Category: von Hoffmeister

The Ethnic Genetic Interests of Imperium

Optimizing European EGI

By Imperium, I obviously mean Yockey’s overarching idea, not his book. In the debate between “Big Europe” pan-Europeanism, as exemplified by Yockey, and atomized ethnonationalism, where do ethnic genetic interests (EGI) fit in?

First, let us clear up misconceptions about Yockey, misconceptions that assert he advocated a complete European panmixia in which all distinctions between Europeans would disappear.

English, German, French, Italian, Spanish — these are now mere place-names and linguistic variations. Like all of the other rich products of our great Culture, they will continue but they are no longer political terms. Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy in the European Imperium, now that the oppression of vertical nationalism is dead. Anyone who seeks to perpetuate petty-statism or old-fashioned nationalism is the inner enemy of Europe. He is playing the game, of the extra-European forces, he is dividing Europe and committing treason.

Treason now has only one meaning to Europe: it means serving any other force than Europe. There is only one treason now, treason to Europe. The nations are dead, for Europe is born.

“Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy…” – hopefully that clarifies the dishonest “Yockey wanted to eliminate all intra-European particularisms” argument.

We also need to keep in mind that Yockey wrote this several years after the end of WWII; faced with the undisputable poisonous fruit from the ethnonationalist tree, Yockey championed a militant pan-Europeanism, an ideal which he would likely have championed anyway (even without the war and its aftermath) – although perhaps with less stringent rhetoric – because he saw a United Europe as the next step in the organic evolution of the West. But no doubt his ill-concealed rage toward those who questioned, in any way, his vision was in part due to the devastation he saw around him – although I must say I agree with him that those who continue to try and divide Europe are indeed traitors (intentionally or not).

Small-minded and short-sighted “activists” today, who have forgotten the lessons of two world wars, instead look at the EU and recoil at any idea of European unity.  One cannot just look at what’s right in front of them, but also look toward the ages. That’s something that today’s “movement” pygmies are incapable of doing. In any case, Yockey suggests eliminating European nations as political entities, with Europe itself being the only political entity with real sovereignty; on the other hand, Yockey allows for local autonomy in this scheme, preservation of local cultures and, presumably then, preservation of the ethnic stocks actualizing those cultures.

There are of course EGI costs and benefits to Yockey’s imperial scheme.  Let’s consider EGI, in a qualitative sense, along the ethnonationalist/pan-European continuum.  What are the options? We need to find the “sweet spot” where maximum genetic interest can be obtained at the ethny level by balancing interests and investments at both the racial and ethnic levels.  Of course, there is not (as of now) any calculable metric to give us any definitive answers here, even if we accept that answers may change in a context-dependent manner.  As noted above, the arguments will necessarily have to be, at least for now, qualitative rather than quantitative.

Now, Yockey’s vision (and the somewhat similar ideas of Mosely) are not the most extreme manifestation of pan-Europeanism   Probably von Hoffmeister’s ideal would be classified as such; read this:

The mixing of different European nationalities should therefore be encouraged. We must support sexual unions between Russian women and German men, Spanish men and Swedish women. Only by radically breaking down the artificial barriers dividing Europe can we create the new breed of man…

(Constantin von Hoffmeister, “Our Motherland: Imperium Europa,” in Norman Lowell, Imperium Europa: The Book that Changed the World (Imperium Publishing, 2008), 24)

One can envision then a continuum in which at one end we have von Hoffmeister’s panmictic vision of pan-Europeanism; on the other end we have the Counter-Currents scheme of extreme ethnonationalism, in which balkanized European nations and regions guard their sovereignty from their neighbors, and are ready to go to war – including ethnic cleansing! – against fellow Europeans who in any way offend them.  So, the endpoints of the continuum are here:


…and I’ll fill in some other viewpoints in a qualitative, impressionistic fashion.


CC = Counter-Currents

CvH = Constatin von Hoffmeister

FPY = Francis Parker Yockey

TS = Ted Sallis

NL = Normal Lowell

C = Center

OGI = On Genetic Interests discussion of “civilizational blocs” as one political approach to EGI (this is not meant to be a comprehensive and/or current summary of Salter’s views, which may well be slightly more in the ethnonationalist direction, although I cannot speak for him)

BSS = “Black” SS – as per Coogan, the more Nordicist and Germanocentric portion of the SS 

WSS = “Waffen” SS – as per Coogan, the more pan-European faction of the SS (not necessarily the same as the Waffen SS proper)

AH = Adolf Hitler

MC = Montreaux Conference of 1934



Note that is not the final word, it is my interpretation, and things may certainly change with more data.  But that is a reasonable starting point for discussion.

