Esoteric Trumpism

Book review.

See this.

Amazon description:

Esoteric Trumpism delves into the profound and often unexplored dimensions of Donald Trump’s political journey, presenting it as a pivotal moment in the grand narrative of Western civilization. Through the lens of Oswald Spengler’s cyclical theory of history, the book explores Trump as a Faustian figure, striving against the tide of decline, embodying the spirit of American exceptionalism and the fierce battle for national identity.

Infused with a blend of Lovecraftian mystery and the barbaric glory of Robert E. Howard, Esoteric Trumpism offers a unique, philosophically rich perspective on Trump’s era, blending biblical motifs, apocalyptic imagery, and historical parallels to frame his presidency as a critical turning point in the saga of the West. A scholarly and artistic analysis, styled in a poetic manner, it offers an intriguing exploration of Trump’s unconventional approach to leadership.

So let us see what this book is about and how its arguments could be consistent with some of the ideas propagated here at my blog.  Executive Summary – it is a good book, you should buy it and read it, there are sections of the book that are thought-provoking, as is the “Kirkpatrick” Introduction.

The first Introduction is by “Raw Egg Nationalist” and is less consistent with my views than is the second (“Kirkpatrick”) one, being somewhat too positive toward and forgiving of Trump. Yes, Trump the “magician,” Trump the “grandmaster of 6000-dimensional chess” (Hey!  I thought that was Putin?). The following comment from an American Renaissance reader is I believe closer to reality:

uncuckwhitemen

Just like he promised to lock Hillary up and give us a border wall. Instead he pardoned black criminals, sucked up to the you-know-whos (like his son-in-law), kept DACA, supported bump stock bans and even red flag laws. Then he pardoned Jonathan Pollard. He did nothing during the 2020 riots and he did NOTHING to save either the Charlottesville guys in 2017 or the Jan 6th people who are still behind bars.

And of course there was the ASAP Rocky fiasco, the Platinum Plan, and all the rest.

The second Introduction, and one more in tune with my own views, is by “James Kirkpatrick” – I believe that is “Gregory Hood” who has admitted on a podcast with “Paul Kersey” to being Kevin DeAnna, which we all knew already thanks to Katie McHugh. My readers know that I am no fan of this individual.  However, every work has to be judged based on its own merits, and so I have to admit this this second Introduction is partially consistent with my view of Trump and even more consistent with how I view the arguments of Esoteric Trumpism.

“Kirkpatrick” is more honest than is Mr. Raw Egg about Trump’s failures and his culpability for them, and is less convinced (similar to my views) than the book’s author that Trump has substantially changed. But this Introduction realizes, as I do, that Trumpism transcends Trump, that there is a symbolic irrational aspect to the Trump phenomenon, and that Fat Don is an avatar representing other people and other forces.

Indeed, there is a place for the irrational in our High Politics, as I have noted before:

…a call to “preserve our distinctive genetic information” is unlikely to motivate most Western individuals to defend their genetic interests against the titanic forces arrayed against them. It almost certainly will not motivate the masses, who, as Michael O’Meara rightfully points out, are always induced to act by “myths” that encompass a cohesive worldview. Even rational activists can often become more motivated by these “myths” (which may of course constitute objective facts to a considerable degree) than to a pure empiricism.

So, let us evaluate the Esoteric Trumpism book itself. I’ll briefly comment on some selected individual chapters and then evaluate the book as a whole.

With respect to “chthonic realms” and “The Swamp” not only did Trump do absolutely nothing (as usual) to “drain the swamp” (apart from talking or tweeting about it), but he actually reinforced that “swamp.” It was Trump who placed creatures like Pence, Haley, Barr, and Bolton in his administration. There was no “cosmic struggle” there unless it was the struggle of Trump trying to digest a late night Big Mac. Thus, the later description, in another chapter, of Trump as “a chieftain of unparalleled vigor” (or “Faustian vigor”) seems to me to be a bit off. “A lazy incompetent” would seem more accurate. However, I can see where the myth of Trump as a vigorous warlord could be a motivating factor for his followers, but to be the least bit believable Trump is going to need to actually do things, and not just post social media comments in lieu of action.

