Category: pan-European

All Part of the West, Even Though Different

Important Western Destiny essay.

That is a clarification of my pan-European focus, inspired by a nine word phrase found near the end of Yockey’s masterpiece Imperium.

The power of Yockey’s writing is such that he conveyed in only nine words an idea that it typically takes me an entire essay to articulate. 

Advertisements

Oppose the Movement Caste System for Europeans

No hypocrisy.

Let’s consider the following, emphasis added:

Bolton cites some of the anti-“Med” ramblings of the King of Ethnic Fetishism, “Wilmot Robertson,” and also quotes Stimely’s correct verdict on Robertson’s self-defeating rambling obsessions.  “Robertson” and his legacy remain a highly destructive force within (mostly American) racial nationalism, one major infection point for the obsessive fixations that still remain extant today.  But, let us give some credit to “Robertson” and his followers: at least they are honest about their disgust and contempt for Europeans deriving from the south of Vienna (or Munich) and to the east of Berlin. Worse perhaps are those types who actually believe the same as “Robertson” but make a pretense of being “pan-European” or “pan-Aryan.”  Note to those latter individuals: Europeans – Westerners – are not Hindu Indians, we do not have, or want, a caste system (with Eastern Europeans being lower caste and Southern Europeans being “untouchables”).  Pick your ingroup and that’s your ingroup – if you despise a group, then don’t include them; if you include them then don’t despise them. The basic definition of any group is “in/out” and if Der Movement can’t even get that straight, after decades of discussion and debate, then what good is it?  If that is “vertical race” then Yockey was right to oppose it, but not at the cost of disavowing biological reality

This is an important point I’ve made time and again. Pick your ingroup and then accept the consequences of that choice without being a hypocrite. If you despise certain European types, all well and good, but then please do not pretend that they are part of your ingroup for reasons of self-interest (to maximize followers and “D’Nations” and/or to appeal to members of your real chosen ingroup who have more pan-European ideals than you do yourself). If, on the other hand, you accept X,Y,Z in your ingroup, then there should be no caste system that says that X,Y,Z are inferior to, and subordinate to, A,B,C and that only A,B,C can be leaders and not X,Y,Z.  And don’t accept X,Y,Z with condescending contempt, use them for what they are worth, and then later state that “we need to re-evaluate the ingroup,” after which you exclude those who’ve already invested time, effort, and money for your cause. This latter type of behavior is particularly distasteful, despicable, and dishonorable (and has occurred in Der Movement).

In Der News, 9/8/19

Race and “movement” news.

I have problems with how Greg Johnson answers the question: “Which ethnic groups are white enough to be included in white nationalism? – in his latest podcast.

First, if the only thing Greg cares about is that every ethnic group has its own homeland, then he should call himself a Universal ethnonationalist and not a White nationalist.  If it doesn’t make any difference if we talk about Greeks or Turks, Russians or Georgians – or, presumably, Danes or Nigerians – then why use the adjective “White” to describe the type of nationalist you are? Or do you actually have an identity affiliation with some groups more than others? If so, who are those groups, and why do they fit and others do not?

Second, when people ask questions like this, what they are really asking, in essence, is – Who is White enough to live in a White American ethnostate?  Who is White enough to be considered a “fellow White” by WNs?  Who is White enough to be welcomed as a “brother” (or “sister”) at your racialist conferences and forums?  That fits in with the previous question about Nordicism discussed in the podcast, and it should have been answered in a more thoughtful and comprehensive manner.  Yes, indeed, “White enough for what?” – that’s the entire point.  And the question of a Greek being a (White) American is also exactly the point; no one on the Far Right is arguing about Greeks in Greece. Yes, the Greeks are Greek enough to be in Greece; I doubt that’s what the question was addressing.  We all know what the issue is.  It is, e.g. – are Greeks White enough to be considered part of the family of White peoples? Superficial answers to questions do not constitute serious metapolitics.  If you declare yourself a “leader” and ask for $100,000 per year in “D’Nations” then you have an obligation to do better.

Third, I strongly object to the idea that an Imperium has to lead to a significant “blending” of peoples, with intra-European migration, assimilation, and mixing. This issue has been discussed by my work many times, and the fact that this comes up again clearly demonstrates the danger of activists who refuse to engage with opposing ideas, and who believe that “banning” people from their blogs obviates the need for critical thinking.

As far as Johnson’s claim (in the previous section of the podcast, concerning the topic) that he takes a strong stand against extreme Nordicism; I don’t know what comments he has been deleting, but four words suffice here:  Ash Donaldson, Andrew Hamilton.

