With respect to the issue of the recent Scottish independence vote: my view was that I was mildly on the “yes” side (sympathy for secession and nationalism, as well as the fact that such a result would have moved the rump UK rightward) although with reservations (the SNP is a anti-White party of the raciocultural Left). The results do not bode well for those on our side who think we can vote our way out of this mess: even a mild and multicultural secessionism failed to win the support of a majority of Scots; what chance would a more radical racialist agenda have?
Before I move on, I’d like to chide all the Internet retards who marveled at the “85% of eligible voters who voted,” comparing that favorably to the low voter turnout in the USA. Hey, morons, when are Americans allowed to vote on an issue of the high existential level such as that of actual secession? When are Americans allowed to vote on anything important at all, especially voting with the certainty that any “politically incorrect” decision wouldn’t be overturned by the judiciary? Sorry, voting for Romney vs. Obama just doesn’t “do it” for enough of us to bring a 85% turnout rate. Voting to “outlaw affirmative action” won’t do the trick either, since a “yes” vote would be invalidated in the courts.
Now, back to the “movement.”
More important than this political development has been the birth of a homogenous European Man. He is a man who might call someplace—maybe a little place—“home,” somewhere with a language and way of life all its own: Wales, Bavaria, Talin. . . But he is demonstrably European in his character, values, and being, especially to outsiders. Who could deny that today the differences that separate a Scotsman from an Englishman, or a Russian from a Italian—though certainly real—are easily outweighed but what they share in common? Who could deny that the mass immigration of non-Europeans has intensified our awareness of this unity, allowed us to understand ourselves in ways that we might not have otherwise?
There is, without question, a cost to this historical process, for “European Man” is, to a large degree, the “Last Man” as Nietzsche imagined him: the homogenous consumer and worker, who sees little of value above comfort and acquiring more stuff. For better and for worse, we are all becoming “good Europeans”. . . and we must understand something like the Scotts’ bid for independence in this wake.
I to a large extent agree with the first paragraph, although I see no incompatibility between pan-European nationalism and a rational ethnonationalism. The second paragraph is complete imbecility. Why must a “good European” be a Last Man hedonist consumer? Really? Compared to who – those Faustian Nietzschean Supermen petty nationalists of the SNP? Last Men can be found everywhere: among liberals, petty nationalists, and pan-European nationalists alike. We do not want them, they are not one of us, and there is no logical connection between one’s support of a particular form of nationalism and being a “homogenous consumer and worker.” The fact is, the man who was the very enemy of the “Last Man” that he himself defined – Nietzsche – was a “good European” who eschewed petty nationalists.
Of interest is the second half, where ethnonationalism vs. pan-European nationalism is discussed. In general, I support Spencer’s view more than Liddell’s, although I agree with Liddell that one can balance different levels of Identity, a theme that Spencer also seems to start to incline towards.
I really have never understood the lack of understanding in this “debate.” People have different identities in their private lives. One man may be a banker and at the same time a father. Another man may be both a student and an athlete. Someone may identify as a libertarian and as a conservative. At a higher level, a man may identify as a Scot and as a European. Where’s the problem? In viewing himself at the local level, distinguishing culture and history and genes at the continental level, the man is a Scot. At the global level, as Spencer suggests with his Chinaman example, the Scot is, and is viewed by others as, a White man, a European, a Westerner. Are we all so dull-witted that we cannot simultaneously adopt both identities? And if we agree that the age of intra-European conflict must be over, then there should be no incompatibility here, since one’s narrower identity as a Scot should not cause problems of conflicted interest with any other European ethny. And this is, as Spencer suggests, the problem with those petty European nationalists who argue over microscopic parcels of land while their nations, and the whole White world, is being submerged under the rising tide of color.
Speaking of “last men,” the part of the discussion concerning “hard vs. soft currency” was truly irrelevant, and Liddell’s off-the-cuff remarks about North vs. South European Imperiums nonsensical. Who are the “last men” who shrink the issue of European unity and important issues of identity down to the purely economic level? Last men indeed! Any “Imperium” – any worth the name – is not going to come into being from any purely bottom-up democratic election (needless to say, I don’t agree with Liddell at all – to me, democracy has no saving graces), and petty squabbling over currency issues will no longer be tolerated. Yes, differences between nations need be maintained, but that is no excuse to shirk responsibility and productivity. In any Imperium, any dichotomy between productive Krauts and lazy Dagoes would not be tolerated. Everyone works. Everyone contributes to productivity. If there are some swarthy layabouts who are unwilling to work hard, or are culturally or biologically incapable of productive hard work, then they will be expelled or exterminated. “National character” is no excuse for laziness or incompetence, that’s not the type of New European Man who needs to emerge from the ashes of the ruined West. The Overman High Culture is “blood and iron,” not “wine, women, and song” or “lazy siestas in the sun.”
Finally, as an aside, although I have a reputation as a biologically obsessed genetic racial “tester,” the time has come to realize that the biology of race, although real and important (sorry, FPY) is not the totality of Identity, which also includes cultural and historical components, a people’s shared sense of destiny. Last Men are solely concerned with cephalic indices and gene frequencies. We need to be concerned with all aspects of Identity going forward, both at the local and the continental vs. global levels.