Category: pan-European

Fisking Ethnonationalism

Against ethnonationalism.

Greg Johnson makes what are probably the best possible arguments in favor of ethnonationalism vs. a more integrated pan-Europeanism.  I will now respond to these arguments.  It should go without saying that although I will be sharply critical, this is business, not personal; this is about ideology, not personality.

Also note that some of the difference is semantic and there is overlap between our positions; for example, I absolutely demand that distinct European peoples and cultures be preserved.  I oppose any general panmixia and I oppose the idea that all sovereignty, particularly local, should be taken over by a “super-state.”  On the other hand, apparently, real differences exist, so let’s evaluate these differences.

Why should sovereignty reside in ethnostates rather than in more inclusive orders, such as the European Union or the “Imperium” envisioned by Francis Parker Yockey? 

It is certainly curious that activists who disagree with Yockey on the single most fundamental aspect of his thought – his Imperium, the title of his most famous book – revere his memory. Certainly, one can revere someone one disagrees with, but the extreme discordance between a most fundamental – indeed existential – disagreement, and the degree of reverence, is unusual. More important, the way that Yockey’s idea is portrayed by the ethnonationalists is a strawman argument.  Yockey made it clear in a variety of his works that within his Imperium, European peoples would maintain local sovereignty and maintain their identities.  So, the implication that Yockey supported a radical panmixia of Europe’s peoples and cultures is incorrect.

Or, more grandly, the “Eurosiberia” of Jean Thiriart and Guillaume Faye? Or, grander still, the union of the whole Northern Hemisphere, the “Borean alliance” or “Septentrion” of Jean Mabire and Volchock?

The principal benefits attributed to political unification are (1) preventing whites from fighting one another, and (2) protecting whites from other racial and civilizational power blocs like China, India, and the Muslim world. 

These are only the “defensive” benefits – the “anti-negative” ones.  It ignores the positive, de novo benefits, which I’ll discuss at the end after tackling the arguments against these defensive benefits.

These goals are important, but I think that political unification is not needed to attain them. Beyond that, it entails serious risks of its own.

As I write in my essay “Grandiose Nationalism“:

The essential feature of any scheme of political unification is the transfer of sovereignty from the constituent parts to the new whole. If sovereignty remains with individual states, then one does not have political unification. Instead, one has an “alliance” between states, or a “treaty organization” like NATO, or an “intergovernmental organization” like the United Nations, or an economic “customs union” like the European Common Market, or a hybrid customs union and intergovernmental organization like the European Union.

Why does sovereignty have to be all or nothing?  If even Yockey’s Imperium and Lowelll’s Imperium Europa (not mentioned above) would entail some sort of local sovereignty, what’s the point?  Why this semantic trick of making the choice between ethnonationalism and a ruthlessly fully integrated monolithic state – unless it is just to shill for ethnonationalism? Even in the USA, individual states retain some local sovereignty – not as much as “states’ rights advocates would want, but some – does this mean the USA is not in any way politically unified?  

As I argue in “Grandiose Nationalism,” political unification is not necessary to prevent whites from fighting one another or to secure whites from external threats:

These aims can be attained through alliances and treaties between sovereign states. A European equivalent of NATO, which provides Europe with a common defense and immigration/emigration policy and mediates conflicts between sovereign member states would be sufficient, and it would have the added value of preserving the cultural and subracial distinctness of different European groups.

The sort of pan-European integration I envision would absolutely preserve “the cultural and subracial distinctness of different European groups” – indeed, that would be one of its guiding principles.  The idea that pan-Europeanists favor a destructive panmixia – certainly implied here by contrasting the allegedly preserving properties of ethnonationalism – is a strawman argument I have dissected before, including in essays on Counter-Currents. Then we have the question: how to enforce these “alliances and treaties” on the “sovereign states?”  If they can drop out, consistent with their absolute sovereignty, and go their own way – say, forming anti-European alliances with the Colored world – then “alliances and treaties” among Europeans are worthless for long-term policy.  Do we coerce them (see below)? 

The threat of non-white blocs should not be exaggerated. France, the UK, or Russia alone are militarily strong enough to prevail against anything that Africa, India, or the Muslim world can throw at us — provided, of course, that whites are again morally strong enough to take their own side in a fight. A simple alliance of European states would be able to deter any Chinese aggression. Thus a defensive alliance between European states would be sufficient to preserve Europe from all outside forces, whether they be armed powers or stateless masses of refugees and immigrants.

