Category: pan-European

Norman Lowell Interregnum Interview

Interesting.

Watch this.

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

One more point about this podcast.

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

Read this, emphasis added:

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

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

Advertisements

The Salterian Ethics of Imperium

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

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

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

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

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

Yockey’s words…in Imperium are relevant here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From my essay on Salterian ethics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delenda Est Ethnonationalism

Against the culture retarders. Or just plain retards?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True, and Johnson must know this.

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

I’ve criticized that individual before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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

Fair enough.

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough.

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

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

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

WE’VE BEEN IDEOLOGICALLY MARGINALIZED FOR YEARS…

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

I wish you all nothing but the best.

You are being naïve. They are the enemy.

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

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

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

Your Spencer-ite vision…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a template for the ethnonationalists. Watch closely!

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

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

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

Crazed gibbering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dark Tweets

When given lemons, make lemonade.

Those on the (Far) Right complain, with justification, about the hypocrisy of being deplatformed from Twitter and other social media platforms, while those on the (Far) Left are kept on, despite outrageously radical, racially inflammatory, and cheerleading-about-leftist-violence tweets and posts.

Has it occurred to anyone on the Right to create “sock puppet” accounts on these platforms, pretending to be anti-White Colored racists, Antifa supporters, foaming-at-the-mouth SJWs, laughably ignorant race-deniers, etc.?  Push the envelope of leftist insanity (as long as you do not promote violence or any other type of illegality, of course, which goes against the stern pacifism of EGI Notes), have fun, create chaos and balkanization, sow discord and confusion, provoke leftist feuds on the basis of race-ethnicity-sex-sexual preferences- ideology-tactics, etc. Perhaps at some point, the Left will start to become paranoid, accusing each other of being sock puppet trolls. Outrage the Mainstream Right. Stimulate White race consciousness. See how far you can go without getting banned; I’m sure you can go quite far indeed, as authentic leftists prove every day.

The possibilities are virtually unlimited.  This is a form of metapolitical ju-jitsu, turning the hypocrisy of the System against itself. The only question is whether rightist sock puppets can mimic genuine leftist insanity; likely at the beginning, attempts by rightist sock puppets to be intentionally inflammatory will fall short of what actual leftists are posting on a daily basis.  But, practice makes perfect, after all.

 

Maybe someone Der Movement heroes are already doing this; if so, very good – do more, and better.  If not, then this displays, once again, the total lack of imagination of the Far Right.

Other items:

There are some who may question why I am always so harsh to Derbyshire, more so than to other ideological opponents. The answer is that his outrageous hypocrisy grates on me. He has the tiresome shtick of being a “humble working class English lad who longs for the days when England was England,” yet he is proudly married to a Chinese woman, has mixed-race children, and defends miscegenation. He brings his Chinese wife to America, a country in which he was an illegal alien, and then he writes for an American-based immigration restriction website (itself founded by an immigrant, but insofar as I know a legal one).  He calls Amren attendees “latrine flies” and heaps scorn on their beliefs, but then eagerly latches on to Amren and speaks at Amren conferences after he’s kicked out from National Review.  We are supposed to feel bad for Derbyshire over his defenestration from National Review, but he had no problem causing trouble for MacDonald at CSULB with his scurrilous The Marx of the Anti-Semites hit piece on MacDonald (that I vigorously criticized at that time). He always pushes his family in the faces of his readers while calling “race purists” “nuts” – and then when he gets the inevitable email response from outraged readers he threatens them to come to his home so he can greet them “in the proper manner.” I suppose we should give the old boy credit; he has balls the size of Jupiter and Saturn and more chutzpah than all the Jews in Israel combined. However, I still find him annoying.

He’s monitoring the situation!

As regards Spencer on CNN, I have no strong objection in this instance, although generally I am opposed to talking to the press.  It was no great victory either, more or less a “wash.” Interesting that they chose Spencer instead of Taylor, though.  The Far Right needs its own media. Oh, that’s right – “there’s no money.” After all, Derb and Pete have priority, do they not?

It’s laughable when the fetishists undermine their own arguments.   The last WASP on the Supreme Court!  Followed by about how much of a “turncoat” he was.  Bring back Earl Warren!  Actually, Warren was of Scandinavian stock – even better for Der Movement!  Of course, Warren’s name is synonymous with anti-White betrayal – are we surprised?

