Category: Norman Lowell

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.

Advertisements

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?

More Plagiarism

The Aryan ideal?
An individual bereft of character writes:

Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South West Africa (Namibia), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and Siberia (Russia-in-Asia) should all be fully reclaimed by, and reserved exclusively for, whites as part of a Greater Europe or White Imperium, with the exception of set-asides for native inhabitants such as Amerindians in North America and Aborigines in Australia.

That’s great.  You know, if I wrote something like that I would, out of decency, mention that Norman Lowell has been proposing a virtually identical White Imperium for years and, of course, then there’s Yockey.
But that’s me.  Others apparently take a different view of questions of decency.