This is wrong on two counts.  First, it assumes that European states can form alliances against outside threats (including a China that has hundreds of millions more people than all Europeans worldwide combined) but that non-Europeans cannot.  What if the Colored world decides to form an alliance against Europe?  Doesn’t “non-white blocs” actually suggest the sort of dangerous and comprehensive pan-Colored alliance that a “simple alliance” of European states is unlikely to be able to handle long term?  What if the clash of civilizations heats up?  Is some sort of flimsy “defensive alliance” – consisting of petty nationalists all with their own conflicting agendas – going to be sufficient?  Second, this argument is inconsistent with a point made elsewhere in this essay – that if a European ethnostate begins behaving badly, the other states can wage war against it and eliminate that threat. What about “France, the UK, or Russia” – nuclear armed states each of which is strong enough to stand against, according to Greg, a nuclear armed India with its own enormous bigger-than-Europe population?  Will Europe’s “defensive alliance” then wage a nuclear war against “France, the UK, or Russia” if those states behave badly?  If those states could defeat anything that “Africa, India, or the Muslim world” can throw at them, couldn’t they also defeat – or at least cause catastrophic destruction to – the European “defensive alliance?” You can’t have it both ways.

As for white fratricide: the best way to defuse white ethnic conflicts is not to combat “petty” nationalism but to take it to its logical conclusion. If different ethnic groups yoked to the same system are growing restive, then they should be allowed to go their own ways. Through moving borders and moving peoples, homogeneous ethnostates can be created, in which each self-conscious people can speak its own language and practice its own customs free from outside interference. Such a process could be mediated by a European treaty organization, which could insure that the process is peaceful, orderly, humane, and as fair as possible to all parties.

So, the sovereignty and desires of ethnonationalists will be over-ridden by a “European treaty organization” who will make decisions that would, no doubt, offend the petty nationalist interests (taken to their logical conclusion no doubt!) of individual European peoples.  And when you are taking petty nationalism to its logical conclusion, and encouraging ever-increasing distinctions between European peoples, how will you then herd this group of hissing ethno-cats into a “European treaty organization” and force them to abide by its rulings when such rulings go against them?  Coercion?  Force? Ethnic cleansing?

International crises are by their very nature interruptions in the normal order of things, which also means that their duration is limited, so eventually everything goes back to normal. Military alliances are also shifting and temporary things, but political unification aims at permanence and is very difficult to undo. Does it really make sense to make permanent changes in the political order to deal with unusual and temporary problems? 

The clash of civilizations is not temporary.  It is existential.  The Cold War lasted nearly half a century.  NATO, cited above as a sterling example of a “shifting and temporary” alliance, has been in existence since 1949 (!) and is still very much with us.  Europeans were so dissatisfied with what NATO gave them that they formed (voluntarily, I might add) the EU. Why did they do that? Do you really believe problems of race and culture are “unusual and temporary?”  If so, that is disturbing beyond belief.

The ancient Romans appointed dictators in times of emergency, but only for a limited time, because emergencies are temporary, and a permanent dictatorship is both unnecessary and risky. 

Those same Romans who formed an empire, producing Pax Romana.

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.

This is perhaps the weakest and most inconsistent part of the ethnonationalist argument. You see, we will respect the sovereignty and independence of European states so much that if a sovereign European state does something we do not like, we’ll go to war against them, depose their government, and ethnically cleanse them!  Even Big Europe promoters like Yockey and Mosely would blush at that!  Let’s ethnically cleanse fellow Europeans because we cannot reasonably balance the fantasy of “sovereignty” with the realities of global geopolitics!  Then we have the question of those wonderfully powerful European states like “France, the UK, and Russia,” who, we are told, could easily make hash of India. Most certainly, nuclear armed European states, steeped in the tradition of petty nationalist sovereignty, will let themselves be invaded, their governments deposed, and their territory ethnically cleansed!  No doubt – no doubt! – they would just roll over and take that, with no thermonuclear weapons going off on the European continent. And the ethnonationalists deny that their schemes could ever lead to White fratricide!

The idea that we need European unification to prevent such wars is absurd. 