I don’t know.  If we are going to have a civil war in America over race, another one that is, and it is becoming increasingly likely that in some point in the future we will, then maybe we need to get as many Whites on our side as possible?  In that case, pan-Europeanism is a good idea, and the Nordicist-Fetishist types like Ash Donaldson should be eschewed.  We also need educated Whites on our side; perhaps Der Movement can tone down the anti-scientific “traditionalism,” get out of their “snug hobbit holes,” and put together a mature, future-oriented ideology?

Race and Movement News, 7/13/19

In der news.

Another good Taylor video. I had to laugh about the “warpath” part.

Excerpts from another “emotional nerve” comment left at the HBD “West Coast White nationalist” Counter-Currents site,  emphasis added:

The problem is, aside from cattiness, that they always feel the need to bring up Greeks (ancient only, for they know not a thing about any other era, and really, they know very little of even the ancient ones), Italians (they are ESPECIALLY and GLEEFULLY brutal to Italians), Spaniards/Portuguese, etc. Why not just leave it out and just STFU about them? You cannot prove your point with repeating lies about meds (or slavs)???? Really, you can’t?

“……….Pan-Europeanism is our only way out.”

It can’t work BECAUSE of this BS.

@Ash
“I seem to have struck an emotional nerve with you and a few others.”

Typical response really. When a repeater of nordypoo nonsense is called out, always surprised that meds dare to take their own side in a fight, there is talk of “emotion.” But my dear, dear Ash, there was no need to repeat that lie. The whole post could’ve been done without that usual, tired, jealous jab. I understand that nordies feel put upon and cowed by non-whites and anti-white propaganda; but they always try to pump themselves up by ripping on meds and slavs, who played no part in that propaganda, do not attack nordies at all and are not anti-nordy….so WTF?????? Such catty swipes seem to be currency in these circles.

I agree with all of that, and it is good some folks have answered the original inane post. Certainly, the fetishists have a particular sweaty animus toward (Southern) Italians – to them, several rungs below Negroes and Australian Aboriginals on the racial scale.  And the indirect allusion to Sallis’ Law is always correct – Der Movement will always bring up their attacks against Southern (and Eastern) Europeans regardless of the context. If “Ash Donaldson” wrote an article about the weather, or the price of milk, or the design attributes of the Atlas ICBM, or whatever…there would have to be the obligatory mention of admixture in Southern (and/or Eastern) Europe. What self-respecting “movement” post would be without it?

And I agree, pan-Europeanism is not going to work as long as there are people who openly lie about racial history and population genetics to fuel their obsessive dogma, which they proselytize with all the fervor of a crazed priest of the Spanish Inquisition or a modern-day cultist.

We’ve certainly come a long way since the days of Larry Scott, eh?

Di, Di, Di…versiteeee…..

We’ve certainly come a long way since the days of Christy Mathewson, eh?

Di, Di, Di…versiteeee…

July 10, 2019 in Der News

In der news.

This is Counter-Currents:

Nicholas R. Jeelvy
Posted July 9, 2019 at 7:45 am | Permalink
2001: Space Odyssey is like watching paint dry, but the paint is in love with the smell of its own farts.

Erudition for only the highest of the high-IQ “movement” crowd.

We’re not “all the same.”

Racially mixed Amren commentators assert that racial tension occurs only between groups with different average IQs (always IQ with the HBD/race realist crowd).  That is of course obviously false. See this.  Racially similar East Asian groups, with similar IQs, exhibit tension when brought into proximity, particularly when in the homeland of one of them. Radically different mental traits and abilities can exacerbate tensions, but the tensions exist because of overall racial and ethnic difference, not merely because of IQ. People do not like to be replaced by others, and higher IQ replacers can even be worse as they are more dangerous and more able to control host institutions.

As we know, HBDers are hysterically opposed to pan-Europeanism.  Here’s a reason why, demonstrated by an online commentator supporting pan-Europeanism:

Heraclitean Fire
We’re ALL going to need to team up — the entire West — to have a prayer at effectively opposing China.
China is an existential threat like we have never faced before as a country.
China’s size, economic might, military, & technological prowess dwarf the Soviets of yesteryear.

HBD is all about having Whites as a humiliated and degraded slave race to Asians (particularly the Chinese) and Jews. Having the West “team up” against China is literally blasphemy to HBD, and of course, to Silk Road White nationalism as well.  Instead, we all need to engage in “measured groveling” to all those Chinese girls with guns who will be “guarding the borders of the West.”