But at least the Counter-Currents crew have the honesty to admit that Nordicism is still very much alive and well in the (American) “movement.” That contrasts to the following commentator:

Domster
Posted September 7, 2019 at 5:24 pm | Permalink
I am not sure why the podcasters are under the impression that Nordicism has any noticeable presence in our current iteration of the dissident right. It is a pretty rare thing nowadays. I don’t exclude the possibility that some old guard figures are of that persuasion, but overall it is quite rare nowadays.

This person is obviously not a reader of EGI Notes, where I regularly chronicle Der Movement’s constant Nordicism. Indeed, in the absence of Nordicism, Der Movement ceases to exist, so fundamental is that worldview to its existence. Just peruse the posts at this blog under the labels “Nordicism” or “Sallis’ Law” or “Durocher” for some recent examples – or just read the comments threads of virtually any “movement” blog post about Southern (or Eastern) Europe (never mind a recent Counter-Currents contribution by the aforementioned Donaldson). This commentator is mendacious, clueless, or perhaps so habituated to Der Movement’s constant Nordicism that he/she/it no longer notices it – just like one can become oblivious to a foul smell if they are exposed to it long enough. The only excuse this fool has is that many Nordicists today avoid using that term to describe themselves; even years ago, Kemp (of all people!), in response to some of my own writing, denied being a Nordicist, despite the fact that he was (and still is, for those who still remember him) widely considered one of the “movement’s” leading Nordicists, with his “work” enthusiastically promoted by most Nordicists (some of whom became so breathless over it that one suspects it was onanism material for them).  That some may deny a label does not mean it is not true.  After all, we may assume Trump would deny being a retarded buffoon, but does that denial hold any water?

Well ,well, well…Sallis right again.  Read this, emphasis added:

German activists, refugee defenders and illegal immigrants have decided to enter Bulgaria and demolish the border fence.

We read this on the following page:

With this, the German tolerators plan to open the way for thousands of newcomers from Africa and Asia to Bulgaria.

We from the Bulgarian National Union – ND (SBNE) cannot consider it normal for German anarchists to be ordered on Bulgarian territory. The German trash traveling to Bulgaria must be stopped at all costs, because their intention to open the border is outrageous and offensive to all Bulgarians!

The management of the Ministry of Interior as well as the Foreign Ministry have already been notified and we expect them to take all necessary measures to prevent the entry of this group into the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria.

In the event that the above-mentioned institutions do not prevent this another hassle and arbitrariness towards the Bulgarian state, then we as Bulgarian citizens will take measures to protect our country.

Therefore,inform, gather people and resist. Show that Bulgaria is not Avramov’s home where anyone can enter and do whatever they want !!!

The German garbage departs today at 13:00 from Berlin and is expected to be in Sofia tomorrow in the early afternoon.

So, it’s not enough for the Holy Ones to sail the Mediterranean looking for Afro-Asiatics to dump into Italy (or Greece or Spain). It’s not enough that they physically crash their ships into Italian harbors to disembark invaders (akin to a military invasion).  In addition, they actually have the temerity to invade by land, to open the borders to the Third World flood – in someone else’s country.


Questions – has any Italian ship crashed into Hamburg to eject the flotsam and jetsam of Africa? Have any Bulgarians entered Germany to enforce open borders there?  Any swarthoid ships sailing the Mediterranean looking for migrants to dump into Norway?  Can we safely say the answer to all three questions is “no?”  Yes, we can.

“They all have to go back,” indeed.  

Some good news.  Of course, the good news is coming from a pan-Europeanist, as opposed to the litany of woe emanating from the ethnonationalist side of the Right.

Quo Vadis pan-Europeanism?

Whither pan-Europeanism?

Anyone else notice that Amren is really pushing the work of McCulloch recently?  Once again Sallis is proven correct, as I predicted that the HBD-Nordicist alliance, with Jewish/Asian interests in the background, will always attempt to divide Europeans against each other. Der Movement is tiresomely predictable, and the HBDers most of all.

Comment from the threads:

Miss Annie  

Southern and Eastern Europeans are admixed with Asian and Arab blood due to wars and invasions during the Middle Ages onward. For example, Spain and Portugal were conquered by Muslims in the eight century. It took eight centuries to get rid of the Muslims, but they still left their legacy in its inhabitants which, in turn, slowed the country’s economic growth as well scientific and literary progress.

Evidence of Siberian/East Asian admixture in Northern Europe – which even the radically hardcore Nordicist Durocher now admits exists (although he claims it is “beneficial” to all humanity) – is of course excluded from such screeds.  

Note to White ethnics – leave Der Movement ASAP.  

