ll just hike through the woods, eating twigs and branches.

But philosophically and politically, Tolkien was much closer to the New Right than the New Left. Tolkien was a conservative and a race realist. 

Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

…In 1961, Tolkien sharply criticized a Swedish commentator who suggested that The Lord of the Rings was an anti-communist parable and identified Sauron with Stalin. Tolkien said, “I utterly repudiate any such reading, which angers meTolkien vocally opposed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party before the Second World War, and was known to especially despise Nazi racist and anti-semitic ideology. In 1938, the publishing house Rütten & Loening Verlag was preparing to release The Hobbit in Nazi Germany. To Tolkien’s outrage, he was asked beforehand whether he was of Aryan origin. In a letter to his British publisher Stanley Unwin, he condemned Nazi “race-doctrine” as “wholly pernicious and unscientific”. He added that he had many Jewish friends….

Well, given Johnson’s recent Unzian slant, Tolkien fits in well…a pro-Jewish Christian cuckservative.

His preferences ran toward non-constitutional monarchy in the capital and de facto anarchy in the provinces…

The provinces, where our snug hobbit hole is located.

For those who need no introduction, there is no better commemoration than to spend a winter evening snug in one’s own Hobbit hole…

Some reach for the stars, others burrow into their snug little hole.

And let’s all read about Tolkien and his distrust of technics – yes, read all about it…on a computer, over the Internet. Traditionalists do have a comical lack of self-awareness, don’t they?

By this point I really do believe the Tolkien fetish has an ethnoracial biological dimension.  Traditionalism likely does as well in a related sense – Evola being an extreme outlier.  Or maybe it’s just me?  I don’t know.  This is a topic for further study.  Are there significant intra-European ethnic differences in the appeal of Tolkienite Traditionalism?  Are there different preferences for the snug hobbit hole vs. the spaceship?  And what does this tell us about Spengler and his pontifications about the Faustian Will-to-Power?  Tolkienism seems to be me as anti-Faustian as you can get – de facto anarchy in your hobbit hole.  

Delenda Est Traditionalism!

No, no, a thousand times, no!  A Mediterranean diet is going to double your melanin levels and halve your IQ; it is completely unacceptable for real White men!

Try this one instead.  Eat like a Viking!  “Movement” approved.

Can Strom explain how any of this Keystone cops routine is going to lead to “White renewal?”

Will Williams took over as NA’s third chairman in October 2014. He knew the organization was in financial and organizational disarray and hired accountant Randolph Dilloway to help restore the organization. {snip}

According to the lawsuit, Williams went to confront Dilloway for his shoddy work on May 3, 2015. Both men called the police, and Dilloway fled with a laptop and thumb drives with allegedly stolen documents. On May 20, the SPLC published an article called “Chaos at the Compound,” revealing documents Beirich admitted to receiving from Dilloway on May 6, three days after the confrontation.

I have a mixed opinion on all of this.

One the one hand, Spencer is a terrible spokesman for the Imperium idea, which is not at all incompatible with Salter’s Universal Nationalism or local sovereignty.  Pitching the Imperium idea with the aura of a James Bond villain, with lots of warmed-over Social Darwinism, does not impress. Spencer needs to read On Genetic Interests.  Universal Nationalism does not imply a lack of competition between nations and peoples; it does mean that every people should be allowed genetic continuity and at least some minimal means of existence.  And one must remember that in a world full of high-tech weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction, net EGI would suggest the wisdom of a degree of restraint in great power competition.

Universal Nationalism does not reject large-scale federated EU-like structures – see the discussion centered on Fig. 7.1 in Salter’s  book. However, at other times, “smaller is better” seems to be promoted for maximization of genetic interests.  Splitting the difference would lead to a scenario such as that suggested by a number of pan-European theorists (including myself) in which the federated structure is balanced against a degree of local sovereignty.  These are issues for careful discussion, not bombastic statements and posturing.

On the other hand, Vox Day is even worse.  Our interests are not served by following the ideas of a racially-mixed anti-WN Christian conservative and his bible-thumping followers. Is that ad hominem?  Yes, it is, but their attacks on Spencer are nothing but ad hominem as well.  At least I offer some actual criticism of Spencer’s thoughts and suggest he consult with some of Salter’s ideas (and my own) to broaden his worldview.  His Voxian critics descend to name-calling and the typical “CIA asset” accusations.  In the absence of a real argument, the same tactics can be turned against them. One cannot expect a person who identifies as racially mixed to understand, and promote, the best interests of Whites as a race, and Christian fanatics have long made clear that their priority is religion, not race and civilization.  Thus, Spencer is a misguided potential ally, and these others are opponents.

Spencer needs to seriously engage with Salter’s ideas.

