Category: pan-European

Der Movement Parallax

Analyzing some important points.

Read this.

For 15 long years, beleaguered Rhodesia maintained near total tactical military supremacy in the region despite severe weapon, materiel, and manpower shortages. Yet, military victory bereft of a strategic vision and clearly delineated political objectives is ultimately self-defeating. The political objectives of Rhodesia changed throughout the course of the war. Initially Rhodesia sought to maintain White minority rule, later hoped to create an African puppet regime, and finally sought nothing more than a seat at the proverbial “multicultural table.” This last political objective sealed the fate of tiny Rhodesia, and led to the pogrom of White genocide presently occurring in southern Africa. The nation of Rhodesia faced a series of overwhelming odds since its inception as a sovereign nation, but its greatest threat was its internal lack of strategic aim. This is a mistake we cannot afford to make.

This is very true.  A fundamental error that is often made is confusing strategy with tactics, and vice versa.  Means and ends are not the same; objectives and the tools to achieve those objectives are not the same.  One problem with mainstreaming is precisely this; the idea is to “mainstream” in order to “achieve (and maintain) power” so the power can be used to “preserve race and culture.”  Very laudable. Let’s put aside the empirically determined fact that mainstreaming simply doesn’t work.  Let us assume it does work.  What happens when selfish human nature takes over and the attainment and maintenance of political power ends up being the ultimate objective, the end, rather than as means to achieve racial-cultural objectives?  You may object: the same power-fetish may occur even with a vanguardist strategy.  That’s true, but less likely. The farther one’s “everyday” activity is separated from their ultimate objective, then the easier it is to lose sight of that objective. Mainstreaming is, in theory, a way to actualize vanguardism; vanguardism in turn is (in theory if you will) a way to achieve racial-cultural goals.  Being one major step removed from the alleged “real objective” makes mainstreaming more susceptible for activists to give up on their supposed goals and pursue political power for its own sake.  Vanguardists, on the other hand, live in “racial extremism” on an everyday basis and are less likely to lose sight of the objective that is “in their face” on a constant basis. Vanguardists are thus more likely, in my opinion, to understand, and remain focused on, the strategic aim.

As Greg Johnson articulated in New Right versus Old Right, white racial survival is the ultimate goal of White Nationalism, but I would go one step further and say we must explore not only how to survive, but also how to thrive racially as one people.

Fair enough.  Preservation is the first step.  Overcoming and progress comes next.

The policy failures and lack of strategic vision of former Rhodesia mirror those of the contemporary White Nationalist movement. The survival of the White race is imperative, but whites will only succeed if they maintain unity; in what form this “unity” manifests itself, and how centralized or decentralized it is, is open to debate. In order to reach our peoples greatest potential, we must seek unity of both race and thought, and harmonize these into a new European/White ecumene. 

There may be truth in this.  But it is a futile exercise to attempt to get everyone in the “movement” on board with a common vision.  It’s not going to happen.  Out of the morass – or perhaps from a fresh direction – a dominant memetic structure will emerge. Whether that will be the right direction, or a disaster, remains to be determined.

In Ricardo Duchesne’s penultimate work, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Duchesne rightly speculates that a penchant for rational abstraction is the hallmark for White racial success. From this ancestral proclivity new and old ideas must be forged, crafted in a manner conducive to White unity. We’ve all borne witness to the perils of abstraction run amok, such as diversity for the sake of diversity and so-called “human rights”, but abstraction, when grounded in blood and soil and beholden to a people rather than to a proposition like universal equality, can produce a clarity of vision commensurate with the greatness of our race. I’m not opting for ideological orthodoxy or an outright purge, but I am suggesting that we as a movement begin a dialogue towards what we can and cannot accept.

Again, I’m doubtful that the feuding activists of Der Movement – all Chiefs and no Indians – will come to such a consensus.

Rhodesia wasn’t able to formulate a clear sense of strategic national purpose, because they couldn’t decide what they could and could not accept. Pragmatism is the basis of power politics, but it must be grounded by an immoveable set of axiomatic principles. 

That’s correct, and why mainstreaming is bad even if it would be politically successful – because there pragmatism itself becomes the “immovable axiomatic principle.”

Our lack of a cohesive vision is tantamount to a proverbial arming of the natives, and the natives are getting restless.

True, but, again, one cannot force a collective vision on a collection of individuals and mini-groups who cannot even decide on the parameters of “Us” vs. “Them.”  The Us/Them division is the fundamental characteristic of what a group is; if even that cannot be agreed upon, then there is no group.

Old hostilities and petty ethnic rivalries exacerbated an already precarious military and political situation. Intra-racial division, aside from contributing to Rhodesian political incongruity, proved deleterious to the war effort by limiting the mobilization of the population…

Let’s have more dem dere narrow ethnonationalism, as well as more divisive Guntherite racial theories!  That’ll bring folks together in unity, no doubt! 

We contemporary White Nationalists find ourselves in similar circumstances. The rampant division within our movement, though generally not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…

“…not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…”  Uh, I think the author of this piece just missed the last century of failed racial nationalism.  “Intraracial ethnic distinctions” constitute the first major division of “movement” disagreement.  If one wanted to do a memetic “PCA plot” of Der Movement, then the subracial/ethnic question would be the first major axis of variation.

Like our former Rhodesian brothers, our numbers, though growing, are few and the upcoming struggles will require mobilization of our entire movement for the survival of our race.

Not going to work. You need to find the optimal segment of Der Movement – or better yet start a New Movement beginning with first principles – and build your unity out of that.

European civilization has always been conflicted, agonal in nature, and historically our propensity for low-level kinship violence has been evolutionarily beneficial. 

Perhaps in the past, not the present.  The definition of what is “evolutionarily beneficial” (i.e., adaptive) depends on the environmental context.

However, in the midst of possible racial extinction, it’s of the utmost importance that internecine movement division stop. But how can division stop, particularly if we begin to explore new strategic paradigms, as dialogue breeds division?

Good question.

Put simply, we can stop division through dialectical synthesis. The musical virtuoso J.S. Bach wasn’t simply a master composer and performer; he was first and foremost a “synthesist” and thus able to harmoniously weld together an eclectic assortment of European musical styles into a cohesive melody. More to the point, like the works of Bach, we in the White Nationalist movement must shed the detritus of the past and form a new metapolitical imperative based upon a thoughtful, long-term strategy and movement unity. Strength in numbers is a very real thing, and as was the case for our Rhodesian ancestors it will be a deciding factor in our movement’s life or death.

That’s not an answer.  It’s hand-waving.  How to, in real-world terms, practically speaking, create the unity the author refers to?  Actually and precisely, how?

Native Africa never truly overcame the so-called “k-factor,” though it did receive outside help from a variety of forces, from international finance to Communist China…

A side note: Asians are always going to be on the forces of anti-Whitism and anti-Westernism.  Yockey understood that.  Can today’s yellow fever fetishists understand that as well?

My criticisms aside, I liked this article and believe the author is on the right track, sort of. But I myself went through this stage, long ago, of thinking that the entire “movement” could unite around some fundamental principles, have unity, and move forward.  Not possible.  As I said, the “movement” cannot even agree on the most basic distinction of all – Us/Them – how is anything else possible?  The author it seems wants to make “preservation and advancement of the White race” as the “immoveable axiomatic principle” – good luck with that since Der Movement cannot agree on what the “White race” is and who does or does not belong to it.  