The Age of Turmoil chapter makes good points about present-day America (but is likely too positive about what America ever was) and makes the excellent point that – “Trump is liked because he is hated… like his supporters.” Indeed, as I stated in my Trump Avatar podcast, the Left’s hatred of Trump is to a large extent representing the hatred the Left has for Trump’s White American base of support, all those White Americans who do not want to “go gently into that good night.” Focusing on Trump as an avatar for all of those people makes him a convenient bogeyman for the Left, and for the System which is essentially equivalent, for all practical purposes, to the Left. The other insight by the author is that Trump is akin to a “bomb” used by those White Americans against the anti-White forces ascendant in today’s America.

The chapter on America’s Race Question is interesting in that it combines an excellent first half with a second half that contains points I question.  The first half discusses the need for White America to assert its demographic interests, including an immigration moratorium and a mass deportation of “undesirable elements.”  Very good.  But the second half of the chapter contains implicit praise for Trump’s color-blind civic nationalism, which is not consistent with the full-throated racialist perspective, including deportation of (presumably non-White) undesirables that is required in order to safeguard White American demographic preeminence.  

The latter part of the chapter also contains a quote from Nordicist horror author H.P. Lovecraft – “Do Americans desire to remain a vigorous, clean moraled Teutonic-Celtic people; or do they desire to transform their country into a sordid, amorphous chaos of degradation and hybridism like imperial Rome?”  The author says that the question “cannot be easily answered” even though the first part of the chapter suggests the author’s opinion that Trump’s 2016 election is evidence that White America (and not just the “Teutonic-Celtic” elements) definitely do want to save their nation. 

The Lovecraft quote itself is doubly ludicrous. First, it were precisely those selfsame “vigorous, clean moraled Teutonic-Celtic people” whose fecklessness (and love of Color) contributed to America’s present racial decline; second, Imperial Rome, with all of its sordid chaotic hybridism, was at the height of its power, and it was with the increasing presence and power of Lovecraft’s favorite groups in the Western Roman Empire of Late Antiquity that we see the Decline and Fall. A later chapter talks about Romans banding together against “barbaric adversity.”  Who were those barbarians? So, it would seem that Ancient Rome may not be the best model for today’s racial crisis, despite the fervor of the “movement” to make it so. The later claim that Rome before its Fall was (like America) hurtling towards a civil war is historically inaccurate. Civil war-like conflicts were present even in the days of the (later) Republic (e.g., Marius vs. Sulla,) and certainly during the transition to Empire (from the days of Julius Caesar to Augustus). The Fall of the Western Empire was due to many reasons, but civil war was not prominent among them.

Von Hoffmesiter later makes interesting comparisons and contrasts of Trump’s (ostensible) vision (such as it is) and those of Washington, Stoddard, Orban, Faye, and Mussolini. Here again we need to distinguish Trump the symbol and Trump’s rhetoric from Trump the man and Trump the political reality. The author also tries to place Trump within the Spenglerian paradigm as a representative of Caesarism (that reminds me of some breathless “movement” commentary about Trump from several years ago); once again, this makes sense if one perceives Trump in symbolic terms and not his reality (one of the introducers of this book, writing under a different name at American Renaissance, rightly stated that Trump as President was so weak that he “makes Jimmy Carter look like Alexander the Great”).  In looking at Trump the man, the comparison in the book to Andrew Jackson fails; Trump the myth, on the other hand, makes the comparison more viable (putting aside that at some point we’ll need a Man and not only a Myth). In this sense the idea that Trump’s populism is a reawakening of the (White) American spirit makes sense, but this reawakening will have utility only to the extent that young and more (truly) vigorous people join the fight and actually get things done with respect to the facts on the ground – myth and spirit can only get us so far.

The author also makes the point that Donald Trump is an avatar for the heartland, for the land power, while Joe Biden represents the sea power; in essence, blood and soil vs. rootless globalist cosmopolitanism, akin to the ideas of Mackinder and Dugin (Tellurocracies [land] versus the Thalassocracies [sea]).  Later on we read about Trump’s dream of Freedom Cities, flying cars, and space exploration. Those are all things I support, but I doubt that they can be achieved in Trump’s multiracial civic nationalist America, and even if Trump is re-elected, what progress can be made along any of those lines in four years?  Who is there to take over from Trump once he departs from the stage? And as regards talk of Trump’s focus on law and order, when America was burning during the dark year of 2020, all Trump did was tweet LAW AND ORDER! – followed by complete inaction. And as regards his pardoning of people he thinks were treated unfairly, well, besides Negro celebrities, who else?  Did he pardon Matt Hale and Richard Scutari?  Why didn’t he pardon the Jan. 6 people before he left office? Trump the man is a pale shadow of Trump the myth. And the ending, where we observe Spengler’s assertion that “the turning point has come” when people regard having children merely as a consideration of pros and cons – well, we’ve passed that point long ago. Where do we go from here? We can only hope that “Esoteric Trumpism” – Trump the myth – helps inspire men of action to step forward in defense of nation, race, and civilization. I am not sanguine.

