Category: pan-European

In Der News

Odds and ends in der news.

Some old news, but still relevant.

The USA continues to follow the insane directives, promoted especially by the Obama administration, to continue to decrease yields of US nuclear weapons.  Last I read, they wanted to get rid of all the low megaton range B83s – which themselves can’t destroy deep targets – and replace them with low yield “dial-a-yield” weapons.  I have nothing against the “dial-a-yield” concept, as long as megaton range yields are included in the spectrum, which was NOT the case for the leftist Obama-pansy military planning.  Meanwhile, Russia continues to have high-yield weapons, and with improving accuracy.  They’ll be able to take out fortified targets, while US bombs would be hard-pressed to mimic Hiroshima.  Another example of Western weakness and degeneracy – but let’s put ‘Western” in scare quotes.

“Even nuclear weapons have limited effectiveness at destroying the deepest or widely separated underground bunkers,” reads a 2005 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists. “For example, an earth penetrating weapon using the 1.2 megaton B83 warhead—the highest yield weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—could crush underground bunkers to a depth of about 1000 feet. Deeper bunkers can be constructed with modern tunneling equipment, and are essentially invulnerable to nuclear attack.”

Pan-Europeanists = early Rome.
Ethnonationalists – Greek city states. Didn’t Stoddard compare WWI with the Peloponnesian War?
Excerpt of comment from AltRight.com:

I prefer Spencer’s speeches to Jared Taylor citing stats about how Jews and Asians are smarter than Huwhites.

Advertisements

Der Movement’s Dangerous “Minds”

SLC News.

In an otherwise fine book review and analysis by Johnson, we find two disturbing bits.

First:

This is why I don’t regard Alexander Dugin and Richard Spencer as contributing anything to White Nationalism, which is the advocacy of ethnic self-determination for all white peoples. 

That’s an incredibly misleading, actually mendacious, description of what White Nationalism is, essentially equating White Nationalism as the sum of all the various intra-White ethnonationalisms added together.  Instead, what most honest people in the “movement” consider by “White Nationalism” is exactly what the term literally implies – a form of nationalism centered on race rather than ethnicity; the ORION principle: Our Race Is Our Nation.  Thus, for White Nationalists, the ultimate form of nationhood, and the highest form of national allegiance, is to the race as a whole; individual ethnic allegiances are secondary.  In this sense, White Nationalism is the antithesis of narrow ethnonationalism.

Instead, they are simply apologists for Russian imperial revanchism. 

Dugin yes.  But Spencer?  That’s going too far.  By the way, who has it been promoting the work of Dugin over the years?  All the Type Is out there, all the “traditionalists,: certainly not me.

Spencer regards ethnonationalism as “petty”….

He’s right about that. 

…siding with the UK against Scottish independence, the EU against Brexit, and Spain against Catalan independence. 

I disagree with Spencer here and go along with Yockey: In an Imperium there can be whatever local autonomy people wish, and if Scots and Catalans (or whoever) want such autonomy, fine, as long as all these regions and micro-nations are confederated into the Imperium.

But although he opposes the UK leaving the EU, he opposes Ukraine joining it. He praises the EU as a transnational, imperial organization — but not NATO. 

Spencer can explain his UK vs. Ukraine views himself.  The EU in principle is not a bad idea; its execution is globalist and anti-White, so I oppose it.

Clearly, he is more interested in shilling for Russian geopolitical interests than in setting forth a coherent moral and political framework for white survival.

Is White survival instead advanced by setting forth coherent moral and political frameworks of White nations ethnically cleansing each other?

Then we have this:

Beiner then quotes Spencer denouncing “fucking middle class” values and proclaiming “I love empire, I love power, I love achievement.” We even learn from a Jewish female reporter that Spencer will sometimes “get a boner” from reading about Napoleon.

If any of that is true, what can I say that I haven’t said before?  All you Type I Nutzis and heavy breathing fetishists out there are responsible for that, you are the ones who enable the affirmative action program.  You made your bed so now lie in it (albeit not along with Spencer reading about Napoleon).

Ethnonationalist (Non) Responses to Salterism

Three examples.

I sometimes contact activists – usually ethnonationalist types since they are in the vast majority in the “movement” – in the White world to “proselytize” the EGI concept (“Salterism”); and the “response” typically falls into one of three categories:

1. Completely ignore the contact email.

2. “I’ll take a look at it” – afterwards no further response and of course no indication that the EGI concept was understood or incorporated into nationalist activity.

3. One activist, from a White nation whose name I won’t mention (although you may be able to figure out for yourself what it is, or at least what part of the world it is), answered: “this doesn’t apply to us; all our enemies are White.”