So, while the author’s heart is in the right place I have to tell his head: it’s not that simple. It’s not like others haven’t come to similar conclusions before.  It just doesn’t work that way in reality.  The solution for him, personally, is either find a segment of the “movement” that fits his perspectives and try and build that segment into the dominant activist vehicle, or, if no such suitable segment exists, then help build a new one from the ground up.

Will the Real John Morgan Please Stand Up?

Inconsistency.

Identitarians recognize that internal squabbles only weaken our civilization and distract us from the real problems at hand. We must develop a wider sense of identity and see ourselves as Europeans as much as we are Poles, Norwegians, or Spaniards. Europe is confronted by competitive and hostile forces on all sides – from the Middle East, from Africa, from Asia – even, it pains me to admit, from the United States, which in spite of its origins rarely has the best interests of Europe at heart. This means recognizing that we actually have much more in common with peoples who may have been historical foes than with those who are trying to subjugate and replace us in our own lands. While I am not going to pretend that there were not genuine problems between European rivals, we simply have to set these old conflicts aside and look at the bigger historical picture. Even the European Union is not a bad idea – what is bad about it is the way in which it has been implemented and the destructive neoliberal values that it upholds, but the general concept is a good one. The world is entering a multipolar phase. The Third World is rising, and is not content to allow itself to become the plaything of Western economic interests. In this new reality, Europeans will only survive if we stand together.

Sounds a lot like Richard Spencer…or Ted Sallis.  Quite different from Morgan’s hyper-ethnonationalist stance a little while back.  I obviously agree with Morgan here now as much as I disagreed with him back then.  Will the real John Morgan please stand up?

Do these guys have any ideological foundation or are they all ideologically incoherent?  Can they be trusted?  What do they stand for?  Is it all about “we’re all like real mad at Richard Spencer right now, so let’s mock pan-Europeanism by pretending pan-Europeanists believe that Russians are Irish are “interchangeable?”  Is this all about personality and personal animus and competition?  Looks like that to me.

But there are also various levels to identity. One’s identity can involve all of local, regional, national (perhaps), ethnic (which can be transnational, as with Hungarians), and civilizational (as in Europe) factors. Ideally, all of these levels work together and complement one another. One can be a Flemish regionalist, Dutch, a Belgian, and a European without any of those elements necessarily contradicting the others.

Well, yes.  Concentric circles of interest, anyone?  Sound familiar?  The idea that one can be both a pan-European racial nationalist and be an ethnic nationalist at the same time – sound familiar?  If Morgan believes this – does he? – then what was all the narrow ethnonationalist sound and fury a while back (that attracted a White-hating “I’m the enemy, silly” Asiatrix like a fly to shit *)?

That these fellows want to regurgitate all my talking points dating back to the early 2000s is fine by me – if they were consistent.  But for all I know, a couple of weeks from now, Morgan will be raving again like his earlier piece.

These are serious issues that need to be discussed seriously and not based on inter-“movement” feuding.

As well, how can one separate race and ethnicity?  What is ethnicity without race?  Irishmen are White Europeans, not Black Africans.  Even racially mixed ethnicities (e.g., Latin Americans, Central Asians) are defined by the particular mix of the constituent races.  On the other hand, a race is composed of ethnic groups.  Even if there were widespread interbreeding between the ethnic groups of a race a complete and even panmixia is unrealistic, so that distinguishable sub-groups would still be present.

*Interesting how non-White enemies of White racial interests support ethnonationalism for us…while supporting pan-racial solidarity for themselves.

Der Movement in Der News, 6/9/17

Build the tribe.

After this example of memetic appropriation, at AltRight.com, we see the startling revelation that hatred of Trump by the Left is essentially hatred of Whites.  That sounds familiar. Where may we have read that before?  Oh wait, here at this blog; for example, from Feb. 2016.

If the Alt Right is going to be great savior of the White race, it may be helpful to actually generate some original content other than that of yelling about “Pepe” and “Kek.”

Getting back to the 5PT article at Counter-Currents, we see this excerpt of a hostile comment:

Contrary to the author’s hypothesis, polling shows most whites are not in favor of mass immigration, suggesting they are wary of their own demographic replacement. The feeling of being invaded and replaced will only continue to grow as mass immigration continues unabated, until the issue becomes red hot. The problem is that our politicians, as usual, are moving far too slowly for those of us who already demand action. Immigration and demographics need to be made a major campaign issue in our elections, which will lead to parties making it a campaign promise to reduce immigration — and we need to hold them to it.

Most Whites may be against mass immigration, but they sure don’t vote that way when they have the chance to vote for even mainstreaming ethnonationalists like Le Pen and Wilders. Politicians moving far too slowly” – who?  Who has been elected?  Only the fraud Trump, and we all should have known better.  Polls are useless if the alleged opinions said polls represent neve become actualized into electoral victories or any other concrete real-world manifestation of White backlash.

In any case, both sides of this debate don’t seem to realize that “building our tribe” and “taking back our nations” are not incompatible or orthogonal to each other. It would seem that tribe-building is going to be a necessary prerequisite to nation-taking, and if the latter fails, then having the former around will allow the White tribe to survive (and possibly make new attempts at nation-taking in the future).

We need to do both the nation-taking (it’s too early to give up completely on that, despite the current grim reality) and tribe-building. And it’s the tribe building that needs to be the predominant focus, since it serves not only to aid nation-taking, but it also lays the groundwork for an effective strategy if the “take back the nation” efforts fail.  Tribe-building is the underlying foundation for a wide variety of overlapping efforts.

Note the comments about UKIP’s silk roadism and about “British Asians.”  I agree wholeheartedly with Spencer’s pan-European vision.  Delenda est ethnonationalism!

Narcissism of Minor Differences

A world of difference.

Let us consider “the narcissism of small differences” also known as “the narcissism of minor differences” (NMD) – one of Freud’s few legitimate conceptions. The purpose of this analysis is not to deny the importance of differences that exist between, e.g., different types of Europeans, but instead to understand why such differences sometimes become exaggerated to maladaptive levels, inhibiting the development of the sort of pan-European cooperation that is necessary.

Let’s consider this nonsense from Anton Blok (emphasis added):

This essay explores the theoretical implications of Freud’s notion of `the narcissism of minor differences’ – the idea that it is precisely the minor differences between people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of strangeness and hostility between them. A comparative survey shows that minor differences underlie a wide range of conflicts: from relatively benign forms of campanilismo to bloody civil wars. Freud’s tentative statements link up with the insights of Simmel, Durkheim, Lévi-Strauss, Dumont, Elias, and Girard. Especially helpful is what Bourdieu writes in Distinction: social identity lies in difference, and difference is asserted against what is closest, which represents the greatest threat. An outline of a general theory of power and violence should include consideration of the narcissism of minor differences, also because its counterpart – hierarchy and great differences – makes for relative stability and peace.

The last sentence raises eyebrows – that polities groups containing “great differences” are more stable and peaceful – absolutely ludicrous given the conflicts of human history when disparate groups are brought into contact. Conflict between similar groups is partly due to NMD (something that needs to be carefully examined) but also because similar groups have historically been geographically proximate and hence in regular contact, and more likely to complete for shared resources and common ecological niches.  It does not follow that because of this, groups greatly different would be more stable – if brought into proximity they would compete for living space and their highly divergent natures would trigger mechanisms to reject the “other.” Indeed, one can argue that the presence of highly divergent others would actually diminish NMD among the similar groups, as the differences harped upon in the absence of a more contrasting highly divergent group would fade into insignificance compared to that divergent group (e.g., different types of White Americans experiencing heightened assimilation when contrasted to, e.g., the Negro).  Hierarchy, yes, I can understand the stabilizing influence of that, but not of “great differences.” 