Now, let’s look at input on this matter from everyone’s favorite dishonest commentator Silver: 

For some people, the racial and cultural differences become too significant to paper over as one moves from northwest Europe to southeast Europe. Although pan-European ideals hold some degree of personal appeal for me, I think it’s terribly unrealistic to expect most people to ever share them. Pan-Slavism had more going for it than pan-Europeanism, but even that never really got off the ground.

Slav is technically not a racial term, but I am not opposed to its use in this way. There is less racial variation among the people encompassed by the linguistic term Slav than there is in the racial term ‘white’, after all.

I have the impression that people tend to run away from Slav as a racial identifier in a bid to avoid association with the sorts of things that WNs have historically regarded as backward or inferior in Slavic cultures. This is especially so if they are coming at WN from a national socialist angle.

Despite the numerous factors in its favor, pan-Slavism would, I agree, have served as little more than a vehicle for the promotion of Russian interests, simply given the sheer weight of numbers on the Russian side.

It’s easy enough to proclaim European unity, especially in internet comments, but achieving actual unity in real world activism is rather more difficult.

A racial movement is not like other movements, in which membership is determined by the views a person claims to hold. Membership is decided by visual identification. No amount of pleading will ever persuade some people to accept those they visually identify as too racially divergent, nor do constant reassurances do much to assuage the doubts of those whose inclusion is questioned.

The history of racial activism has amply demonstrated, I think, that any real world get-together will always be infected by such hardliners who will invariably express their views and question other people’s inclusion, leading to bickering and self-doubt – at which point any presumed ‘unity’ goes out the window.

The only way I can see for a racial movement to surmount this problem is market itself as a cultural movement – to promote a European cultural identity – and trust that, essentially, only whites will ever really be attracted to it. Misgivings about visual identifications would not then be the barrier to unity they are in a strictly racial movement. The very racial hardliners that make unity so difficult in a racial movement would also likely self-select out of a cultural movement, which would also ease the way to unity.

If you knew nothing about Silver’s past history, these comments would seem somewhat reasonable, even though we may disagree with the recommendations he makes. Unfortunately for him, some of us have long memories, and statements from him like “Although pan-European ideals hold some degree of personal appeal for me…” rank among the most dishonest in the history of the Internet.  Silver has been a bitter enemy of pan-Europeanism for the past dozen years, and has been mocking, attacking, and deconstructing pan-Europeanism, often in the most mendacious and or infantile fashion, ever since he started infesting the Majority Rights comments threads in the mid-2000s.

Regarding his contention that “Membership is decided by visual identification…” that may hold for the McCulloch faction, but many – most? – people in Der Movement go by ancestry.  For example, most people in Der Movement would reject a “Nordish” Jew, but accept a darker, swart cockney “Paleo-Atlantid” Englishman.

With respect to the main point that White unity in Der Movement will always be undermined by Nordicist hardliners who reject and exclude other Whites and by the reaction of those other Whites to that exclusion, I agree. My brief period of thinking that compromise was possible was wrong-headed delusion on my part; I can admit when I have been wrong, and I was wrong in that case.  If that makes some question my judgment, so be it.  Unlike Greg Johnson and the other Quota Queens, I’m not going to hide my errors in an attempt to safeguard others’ opinions of me.

Silver’s recommendations are flawed.  Cultural nationalism does not solve the race problem to everyone’s satisfaction; even if it are mostly Whites who are attracted to it, it still leaves the door open for mass “cultural conversion” and assimilation, attacking the foundations of racial preservationism. One solution, and that which I have advocated, is adding (not replacing) cultural factors to racial ones, instead of replacing race with culture, or vice versa – thus merging the Salterian and Yockeyian viewpoints (note I use Salterian not McCullochian – ancestry not phenotype).

Pan-Slavism has been, as Silver admits, a failure and a vehicle for Russian domination. Further, it can exhibit the same problems as pan-Europeanism. One can imagine neo-Nordicist North Slav types, such as the Polako and Raciology specimens, attacking “racially admixed” South Slavs and making a distinction between “True Slavs” (Poles, Russians) and “False Slavs” (Serbians, Bulgarians). Same problem, smaller scale.

Personally, I’m a pessimist, and believe that Der Movement has already ruined a viable chance at victory.  But, we can still try. What I advocate is that the small minority of activists who are pan-Europeanists (true ones, not Nordicists trying to expand their “D’Nations” base) cut loose from Der Movement and go their own way.

