Category: Imperium

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?

Der Marching Movement

Some points.

Read this.

What is Populism? is a truly terrible, even contemptible performance. Müller is Professor of Politics at Princeton University, so he’s not totally stupid. What’s stupid is the Left-liberal democratic ideology and system that he defends. One gets the impression that he has lived so long in the echo chamber of academia and the middle-brow press that he has never really articulated and challenged his own political convictions. You’d think that would come with the territory as Professor of Politics at Princeton. But they don’t make Princeton professors like they used to. I think Müller stumbles so badly because, for perhaps the first time in his life, he has blundered out of the cave into the sunlight.

But take heart: an establishment this out of touch is truly doomed.

That was a reasonably good analysis by Johnson.  As he is a full time activist – living off donations – he certainly has the time to read, and review, all these books.  One problem is that he’s preaching to the choir here. How to get these analyses out to a broader population?  After all, I thought Counter-Currents was all for the “big tent” and wants to normalize WN?

Johnson should challenge Muller to a debate on the subject of populism. There’s not much of a chance that Muller would accept, but what do you have to lose (assuming Johnson believes he could win such a debate)?  In the off chance Muller accepts, that would be a major promotion of Johnson’s views; if Muller objects, or ignores the invite, he can be publicly accused of intellectual cowardice.

This is a relevant point to my concerns about funding – I don’t begrudge anyone living off donations as long as they earn it. The question is whether anyone is earning it, according to my standards. Giving a forum to scum like Derbyshire is not a step in the right direction in that regard.  Breaking through the System’s cordon sanitaire to promote positive memes would be step in the right direction. Activists should only contribute donations to those people doing positive things. But, alas, the walking wallets disagree with my assessment and will continue to fund retrograde destructiveness.  Such is life.

As regards this: “But take heart: an establishment this out of touch is truly doomed.”

Does that apply to Der Movement, Inc. as well? We can only hope.  And the fate of the Alt Right give us good reason to hope.  The good old boy network is not invincible, even with the narrow confines of racial activism itself (and it is that context I am talking about, as the network is absolutely inept – far from invincible – in tackling the System).

Whites as a defeated and despairing race.

Why not?  They thought they were electing a pro-White right-wing populist as President, and instead they got a radically left-wing Antifa supporter.

Interesting how Sailer talks about Whites as a race.  Hey, Breezy Steve, I thought that White nationalism is “impossible” because we can’t figure out who is, or is not, “White?’  But you seem to do so in every other column.  Of course you include Jews as “White”- what was your ancestry again?  And does Unz pay you?

An excellent gamester comment below.  Note how Asians are included in the non-White hordes.  Colored is as colored does.  They are all the same.

For reasons that are a mystery to me, I like to put myself into the shoes – or more accurately, into ‘da haid’ — of a nonWhite in America or any White country. What I feel on these jaunts into their skulls is their simple and unbridled joy, their unshaken belief in a bright future that rests on this one, single foundation: wypipo will continue to play by the rules.
Those rules being, that we (I’m back to me now, a White) will continue to be the inanimate backdrop of social capital that lays a nice habitat for blacks, browns and yellows though our competence, niceness, our imbecilic good cheer. One-man-one-vote and the browning of America mean that we’ll resign ourselves to the shifting electoral reality just like individual trees continue to stand around and cast shade and look pretty no matter how many trees around them are cut down.
Whether we’re talking about a 70-IQ black or the 110-IQ Asian, they lack the flexibility of imagination that would let them envision a dynamic system within which, when pressure is turned up on Whites, Whites stop playing by the rules of present-day’s strange, unstable moment of transition between the old complacent America of plenty and the new America whose myths of plurality are becoming Boomer-relics.

While Roissy writes about “pasta naggers,” I write about BOTH the Italian question and about “cuck naggers.” This blog attempts to be honest about, and critical about, all ethnies, while the quota queens are ever-so-selective.

This is interesting.  Fascinating that they didn’t prioritize a particular Borreby individual, but, what can you say?

I was listening to a Radio Europa podcast which was going well until the commentators started critiquing the idea of a European Imperium, using all sorts of retarded straw man arguments.  It doesn’t matter how often one points out that even an extreme integrationist like Yockey supported local sovereignty.  No sir!  Those horrific “Greek Orthodox” people are going to torment you mercilessly by their very existence, so no Imperium for you!  Of course, having nice “Commonwealth” West Indians and South Asians around is all fine and dandy, eh?.  In other words – Rotherham good, Brittas Bay bad.

Ahhh…cuck naggers.  Shakin’ mah haid…amirite?  [Gamesters weep]

OK, to be fair, they don’t want the Blacksters and Brownsters around either. But their hysterical reaction to the Imperium idea, without discussing the nuances, is despicable, and deserves to be mocked.

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?