Some examples of NMD are ludicrous, such as the “anti-Black racism” of “poor Whites” in the South.  A Neo-Marxist interpretation dismisses the wide racial gulf as a “small difference” and instead focuses on “economic similarity.” Hence, the “racism” is due to poor Whites exaggerating “slight” racial differences in order to distinguish themselves from former slaves who were on a similar economic level.  A more realistic interpretation is that poor Whites were forced to interact with Blacks and thus were exposed to the horror of Negroes and Negro behavior, which wealthier Whites were able to evade.  Many other examples (and this point will be amplified below) are simply a matter of circumstance – groups that happen to be in proximity, with local resources (including and especially territory) to squabble over, will come into conflict and focus on differences to maintain identity and to focus hatred and contempt on the enemy.  Over time, this can be ingrained into a group’s “historical DNA” and become part of their own identity (think Serbs vs. Croats or the English/Irish and Northern Ireland scenarios).  This in no way implies that even wider gulfs of race and culture wouldn’t trigger even more bitter hatred, as we have seen throughout history (look at the history of race relations in America, which, despite the Neo-Marxist interpretations ridiculed above, focus on the widest possible differences between human groups).

Another ludicrous example typically given of NMD is of “Jews persecuted by German Nazis.” Only a historical idiot can ignore the wide gulf between German and Jew (see Freud’s comment on Aryans/Semites below) – alleged “assimilation” notwithstanding – indeed, Yockey makes clear that Jews are derived from a completely different (and non-Western) High Culture and are thus a completely different people than their hosts, whatever “similarity” and “assimilation” is thought to have existed.

A more reasonable essay on the topic of NMD is here.  Excerpts (emphasis added) with comments:

Blok, in a sense, is more Freudian than Freud himself. He believes that when Freud wrote that ‘We are no longer astonished that greater differences should lead to almost insuperable repugnance’, the great Austrian doctor came very close to undermining his own theory. This sentence, Blok thinks, shows that Freud failed to recognize the importance of his own discovery and reduced its heuristic value (Blok 1998: 35). Blok even suggests that Freud may have misunderstood the quintessence of his own discovery, and he volunteers to rectify this by revealing its true purport. As it turns out, however, many of the examples Blok cites clearly show that other factors than NMD, such as status anxiety, economic interests, and competition for material resources play a greater role in conflicts than he himself is willing to admit…also cited by Blok, is anti-Black racism in the American South after the abolition. The most severe persecution, Blok points out, came ‘from poor and lower middle class whites… (who) feared being put on par with the former slaves.’ (ibid.) Again we see that status anxiety and fear of economic competition are the decisive factors rather than cultural distance per se. In any case, the phenotypical differences between poor Whites and poor Blacks in the United States are so evident that it is highly questionable whether this distinction may be regarded as ‘minor’.


The last sentence is key here and also discussed by me above.  Blok is an outrageous idiot if he thinks White-Black relations in the South are an example of NMD. One suspects that Europeans will become less naïve about racial differences as their nations in the 21st century become increasingly multiracial hellholes.

In Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921) Freud developed this concept somewhat further and applied it to attitudes between nations and between regional groups within nations. ‘Closely related races keep one another at arm’s length; the South German can not endure the North German, the Englishman casts every kind of aspersion on the Scot, the Spaniard despises the Portuguese.’ However, in this book Freud did not claim that minor differences are more prone to lead to animosity and conflict than big ones. On the contrary, he immediately went on to suggest that greater differences may cause even greater hostility among groups: ‘We are no longer astonished that greater differences should lead to almost insuperable repugnance, such as the Gallic people feel for the German, the Aryan for the Semite, and the white races for the colored.’ (Freud 1921: 101).

Note that Freud acknowledges the alien nature of the Jew (the “Semite” in the above argument), does not consider European-Jewish (“Aryan-Semite”) relations to be NMD but something greater, and also realizes that perceptions of group differences run along a continuum, with greater distance potentially leading to greater conflict.  Note he reflects the racial “thought” of that age, in which different European national groups are akin to races (Gallic/French-German), but, overall, Freud is remarkably reasonable here.

Anton Blok is probably wrong when he surmises that Freud failed to develop NMD into an elaborate theory because he did not realize its full potential. A much more likely explanation for the undeveloped state of this idea in Freud’s writings is that he recognized its strictly limited usefulness.

Freud wiser than Blok.  How about that?

The NMD-idea may be challenged on both philosophical, logical, and empirical grounds. Firstly, the very concept of ‘minor differences’ presupposes that a clearly defined hierarchy of differences made be agreed upon, with big ones on top, medium-sized differences in the middle, and small ones at the bottom. Clearly, this is not possible…even if we for the sake of the argument accept that such an hierarchy can be identified, we run into almost insurmountable difficulties if we should try to use it empirically. We would soon discover that whichever differences we decide are ‘most major’ or ‘most minor’, some massive violent conflicts exhibit many of them while the same differences are more or less absent in other equally serious conflicts…Even if Huntington is wrong when he identifies fault lines between civilizations are particularly conflict-prone, we must nevertheless conclude that some serious conflicts do indeed unfold along those lines.

I personally don’t see Huntington as wrong.  Up until the modern era, conflicts between civilizations were much less frequent than those internal to each civilization, for the reasons discussed above: relative proximity of the within groups and the consequent fighting over local resources.  But think of the centuries old conflict between the West and Islam, continuing to this day, and you can see Huntington is correct.  At least this author is able to admit that civilization-wide conflicts do occur.

Finally, when carried to its logical end point, the strong version of NMD that Ignatieff toys with and rejects but Blok seems to endorse, leads straight into sheer mysticism. If it were true that ‘the smaller the real differences between two groups, the larger such differences are likely to loom in their imagination’, then differences that are so small that no-one is able to detect them, would be the ones most likely to produce conflict. This theory would be a social science version of homeopathy, the quasi-medical theory according to which the power of a chemical ingredient increases the more it is diluted in pure water. While many people believe this to be the case, chemically and medically this is simply impossible.

This is logical, but there are some precincts of the “movement” which apparently hold to the “homeopathy” model of group conflict.  And in general, there have been strands of pop-culture American history overlapping flawed and maladaptive NMD models. As a minor but amusing example of this, I can think of a famous American athlete and KKK member (who shall remain nameless), in the sport of baseball, who expressed a life-long distaste for White ethnic Catholics, but who joyfully groveled to the Negro and actively assisted the “integration” of America’s “National Pastime” with the Black male.  Surely, anyone (White) has the right to dislike White ethnics if they so wish, but being at the same time a pro-Negro cuck isn’t exactly an example of rational adaptiveness. This inversion of interests is ultimately maladaptive.

This means that some conflicts are structured as clashes between two competing identity claims, one of which insists that certain cultural differences in a certain population are minor, while the other maintains that they are major. In order to understand why some such conflicts turn violent while others do not we must not look for any objectively given differences but for differences in perceptions and how perceptions are publicly represented. This means that we much turn our attention to public rhetoric and discourse.