Pan-Europeanists should have their own groups, groupuscules, blogs, websites, organizations, meetings, etc.  They should build a New MovementThey should be hardliners themselves – absolutely eschewing, excluding, and rejecting all Nordicists, fetishists, HBDers and other dividers.  Now, there are possible problems here.  There are so few true pan-Europeanists that there may not be a critical mass for success.  From experience, I know that Nordicists and others of similar ilk will always try to weasel their way into pan-European groups, to subvert the mission and undermine activities. Conversely, there will be pan-Europeanists who will impatiently attempt to expand their influence by accepting these other types or at least by making “alliances” with them. These dangers will exist.  But if Type II pan-Europeanists can perform better than the Type I Nutzis dancing through cemeteries with their swastika-soled boots, then they can  provide an attractive, viable alternative to the failed “movement” and to the hardline dividers to whom Silver refers. A more successful and sane movement can attract high quality people, establishing a positive feedback loop of steady and sound growth, while leaving the failed “movement” to degenerate under the weight of its own failures and insanity.

Do I think this will occur?  No. I think the swastika-soled boots crowd will dance off into the sunset, tripping over a tombstone, hurdling headlong into the grave. The majority of rank-and-file activists – including many who call themselves pan-European – are slavishly addicted to Der Movement and will not break ranks with it until it is too late to do any good.

We’re very likely doomed.  You can’t say I haven’t warned you.  You can’t say that I haven’t been (constantly) offering you an alternative.  It’s been your choice to (constantly) reject that alternative.


I’d like to make one more important point.  If pan-Europeanism is so crazy and unrealistic, then why is that that you have Nordicists – Pierce and Duke being two prominent examples – who always seem to find it necessary to pretend to be pan-European?  I alluded to one possible reason above, the desire to maximize followers and followers’ donations. But I see three more fundamental reasons for this.  

First, although authentic pan-Europeanists are relatively few, they have an influence out of proportion to their numbers.  Consider Yockey – you have the hardcore ethnonationalists of Counter-Currents always promoting Yockey and his work, and the Nordicist National Alliance is now selling Yockey’s masterpiece Imperium. And all these types have not hesitated to make use of my own work in the past.  Second, although there is a significant and very loud hardline Nordicist faction as well as Nordicist-oriented rank-and-file activists, there is also a significant, more “silent,” fraction of activists who are at least vaguely sympathetic to pan-Europeanism, and who would be a mobilizable force with better (and more genuine) leadership.  Third, the White masses already think excluding even the Jews is nutty; thus, excluding Southern and Eastern Europeans would strike many of them as completely unhinged. Many of the things that are acceptable within Der Movement’s “amen corner” would not “fly” in the broader society. I understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive, but if the prescriptive is derived from the counter-productive obsessions of a particular hardline faction, then perhaps the prescription needs to be re-thought.

Therefore, perhaps the problem is not with pan-Europeanism, but instead derived from the fact that the American “movement” had its genesis in Nordicism and Anglocentrism, amplified by the obsessions with Hitler and Nazi race doctrine, and so these paradigms are too deeply embedded within the Old Movement to be effectively opposed from within. The same holds for Old Movement dogma outside America, with Anglocentrism being of course prominent in the Anglosphere “movement,” and Hitlerian thought being prominent among activists in “Germanic” Europe.  However, that all applies specifically to Der Movement – the Old Movement – not to society at large, and not to the nucleus of activists who could, under the right circumstances, initiate the development of a New Movement.

But, again, I’m pessimistic. 

Norman Lowell Interregnum Interview

Interesting.

Watch this.

I agree with Lowell in about 95% of what he says, and the other 5% are minor things that are not relevant to the main points, the main objectives. Of that 5%, I have to disagree with Lowell’s opinion of certain books and racialist leaders, and I have always stressed science and dismissed theosophy.  But those are details. I have always supported and endorsed the main tenets of Lowell’s Imperium Europa idea, and I do so once again.  He is always an effective voice of reason against the petty nationalism that infests much of “far right nationalism” in the West today.  Unfortunately, it seems like all of the websites associated with him are either no longer functioning or the domain registrations have expired. I would advise getting those back up and running.

One more point about this podcast.

When people like Leonard talk about the “Italian” language, they seem to imply that there is some long-standing and coherent Italian language that is naturally and historically spoken by all (real) Italians, but those bizarre southerners (alone) speak their own isolated dialects. The reality of course is that there have historically been different dialects throughout the Italian peninsula and islands, and one of those, Tuscan/Florentine, was used to develop a language to tie together the peoples of the nation.