Thus, Mosely may be around where Yockey is, or perhaps a bit toward the left, Spencer the same. 

Note two things.  First, this is a Far-Right continuum along the ethnonationalist/pan-European axis.  The Far-Left EU is discussed below.  Second, as this is a two-dimensional spectrum, the fact that two points are near each other does not mean they agree on other issues.  For example, I (TS) favor the pan-European approach, but one that allows for national/local sovereignty to some extent, and the definitive preservation of ethnicities and their cultures.  Lowell, with his Imperium vs. Dominion dichotomy (large-scale Imperium vs. local rule Dominion) is similar, although we may disagree on other issues.  I favor an authoritarian national socialist regime; Lowell favors libertarian capitalism.

Is it fair to describe Counter-Currents as more extreme than Adolf Hitler and the “Black” SS? The Nazis wanted to dispossess the Slavs and reduce them to the level of serfs; Counter-Currents publicly endorsed the idea of European nations ethnically cleansing each other in particular circumstances.  As genocide is more extreme than enslavement, the placement on the continuum is in my opinion justified.  

The “Waffen” SS and the Montreux conference is on the ethnonationalist side of the equation: although these SS men were more pan-European, they were still Germanocentric followers of Hitler, and they promoted the idea of a Europe of nations (led by Germany of course).  The Montreux conference promoted a Fascist International ideal of pan-European cooperation, but cooperation amongst ethnonationalist movements, each retaining their full sovereignty.  In OGI, Salter discussed the idea of civilizational blocs that are fairly permeable internally but closed to the outside, yet EGI is fully compatible with ethnonationalism and no clear cut definitive recommendations were made there.  Thus, that discussion in OGI is slightly to the pan-European side of center.  Those further to the right on the continuum have already been discussed.

Where would the EU fit in this scheme?  Actually nowhere, as this continuum is for pro-White, rightist planning, while the EU is orthogonal to all of this an anti-White, leftist creation of globalist elites. If we were to judge, however, strictly on the criterion of relative sovereignty, then the EU would be in between my ideal and that of Yockey.  The EU is less extreme than Yockey in that in retains European nations a political entities, but it is more extreme than my vision in that it dictates even local matters, it promotes migration between EU nations, and essentially today the entire enterprise can be summarized by the vision of the harridan scold Merkel, standing astride Europe holding a rolling pin, grinding down opposition to her radical race replacement agenda.  I would certainly suggest more national independence than that!

Extreme ethnonationalism would attempt to maximize EGI at the ethnic level, while foregoing racial European EGI as a whole in the global context.  Extreme pan-Europeanism would do the opposite: maximize racial EGI of Europe vs the Colored World, while sacrificing ethnic EGI, which would be significantly degraded through the proposed process of panmixia.  Of the two, I would argue that extreme ethnonationalism is actually more self-contradictory, since extreme ethnonationalism can actually damage the specific ethnic group practicing it.  Salter talks in OGI how Hitler’s extreme ethnonationalism damaged the German people as a result of his wars, and the reaction of other nations against him.  Also, since European ethnic groups are relatively similar genetically (some more than others)  with some kinship overlap between neighboring states, an extreme ethnonationalism would harm the people practicing it, from an EGI standpoint, because they would be in opposition to people fundamentally similar to themselves, while more alien peoples of other continents may well benefit from intra-European strife.  Extreme ethnonationalism, by attempting to maximize narrow gross genetic interests, can backfire on those practicing it and result in a net loss of genetic interest.  The Germans had Hitler; now they have Merkel.  Their extreme ethnonationalism boomeranged into suicidal Universalist altruism.  Perhaps if Hitler was a dedicated pan-Europeanist, and one without a “zero sum game” ethnonationalist attitude, the German people –and all Europeans – would be better off today.

That said, both extremes are sub-optimal for European EGI.  For example, I cannot see a logical argument as to why a European panmixia is necessary to actualize an Imperium capable of safeguarding the interests – ethnic genetic and otherwise – of all European peoples.  If it is not necessary, then the foregone ethnic-specific EGI is wasted for no reason.  Indeed, one can argue that the prospect of a panmixia that eliminates ethnic-specific particularisms would spark an ethnonationalist backlash as groups attempt to safeguard their uniqueness through a “narcissism of small differences” campaign against their fellow Europeans.  Occam’s razor for civilizational planning: do not multiply complexities beyond necessity.  In the absence of a convincing argument in favor of panmixia (if there is such an argument I would like to see it produced and fairly evaluate it), it is an unnecessary complication.  But those who would critique that threat to European ethnic diversity are hypocrites if they do not equally denounce the “ethnic cleansing” of Europeans promoted by the extreme ethnonationalists.  Such genocidal lunacy obviously is detrimental to the EGI of all Europeans.