Actually, Greg’s own comment about ethnic cleansing among Europeans – which is in my opinion absurd – is a reasonably good justification for European integration (not absolute unification).  If ethnonationalism could possibly lead to intra-European war and ethnic cleansing, I’m all for Imperium.

Again, it makes no sense to make permanent changes to solve temporary problems, and it makes no sense to in effect declare war on all sovereign states today because we might have to declare war on one of them tomorrow.

The problems faced are not temporary (are you serious?) and having Europeans come together voluntarily (the EU was not formed by war, was it?) is not “declaring war on all sovereign states.” The only argument talking about war, deposing governments, and ethnically cleansing Europeans is the ethnonationalist argument I’m responding to.  Indeed, that is the petty nationalist mindset behind WWI and WWII.

Political unification is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous, simply because if it fails, it would fail catastrophically. It is not wise to put all one’s eggs in one basket, or to grow only one crop, or to breed a “homogeneous European man,” for when the basket breaks — or blight strikes the potato crop — or a new Spanish flu pandemic breaks out, one is liable to lose everything.

The “eggs in one basket” argument is probably the best one made here against integration, but the same can be said of the nation state.  An alliance – even temporary – can be subverted as well.  A European Imperium in which the member states meet in a Senate to make decisions would require subversion of the majority of the member states in order for the “basket” to destroy the “eggs.”  I’ve never argued for a narrow leadership caste making all decisions for the White world; rather an integrated system of European peoples deciding together.

A politically unified Europe would necessarily be ruled by a small, polyglot elite that is remote from and unresponsive to the provinces and their petty concerns, which they take great pride in denigrating for the greater good. 

Necessarily? Unlike those grand ethnonationalists like Churchill and de Gaulle, responsive to their citizens, who moved heaven and earth to prevent their homelands from being flooded with aliens? No, wait…

If that elite became infected by an anti-European memetic virus — or corrupted by alien elites — it would have the power to destroy Europe, and since there would be no sovereign states to say no, nothing short of a revolution could stop them.

See above.

Indeed, the leadership of the present-day European Union is infected by just such a memetic virus, and it is doing all it can to flood Europe with non-whites. The only thing stopping them is the fact that the European Union does not have sovereign power, and stubborn sovereign ethnostates like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are saying no.

The EU as not formed on a racial nationalist basis.  The idea that individual sovereign European states would not have flooded themselves with non-Whites is disproved by the 20th century history of France and the UK.  Why not cite Western Europe instead of the nations of Central and Eastern Europe?  Indeed, nation states can be subverted as well, the ethnonationalist solution to which I assume is invasion, deposing governments, and ethnic cleansing.

And again, in my scheme, major decisions would have to be agreed on by the majority of nation states.  If a majority of European states can be subverted, them what’s the benefit of sovereignty? The result is the same each way.

Even if a European Union were the only way to stop another Europe-wide war, the terrible truth is that, despite all the losses, Europe managed to recover from the two World Wars. 

And set itself on the road to overall racial-culture dispossession and destruction.  And what about the terrible dysgenic effects of those wars? Indeed, the entire White world was shattered by the fratricidal conflicts brought to us by petty nationalism.

But it would not recover from race-replacement immigration promoted by a sovereign European Union.

As opposed to the nation-level race-replacement immigration that France and the UK instituted independent of the EU?

Moreover, at a certain point, the EU is going to face a choice. If Poland or Hungary vetoes non-white immigration once and for all, the EU will either have to accept its dissolution or use coercion to hold itself together. In short, the EU may very well cause rather than prevent the next European “brothers’ war.”

The EU is anti-European.  And would the EU’s coercion be any different from that which Greg himself advocates above?  He himself proposes “brothers’ wars” including ethnic cleansing in order to maintain an unworkable conglomeration of squabbling ethnostates. 

A politically unified Europe would eliminate the principle of the equality of sovereign nations under international law. But it would not eliminate the existence of nations. 

Hey!  I thought we’d all lose our ethnic and cultural distinctiveness.  Now we won’t?

And in a common market and political system, certain national groups — principally the Germans — would have systematic advantages and end up on top. This means that a unified Europe would end up being a de facto German empire, since Germany has the largest population and the strongest economy. Does anyone really think that the French or the Poles would relish living under the hegemony of priggish self-loathing German technocrats? 