Well that’s fine as far as it goes, but the major point I think about NMD is that it manifests itself most strongly in the absence of more glaring contrasts of group distinctiveness. Contra Blok, I don’t believe – and history certainly does not support – peacefulness when highly disparate groups are brought into proximity.  Rather, in circumstances when and where highly disparate groups are separated and do not come into significant contact, then more similar groups will focus on those small differences that exist between them to help maintain their unique identities.  So, “difference” is relative – when the only differences are those between similar groups, then those “small differences” fill the niche space of popular conceptions of identity and difference and hence attain great significance and possibly become the focus of inter-group conflict.  When more disparate groups come into the picture, the “small differences” between similar groups will more likely fade into (relative) insignificance, in comparison. Let’s remember the words of Yockey:

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 Turkestani from the Russian Empire.

That is exactly my point.  And the disparate groups do not necessarily need to be in the same territory in today’s globalist age of a Clash of Civilizations. Competing power blocs of Race-Culture ensure that differences between widely disparate groups will continue to be the major focus of rational attention moving forward.

That said, and despite the existential crisis facing the White Race, there are many who reject Yockey’s (and my) argument, and continue to focus on NMD-style intra-European division. However, to be honest, they do have a point in one sense.  Let us take for as an example an English nationalist concerned about the “Polish immigrant threat.”  This nationalist may believe that since Poles are White Europeans, then “British Poles” – unlike the more different and alien Blacks and Asians – would be accepted in any future White Britain, negatively affecting English ethnic interests and diluting English uniqueness.  Or, even in today’s multiracial Britain, the concern would be that the relative similarity of Poles would make their assimilation into the native British population far more likely than that of non-Whites, thus being a larger threat to English ethnic purity. In this view, more similar groups can be a greater threat to a given ingroup simply because such more similar groups are more likely to be accepted by the ingroup in question. Therefore, so the idea goes, to safeguard the uniqueness of any given ingroup, one must be especially on guard against those outgroups similar enough so as to threaten that uniqueness by being accepted into that ingroup.  The problem here is that the on-the-ground reality of what’s actually happening in the West is that it is truly the more distant groups that constitute the existential problem. Yes, Poles in Britain is a concern, but in a nationalist Europe, Britons and Poles, who ultimately can understand each other being derived from the same broad Race-Culture, can work this problem out – it is not an existential problem that threatens the very existence of the British peoples.  The Third World invasion of Britain is such an existential problem; if Britain is doomed it will be doomed because of the Afro-Asiatics, not because of Poles.  Just because some aspects of NMD are understandable does not mean they are necessarily correct.  What then to do?

On the one hand, we must acknowledge these as legitimate concerns, and these concerns are a reason why pan-Europeanism must never be confused with panmixia.  Reasonable concern with preserving group identity and uniqueness needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. Poles eventually would need to leave the UK.  On the other hand, these concerns, however legitimate, must not be used as an excuse to promote intra-White division that impairs the sort of pan-European cooperation we need for racial survival. On the broader arena of the Clash of Civilizations, Britons and Poles are on the same side. Thus, a balance must be struck in which legitimate narrower concerns are not blithely dismissed as NMD but are taken seriously and acted upon but, once taken into account, these concerns cannot descend into permanent intra-European grudges and grievances.

In summary, NMD is real, but is much less a factor than what Blok purports it to be.  Freud’s general conception of a continuum of difference leading to varied levels of conflict is reasonable, and compatible with both the existence of NMD and also the reality of Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. From our White nationalist perspective, NMD can be a problem, but only if we neglect to consider legitimate concerns about narrower interests. However, while we need to take steps to defuse real problems that could lead to NMD, we shouldn’t tolerate irrational NMD simply out of a general principle that any and all differences must be accepted as equally legitimate foci of interest. That runs the risk of descent into “ethnoracial homeopathy” or into an inverted sense of interests in which genetically and culturally more distant groups are embraced while similar groups are rejected and opposed (even after steps are taken to ensure continuity of all groups).

Ethnonationalism is Atomized Individualism at the Racial-Civilizational Level

Some thoughts.

Listening to this podcast (transcript here) I find that I agree with 95% of what Greg Johnson said.  As per the other 5%, some points are as follows.

There’s a widespread misconception that White Nationalism means just the idea that if you’re white, you belong in the same state. And I think that that’s a ridiculous idea, a parody actually, of what most White Nationalists believe.

That’s a parody of the pan-European perspective, but very few people actually promote this view.  It’s as much as a strawman argument as saying that ethnonationalists all want to restart WWII.

The great conflicts of the twentieth century were largely between different white nations. And, largely, those conflicts came about because these groups were not respecting the autonomy of other white groups

And who wasn’t respecting that autonomy?  Extreme ethnonationalists, each looking out for their perception of what was best for their nation, at the expense of the race as a whole. That explanation is nothing new, Stoddard in The Rising Tide of Color said as much about WWI, as he was correct about that.

There’s also of course the Chinese question and South Asia, Africa, and so forth. These are distinct groups of people, distinct geopolitical blocs, and it would be nice if we can have white nations coordinating their plans regarding them in order to survive, rather than what we have today, which is our leadership basically conspiring to replace our population with non-whites from around the world.

There are some positive points in that paragraph.  Yes, the Chinese and South Asians should indeed be grouped with Africans as distinct geopolitical blocs that pose a question for Whites – a question of our very survival.  And, yes, coordination among Whites is good, but “coordination” per se does not go far enough when faced with this Clash of Civilizations.

How to balance coordination with sovereignty?  If a sovereign Ireland decides they want to import one million Negroes for cheap labor, would they have that right?  If England wanted to make an alliance with China against Germany, should we respect English sovereignty?  If so, racial coordination is impossible and White nationalism is a joke.  If not, then there are clear limits to sovereignty, and coordination leads to a certain amount of integration – an integration that still respects national boundaries and ethnocultural preservation.

…is that they’re trying to swindle the native European peoples of all the European lands and also European colonial peoples like Americans, Canadians, and others of having a future, of having homelands where they can be confident that they will control the government, control their destiny, and have a country that they feel is like home…

Yes, and the Silk Road Asian imperialists are chief among these swindlers.

Our individualism, our kind of “devil take the hindmost” attitude, and our unwillingness to confront the fact that this game is rigged against us—and that the long-term trends are quite dire, and that we simply will cease to exist as distinct nations and as a biological race in a couple hundred years if we don’t stop this—so we’re individualistic, we’re guilty, we try and make our own peace with the system, we’re afraid of joining together and actually trying to change it….

Isn’t ethnonationalism analogous to the type of atomized individualism that is decried by WNs?  In other words, as atomized individualism is to ethnic and racial nationalism, so is (narrow) ethnonationalism to pan-Europeanism. Ethnonationalism is atomized individualism at the racial-civilizational level.  At the national level, we observe selfish atomized individuals who ignore the collective good of the national ethny; at the racial-civilizational level we observe selfish atomized national ethnies and ethnonationalists who ignore the collective good of the overall Race-Culture.

One point brought up in the podcast is that Whites tend to project their own mentality to other peoples.  

And underlying that, though, is the same grandiose notion that really we’re the only people who matter, for good or evil, in the world, and other people are somewhat negligible as agents, and that assumption is very deep and a sort of bedrock assumption in a lot of Leftists.