The book as a whole is easy to read, with short chapters, and the style is akin to a prose poem. What about its content, its arguments? Given that I described Trump as a vulgar ignorant buffoon, a fraud, and a Negrophilic race cuck as far back as before the 2016 Presidential election, and I still stand by those comments, how do I view the premises of this book?

Similar to the second Introduction mentioned above, I believe that we must separate Trump the man, Trump the politician, and Trump the President from Trump as the avatar of his White American base, Trump the symbol of the death of the Old America, and Trump the representative of White American rage against the System bent on their destruction. Trump the man and his direct work (or lack thereof) can be justifiably criticized, even ridiculed, but Trump the representative symbol and avatar of deeper racial, civilizational, and historical undercurrents cannot be so easily dismissed.  Thus, the way to bridge my negative view of Trump and von Hoffmeister’s positive view is to transcend a mundane view of Trump as Trump and instead place the phenomenon of Trumpism (that can be in a very real sense separated from Trump the man) in its historical context. Remember the title of the book is Esoteric Trumpism and not Esoteric Trump. There’s something here that does indeed transcend the pitifully flawed person that is Donald Trump.

In the essay The World in Flames, Francis Parker Yockey and H. Keith Thompson wrote of Charles de Gaulle:

An idiot may save Europe. History has seen things as strange.

I believe that one day, in retrospect, someone may write the same about Donald Trump and White America. In any case, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and try as they may, the System Globalists will not be able to put in back in.

Of course it is up to all of us on the Far Right to leverage Trumpism to our advantage. That the Far Right has so far squandered this world historical opportunity confirms the validity of all of my criticisms of the American “movement.” One of the quotes in the book is:

We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised brilliantly disguised as impossible situations. – Charles R. Swindoll

And that’s the point, isn’t it?  Criticizing Trump (as many of us, including me, do) for not getting things done is easy; it is low-hanging fruit. But most people on the Far Right (unlike me) don’t want to admit that the American Far Right squandered endless opportunities that Trumpism created, either by doing destructive stupidities or by complaining how the proper actions (*) are too difficult or impossible. So, ultimately, who is to blame?

In summary, I recommend this book.  Even if you disagree with some, most, or even all of its arguments, it is worth reading, to understand what many on the Right see in Donald Trump.

Notes:

* After Trump’s election, I outlined a plan of action, which included the American Far Right using the Trump interregnum to quietly build up infrastructure behind the scenes, while having the public face of the “movement” mostly being right-wing electoral politics, plus the usual metapolitical work.  But, no – instead we got Unite the Right and other examples of dimwit Alt-Right “acting out.” Another quote reproduced in this book is:

The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity. – Andre Gide

I wonder if the “leaders” of the “movement” have reached that point yet. Regardless, their failures are plain for all to see. Another quote (from a more, in my opinion, negative individual):

Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced – James Baldwin, As Much Truth as One Can Bear

Indeed, until the “movement” can face the truth about itself, its failures, and its inept “leaders,” nothing can be changed.

One of the quotes in the book:

Those who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night –Edgar Allan Poe, Eleonora

That is similar to the T.E. Lawrence quote form The Seven Pillars of Wisdom:

All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.

I think that many people in the American Far Right – the defectives, the freaks, the useless incompetents, the perverts, and the grifters – dream too little, or not at all, or about the wrong things.

Another quote:

History is a vast early warning system – Norman Cousins

Indeed it is.  And apparently the American Far Right has learned nothing and, worse, seems congenitally incapable of learning anything.

Prelude to War

Faye.

Note: I had written this about a week ago and have been waiting to post it at the appropriate time. I note that Andrew Joyce has also just written a review of this book and makes some similar points. So, hopefully these two reviews, coming out at the same time, will provide to you a solid understanding of Faye’s book.