Read this, emphasis added:

The standard Italian language has a poetic and literary origin in the writings of Tuscan writers of the 12th century, and, even though the grammar and core lexicon are basically unchanged from those used in Florence in the 13th century,[18] the modern standard of the language was largely shaped by relatively recent events…The language that came to be thought of as Italian developed in central Tuscany and was first formalized in the early 14th century through the works of Tuscan writer Dante Alighieri, written in his native Florentine…In addition to the widespread exposure gained through literature, the Florentine dialect also gained prestige due to the political and cultural significance of Florence at the time and the fact that it was linguistically an intermediate between the northern and the southern Italian dialects.[16]:22 Thus the dialect of Florence became the basis for what would become the official language of Italy.  Italian was progressively made an official language of most of the Italian states predating unification, slowly replacing Latin…

Milanese dialect is just as “not Italian” as is Neapolitan dialect.  There are, and historically have been, many dialects in Italy; the Florentine dialect was that which became the basis for a national language.  So, this is another issue for which the fetishists can calm down about and wipe the sweat off their foreheads.

The Salterian Ethics of Imperium

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

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

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

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

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

Yockey’s words…in Imperium are relevant here:

The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro, however, shows to Europe a very important fact—that race-difference between White men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Europe, where hitherto the race difference between, say, Frenchman and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Europe, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestan! from the Russian Empire . . .

If any Westerner thinks that the barbarian makes nice distinctions between the former nations of the West, he is incapable of understanding the feelings of populations outside a High Culture toward that culture . . .

. . . But the greatest opposition of all has not yet been named, the conflict which will take up all the others into itself. This is the battle of the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century. Here stand opposed the ideas of Empire and petty-stateism, large-space thinking and political provincialism. Here find themselves opposed the miserable collection of yesterday-patriots and the custodians of the Future. The yesterdaynationalists are nothing but the puppets of the extra-European forces who conquer Europe by dividing it. To the enemies of Europe, there must be no rapprochement, no understanding, no union of the old units of Europe into a new unit, capable of carrying on 20th century politics . . .

. . . Against a united Europe, they could never have made their way in, and only against a divided Europe can they maintain themselves. Split! divide! distinguish!—this is the technique of conquest. Resurrect old ideas, old slogans, now quite dead, in the battle to turn European against European.

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

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

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

From my essay on Salterian ethics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delenda Est Ethnonationalism

Against the culture retarders. Or just plain retards?

Take a look at this nonsense. The mendacity there is breathtaking – as if Richard Spencer is the end all and be all of pan-Europeanism.  What a joke.  As if Johnson is not familiar with Francis Parker Yockey or Normal Lowell or myself, who used to write for his blog and whose writings on pan-Europeanism were included in the first edition of his New Right compilation book.

But instead of me repeating all the arguments against Johnson’s ethnonationalist screeds, I’ll first comment on something a pan-Europeanist commentator left at that blog.

GrandioseNationalist
Posted July 31, 2019 at 6:49 am | Permalink
As a grandiose Nationalist, I’ve personally grown tired of repeating the same arguments over and over again…

Yes, welcome to the club, my friend.  Doesn’t it tell you anything that you have to repeat the same arguments over and over again?  Doesn’t it tell you that they are no-character dishonest liars?

…so allow me to make OUR case for extreme Pan-Europeanism. Hence, I’m going to tackle all these points that have been made thus far:

You are wasting your time there, but let’s consider what you have to say.

RICHARD SPENCER: Although his statements about Pan-Euro are admirable, he’s falsely attributed as the sole proponent of our ideas. 

Indeed. That’s a classic debating tactic of the dishonest – they search for the worst representative of an idea to set up straw men to easily knock down.  As a representative of serious pan-Europeanism, Spencer is a joke.  And anyone who would set him up as a major thought leader in this regard has basically abdicated any pretense of being a good faith actor.

Spencer truly is anything but one of us: He’s a fierce proponent of Dugin’s vision of a “United Eurasia” (Greater Israel Inc.), which would’ve United certain White Nations and mixed hem altogether with Mongols and Persians. 

True, and Johnson must know this.

Same goes for Constantine Hoffmeister; a Zionist communist who’s all too excited to include Jews in his vision of Eurasia, and an impostor who pretends to be grandiose. 

I’ve criticized that individual before.

Further proof of Spencer’s hypocrisy is that his ex is an ethnic Georgian from Russia (who’s also a Duginist and a self confessed Stalinist). Last I checked, Kouprianova and Stalin were not White European and neither are the rest of the Georgian people.

And I sharply criticized Kouprianova’s grasping attempt to paint Georgians as “Southern Europeans.” They are not such genetically, culturally, phenotypically, historically, or geographically.  I for one am disgusted by NECs and by admixed “Latinos” who try to pass themselves off as Southern Europeans.

PAN-EUROPEAN TENETS: Pan-Europeanism doesn’t hold that we should head towards homogenizing Europeans: that’s a Ethnonationalist misconceptions.

