In his various works, Yockey specifically stated that the regions of the Imperium could have full local autonomy and Lowell has stated similarly in his works. One could have both the narrow nationalism and ethnocultural preservation, as well as an overarching Euro-Imperium dealing with “High Politics” issues: foreign affairs and defense, scientific progress, High Culture, space exploration, etc.
One can look at the pathetic infighting of European euronationalists, who have learned nothing after two world wars that wrecked the White world, and see all the evidence you need that some sort of political unification is required – one that is sufficiently decentralized to prevent the problems inherent in the complaints of the anti-grandiose crowd.
Now, I’ll answer a few specific excerpts:
The threat of non-white blocs should not be exaggerated. France, the UK, or Russia alone are militarily strong enough to prevail against anything that Africa, India, or the Muslim world can throw at us — provided, of course, that whites are again morally strong enough to take their own side in a fight. A simple alliance of European states would be able to deter any Chinese aggression. Thus a defensive alliance between European states would be sufficient to preserve Europe from all outside forces, whether they be armed powers or stateless masses of refugees and immigrants.
It’s curious how some blithely dismiss the threat from, say, China. I’m no fan of the Chinese, but let’s be realistic. They are an intelligent (albeit not creative) and disciplined people, they hate Whites (that’s the truth, despite what miscegenating nerds and their dreams of an “Arctic Alliance” may tell you), they have advanced technology and nuclear weapons, a strong economy, and a massive population – hundreds of millions more Chinese than all the peoples of Europe combined. India – with an equally massive population and nuclear weapons – has a much lower quality population, but is still a threat. As regards nuclear deterrents, yes, Whites have them – but would they use them knowing the other side would retaliate? And the other side has a greater capacity to sacrifice population in any such exchange. Why should we tempt them to undertake such adventures by presenting to them a fractured and disunited White world? And what happens if these two Asian giants decide to end their feud and ally against the hated White man? Well, you can say that we need to use diplomacy to prevent that from happening. Very well. But don’t you think they will be using diplomacy against us?
Yes, indeed, how will “paper treaties” and/or ad hoc defensive alliances hold up against, say, Chinese pressure? If the Chinese decide they want Russian territory, including European Russia west of the Urals, maybe Ukraine and Poland too, they can go to the nations of Western Europe with the Carrot and the Stick. The Stick is obvious, as explained above. The Carrot: a non-aggression pact and alliance, economic and trade concessions, exchange of technology, and maybe a steady stream of Chinese females for the socially awkward “Derb” types – you know, to cement the “Arctic Alliance.” They can ask the ethnonationalists of London, Paris, Berlin, and Rome: “Why die for Warsaw, Kiev, and Moscow?” Why indeed?
And as regards an “equivalent to NATO” – the pathetic spectacle of opposition to Russian aggression to Ukraine should give one pause. Yes, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but strict guarantees were given to compensate for Ukrainian nuclear disarmament. I’ll also be curious to see what sort of enthusiasm for armed conflict will exist if Russia starts bullying actual NATO states such as in the Baltics. When “push comes to shove” – with “shove” backed up by nuclear weapons – I don’t think these “alliances” between “sovereign states” will be worth the paper they are printed on. In contrast, if all territories are part of the same overarching political unit, then an attack against any part is, by definition, an attack against all – not by treaty, but by reality, the same as an attack against Kentucky is also an attack against Wyoming, in contrast as how an attack against Latvia is not the same as an attack against the UK or Germany.
Grandiose nationalists oppose anti-EU sentiment because, they dream, nationalists might actually “take over” the EU someday.
That would be an honest statement if the sentence began with “Some.” Yes, I know Lowell and others think this way, but I for one have always been vehemently against the EU.
The answer is to build upon the pan-European consciousness that already exists in the leadership cadres of “petty” nationalist groups across Europe.
Building nationalism upon petty ethnonationalism is not going to yield any “pan-European consciousness.” Look at the reality on the ground. Ethnonationalists in Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are at each other’s throats (I won’t even mention the Serbs and Croats). You have folks in the BNP, as well as Fraser in Australia, who don’t want anything to do with a general “White” group, and in some cases deny it exists. German and Polish nationalists squabble over territory. There’s division in Spain, Italy, Belgium, and elsewhere. There’s the Scots and the English (never mind the Irish). Russians and Ukrainians obviously get along real well. Certainly, people should have the right to break away to form more homogeneous units, but even Lowell supports that, an Imperium of regions. So, that’s not the issue. The issue is one of mentality and vision. You can’t make the “silk purse” of pan-European consciousness out of the “sow’s ear” of squabbling, animus-filled ethnonationalism. Where’s that consciousness in the leadership cadres of ethnonationalist European groups? Who displays it? Certainly not the top leaders who command our attention.
The ethnonationalists had their day and gave us two world wars and wrecked our civilization. The anti-nationalist globalists rule now and are wrecking our blood and soil. Maybe we can give the “grandiose nationalists” a shot at it? Should we condemn them from the outset?