See this. Prelude to War is an older Faye book I had not previously read; it has an Introduction by von Hoffmeister.

Some notes on the book and related issues follow.

The writing style the book is not very good; however, I cannot determine if this is in the original French text, due to the translation, or both. However, it is meant to be a polemic and not an erudite analysis (of the kind Faye despises, see below), so content should be deemed more important here than style. At the border between content and style is the mind-numbing repetition in the work; the same ideas are repeated over and over again, until the reader’s eyes glaze over and they start skimming the relevant passages. The book could have used considerable further editing; it needed to be “blue-penciled” and thus shortened with the elimination of redundant sections.

With respect to the Introduction (and then Faye’s comments about the Jews), I’ve had some disagreements with von Hoffmeister (see here), but, in general, I agree with him on most things, much of the major issues. However, I don’t really agree with von Hoffmeister and Faye, re: Jews, but on the other hand, I also reject some of the extremist paranoid ideation and purity spiraling in the “movement” concerning “the Jewish question.”

I think that the best way to view the Jews is that they are a people different from Whites (European-descended peoples), with different interests, and that the Jews recognize this, act on it, and due to their intelligence, ethnocentrism, and influence, they do great damage to Whites as Jews actualize their perception of Jewish interests. Whether or not Jews (in general) superficially identify as “White” (“fellow White people”), they do not see themselves as White in the same way Europeans are.  Thus, when Jews act in a manner inimical to White interests, they view it as something that they (the Jews) are doing to “them” (Whites) in order to benefit themselves (Jews). Trends that harm Whites are generally viewed by Jews as being positive or negative strictly based on how those trends affect Jews – “is it good for the Jews?” Jews see themselves as a distinct group and if they prosper in a world in which Whites are being destroyed, well, then, those Whites need to be destroyed. Many Jews do have an animus to Whites and Western civilization, which makes it easier for them to harm us to benefit themselves. One does not need to invoke a vast, well-coordinated, tightly organized global historical conspiracy – the emergent behavior of the Jewish community actualizes from these differences of identity and of interests.

Faye’s comment that Jews will eventually become irrelevant in the future is, even if true, itself irrelevant – what matters is what the Jews are doing now and what they have done in the past. If Jews become irrelevant in the future, but, if, before then, they help to destroy the White race and Western civilization, then who cares? Is it possible for Faye to be so stupid?

Faye advocates solidarity between pagans (such as himself) and traditional Christians in the battle against the Islamists. Likewise, we all should advocate pan-European solidarity against the rising tide of color; Nordicists and other fetishists, ethnonationalists, religions dogmatic freaks, HBDers, and all rest, who divide Whites and weaken White resistance against Color, are traitors, Culture Retarders, and absolute pieces of filth. Faye makes clear that he considers Islam, and the Rising Tide of Color more generally, to be the enemy of Europe and the West, with America being a mere adversary. This differs from Yockey’s perspective, but Yockey was taking a mid-20th century view of the American-Soviet, which is quite different from the early 21st century perspective of Faye’s work in this book.

While I obviously agree with what Faye has to say in this book, at least in general terms, I note that he was yet another European rightist totally ignorant of the realities of contemporary America (despite his delusions to the contrary), whose “thoughts” and “ideas” about America were decades out-of-date. I’ve written about this issue before. It’s always 1910 or 1920 in America to these European nationalists. And what to make of Faye’s stupid jibe of White Americans as “cowboy-rednecks?” And his idea that America is so big there is no threat of being demographically swamped and no chance of a civil war (a second one, he means)?

So, according to Faye, at the beginning of the 21st century, the USA was a vast and open country with so much room that there is no problem of demographic swamping or civil war, populated by Anglo-Saxon cowboy-rednecks, who are adversaries of Europe. At the exact same time, American Nutzis were telling us that the USA was over-populated, being overwhelmed by the Colored Third World immigration invasion, ruled by Jews who dispossessed the Anglo-Saxon founding stock and who are engaging in genocidal race replacement, and that America will collapse in five-to-ten years in the throes of a race war. Interestingly, later on in his book, Faye discussed the dire demographic problems that America faces, with a growing Colored, and a declining White, population percentage. But I thought that America is so vast that such considerations don’t really matter?  Well then, being in the “movement” means never worrying about consistency, right?