That last comment deserves a brief counter-commentary.  Even if the claim “all our enemies are White” was true (which it is not, I can assure you), it is still irrelevant as far as the basics of EGI go, since genetic interests exist at every level of genetic differentiation, and EGI applies to intra-racial group differences as well as inter-racial. Of course, the intra-racial differences are shallower, and one must be careful of kinship overlap when distinguishing genetic (and other) interests of very closely related groups; however, the basic principles of EGI still hold.  So, the casual dismissal of EGI in point #3 reflects typical ethnonationalist knee-jerk reflexive closemindedness and anti-Whiteism, an automatic rejection of anything which even “smells” as having something to do with White solidarity (whether it actually does or not), and it also reflects typical Type I activist anti-intellectualism and superficial “thinking.”

True enough, I haven’t really found pan-Europeanists who take EGI seriously either, but there are so few genuine pan-Europeanists that the small sample size makes the lack of interest virtually meaningless to form any conclusion.  However, the lack of interest among ethnonationalists is meaningful, and tells us all we need to know about ethnonationalist quality (or the lack thereof).

Dissecting the Fundamentals, Part I


Another look at “the fundamentals.”

Pan-Europeanism as the major focus will replace other more narrow “isms” – be they national, ethnic, subracial, etc.  The narrower “isms” will not disappear, they can continue to exist, but at a lower level than the overarching pan-European unity.  The two fratricidal world wars of the 20th century wrecked Europe, the West, and the White race, and those who continue to promote division even now, are, whether they know it or not, working for the enemy, working for the Death of Europe and for the destruction of the worldwide fraternity of the European Peoples.  Therefore, all those who preach division within the European family – be that division genetic, phenotype, cultural, historical, religious – are the enemies of European Man and enemies of the West and enemies of our Identity and our Future.

Pan-Europeanism is the First Principle, the non-negotiable, the underlying thesis, the Idea of Yockey (opposed by those ethnonationalists who make pretense of being some sort of Yockey acolytes, presumably for fundraising purposes), the organic evolution of the West. Now, as Yockey stated, and I certainly agree (as does Lowell and others), narrower forms of Identity can and will exist within the context of pan-Europeanism, but these will be local and secondary.  The European, the Western (in the broadest sense, not equivalent to the modern decadent West nor even to the current Faustian High Culture, which we must overcome and supersede, as it is dying, if not already dead) Identity must be primary and existential.

Let’s quote Yockey here:

Our European Mission is to create the Culture-State-Nation-Imperium of the West, and thereby we shall perform such deeds, accomplish such works, and so transform our world that our distant posterity, when they behold the remains of our buildings and ramparts, will tell their grandchildren that on the soil of Europe once dwelt a tribe of gods.

That’s what is important, that’s the inspiring vision for the future, not a dismal future of squabbling ethnonationalists ready to “ethnically cleanse” each other over disagreements about “sovereignty.”

Now, I must stress: to a large extent this Yockeyian vision is for elites.  Nietzsche was willing to grant the masses their Christianity, their religion of resssentiment, if they so required, but the elites, the Overmen must eschew such childish crutches.  Similarly, the masses can have their ethnonationalism for the time being, as they are slowly weaned off of it; better ethnonationalism than globalist universalism.  But the nationalist elites have to be true acolytes of the pan-European Ideal, and eventually lead the masses in the correct direction as those masses become improved and enlightened over time.

Genetic kinship will replace racial “purity.”  As per Salter, ultimate interests are genetic interests, and genetic interests are based upon genetic kinship.  Only genetic kinship is relevant for biopolitics.  This contrasts to the unscientific strawman of racial “purity” which is usually derived from some a priori comparison to a picked parental population.  Since all genetic differences, regardless of their derivation (e.g., “admixture” [real or an artifact], selective pressures, genetic drift, etc.) influence genetic kinship, measurement of such kinship is the most inclusive and definitive approach for understanding our ultimate interests.  We accept the European genepool for what it is now and strive to improve it in the future.  To use Yockey’s terminology in a new way, we completely replace outdated and unscientific “vertical” concerns with “purity/admixture” with “horizontal” concerns with genetic kinship and genetic interests.

The “movement” will resist this, no doubt.  Some precincts of the “movement” play lip service to this idea, but as always look at that they do more than what they say.  Look what posts they present, what authors they promote, what memes they spread, what their commentators are saying – it doesn’t match their ostensible “position” on this matter.  Remember Horace: “You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she still will hurry back.”  Unscientific fetishistic fantasies will collapse under the edifying light of science, the reality of facts, and no “movement” flim-flam and sweaty fossilized dogma will stand up to truth in the long term.