Better said – ethnonationalist LIES. It doesn’t matter what Yockey (or Lowell) wrote about local sovereignty and maintenance of local cultures, it doesn’t matter what I’ve written on the topic for two decades, no, what “matters” is what Spencer wrote in a tweet or muttered in some Alt Right podcast from an Alexandria loft apartment.

WE BELIEVE THAT WHITE PEOPLE , NO MATTER WHERE THEY COME FROM, FORM AS A WHOLE AN INDIVIDUAL SUPER-ETHNY THAT HAS BEEN BROKEN DOWN OVER THE CENTURIES TO SMALLER POLITICAL UNITS, ONLY FOR THEIR DOMINIONS TO SERVE AS A REGATHERING POINT. Therefore, Pan-Europeanism is more of a consciousness; a way of treating one’s total biological and cultural identity as the most fundamental part of our historical identity. 

Yes, this is an excellent statement: “Pan-Europeanism is more of a consciousness; a way of treating one’s total biological and cultural identity as the most fundamental part of our historical identity.”  It is first and foremost a worldview, an ideology, a consciousness, a foundation of Identity, not some particular Duginist plan for Eurasianist Empire or some Hoffmeisterian plan for panmixia.  Perhaps Johnson should worry more about his HBD buddies and their Jeurasian project if he’s so concerned about losing ethnic identities through mixing.  Maybe “Trevor Lynch” can write about that at the anti-White, pro-Hispanic HBD Jew Unz site.

White Nationalism used to be this ALL ENCOMPASSING THEORY that exalted the primacy of race over nation. For centuries the concept of a “generic” Greece was overshadowed by all the individual identities that constitute it (Spartan, Thracian, etc.). It took centuries of Civil Wars for the Greeks to formally unite and form this more “generic” identity. Same things gonna happen with all Europeans in the face of the grave dangers that await us. A NEW NATION WILL BE BORN OUT OF THE STRUGGLES OF THE OLD.

Fair enough.  Kai Murros says the same thing. Look, China alone has hundreds of millions more people than all the Whites worldwide combined.  Same for India.  Even if Whites save themselves from the current threats, the Yellow Peril (and Brownster Peril) will be all too real.  I suppose the ethnonationalist answer is for Whites to hide away in their snug hobbit holes in the forest, but I do not think that’ll work out too well.

When we say that OUR RACE IS OUR NATION, we mean it. I am a brother to every Swede, Spaniard, Slovene, WASP, and every other White person that exists. These are my compatriots; the, and the entire European diaspora.

I agree.

I don’t really get why other Whites don’t fell that way for their own kinsmen.
Descent and patriotic White people like John Morgan should always be welcome to have their shot in the gene pool of their host White Nation (namely Hungary in his case). Just because Mr. Morgan isn’t (presumably) an Ethnic Magyar that doesn’t mean that he ought to be separated from them and removed from Hungary.

I disagree about Morgan.  He’s an ethnonationalist living in someone else’s nation – a complete hypocrite.  And my vision of pan-Europeanism includes Hungary being for the Hungarians.  Being part of a greater whole does not obligate the part to agree to dissolution.  I agree though that small numbers of fellow Europeans can be assimilated.

AMERICA: America proved to be a centuries-long social experiment about whether all the regathered tribes of Europe would either merge into a life-saving fusion or perish because of their minor differences. Guess who got proved right! The fusion of our nations in America became the source of America’s renaissance in the 20th century (the time between 1920s and the late 80s). America showed that Whites can intermingle with each other, but with non-Whites (like in South America) we cannot.

Fair enough.

BALKANS/CZECHOSLOVAKIA: In a Pan-Europeanist world ther wouldn’t be any point in restoring Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia. Both of these states were based on uniting different nations of the same ethnic-linguistic group (Slavs). Our state would be based on uniting Europeans based on their race, something that hasn’t really been done before in history (except from our colonies). Serbs and Croats share more than 90% of ethnic kinship with one another. However thanks to Ethno-Nationalism both these peoples have fallen into an endless feud with each other (like with a Germany vs France, Russia vs Ukraine, etc., and people have the AUDACITY to call us imperialists? If anything we are grandiose Nationalists.They greatly resemble the way how the Greek city states once fought each other, in spite of the fact that they are of the same stock. By uniting them based on race and by gradually striving towards this generic White identity, just like it happened with Greece, brother wars will cease to be.