This is wrong on many levels. First, the knee-jerk appeal to crude anti-German sentiment doesn’t bode well for the “love and harmony” that ethonationalism would allegedly bring. Second, why would we expect that a future racial nationalist Europe would have “self-loathing German technocrats?”  Isn’t getting rid of such people the whole point, even under ethonationalism? Third, schemes could be put in place to prevent individual nations from dominating the whole. Fourth, what stops a priggish petty nationalist Germany from bullying other ethnonationalist European states? Shall we ethnically cleanse the Germans, then?

Finally, if proponents of European unification hold that it is not really a problem for Greeks and Swedes, Poles and Portuguese to live under a single sovereign state, on what grounds, exactly, are we complaining about multiculturalism and diversity? If the EU can encompass the differences between the Irish and the Greeks, why can’t it encompass the differences between Greeks and Turks, or Greeks and Syrians, etc.?

So now ethnonationalists make anti-racist (or Nordicist) arguments that differences between European groups are at the same level as that between Europeans and non-Europeans. Having those nasty Greeks in the same general polity as you means you must also have Turks and Syrians.  After all, what’s the difference, right?

The ethnonationalist vision is of a Europe — and a worldwide European diaspora — of a hundred flags, in which every self-conscious nation has at least one sovereign homeland, each of which will strive for the highest degree of homogeneity, allowing the greatest diversity of cultures, languages, dialects, and institutions to flourish. 

And if they misbehave, they will be ethnically cleansed.

Wherever a citizen turns, he will encounter his own flesh and blood, people who speak his language, people whose minds he can understand. Social life will be warm and welcoming, not alienating and unsettling as in multicultural societies. 

After all, those Greeks are so alien, that dealing with them is as multicultural as dealing with Syrians! Or Nigerians!

Because citizens will have a strong sense of identity, they will know the difference between their own people and foreigners. 

Like the French and British did on their own?

Because they will control their own borders and destinies, they can afford to be hospitable to diplomats, businessmen, tourists, students, and even a few expatriates, who will behave like grateful guests. These ethnostates will be good neighbors to one another, because they have good fences between them and homes to return to when commerce with outsiders becomes tiring.

And depose each other’s governments and cleanse their populations if they exercise their sovereignty too vigorously.

The citizens of these states will be deeply steeped in their mother tongues and local cultures, but they will also be educated in the broader tradition of European high culture. They will all strive for fluency in at least one foreign language. They will appreciate that all Europeans have common roots, common enemies, and a common destiny.

The leadership caste of each ethnostate will be selected to be both deeply rooted in its own homeland but also to have the broadest possible sense of European solidarity. This ethos will allow political cooperation between all European peoples through intergovernmental and treaty organizations, as well as ad hoc alliances. There will be special emphasis in promoting collective ventures in science, technology, national defense, ecological initiatives, and space exploration.

I don’t know – that sounds a lot like the sort of pan-Europeanism, and pan-European integration, I favor.  Let the common people preserve their local identities and enjoy local sovereignty, while representatives of the European elite come together in some sort of pan-European Senate, of an Imperium of confederated European-derived states, to deal with the issues at hand.

Thus, I conclude, as promised above, with the positive aspects of integration. First, to promote the idea that “all Europeans have common roots, common enemies, and a common destiny” – an idea that is frankly not very compatible with a mindset that celebrates and promotes ever-increasing levels of micro-distinctiveness among Europeans. Yes, people should be allowed to sort themselves out at the micro-level, and yes, homogeneous regions are best, and yes, local sovereignty will be respected. But there’s a subtle yet crucially important difference between letting people sort themselves out naturally, while promoting the pan-European ideal, as opposed to the scheme in which the highest principle, the raison d’être, of the system is petty nationalist atomization.  I instead propose a raison d’être of European unity and cooperation, with local sovereignty being secondary, while Johnson’s essay makes atomization primary and some sort of loose cooperation secondary.

Space exploration and other advanced science/technics, coordination of racial policies/eugenics, promoting the creation of novel and inspiring cultural artifacts, grand construction, and other things of which we may not even yet conceived, would be the positive outcome of a reasonable level of integration, things perhaps not achievable in an ethnonationalist scenario in which the fundamental guiding principle is how different we all are from each other.

Further, if Yockey (he of sainted memory) was right that the organic evolution of the West involves the greater integration of Europe, then those who oppose this integration are guilty of Culture Retardation.