Der Right, Der Right, Der Right marches on.

Europeans accuse Americans of knowing nothing about Europe; the opposite is typically more often the case. At least Americans make an attempt at understanding the European situation, while Europeans are content to indulge in comical stereotypical fantasies about American reality. The American problem with Europe is more prescriptive than descriptive – American activists make suggestions that the Europeans reject and then the Europeans state that Americans make these suggestions because they don’t know anything about Europe. In contrast, the European problem with America is both prescriptive and descriptive. They know nothing about today’s America, so their description is comical and their prescription for America, based on this ludicrous description, is absurd.

Then there’s this – Faye states he’s writing the book in 2002 and that he’s “betting” than there will be an open “civil war” within France within “ten years.”  Thus, he later states that the “great about-turn” will start in about 2010. Well, it’s 2021 and we are still waiting.  Later in the book he makes predictions about the world of 2030 – and he considers that by that time everything will be changed.  Now, it’s theoretically possible that the next nine years may see the radical changes Faye envisioned for 2030, but would you bet on it?  I wouldn’t. All these Der Tag types in the “movement” – in Europe as well as America apparently – make fools of themselves and delegitimize their message to third party observers by making such predictions. Why people on the Right don’t have enough sense to avoid doing this is baffling. We also see the asinine prediction that Israel will be finished by 2020.  Not quite.  All these types underestimate the stability of the System – both nationally and internationally, while at the same time paradoxically, the System overestimates its own stability. The truth lies somewhere in between those two extremes. Collapse is likely inevitable, but it may take a very, very, very long time, indeed.

When Faye scornfully (and in my opinion justifiably) writes in condemnation of treasonous collaborationists on the identitarian Right, and labels these as promoting “ethnopluralistsm,” he no doubt had de Benoist in mind. Ethnopluralism, in actual practice, is fatalistic surrender.

The best chapter of the book is Resisters or Histrions, where Faye fires well-deserved salvos at the inept and defeatist Right, its weakness and incompetence compared to the ever-victorious Left, and, in addition to once again mocking the “ethnopluralists” and those obsessed with “metapolitics” instead of real political action, Faye also chides those European activists who have obsessed over American “race-based IQ comparisons” (and he later mocks “IQ obsessed scholars”) – what did Faye think then of the Amren conferences he unfortunately attended?  Faye’s criticisms are akin to the sort of material one could read at EGI Notes. Perhaps the Quota Queens would label Faye as “insane” and a “paranoid piece of crap.” 

The subsequent chapter, Operetta Rebels, is also good, were Faye makes some useful distinctions between rebels and revolutionaries, with Faye clearly preferring the latter (disciplined and intolerant creators who wish to replace the current system with their own regime) to the former (semi-anarchic and overly tolerant complainers who abstractly criticize and mythologize the past, but who have no wish to fight for a different future). 

One can only be amused when Faye talks rightfully complains about a “hatred of simplicity” and “slaves of subtlety” – the images invoked are of some of the pompous “intellectuals” of the Far Right, with their “metapolitics” and verbose analyses that take 5000 words to say what could be summed up in a single brief paragraph. Perhaps they mimic their hero Heidegger, who required entire chapters to present a thought that could have been more succinctly expressed in a single sentence. And Faye indeed mocks Heidegger for that “great philosopher’s” meaningless ramblings about “Being” (so beloved by the pseudo-intellectual Majority Rights and Counter-Currents crowds). These are the same types who would decry the “simplicity” and “lack of subtlety” of EGI Notes. God forbid we present opinions and advice in easy-to-understand, clear, and direct prose!  No, every post must be a pseudo-erudite mini-PhD thesis into the origins of esoteric traditionalism – thoughtful reading for when you are snug in your hobbit hole!  Faye rightfully mocks the emphasis, including that on the Right, on empty, abstract theorizing over hardcore pragmatism, will to power, and action. Throughout the book, Faye emphasizes the importance of action, of winning, of victory, of power, over theorizing, hyper-intellectualism, and pathological altruism (and his deconstruction of Christianity in this regard is to the point). Sometimes this serves him well, and his comments on a just vengeance, realization of the motivations of the Colored World against the West (envy and a thirst for revenge and domination), and the association between outward physical appearance and inner moral essence are all good, as are his critiques on those who have attempted to rob Nietzsche’s philosophy of its aggressive will to power.  On the other hand, his Yockeyian confusion about science (“bad” and “useless”) and technics (“good” and “useful”) is rather stupid, and his disavowal of objective truth rings of leftist “deconstruction.”