And really, I stopped the projection and decided I need to try and understand the world as these people see it, and I came at a certain point to realize that a lot of peoples, in fact the majority of peoples on Earth, do not have a sort of transparent and trusting relationship to other groups. In fact, they have suspicious, hostile, and manipulative relationships to other groups, and that what’s going on in white countries is we’re inviting in people on the assumption that they’re going to be just like us; that we’re going to be generous to them and open to them, and they’re going to be open and generous to us.

Quite right, but WNs don’t realize that they do the same thing.  Many WNs believe in “universal nationalism” applicable to all peoples, and they assume that nationalists of other races believe the same, and would allow Europeans to exist in their own homogeneous ethnostates.

This is not the case.  Jewish nationalists are often Jewish supremacists. Asian nationalists are often Asian imperialists, who believe they have a God-given right to colonize White lands. There are also people involved in the “movement” who grovel to Jewish supremacism and Asian imperialism; if “White racialists” are willing to do so, imagine how supine “normies” would be to aggressive Jews/Asians.  These non-European peoples will always be a threat to our race, for as long as we and they both exist, and we’ll need an integrated defense against them for our survival, in addition to the known threats from the general “Global South.”  This goes beyond mere “coordination.”

And in fact their attitude is that we are incredibly weak and naive, and they will dissimulate belief in our ideas when they want something from us, but when we want something from them, they’ll say, “Oh yes, yes,” but what they’ll end up doing is practice very ruthless ethnic nepotism.

That describes Asians in a nutshell – both the Silk Roaders and well as “cognitive elitists” who preach atomized individualism for Whites while practicing “very ruthless ethnic nepotism” for themselves.

Silk Road News History: Blood is Thicker than Water

European solidarity against the Asian threat.

At Amren of all places (emphasis added):

The British and French quickly learned their intelligence was faulty; the Chinese were much better prepared and positioned than expected.

The forts opened a murderous fire so accurate and deadly that French and English officers were convinced Europeans must be manning the guns. The H.M.S. Plover, Admiral Hope’s command gunboat, was so badly shot up that almost the entire crew was killed or wounded, and the admiral was seriously injured.

Commodore Tattnall observed all this. He was aware, of course, that his orders limited him to observation. However, according to one account, he was so sickened by the slaughter of his fellow Europeans that he exclaimed, “I’ll be damned if I’ll stand by and watch white men be murdered.” He bent American neutrality to the breaking point by sending his steam launch alongside the embattled Plover and offering to carry off the wounded. The offer was quickly and gratefully received, and Tattnall left a contingent of his men on board the Plover as he began ferrying casualties away from the scene.

When he returned to the Plover, he found that some of the Americans he had left behind were black with gunpowder. Tattnall took the scene in and asked, “What have you rascals been up to?” One replied, “Well, sir, after you left there was nothing much for us to do so we thought we would man the guns for a little bit.”

Apparently drawing inspiration from the rage that their commodore had expressed at seeing racial comrades severely used by the Chinese, the sailors expected–rightfully as it turned out–that Tattnall would not object to their taking over from the mauled British crew and firing on the Chinese… 

…Nevertheless, watching British and French sailors and marines being cut down by the Chinese stirred him to forget old animosities and disregard his orders. Asked to explain himself, Tattnall famously stated “Blood is thicker than water.” The comment reflected the 19th century sense of racial solidarity, and electrified Europeans on both sides of the Atlantic.

White American Tattnall made common cause with British and French sailors against the Chinese inscrutables – something we need to actualize today as well.

All hail Tattnall!  And to those who say “that was a long time ago,” how about those who bring up 19th century British “geostrategizing” as somehow relevant today?  If that’s relevant (*) then Tattnall’s actions are also relevant.

*Of course, the old British “geostrategy” included the maintenance of their Empire.  So, hey, if the British want to recolonize India and Hong Kong, more power to them.  Show the dusky hordes how a country is really run.

I also note how the Silk Roaders claim that “there is no such thing as European solidarity” while at the same time considering Asians, and subsets of Asians (e.g., East Asians), as a cohesive whole.  So, the Silkers want the atomized British, alone and separate from Europe, to engage in a special relationship with Asians.  The Silk Road mantra: racial solidarity for me but not for thee.  How about turning it around – Europe as a whole making an alliance with India alone or with Japan alone against the rest of Asia, or at least against China?  Why not?  Cue the long rambling potty-mouthed Silker posts sprinkled with “F-bombs” and personal insults.

Revisiting Pan-European Preservationism

Some new thoughts on some of my old ideas.

Given the recent ethnonationalist broadsides at Counter-Currents, it is time to revisit and reanalyze my essay on pan-European preservationism, which is of relevance to the issues brought up in the aforementioned Counter-Currents piece.  I’ll examine parts of this essay, sometimes putting sentences from different sections together so as to address particular issues in their entirety.  Of course, the original essay is at the link.

As a long-time “pan-Europeanist,” I have read a number of critiques of pan-Europeanism focused on that ideology’s alleged opposition to the preservation of differences that exist between various European peoples. Further, it is said that pan-Europeanism believes that all whites are identical and interchangeable; therefore, the pan-European worldview has been viewed as fundamentally incompatible with intra-European ethnoracial activism. These critics do not distinguish between a pan-Europeanism that does value, and wishes to preserve, intra-European differences and a more panmictic version of pan-Europeanism that does not… One meme asserts that pan-Europeanism means that all whites are “fungible/interchangeable.” I do not believe that most responsible pan-Europeanists hold that view. I certainly do not. I believe in a mixture of racial conservationism—making certain that extant ethnoracial stocks are preserved in significant numbers in specific territorial states—and racial palingenesis—which supports eugenics as well as the acceptance of new, stabilized Euro-breeds that may occur in the European Diaspora and that can constitute new ethnies and expand the range of European-specific genetic and phenotypic biological diversity.

When the two ideas are in conflict, racial conservatism trumps racial palingenesis, since the original stocks, once lost, can never be recovered. Hybridization, if it occurs in Diaspora regions, should be carefully monitored so as to create productive new stabilized strains while, at the same time, not resulting in the elimination of parental stocks. This pan-Europeanism, which values and wishes to preserve intra-European differences, can be contrasted to other viewpoints.

One can occasionally encounter a more panmictic vision of pan-Europeanism. For example, in his otherwise useful and interesting preface to Norman Lowell’s important book Imperium Europa, Constantin von Hoffmeister writes:

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… 

Von Hoffmeister’s overall pan-European vision is positive, I agree with much of it, and he should be commended for his support of Norman Lowell, who is a real fighter for our race and our civilization. However, I do not agree with the specific viewpoint quoted here, which does not represent the totality of pan-Europeanist thought. I believe that we should not be in the business of encouraging mating between Russians, Germans, Swedes, Spaniards, or any other groups within Europe. One could imagine Russian, German, Swedish, and Spanish nationalists—people who may otherwise agree to the basic premises of pan-Europeanism—objecting quite strongly to the idea of a general panmixia involving their respective peoples.

We already have here in America an experiment in intra-European cross-breeding, which may produce productive and useful stabilized blends—all at relatively minimal costs to ethnic genetic interests due to the relative genetic closeness of Europeans. However, responsible stewardship of our ethnoracial-genetic patrimony requires that we at least maintain the original ethnic stocks in their European homelands. If these stocks are completely hybridized out of existence, the loss would be permanent and irreversible. I do not believe that the genetic diversity that currently characterizes the extant European ethnies should be lost; while additional stocks and additional diversity may be created in the Diaspora through cross-ethnic mating and breed stabilization, the original genetic strains of Europe need to be preserved.

