Category: Norman Lowell

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:

CC——————–CvH

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

Key:

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

Thus:

CC -AH/BSS——WSS/MC-C-OGI—TS/NL—FPY—CvH

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.

Advertisements

Strom and Johnson

Some comments.

Kevin Strom is one of the few people on the far-Right who talk sense about Trump.

Greg Johnson is another.  While I usually agree with him on most things, a serious point of departure is described in this brief fisking.

When I speak of White Nationalism, I mean ethnic nationalism for every particular white ethnic group — Italians, French, Americans, Canadians, etc. — not some sort of European Imperium and melting pot, an idea which is revolting on the face of it, since it replicates all of the problems of globalization merely on a smaller scale…

Some problems, perhaps, but then the nation state can have the same problems as well. Greg is talking to Italians there.  Very well.  There are separatists in Italy who feel that the Italian state smothers their identity as does globalism, and the Flemish in Belgium feel similarly and there are other such examples.  Well, fine, let them separate.  Very good.  And how does a micro-state of Flanders or Padania or Catalonia or whatever make its way in a world with a clash of civilizations and with single nations (e.g., China and India) which contain hundreds of millions more people than all the Whites on Earth combined?  An alliance of White states perhaps?  A European Imperium that preserves a degree of internal sovereignty and certainly prevents internal migration flows, but puts up a common front for defense, space exploration and other science/technics, and various cultural projects? What’s wrong with that?  Even Durocher I believe endorsed that at one time or another.  Or do we try and have nations of several million trying to have relevance in a world with nations of over a billion?

…and which could never be realized without the fratricidal European wars…

Brought to us by ethnonationalism, which wrecked the White race with its internal feuds.

 …it is supposed to prevent. 

Why can’t the Imperium be voluntary, a confederation of nationalists?

If advocates of a white Imperium want to prove that it is more than a pipe dream, they can demonstrate this by first putting Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia back together.

Why should they?  Serbia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia can all be independent members of an Imperium that respects internal differences, as Yockey and Lowell have proposed.

If they can manage that, I will take them seriously.

I will take ethnonationalists seriously if they accept responsibility for two world wars that wrecked the White world and if they can explain why China should take Flanders seriously.

Ethnonationalism vs. The Pan-European Super-State

Why do folks pretend an alternative to this either/or hasn’t already been proposed?

The recent Johnson-Spencer dust-up, and the subsequent breathless comments from the peanut gallery commentariat at Counter-Currents, is in a bizarre way fascinating, since this issue has already been discussed by Francis Parker Yockey, Norman Lowell, and I.
The answer to the question: Ethnonationalism or Imperium? – is, simply, both. 
A rough analogy would be the pre-Civil War America where a federal structure presided over states that had some degree of autonomy, real differences, and of course, there were strong regional distinctions in culture and the way of life. 
To avoid civil wars, Jackson vs. Calhoun stand-offs and creeping centralization, obviously one would not copy the flawed American model. I’m talking about general principle, rather than exact mechanism. 
A Europe of individual completely independent states brought us to this sorry mess through the two world wars, that shattered the White World and led to the current EU fraud. On the other hand, that fraud shows us the dangers of mindless homogenizing centralization. 
If Whites are the “superior race,” then this would be a problem that is solvable, no? I mean, a people that racialists say will “one day reach the stars” should be able to properly arrange a balanced polity. shouldn’t they? The question is whether we have the will to do so.


Updated Complete Disagreement

I say no.
I disagree with this essay.  First, why should anyone take the incoherent rambling of von Hoffmeister seriously?  On the one hand, he writes lunatic pan-mixia proposals for Lowell’s book, on the other hand, he promotes ultra-Nordicist works like that Raciology book produced by a Russian wanna-be-German. Does he have any overarching ideology, or is it just a series of romantically radical poses? Spencer is a bit more sound, but after the Hungary fiasco, these aren’t exactly the kinds of folks who should be representing the “grandiose” worldview.
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?

Yet More on Hungary

Those brave and hearty pan-Turanists.
A commentator at Counter Currents reasonably states:
Jmorphy88
Posted September 30, 2014 at 9:39 pm | Permalink
I am profoundly disappointed with the lack of support from Jobbik. The way the MP pathetically bowed out of the conference, citing those eeee-vil “U.S. racists”, is an embarrassment to anything that could be called right-wing. It’s time to break with these people once and for all. What a bunch of rotten bastards.
Yes, indeed.  Of course, Jobbik is not a pan-European party, it’s an anti-Romanian ethnonationalist party that grovels to the Turks in some sort of misguided pan-Turanism.  Thus: Turks – wonderful, Romanians – evil, American racial nationalists – evil.  But, hey, don’t worry, mainstream Orban denounces even the anti-racialist and pro-Turk Jobbik party, once again proving the wonderful facility and utility of mainstreaming.
Say what you will about Lowell and Imperium Europa, but those guys wouldn’t have folded like a cheap camera in a similar situation. And although Malta has the same “race laws” as Hungary (indeed, Lowell was convicted some years back, merely for making very mild comments), it still would have been a better choice for a conference site than Hungary. But, no doubt, the Old Movement wouldn’t want to have anything to do with Malta and the Maltese, since, well, you know how it is with those types down there….

And who was the buffoon who thought it a good idea to invite the anti-White, anti-Western, Eurasianist Dugin to the conference, thus giving a “cover” excuse for the anti-White “mainstream” Orban government to cancel the conference?  Greg Johnson is correct: while Orban – the mainstreaming superhero! – would have cancelled the conference regardless, he has been able to “save face” with his more nationalist supporters by painting the whole thing as a Putinistic anti-Ukrainian gathering of Duginist extremists. And for what?  So that neo-hippy can expound on the “fourth political theory” or whatever other nonsense he’s peddling as a front for re-establishing the Soviet Union and flooding Russia with the brown and yellow trash of Asia?