The break-up of Czechoslovakia is an example of a failed nation-state, a nation artificially created after WWI, a nation the Slovaks always felt stifled their national identity by making them subordinate to the Czechs.  The Slovaks tried to break away under Hitler’s umbrella, and they were forced back after WWII.  Yes, Czechoslovakia was a multi-ethnic nation-state, but so are, in many ways, other European nations as well. There are internal differences within Germany, Italy, Spain, even France. The UK would have to break up into its constituent nations. There’s Belgium of course.  There’s nothing in general pan-European theory that would prevent local sovereignty of whatever nations or regions that wish to express their own identity, whether these be currently existing nations or smaller fractions thereof.  In fact, such fractionation would only be realistically stable long term within the confined of a greater overarching structure; otherwise, the micro-states would be ineffectively viable on the world stage. Ironically enough, a pan-European macro-state would be more effective at promoting the establishment of smaller regional identities than would be a system of completely separate atomized nation states each attempting to maximize their territory, status, resources, and region an global influence. Ethnonationalism is therefore self-defeating if what they are really about is allowing ethnic self-expression and ethnic preservation. When the nation state is the largest political entity then it has a vested interest in maximizing its size and influence.  It’s not a perfect correlation of course; for example, Spain is in the EU but doesn’t want to give up Catalonia.  But the EU is not a fair grouping of equals but a German-dominated authoritarian state with French junior partners. The EU disguises German national power interests; in this case, it is understandable that the Spaniards do not want to weaken themselves further compared to the German colossus.  A true pan-European entity would not let one or two nations dominate the rest.

On the other hand, while the EU in practice is a fraud, in theory, it is a European macro-state, and, again, nations joined voluntarily.  The nations of Eastern Europe were ecstatic to join (and not only for the economic benefits; they wanted to “join Europe”). They’ve become disenchanted with the far-left globalist agenda of the EU, but I note that even the ethnonationalist hero Orban does not talk of leaving.

In any case, a European macro-state does not mean that Slovaks have to be subordinate to Czechs, or to anyone else.

America isn’t some kind of rootless place without a distinct identity or place in history. Simply put, the primordial order of what once was, manifested itself again. America didn’t fall like Yugoslavia which was based on Ethic-Slavic identity because it’s fundamental unity was based on race. By providing the White peoples with a national body that commands all aspects of culture, regional styles would be preserved while we would enter the new age of our civilization; the creation of a new culture based on the old (as it happened right here). America served her role as the regathering point for all Europeans and left its mark on human history.

Fair enough.

Soon we won’t have the luxury of dividing ourselves based on some minor differences and historical feuds. The tide of color is coming and no one has the power to stop it (yet). 

The HBDers welcome the Yellow (or Yellow-Brown) tide of color.  That’s what fellows like this don’t realize.  Derbyshire’s “measured groveling” to “Rosie” is a feature, not a bug of HBD.  Of course, they oppose pan-Europeanism.  Divide and conquer.

Only a few of our nations will become beacons of hope for our race and serve as the new regathering points after the colonies. Start focusing not on what thing are, but what they should be. The best way to culturally and linguistically unite Whites is an idea proposed by Ben Klassen, which promoted the use of Latin as a secondary/primary language for all White people. Not only would it help to bring down the barriers that divide us, but it would be perfectly in line with our ancestral European heritage ( considering that the overwhelming majority of White nations once had Latin as one their primary languages, which became the precursor of many of their modern dialects).

WE’VE BEEN IDEOLOGICALLY MARGINALIZED FOR YEARS…

Yes, by the ethnonationalists, ethnic fetishists, Nordicists, Type Is of every stripe.  You are wasting your time trying to reason with them.  They oppose you and they hate you.

…YET THE ALL EMBRACING SPIRIT OF PAN-EUROPEANISM STILL BURNS STRONG IN THE SOULS OF WHITE NATIONALISTS. 

Well, maybe 10% of them – the Type IIs. The Type Is that make up most of the “movement” oppose pan-Europeanism; even the ones who superficially claim to support it are against it. For these latter hypocrites, “Europe” is only that which is north of Vienna and west of Berlin.

EVERY ONE OF US SHOULD SPEAK OUT AND FIGHT FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IN, NO MATTER HOW “DANGEROUS” OUR “UNREALISTIC SEVERAL PEOPLE WANT IT TO SEEM. 

I agree.   What we are all about is being prescriptive; if you want merely to be descriptive, we can just talk about the status quo and assume the future will be the same as past and present. True, you can argue that the prescriptive has to be somewhat realistic. But we do have an EU, nations joined voluntarily, and they became disenchanted with it only because of the way the EU is being run, not the idea of the Union itself.  So why is pan-Europeanism “unrealistic?”  As far as “dangerous” goes, please remember Johnson advocating ethnic cleansing as part of his ethnonationalism. What’s “dangerous” abbot my vision of pan-Europeanism?

History has already proved that what we re trying to achieve is not only feasible, but the right thing to do. Please contemplate on what has been said.

I agree.

I wish you all nothing but the best.