Indeed, it is wrong to completely erase any legitimate differences between peoples, including groups that are relatively highly related: Norwegians and Swedes are not interchangeable, Englishmen and Danes are not interchangeable, Germans and the Dutch are not interchangeable, Italians and Greeks are not interchangeable, Spaniards and Portuguese are not interchangeable, and Russians and Poles are not interchangeable. And while the differences between the major subraces are certainly greater than that between groups within each subrace, one cannot draw a line within Europe and say that one group of differences are completely inconsequential, and another group of differences are absolutely essential. At the intra-continental level, it is a difference of degree. This can be contrasted to the wider gulf that exists between continental groups, differences that are magnified, in a synergistic fashion, by the overlay of the great civilizational divides.

Given recent controversies about Hoffmeister, that is all relevant.  I essentially still agree with what I wrote there, but I do want to defend Hoffmeister against attacks coming from self-interested Asiatics and their White extended phenotypes.  Yes, I have some areas of disagreement with Hoffmeister, but broadly speaking, we are on the same page – pan-European Futurists.  So, from my perspective, sometimes he may go too far, use overly bombastic language, and make some poor interpretations of history and where we should be going, but he is still “one of us.”  That can be contrasted to Asian imperialists who covet the Russian Far East and who want to colonize the West and who think that screaming about “the Jews” will give them the cover to achieve their objectives.  As if being subjugated by Asians is going to be better than being subjugated by Jews.  How about we be subjugated by no one and follow our own destiny, thank you very much.

Now, do I still hold out hope of cooperation between different types of racial nationalists, as suggested as follows?

I would argue that—at least theoretically—a person can be, at the same time, both pan-Europeanist and Nordicist, or pan-Europeanism and pan-Slavist, pan-Germanist, ethnic nationalist, etc., so long as the all the latter “ists” in question are of a “defensive” nature, and that the pan-Europeanism respects and values narrower particularisms. Of course, even if this is true, it is natural to expect that certain levels of ethnic interests[1] would be more important to an activist than others (e.g., a Russian may be a Russian nationalist first, a pan-Slavist second, and a pan-Europeanist third)… An optimal outcome would be if pan-Europeanists, Nordicists, pan-Slavists, pan-Germanists, ethnic nationalists, and all the other “ists” and “isms” within the white activist framework can work together in a productive fashion to achieve common objectives, even if fundamental points of important disagreement remain. If the majority of such people share a common goal of European, Western survival—albeit with different emphases, strategies, and tactics—then this could be a starting point to consider the possibilities. Given the immensity of the task before us, it would be helpful to at least be “in the same book,” if not “on the same page.”… Indeed, if we reach the point in which Basque separatists can work with Spanish nationalists, Irish Republican nationalists with Ulster Protestant Unionists, Padanian separatists with Ausonian nationalists, Flemish separatists with Wallonian nationalists, Hungarian nationalists with their Romanian counterparts, pan-Slavists with pan-Germanists, and American pan-Europeanists with American Nordicists—all in the cause of white, Western survival—this will be a development which will give the enemies of white, Western survival cause for grave concern…This essay is an open call for a paradigm shift in the relations of the varied types of (Western) ethnoracial nationalism to each other, a shift in the direction of increased cooperation. For approximately the last ten years there has been (sometimes acrimonious and mostly online) debate between proponents of these various “ists” and “isms” with no furthering of those objectives we all hold in common. Careful consideration of the possibilities for cooperation in areas of overlap should occur, and hopefully, these possibilities will become manifest in real-world collegial, productive endeavors. We can and should be able to move forward together to achieve our common objectives. The status quo has not been productive.

The answer is no.

While such cooperation is still desirable, I have long since given up any hope that it is plausible, at least in the current activist climate.  My original essay can be reasonably seen as a conciliatory overture to those other “isms” of racial nationalism; unfortunately, unless I missed something, this conciliatory attitude has never been reciprocated.  Hence, my pessimism as to whether such cooperation is truly possible.  Ethnonationalists have an almost hysterical aversion to the idea of any sort of integration or serious cooperation between European nations.  This may be at one level a somewhat understandable, albeit pathologically inflamed, reaction to the excesses of the EU.  However, I also suspect it has origins in feelings of disdain for other Europeans, an exaggerated sense of worth inherent in identifying with a particular ethnic group, an inability to get over historical grudges from long ago that are no longer relevant in today’s world (and folks call me “bitter”), or some other sort of baggage.  Nordicists definitely have racial contempt and disdain for non-Nordic Europeans, so there’s not much probability of cooperation and compromise from that direction.  Both ethnonationalists and Nordicists are firmly in the “narcissism of small differences” camp.  Pan-Germanists are similar; if you’re not Germanic, obviously you are no damn good.  Pan-Slavists also hold grievances about past history (cooperation among Europeans will cause those German tanks to start rolling in again, no doubt), and my experiences in dealing with some Eastern Europeans suggests they have some sort of inferiority complex toward Western Europe.  I cannot forget the hysterical enthusiasm of some Eastern Europeans “normies” for membership in the EU, despite my earnest and repeated warnings to them about it.  The general attitude was “now we’ll be taken seriously, now we’ll be considered as European by the West.”  Why should the more healthy Eastern Europeans care what the more degenerate Western Europeans think about them?  In some Eastern European people – the “normies” – this sense of anxiety manifests itself in a desire to “become Western European,” but for the more nationalist-minded, the opposite occurs, and a hardening of anti-Western European feeling occurs, resulting in extreme pan-Slavist attitudes.  HBD/race realists are not racial or ethnic nationalists at all, but Judeophiles and Yellow Supremacists, so nothing can be expected from that quarter.  And the new sickness of Silk Road White nationalism is simply whitewashed Asian supremacism and Asian imperialism, so hostility to pan-Europeanism from them is to be expected.

I may be accused of a Frankfurt School-like pathologization of ideological opponents…whatever. What I have just written is what I believe to be some of the underlying issues.  If these folks were being rational, then they wouldn’t start screeching about my wanting to insert “one million Russians into Ireland” and other such stupidity.  It I see hysteria, I call it hysteria. Stop acting irrationally if you don’t want to be called irrational.

I am talking here about pan-Europeanism.  It strikes me that one problem in these debates is a lack of agreement on definitions; if we cannot understand what the other side means by their arguments, then we are just talking past each other.  To my mind pan-Europeanism is not “a new Roman Empire” or some sort of impossible panmixia, but rather:

Perhaps pan-Europeanism is best viewed as a flexible meme and not as a rigid set of specific polices; it generally promotes the idea of mutual respect among the varied European peoples, and therefore attempts to search for solutions that will allow for the biological and cultural preservation of all Europeans worldwide. Pan-Europeanism asserts that all persons of European descent should have a “seat at the table” when decisions are made about the fate of the West and its peoples. Pan-Europeanism, properly considered, can be consistent and compatible with concerns about narrower ingroups: Nordicism, pan-Slavism, pan-Germanism, or whatever ethnic or subracial nationalism one wishes to consider. What pan-Europeanism introduces to these other ideologies is an additional concern for the broader European family. What if an individual does not care about the broader family of Europeans, and has an interest solely in his ethnic group or subrace? There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with that; everyone has the right to define the limits of his ingroup as he sees fit, and invest in that defined ingroup as is appropriate.