Ethnonationalism wrecked the White world with their world wars and even today, ethnonationalists in Europe obsess over borders, get humiliated in elections, and in the UK, we have a Brexit that despises “Polish plumbers” while embracing Zionists and “Commonwealth” Pakis, West Indians, and Nigerians.  

In a phrase: I veto your dream.

Advertisements

9/5/17: Answering an Ethnonationalist

Knocking down the strawmen.

First, to characterize race-first White nationalists as people obsessed with 23andMe results (or who believe “Russians are the same as the Irish”) is as much a caricature as saying all European ethnonationalists want to re-fight World War II.  In each case, you can find some who fit the description, but hardly most, much less all.

See this on 23andMe and related tests

Even in the US white nationalism is failed as a concept. Cajuns, Alaskans and Minnesotans are not the same people.

If WN has failed it has been due to poor leadership and freakish fossilized dogma, not due to the fact that we haven’t atomized ourselves enough!  Two Alaskan families are “not the same people as well” – perhaps each family should establish their own micro-state (or igloo-state)?

There is a reason why your founding fathers created the united states and not a state. 

America is hardly the same nation made by the Founders.  Local identities ultimately fail in America because the USA is so heavily “diverse.”   Minnesotans can be Somalis.  Alaskans can be Inuit. Christian Midwesterners can be illegal Mexicans brought in for a meat-packing plant. Boston liberals can be Jews.  If you say then you are talking about White Alaskans and White Minnesotans and White Midwesterners and White Bostonians – well, yes, what do they have in common – racethey are White. In America, that’s the glue that holds it all together.  Without race, local identities can – and do – devolve in to cucked civic nationalism. Let all the “people of Houston” stick together in the face of a natural catastrophe! Whites, Blacks, Browns – they all got that “south Texas” identity, don’t you know.

I would recommend white nationalists in the US to focus more on the regional and what makes them unique instead of trying to invent a bond between them and very different people on the other side of the continent.

European activists get frustrated with “uninformed Yanks” who “misunderstand Europe” and give “low-information advice.”  Well, that goes both ways.  Imagining America as a big Europe while every other person (nearly) is a racial alien of some kind does not work.  A White American who is racially aware (or at least not cucked) has much more in  common with a similar White American “on the other side of the continent” as they do with cucked Whites, or non-Whites, who share similar local cultural markers and identities.  If Europeans cannot understand the overwhelming importance of race in America and American history, then their advice is not helpful.

Also race isn’t really a necessary discussion in Europe since there are extraordinarily few Slovakians who aren’t white. 

But it is absolutely essential in America for the converse reason.  And is it really immaterial in Slovakia?  I read somewhere they are headed for majority Roma status – I presume you don’t consider gypsies to be White.  And beyond that – in today’s globalist society, the aliens are “just around the corner” – even in Slovakia.

Different people of European origin still need to stick together for the common good. 

Eliminate the word “still” and you are getting it.

Multiple Nationalisms

Good points.

…the concept of “white nationalism” is a distinctly American notion. Europeans are “British Nationalists,” or they support “Germany for the Germans.” 

This argument again? Funny how few people counter-signal against “British nationalism” despite “British nationalism” itself actually being a rather artificial conflation of English, Scottish, and Welsh (and Irish even.) 

Why is no one attacking “Spanish nationalism” despite the fact that “Spanish” is hardly more authentic than “American” – just look at the Basque vs. the Catalan, etc?

America has always drawn on a wider European base than individual European nations. 

So what? No one in America is demanding that the nations of Europe all drop their identity and become generic “white” – but apparently there is no end to the attempts to define “American” out of existence. 

How eerily similar to the well known Jewish talking points: “Palestinians are an invented people” and “Whiteness is a social construct” and “how the Irish became White.”

To which I reply:

Excellent comment.  Indeed, I’ve known Spaniards who were vehemently “Catalonian” and not “Spanish.”  On the other hands, I’ve seen websites of equally vehement Spanish nationalists.  And there are Spanish pan-Europeanists.  All levels are valid.

One can go to absurd levels of microcosms here.  Spanish or Catalonian? Catalonia or a specific attachment to Barcelona?  A particular neighborhood in Barcelona?  A particular pub in that neighborhood?  Or perhaps different tables in the same pub can form their own tribes?

Cui bono?

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).