Faye does do a good job of outlining the counter-selective effects of war, and how the European wars of history, particularly WWI (thanks, ethnonationalism!), depleted France and other European nations of virile, manly stock, leaving behind weaklings whose defects are manifested in modern European behavior. However, given his hopes for his Euro-Siberian “archaeofuturist” grand future, I assume he still held out hopes that remaining Europeans were sufficient for reaching that goal, afterwards allowing for a replenishment of higher stocks.

The apocalyptic fantasies engaged in by Faye in his appendices leaves one with the image of a sweaty Faye being a bit too enthusiastic in penning these passages, perhaps characterized by an intractable priapism. And at the technical level, some of his speculations are wanting; for example, the nuclear scenario of appendix two, with its crude, home-made, 540 kiloton bombs made from uranium scavenged from Russian missile warheads and nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactor uranium is not weapons grade. As regards the Russian warheads, the directly fissionable material in the primary is most likely plutonium, with uranium being used for tampers and for boosting the yield of the secondary, and that would be U238 (that would undergo fission only from the high energy neutrons coming from the secondary’s fusion), not U235. Even if there was U235 in the Russian warheads, it wouldn’t be enough for multiple 540 kiloton fusion bombs (unless one got ahold of a large number of such warheads). The largest non-boosted fission bomb ever tested was America’s 540 kiloton (where Faye likely got that number from) Ivy King, and was an unsafe design requiring chains to prevent pre-detonation, and used 60 kg of highly enriched uranium (Faye talks about a total of 75 kilos of uranium – purity unspecified – for multiple bombs). If the weapons were to be boosted, this is another story (The UK’s Orange Herald was 720 kilotons boosted; hence, boosted weapons could reach 540 kilotons with less uranium being used, but it would still have to be enriched U235), but that’s not the crude bombs Faye talks about.  I would think that any “crude atom bombs” built would be of much lower yield, perhaps in the Little Boy range (~ 15 kilotons), or less.

As an aside, one wonders. Is Faye’s negative commentary about homosexuality (which one can find in Prelude to War; as one example, he refers to the idea of homosexual couples as “the worst kind of psychopathy) one reason why some of our metapolitical intellectuals seem to prefer the ethnopluralist work of de Benoist?

This is an interesting discussion of Faye and his work. Obviously, I don’t agree with everything said, and there is indeed disagreement among the participants, but it is thought-provoking. Compare that to moronic Beavis-and-Butthead Alt Right podcasts, or the insipid, self-indulgent livestreams of Counter-Currents.

In summary, Prelude to War is useful, but does leave much to be desired.

Odds and Ends, 6/10/20

Good CvH speech and other news.

This is a good von Hoffmeister speech.  Note that he rejects “twigs and branches” “hobbit hole” reactionary “traditionalism” and supports a technological and futurist approach forward for Whites.

He’s also correct about “testing” – particularly given all the problems identified at this blog. I would only quibble that instead of saying “look White, identify as White” – which can include all sorts of NECs – merely say “of European descent,” i.e.., ancestry from of one (or more) of historical European ethnies.

But, overall, I strongly endorse the speech and recommend that readers share it far and wide.

By the way, is CvH “sane” and “decent” enough for Johnson to debate?  While it is true that only Sallis is qualified to defend Sallisism, since Johnson runs from that, what about CvH then?  Or is he, like Woods, “not up to it?”

They could, for example, debate pan-Europeanism vs. petty nationalism as well as technics-oriented futurism vs. hobbit hole “traditionalism.”  However, I cannot speak for CvH and do not know if he has any interest in debating Johnson or anyone else.  I merely suggest that if Johnson is too cowardly to engage with the Sallis Groupuscule, then these issues can be addressed by a “pinch hitter” or “designated hitter” who has significant, albeit not total, overlap with Sallis.

I’ve been saying that for years, Quota Queen.

If you really want to see Gaslighting Greg’s deficiencies on display, see this.

What a retard.

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 versa. Definitely 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.