Yes, that is all true, but given the aversions and hostilities discussed above, in the end it becomes meaningless.  It is certainly possible for someone to be both a dedicated ethnonationalist and pan-European, but, practically speaking, I don’t see many such people around.  The supporters of ethnonationalism (pan-Germanism/Slavism or Nordicism or whatever) seem to define their identity not as a positive in and of itself (which they claim to do but really do not) but rather as something in opposition to an undesirable “other.”  So, rather than saying “I’m a proud Irishman and have as my first priority saving the Irish but I’m also deeply committed to saving all Europeans, and let’s end this Irish-English feud” we instead get paranoid fantasies of “the Russians are coming” and of course the endless grievances against Great Britain.

In summary, pan-Europeanism is an ideology which respects, strives to preserve, and fights for the interests of, all peoples of European descent worldwide—whether these peoples are of single ethnic origin or if they are of “combinative” ethnic European ancestry. There is nothing in this definition which asserts that panmixia must take place and certainly nothing which can be characterized as a lack of interest in preserving various ethnies (keeping in mind, of course, that “ethny” is not always the same as “ethnic group”). To say that pan-Europeanists in general do not see an intrinsic value in individual ethnic groups is simply not true. Thus I argue against the assertion that pan-Europeanism means that all whites are “fungible” and “interchangeable” and that this will lead to a panmixia resulting in a complete loss of biological and cultural particularisms. Instead, pan-Europeanism is better viewed as a cooperative effort, aimed toward the objective of Race-Culture preservation and renewal, an effort that recognizes both the differences and the commonalities of Western peoples.

That’s always been my focus.  But it’s easier to look for outliers who talk about “new Roman Empires” and mixing Swedes with Spaniards, than to deal with more nuanced perspectives. If, for example, the ethnonationalists were truly interested in collegial cooperation, then they’d actually focus more on my vision instead of the “amalgamation-empire” group.  I doubt they want cooperation, after all, as ethnonationalists why cooperate with those “strange folks over there.”

In October 1948—the dangerous year of Stalin’s blockade of Berlin—Mosley spoke to an enthusiastic meeting of East London workers and called for “the making of Europe a Nation.” Yet, as he said in later years, making Europe into a nation with its own common government did not make him feel any less an Englishman, and an Englishman of Staffordshire where he was born. All other Europeans, Normans and Bretons, Bavarians and Prussians, Neapolitans and Milanese, would through his idea remain Frenchmen, Germans, and Italians, as would Britons remain Britons, yet they would all think and act together as Europeans.

In those later years he also proposed a three-tier order of governments in Europe, each with a different function. In fact this was taking the best part of the old fascism, the corporate state, and the best of the old democracy, creating something higher and finer than either, through yet another synthesis. The corporate state had envisaged the nation like a human body, having a head, with a brain, with all members of the body working together in political harmony. Thus in Mosley’s vision of the future nation of Europe the first tier, the head, would be a common government—freely elected by all Europeans—for Europe’s defense and to organize a single continental economy. The second tier would be national governments for all national questions—elected as today—and at the third level many local governments for the regions and small nations like Wales and Scotland. They would have the special task of preserving the wide diversity of Europe’s cultural life: regional democracy with a new meaning.

While I may quibble in detail with Mosely’s plan, the fundamentals are sound.

Charles Lindbergh, in a famous pre-war essay on aviation and race stated:

We, the heirs of European culture, are on the verge of a disastrous war, a war within our own family of nations, a war which will reduce the strength and destroy the treasures of the White race, a war which may even lead to the end of our civilization. And while we stand poised for battle, Oriental guns are turning westward, Asia presses towards us on the Russian border, all foreign races stir restlessly. It is time to turn from our quarrels and to build our White ramparts again. This alliance with foreign races means nothing but death to us. It is our turn to guard our heritage from Mongol and Persian and Moor, before we become engulfed in a limitless foreign sea. Our civilization depends on a united strength among ourselves; on strength too great for foreign armies to challenge; on a Western Wall of race and arms which can hold back either a Genghis Khan or the infiltration of inferior blood; on an English fleet, a German air force, a French army, an American nation, standing together as guardians of our common heritage, sharing strength, dividing influence.

Note Lindbergh warning us against Asia, Lindbergh warning that Europeans need to stand together against Asians.  One could only imagine how repulsed Lindbergh would have been by the madness of Silk Road White Nationalism, in which Asians are allowed to colonize White lands, and cringing Europeans are bossed around by Chinese girls with guns (although perhaps Charlie would laugh at the impertinent stupidity of it all).  In any case, Lindbergh wanted a united “Western Wall of race and arms” – so much more is that needed today.

Keep in mind that if all Whites worldwide are counted, the total number would be hundreds of millions less than what one can find in single – single! – Asian nations such as China and India.  There are entire European nations with populations smaller than what can be found in single – single! – Asian cities.  And these Asiatics are not the pushovers of the past; China and India (and Pakistan and North Korea) are nuclear powers; these are hate-filled populations burning with hostility toward Whites and dedicated to the denial and destruction of the West. They really could care less about European concerns and we first have to safeguard our existence and then we’ll be able to safely safeguard our uniqueness, including at the smallest levels of nation and region.

Also of relevance are Greg Johnson’s comments at the Counter-Currents website:

If you go back far enough in history, you find times, such as the high Middle Ages, when there was a sense of the unity of the European race. Petty state nationalism is a far more modern phenomenon…During the high Middle Ages, there was a sense of European Unity as “Christendom” that was not explicitly racial but was implicitly so. The first Crusade in particular was an expression of this sense of unity. Of course even then Christianity was not coextensive with the European race, for there were Nestorian and Arab and African Christians, but the average European did not know that.

If you go back even farther, you find the essential genetic unity of all European peoples. The concept of “whiteness” today can be seen as an attempt to recapture that essential unity… In North America, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, the mixing of recently differentiated European stocks is bringing us back to that original unity.

Whiteness also is natural as a unifying concept in the face of non-whites, particularly in the colonies…In the end, though, the political validity of the concept of whiteness has nothing to do with its temporal pedigree, but with the fact that all whites are perceived by our enemies as essentially the same, thus we are treated as the same. Our skin is our uniform in the global struggle for domination.

For some reason Greg seems to have moved away from this position and now is in more favor of the “petty state nationalism” he at one time criticized. Of course, everyone has the right to change their mind; however, my views are more in tune with the quote above than in more recent support for ethhnonationalism.

One thread which is often prominent in modern pan-European thought is the work of its foremost post-war proponent: Francis Parker Yockey. It is therefore important to take a brief look at some of Yockey’s relevant statements on this issue.

In The Proclamation of London Yockey wrote…considering the issue of preserving intra-European differences:

Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy in the European Imperium…

That seems to me very clear.  Unless you believe Yockey was being dishonest, then that statement suggests that one of history’s leading pan-Europeanists was perfectly comfortable with local autonomy. 

As another example of what can be done to balance broader and narrow concerns:

As a general model for balancing broader and narrower particularisms, one could envision—along the lines of Norman Lowell’s Imperium/Dominion split—an overarching pan-European, Western Confederation resting on the framework of internally autonomous states that safeguard their narrower biological and cultural uniqueness. Regardless of these details, the fundamental point remains that all parties to preservationist solutions need to have their voices heard; in particular, all groups that make up the Western family of peoples need to join in this endeavor and participate in the process.