Arrogant Europeans always like to say” “Dumb Americans know nothing about Europe and European politics and should stay out it.”  Very well.  The opposite is true as well. Excuse me, ”Tommy Robinson,” but you’re delusional if you think the fat wad of shit Trump cares about you and your interests.  You’re not Israel, Negro prison reform, or a Big Mac, so why should he pay attention?

Trump is a fraud and always has been.

And I’d like to answer Johnson again with his assertion that it’s not true that Trump was always a fraud. His statement slyly implies to the audience that all the people saying “Trump was always a fraud” are using 20-20 hindsight.  No, there are a few of us – Strom and I being two examples – who correctly labelled Trump as a fraud BEFORE the election.

What were the signs obvious to those with a triple digit IQ?  Let’s see. Trump was a man with close Jewish family connections and an established history of hobnobbing with both wealthy Jews and with Negro celebrities.  He used to be buddies with the Clintons, who attended his (third) wedding.  He was well established as having “New York values” and had supported Democratic politicians. The man was a New York real estate mogul and reality TV star.  He had no grounding or background whatsoever in any of the issues of importance to “our side.”  His campaign, while useful in promoting chaos and balkanization, was nothing more than cheap blustering and a few comments about “Mexican rapists.” The man, as exemplified by his shockingly pathetic, ignorant, and buffoonish debate performances was and is a vulgar clown.

Why would anyone in their right mind believe he was sincere?

Against the Derbyshire Apologists

The defenders of evil are themselves evil.  And “paranoid style” is just mendacious and dishonorable Frankfurt School-style pathologization of people defending White interests against Yellow Supremacism.

Look at this absolute trash – apologia for White-hating Yellow Supremacism, with both the author and one commentator defending the traitor Derbyshire.

Let me state the EGI Notes view: Derbyshire is a bitter enemy of the White race.  The ultimate outcome of his agenda, whatever his motivations, is the subjugation and humiliation of Whites to Asians (whether this reflects his personal life I do not know, but never forget his self-admitted “measured groveling”), with miscegenating Jeurasian mongrelization in play.  From the perspective of this blog and from the viewpoint just stated, supporters of Derbyshire are, de facto if not by motivation,  radical White-hating genocidal lunatics.  Derbyshire’s own personal genetic interests are intertwined with that of East Asia, and that is well known to everyone dealing with this topic, including the author of the Counter-Currents piece discussed here. Anyone who supports and enables Derbyshire is an enemy of the White race and is considered such by this blog.  For godssakes, the man OPENLY agreed with the characterization of Amren attendees (who are by and large more moderate than most WNs) as “latrine flies,” the man OPENLY defended miscegenation, the man OPENLY called “race purists” “slightly nuts.” That was all in writing at VDARE. I don’t know – maybe with the new Counter-Currents-Amren-VDAREUnz Review Jeurasian alliance it is true that the ideological difference between Derbyshire and Counter-Currents is “negligible.” Johnson can answer to that. I do know that the ideological difference between Derbyshire and EGI Notes is a chasm that can never be bridged; I have more respect for an out-and-out Black nationalist than I do for race traitors like Derbyshire.

I am unalterably opposed to ANY scenario – a nightmare scenario – in which Asians live in a White polity: That is anathema.  Any real WN would absolutely refuse such a disaster, they would oppose that horror with every fiber of their being, and they would reject such an unacceptable and atrocious outcome.  Indeed, it would be better to deal with a Farrakhan than a “Rosie,” but, truth be told, it is far better to deal with a “Rosie” than with a Derbyshire.  Better to deal with an honest enemy than with a treasonous one, better a foe who is an easily identifiable racial alien than someone who can slip easily in among the “latrine flies” of a (ostensibly) White racialist conference.  And we must reject the idea that we have anything in common with Asian-loving Judeophilic “cognitive elitists,” “HBD race realists,” and “IQ fetishists.”  We should be looking to Yockey with a Salterian foundation, not looking to Derbyshire with a Lynnian foundation.  Our goal should be an Imperium, not “let’s try something marginally better than the racial status quo.”

This blog has been too mild, too soft, too tolerant, and too accommodating to the likes of Derbyshire and the whole Yellow Supremacist crowd. Traitors who sell out to Asian Supremacism can talk all they want about “paranoid styles” and other shaming memes, but those of us who value White over Yellow will be even more firm and unyielding in out fervent opposition to Derbyshirianism.