Der Movement Marches On in 2019

Consistency in stupidity.  In all cases, emphasis added.

Read this.  Ultima Thule discovered!  “Shakin’ Stevens” will do an Odinist Christmas video there.  A copy of Das Kapital optional.

Read this.

Most white advocates therefore support nationalism and limiting the European Union’s power, if not dismantling it altogether. Yet it did not have to be this way. The most forceful argument for a centralized European Union organized along racial lines came from Sir Oswald Mosley’s postwar concept of “Europe a Nation.” Even some supporters of European populism recognize the advantages of the European Union, including the currency union, free travel, and the possibility of a common defense. Solid majorities in every European nation (except Italy) believe their countries have benefited from membership. Marine Le Pen’s call to withdraw from the monetary union was supported by only a minority of French voters and probably hurt her chances in the election. Populism is a growing force and nationalism is far from dead, but Europeans generally do not want to leave the EU, whatever true nationalists think about it.

Assuming Hood is correct, this exposes two common “movement” lies.  First, the lie that support for the EU is solely due to greasy swarthoids, which of course is inconsistent with Der Movement’s (somewhat accurate) characterization of swarthoid nations as politically and economically inept. Obviously, there is no way that Italy, Greece, Spain, or Portugal, much less Eastern Europe, are going to impose their will on, say, Germany or France (or the UK, which joined, and then decided to leave, the EU on its own initiative).  And, according to Hood, Italians are the exception in Europe in not believing their nation as having benefited from the EU (can we have a Wopexit then?).  Second, Der Movement likes to pontificate that “the common man” in Europe “would never accept a European Imperium” while it is clear that the “common man” is more than happy with the EU if only the EU would stop promoting race replacement and multicultural Orwellian repression. There is ZERO evidence that most Europeans would reject a pro-European, pro-White, anti-immigration EU.

Der Movement: Always, always wrong.  The Type I nitwits are so consistently wrong, about almost everything, that it is comical.

Of course, these migrants wouldn’t be in Europe were it not for Angela Merkel’s unilateral decision to put out the welcome mat for Third World refugees…

But, but, but…that’s Der Master Race!

Read this.

I also need what’s best for me and mine. And that means maintaining hope and enjoying many aspects of life beyond White Nationalism—being of good cheer, as Greg Johnson urges us. 

Really?  Is that the same Greg Johnson who urged this:

But these truisms easily serve as rationalizations for cowardice. Because, at a certain point, you have to ask what you are saving yourself for. You can’t take it with you. And ultimately, accomplishments do not come from saving ourselves but from spending ourselves. What we do not give, will be taken by death in the end.
Yet the whole bourgeois dream is premised on evading this simple, grim reality. Bourgeois man seeks eternal springtime and perpetual peace, a “happily ever after” on sunlit putting greens, free of tragic choices and tragic grandeur, free of ideals that can pierce his heart and shed his blood.
But you can’t overthrow a system you are invested in. You can’t challenge the rulers of this world and count on reaching retirement age. You can’t do battle with Sauron while playing it safe. In the face of world-annihilating evil, we can no longer afford to be such men.

Another example of the low standards, ethical vacuity, and hypocrisy of the current version of Counter-Currents.  They can’t keep on a consistent message from day to day.  By Johnson’s definition of “moral seriousness,” Quinn is not serious.  Then why should we listen to him?  

But I know my limitations. I know I wouldn’t make a very good public dissident—I lack the charisma and self-control. 

Who cares about any of that?  Let’s focus on what’s really important. What ethnicity are you?

Quite frankly, I’m afraid that if I were in the position of a figurehead, I would make quite a few blunders as well.

Well, you chose to be a writer for the current incarnation of Counter-Currents, so there’s that.

Cuck nagger Romney and the usual shtick.

In his essay on Tuesday, Romney said he “will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions.”

This happens EVERY time.  The GOP runs right to get elected, and then always takes a hard left turn in office (just like Trump, eh?).  And the rubes fall for it EVERY time.  How many times did McCain pull that trick?

And this is more evidence why mainstreaming can never work, politically speaking.  If the Far Right moves to the center, the Mainstream Right only has to feint right in order to steal Far Right votes.

And if Whites as a race are so stupidly gullible, so naive, what does that tell us about claims of “racial superiority?”

The Alt Wrong in one picture – Rosie and her Pet Derb here.  Let the “measured groveling” begin.  I won’t comment on the details of the picture itself, which I think tells us many things, but I’ll leave that alone.

And, hey, VDARE contributors – you do know you’re helping support Derb, don’t you?   How many of you get to visit Cancun? I mean, you do know you’re a bunch of pathetic suckers, don’t you?  You do know you’re a bunch of nitwit walking wallets, don’t you?  And you do know that Counter-Currents now supports Derbyshire, don’t you?