How to fuse these horizontal concerns with genetic interests with Yockey’s vision, which was flawed by its blithe dismissal of “materialistic” race concepts?  See this.

Total biocultural Identity will replace as narrower biological and cultural identities as the major focus of European Being.  The narrower identities will still exist, but as part of Identity, and the narrower identities will become increasingly aligned with that of Identity.  Biological and cultural classifications by themselves are not disjunctive, only total Identity is disjunctive. The ultimate solution to any discordance between Identity and biological identities is this: we will align our biological/genetic interests with Identity by closing the borders and stopping non-European gene flow into European territories.  Thus, over time the genetic boundaries between Europe and the Others will become ever larger and more distinct; the genetic commonalities between Europeans, compared to the Others, will become larger and more integrated.  The same applies to any potential cultural overlaps between The West and The Rest.  Examples of this possibility, as exemplified by the Levant and by China, are shown here.

This is an important point, and an answer to sweaty fetishists using minute difference in Fst values – ignoring that Fst is a flawed metric for measuring genetic differentiation – to make asinine comments about negligible levels of relative ethnic genetic distances.

Biopolitics will replace the old fraud of Right vs. Left.  We care not if any specific policy of ours, or our entire program, is deemed “rightist” or “leftist” or whatever outdated label.  We are not conservatives, reactionaries, not in any way beholden to “right-wing” thought.  We are revolutionaries, striving to create a new order.

This should be self-evident.  We are not conservatives, reactionaries, or traditionalists.  We look to the future, not to the dead past.  This leads to:

Futurism, not Traditionalism.  Unlike some of the more reckless statements in support of Futurism, we do not call for the abolition of museums, the disregarding of our past and the great deeds of our ancestors.  Past, Present, and Future are all linked.  However, we look to the Future, our real Golden Age is that which we will make in the Future, it is not some sort of delusional Traditionalist fantasy set in the Past.  We will not reject the deeds of our ancestors, but these are not the sum of our being, we do not settle for them – we must surpass them.  We remember the Past, but for the purpose of spurring us to achieve greater deeds in the Future. 

One of the most unpleasant aspects of the “movement” is its obsession with gnostic esoteric “traditionalism” and with a Lord of the Rings style romanticization of feudal values.

Rational realism and empiricism is for facts, values and objectives can be irrational.  Thus, we reject the old, timeworn, factually incorrect knee-jerk beliefs, memes, and paradigms that have defined to so-called “racialist movement,” particularly in America.  With respect to facts, history, knowledge – the age of “movement” dogma is over.  We reject the misanthropic freakishness and lies of the old movement.  With respect to facts, we depend on rationality, on realism, on empiricism – on real Science.  But these things cannot provide us with our values and our objectives – they are merely tools.  Our values and objectives can be irrational as they spring forth from our vision of the reality we want to come into being.  But we cannot confuse what we want with what actually is – nor can be settle for what is instead of what we actually want.  What is – that is the current reality, which must be discerned with empiricism.  What we want is derived from our values, irrational as they may (or may not) be, and for these objectives, empiricism is only a tool, a means, not an end to itself.  As part of this, the fantasies of Traditionalism – which invents false facts – must be put aside in favor of empirical facts and the irrational objectives of an enlightened Futurism.

This gets to the core – one core at least – of my criticism of the “movement,” and why “movement” “leaders” have made me persona non grata in their circles.  My message is blasphemy and, what’s more, gets in the way of “business as usual,” and the concomitant tin cup panhandling that is facilitated by giving “movement” “activists” the dogmatic “red meat” they crave.  The “movement” wants to continue dwelling in its little cul-de-sac of crazed religious fervor with its fossilized memes; but this is an dead end, a recipe for failure, and anyone who actually wants to win, and actualize their ideology into reality needs to understand – truly understand – what that reality is all about.

Preservationism plus eugenics replaces static preservationism.  We are not interested in preserving a racial stasis…We wish to promote eugenics to improve the stock and, also, allow for the creation of new stabilized blends of European stocks – while also at the same type preserving the original stocks – to increase the diversity of European Man. Ethnic genetic interests are compatible with (gradual) genetic change within the race…

There are a number of important points here, all of which focus on a forward-looking, palingenetic view of race (i.e., futurism, not traditionalism).  Contra to misinformed complaints that a concern for EGI leads to “genetic stasis,” here we see an overt call for eugenics (albeit a prudent form of eugenics that seeks to avoid both unnecessary loses of genetic interest and unforeseen negative consequences to designating traits – and the alleles that code for them – as worthy of replacement or increase without understanding possible consequences of such changes), and the call for “the creation of new stabilized blends of European stocks…increase the diversity of European Man.”  As long as original stocks are maintained, there’s nothing wrong with creating new variants of European man, in diaspora regions such as America.  When such crossing create excellent new strains, such can be cultivated as new ethnies to be preserved and improved; if negative strains (however defined) are produced, they can be selected against.  The creation and selection of new dog breeds can be a model for this process. Gradual genetic change that eschews mixing across continental population groups (broadly: races) and that preserves the vast bulk of genetic interests is a natural part of the lifecycle of evolved organisms, is part and parcel of genetic interests, and is wholly compatible with a prudent and well-informed eugenic scheme.