You are being naïve. They are the enemy.

Now, let’s hear from that enemy, and their crazed accusations:

Andris
Posted July 31, 2019 at 7:24 pm | Permalink
Yes, not only I have audacity to call you imperialists but the RIGHT to do so.

I have the right to call you and your kind the murderers of Europe and of the West.

Your Spencer-ite vision…

Is this obsession with Spencer a homoerotic fixation or what?  After “Grandiose Nationalist” spends a paragraph mostly attacking the details of Spencer’s “vision” (sic), he’s accused of supporting it.  Ethnonationalists are crazed.

…stays the same no matter how you use your mental gymnastics to distance him from yourself. 

Clearly distinguishing your ideology from someone else’s is “mental gymnastics.”  Very well.  Ethnonationalists are far-left anarchists – don’t try to fool us into thinking otherwise with all your mental gymnastics!

Again, today I had to witness flowers on a Soviet Russian monument the same pan-europeans refused to get rid off in fear of offending “our brothers”. Flowers on a monument that celebrated murdering my people, sending children to Siberia in cattle wagons, enslaving us just like their tsarist ancestors did before them. 

I have no idea what this moron is talking about.  What?  Some “Spencer-ite” Duginist types worship Stalin and Soviet Russia?  Eurasianists are not pan-Europeanists, you stupid bastard.

We get called fascists for the mere reason some of us don’t speak Russian in our own country. 

That’s right!  After all, Yockey was an anti-fascist, like me.  Idiot.

They play the victim since the 90s. Soviet Union was a Russian nationalist empire, no matter their flag or your mental gymnastics. Russification and oppression never changed.

Psychosis alert!  This person is gibbering against his own fantasies.  Who is supporting “Russification and oppression?”

I have no doubt you would green light murdering of Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians for your ill concieved, romanticised imperialist, revisionist fantasy.

Err…it was the ethnonationalist Johnson who openly endorsed ethnic cleansing of European nations who didn’t play along with his ethnonationalist agenda. See here for a critique, and Johnson’s quotes.  All those “Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians” had better watch out – the ethnonationalists are coming!

A quote from Johnson exemplifying the peaceful nature of ethnonationalism (emphasis added):

But what would happen if a sovereign European state signed a treaty to host a gigantic Chinese military base? Or if it fell into the hands of plutocrats who started importing cheap non-white labor? Clearly such policies would endanger all of Europe, therefore, it is not just the business of whatever rogue state adopts those policies. What could the rest of Europe do to stop this? Isn’t this why we need a politically unified Europe?

The answer, of course, is what all sovereign states do when they face existential conflicts of interest: they go to war. Other states would be perfectly justified in declaring war against the rogue state, deposing the offending regime, and ethnically cleansing its territory. But then they would set up a new sovereign regime and go home.

Also note the spectacle of these small nations depending on the American empire, NATO, and the EU to protect them from Russia. If you are all so very fiercely independent, then please go it alone and defend yourselves, you hypocrites.  Moscow and Beijing will tremble before the pronouncements of mighty Tallinn!

Here is a template for the ethnonationalists. Watch closely!

Or making Croats bare the failures and problems of Serbs, etc.

Or making Southern Europeans bare the failures and problems of the pathologically altruistic, eh?

I am GLAD that you are an international joke without any power, the sheer idiocy of the alt-right “grandiose” imperialists that call the EU equal or worse than USSR or any empire before it when they have no idea what non-Russians went through. 

Crazed gibbering.

Same with schizophrenics of Christianity that will gladly murder anyone who’s not bowing down to nonexistant god.

It’s more likely for ethnonationalists to be Christians than it is for pan-Europeanists.

You are just a sheltered fool who ignores that ethnonationalism is dangerous only when the nation is imperialistic. 

That ethnonationalism always leads to intra-European war “just happens” to work that way throughout history.  It’s a coincidence, of course.  Was the violent break-up of Yugoslavia caused by “imperialism?”  Or do you blame the creation of that nation on pan-European imperialism?  That’s really laughable. And let’s forget the 800 lb. Chinese gorilla in the room; after all, Europe encompasses the entire Earth, right?  The only problems Europeans have is with Russia, right?

And EVERY imperialist stays an ethnonationalist, no matter your fantasies of white “brotherhood”.

More true than you know.  And vice versaDefinitely vice versa.

In the 40s, Finland was a “threat to peaceful Soviet Union” and now Ukraine is “dangerous to peace and safety of peaceful Russians and Russian Federation”. Laughable.

Sanity alert – pan-Europeanists have contempt for Dugin and Spencer.  I have no idea what this angry, hate-filled screed is supposed to be about.  Get some help.