Thankfully, I am not alone in this.  I just found a positively sublime contribution from a more sane Counter-Currents commentator, posted after I had written all of the above.  I actually cannot do “emphasis added” for the following, because the entire comment is absolutely on-target, I would have to emphasize the entire thing – it’s one of the best blog comments I have ever read:

LQ Jones

Posted May 30, 2019 at 8:11 am 

More excuses for race-mixer John Derbyshire. A negro married to another negro who otherwise supported our WN objectives would be more palatable and honest than making justifications for Derbyshire, a white man who willfully destroyed his genetic heritage and then has the gall to come to a WN event and promote his “Arctic Alliance” – in the hope that he could convince racially-conscious whites to say, “Hey, right on Derbyshire! Let’s unite mass populations of whites and Asiatics (like you did in your marriage) until they too interbreed (like you also did) and then we’ll all be one big, happy, mixed-race family!” How sickening.

The reality is this: John Derbyshire is far worse than any same-race black couple who supports our movement. For one thing, he has race-mixed and yet he’s met with warm and welcoming arms by the likes of Jared Taylor and others, clearly telegraphing the message at AR conferences that even if you race-mix (at least with Asians) you can still be embraced by the advocates of a white ethnostate – even rise above the average white at such gatherings as you’re showered with effusive praise by WN leaders like Taylor and others for being such “a really great guy!” What disheartening insanity.

In a world of justice, John Derbyshire should not enjoy white nationalist camaraderie. No, Virginia, he should not. Instead, he should be shunned and condemned for his racial betrayal. That those at AR conferences are not doing so only serves to expose just how deep the rot actually is….

Yes, sir.  The rot is indeed deep.  Any sane and reasonable “White advocate” should shun the likes of Derbyshire.  But the rot actually goes deeper than what even this commentator says.  Not only is race-mixer and miscegenation-promoter Derbyshire celebrated and given a forum, but he’s placed above activists of Southern and Eastern European descent.  In other words, a race-mixing Englishman who is on record openly insulting attendees of the conference he himself now attends (because National Review shunned him in a manner that WNs refuse to do) is placed at a higher level than, say, those horribly admixed low-IQ Eyetalians and those horrifically non-Western hora-dancing Romanians.  The pecking order is well established.  Derbyshire above Codreanu!  And as regards Traditionalist Hero Julius Evola?  Come on!  Don’t you know his ancestry?  He couldn’t hold Derbyshire’s chopsticks!

Getting back to Derbyshire…he made his choices in life.  He openly admitted, in writing, to be a socially awkward male – quoting his own mother in that regard (”awkward squad”) – implicitly admitting to the stereotype that it’s the “can’t get a White woman semi-autistic White omega males” who race-mix with Asiatic “females.” So how does that place an obligation on the rest of us to accept “exotics,” to accept “some spice in the stew?”  Why does race-mixing have to be acceptable?  Because Derbyshire is a “really great guy” who invited Taylor to his home to eat food Derbyshire’s Chinese wife made “with her own hands” as Taylor wrote (As opposed to what – with her own feet?  Or that it wasn’t just some cheap Chinese takeout?)?  Why do we have to accept nonsense like “the Arctic Alliance” at an allegedly pro-White conference just because Der Movement’s affirmative action policy is so well established that “one of the boys” is put forth as a “leader” despite committing what Strom rightfully calls genocide?

What a subpar debate about the EU. Spencer’s heart is in the right place (his brain is another matter entirely), while the smirking Frog-Canadian is absolutely stupid and juvenile. And the incoherent woman intermittently intruding like a deranged troll…my god. One would expect better from a podcast put together by middle school students

Look, the question is not if the EU as it currently exists is good. It is obviously not, and I supported Brexit for the same reason I supported Trump – as a protest, as a disruption, as a destabilizing force.  But the idea of a greater European state – one that is run by our side, NOT by Merkel and Macron – is sound (with federalism, as Spencer indicated).

All Spencer had to say – clearly and directly – was that he was NOT talking about an EU and a European army led by the likes of Merkel and Macron, but led by racial nationalists.

The fact that neither of these heroes – experienced podcasters – can just clearly and simply differentiate between the EU as is and a future nationalist European federation is astonishing.  All that blather could have been cleared up by one simple sentence.  Pathetic.