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.

Whither the White Ethnics

Men or mice?

Considering all the usual “movement” shenanigans, which go on and on without end, it is clear that Der Movement, Inc. has nothing to offer to so-called White ethnics (Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, and Irish Catholics).

At best, you’ll be nothing more than a subaltern step-and-fetchit caste; at worst, you are “the niggers of Europe” (Irish), “Euroniggers” (Italians), “Asiatic subhumans” (Slavs), “Med filth” (all Southern Europeans”), “Tatars” (Russians), “hora-dancing Gypsies” (Romanians), or “greasy Gypsies” (the Hungarian Orban, of all people, has been called that).  And if you say that “movement leaders” don’t believe that or use that language, I’ll tell you that at best they tolerate it (wink, wink, nod, nod) at their websites and in their organizations, and at worst, they really do believe it and encourage it (typically indirectly so as to keep enough “cover” to maximize tin cup panhandling among their White ethnic adherents).

What then to do if you are a racially aware White ethnic?  Indifference or hostility to racial nationalism is maladaptive. Narrow ethnonationalism is a self-defeating dead end. So is any sort of makeshift subracialism or regionalism. Staying within Der Movement, Inc. and accepting it as it is means that you really are the cringing racially degenerate inferiors the fetishists claim you are.  

What is necessary is for all pan-European-minded persons of European stock worldwide – both the Anglo-Germanic pan-Europeanists and the White ethnic pan-Europeanists – to together reject the Old Movement, and build a New Movement, based on sound principles (my suggestions are here).

Unfortunately, I suspect that for the most part this will fall on deaf eyes and blind eyes, and many White ethnic racial activists will be content to fil the role of “movement” court jesters, vying for table scraps, the target of (in this case) well-deserved contempt and disdain.  Why should you expect Anglo-Germanic pan-Europeanists to be concerned if you won’t lift a finger to help yourselves first?  A pan-European Movement cannot be a mirror image of the EU – or at least, popular perceptions of the EU – where hard-working and disciplined Germanics have to carry along lazy, undisciplined, and incompetent PIGS peoples. I’ve tried to do my part for two decades; why can’t the rest of you demonstrate that there are some men left among the micks, wops, dagoes, and hunkies?  

Men or mice?  You decide.

Now, let’s flip the analysis, and look at it from the perspective of the “movement.”  What I say to Der Movement is this.  If you want to restrict your ingroup to Anglo-Germanic Europeans, if you want to repel and eschew White ethnics, then by all means continue doing what you are doing, full steam ahead, you’re doing a great job.  However, if you want to appeal to, and recruit, White ethnics, I must tell you in all sincerity that you are sabotaging your efforts on a regular basis. Typically, the way to appeal to, and recruit, people is not to constantly and gratuitously offend them, distort their identities, and go out of your way to use dubious (at best) or obviously ludicrous (at worst) memes to undermine your target audience and say, in so many words (and sometimes more or less directly), that they are worthless.  It’s also not conducive for recruitment when you use dubious or ludicrous memes to denigrate those you ostensibly want to recruit, while suppressing genuine, objectively verifiable memes that focus negative attention on outgroups like Jews and Asians.  If your alleged objective is to appeal to all Whites, then you are digging a deep hole for yourselves.  Maybe the first step to remedy the situation is: stop digging.  

An amusing side note: on a pussy pedestalization website, a post about The Godfather.  Excerpt of a comment left, re: “Don Corleone”:

He was a Saracen rape baby and so was his son. 90% White America was a stranger to a not-at-all White Sicilian.

Sallis correct again.  It is impossible for there to be even one post, anywhere in any precinct even tangentially related to Der Movement, about White ethnics without the usual kneejerk response. 

Keep on digging your hole.

Spencer and Bowden on Nietzsche

An interesting analysis.

The point Spencer made at the end is important.  Pan-European nationalism is indeed the avant-garde of nationalist thought today, while ethnonationalism, the petty nationalism of the past, is the old and tired creaky remnants of entrenched failure.