Salter’s views are also relevant. A pan-Europeanism that respects and preserves genetic and cultural differences, while also respecting genetic and cultural similarities, is wholly consistent with ethnic genetic interests. For example, in On Genetic Interests, Frank Salter cites the Civilizations of Huntington as possible core units of ethnic genetic interests for defense against other genetic/civilizational entities. Note that Salter speculated that Huntington’s “Orthodox” eastern European bloc may be considered a subsection of the West…Of course, the fundamental threat to the interests of all Euro-Americans originates from both elite non-Western groups (e.g., those of Asiatic origin) coupled with a mass of alien lower types (e.g., those of African and Latin American ancestries). In Europe itself, the threat also includes mass migration across racial and civilizational divides from north Africa/Middle East as well as from groups similarly invading the USA (e.g., there is a growing “Latino” population in Spain, and of course sub-Saharan Africans are present as well). Certainly, the narrower particularist viewpoint can be expressed in ethnic genetic interest terms, and that it is valid as far as it goes. But it misses the larger point: the threat is not superficial or temporary but fundamental and encompasses the totality of Western civilization and all of the European peoples. The worldwide racial crisis exists and the fundamental issue remains: European-descended populations are threatened with replacement by Third World peoples.

Again, Asians are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

In any case, it should be clear I support local autonomy and the sovereignty of the nation state for local issues.  But there are issues that transcend the nation state.  Despite my differences with him on other matters, it seems, remarkably enough, that Durocher and I agree on this.

In Imperium Yockey wrote, at different places throughout the book:

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 yesterday-nationalists 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…

…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 Turkestani from the Russian Empire…

I agree wholeheartedly with Yockey here. The last part suggests a hypothesis.  Just as differences in innate personality and life experiences can determine why one person is Right and another Left, perhaps the same influences affect the choice between being a pan-Europeanist or one of the narrower “isms.”  With respect to life experiences, is it possible that (negative) experiences with cross-racial diversity would make someone more prone to support pan-Europeanism?  If your life experience is one of Whites broadly defined up against non-Whites that would tend to suggest a pan-European perspective.  If on the other hand, your life experience is with a more homogenous population, particularly one that is ethnically/subracially homogenous, that would focus attention on narrower concerns.  Even more to the point, imagine someone whose only experience with “minorities” was with members of some European group *(or groups) that is numerically smaller than the person’s own in-the-majority European ethnic group.  Then “us” vs. “them” is here intra-European, and if those cross-ethnic experiences are negative, then the feelings of hostility and disdain are amplified.

For most of European history, the biggest enemy was another European people.  “Most” is not “all” – there were of course times when the enemy were rampaging Afro-Asiatic hordes and those threats were truly existential. But in general, typically for most of their history, Europeans fought Europeans, laying the groundwork for many of the attitudes and grievances that still plague us today. Consider the history (and island geography) of England and it is not surprising that ethnonationalism is well developed in the English Right (Mosley notwithstanding).  But today we live in a global age of The Clash of Civilizations, and Europeans need to understand that the old ways are over – something Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color foretold as far back as the 1920s. The past is prelude, but it’s now time to write the story of the future, and that is the story of The West Against The Rest – West being broadly defined as all Europeans worldwide.

The following quote from Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe summarizes the palingenetic objective that we could, if we so wished, strive for:


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 this tribe is not homogeneous, and contains within itself smaller tribes with unique and valued characteristics, is a given. But I believe, nevertheless, that this greater Western tribe does exist—and that together we can achieve great things, if we only can take the essential first steps forward. 

Well, all true, and narrow petty nationalism is not going to get us there. Unfortunately, I do not see much progress in the directions I support.

Of relevance to my points is this except from a Bolton Counter-Currents article:

Our Race Relations commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy, whose qualifications for that job consist of her acumen as a squash champion, stated that although she is proud of her Irish heritage, she will be keeping a close watch on the European Students Association. What makes an Irish or a Celtic dance society acceptable, but not a more generalized “European” society that includes Celtic plus other European heritages?

In order to become acceptable the association would presumably have had to form separate but affiliated ethnic groups for each European ethnicity, with say one member forming an Irish branch, another the Slavic branch, one the Italian, branch, another the Swedish branch, then forming an umbrella group but without the name “European.” Presumably “White” or “Aryan” would also be unacceptable so one is left wondering exactly what name would be acceptable. The conclusion must be that none would be acceptable. Anything of a “European” character is going to be innately objectionable.

Isn’t that interesting?  The same holds for the American school and university system.  And what does that tell you?  It tells me that organizing on an ethnic basis – individual atomized European ethnic groups – is NOT considered a threat by the system.  Organizing on a pan-European, racial basis, with an emphasis on a “European” character, is deemed a threat and considered unacceptable.  I think there’s a lesson there if you think about it.

And that’s not only in schools.  In the USA in mid-March we have St. Patrick’s Day marches – all acceptable, all celebrated, with politicians of all types marching joyously.  No problem. Irish, Italian, German, whatever…no problem.  Guess what would happen if someone – even a “normie” – tried to organize a “European-American” march.  Permits denied!  Neo-Nazi! Denounced by every politician!  Anti-fa violence!  Media in an uproar!  

Interesting, isn’t it?  And why should racial nationalists play that atomization game?

Finally, I would like to make an important point here, related to certain alien individuals who take it upon themselves to preach to Europeans about what we should or should not do, and if the reader takes away nothing else from this essay, then do take away this.  It is up to Europeans, and Europeans alone, to decide what their relationships to each other will be. We can support each other, hate each other, oppose each other, ally with each other, come together or come apart, but in the end it is about us, for us, and by us. Ourselves alone. Questions of pan-Europeanism vs. ethnonationalism vs. Nordicism vs. pan-Slavism vs. HBD race realism vs. Hoffmeisterism vs. whatever – those are questions for us to answer. Those questions are not addressed to anyone else – not to Jews, Iranians, Russian-hating Japanese, Chinese “maidens,” mestizos, Negroes or what have you.  If these others have an opinion on those topics, then, fine, express your opinion and move on.  Similarly, if I have an opinion on, say, Chinese-Japanese relations, I will express it, once, and then move on to my own business.  I certainly wouldn’t try to weasel my way into Asian nationalist groupings and attempt to sway their ideology to my liking – and I certainly wouldn’t expect to be welcome there (unlike how pathologically Universalist Whites welcome non-Whites into the business of White nationalism).  And even if these others seem to be sincere, and argue that somehow our racial business is their business, how can we know for sure?  How can we be sure they are not actually arguing in favor of their own racial self-interest at our expense? Some would say that is ad hominem.  So it is.  What of it? I would argue that ad hominem is not always a fallacy, particularly when it shines a light on questions of Cui Bono?  It’s not as if these people are offering fresh perspectives and novel ideas to advance the pro-European position.  Instead, they take sides in ongoing debates, simply parroting pre-existing positions, typically (from what I see) to advance their own racial agenda.  They are not essential and they are not helpful; at best they are a curiosity and at worst they are enemies in the ranks – Kipling’s Stranger in our midst.  It is one thing to have allies – alliances imply cooperation between distinct groups – it is another thing entirely to have these people actually as part of our own groups, blogs, groupuscules, etc.  Non-Whites intimately involved in White racial nationalism is not an alliance, it is an infiltration.  And between alliance and infiltration is a world of difference.  Finally, the interpretation of the fact that these types are almost invariably opposed to pan-Europeanism is an exercise I’ll leave to the reader.