One can envision charting on the x-axis the ethnonationalist-pan-European continuum (ethnonationalist on left, pan-European on right) and on the y-axis the net effects on both ethnic-level EGI and racial-level EGI as two distinct lines.  In general, the ethnic-level EGI line would start highest at the ethnonationalist side of the continuum, although I argue (see above) that extreme ethnonationalism is corrosive of even narrow ethnic interests; however, for the sake of argument, let’s consider a simple downward slope moving from left to right on the graph (from ethnonationalist to pan-European).  On the other hand, the racial line slopes upward as one moves rightward in the pan-European direction.  Of course, things are not that simple even here, given how ethnic and racial interests overlap; the racial is composed of the ethnic, and kinship overlap confuses ethnic interests with that of other ethnies in the racial.  But again, for the sake of argument, we can consider a simple mode.  We can then envision a graph like this.

Envision the ethnic line as blue and the racial line as red.  There will be a point of intersection – the “sweet spot” – in which there is an optimized balance of ethnic and racial genetic interests (and, likely, interests in general, including the important proximate interests, particularly High Culture). The question remains, where is this spot, and or course it is unlikely we will agree on an answer, although most people would likely agree that the spot is not at either of the extremes (although, theoretically, it could be). Again, this is a qualitative, impressionist argument (similar to Salter’s genetic interest plots in OGI), but one needs to consider it nevertheless, even knowing that without the (impossible) option of side-by-side testing of alternatives, we are making educated guesses, or, more optimistically, informed and logical estimates.

There is always going to be a trade-off between narrower and broader genetic interests.  Of course, it goes without saying: context is important.  The “sweet spot” is obviously going to change based on context and circumstances.  If the overall race is secure, but your particular ethnic group is threatened then, obviously, the cross-over point at which the genetic interest lines intersect will fall closer to the ethnonationalist direction.  On other hand, race-wide crises would necessitate shifting the intersection point in the pan-European direction.  In particular, if your ethnic group is relatively secure, but the race as a whole – that includes ethnic groups relatively similar to your own, for whom you share some (somewhat more diluted, but still substantial – particularly given the numbers involved) genetic interest – is threatened, then the intersection point needs to be far to the pan-European direction.  If both race and ethnic group are secure, more investment in self and family is prudent’ if humanity as a whole is threatened, one must look toward that (while still giving preference to your own people, so defined).  In the current situation, both ethnic group and race are threatened for all Europeans, so a balanced approach is best.  What’s optimal then?

I would propose that my vision of a balanced pan-Europeanism, formulated with EGI in mind, in which local sovereignty is retained and intra-European differences are preserved, while enfolding all the peoples of Europe in an Imperium to safeguard their existence, actualize a High Culture, and reach the stars, is the sweet spot” between the extremes.  Lowell’s Imperium Europa has many of the same advantages.  Although we cannot know this for sure, without an actual side-by-side testing of schemes that is impossible, it is logically reasonable to conclude that a balanced approach would preserve European EGI than both panmixia as well as lunatic ethnonationalist schemes in which atomized Europeans ethnically cleanse each other in bloody warfare.  Although the OGI point, not far away from mine, may also serve.

Again, a balance is needed, which I believe my scheme exemplifies.  Ethnic and local particularisms (biological and cultural) are preserved, intra-European borders are preserved, intra-European demographic flows are restricted, but, at the same time, one has an Imperium, which cuts off all flow from the outside, and sufficiently integrates Europe – for defense, foreign policy, racial matters, top-level cultural and science/technics issues, etc. – so as to safeguard the entire and prevent EGI-corroding intra-European feuding.  There’s no ethic cleansing in my scheme, nor any panmixia.  It is certainly a reasonable and viable candidate for the “sweet spot.”  The bulk of both ethnic and racial genetic interests are conserved, some compromises are made, and political mechanisms would need to be put in place to ensure the long-term maintenance of the balance between ethnic and racial level interests.

This is the beginning of the analysis, and I see it a good start.

And what about Yockey’s Imperium idea?  Assuming he was serious about the commitment to local autonomy and preservation, then his authoritarian Western state could do a reasonably good job at balancing ethnic and racial European EGI, although other ides may be more optimal (or not).  We do need to remember Salter’s warning that a permanent solution to preserving and defending EGI is likely impossible.

We do the best that we can.


Silk Road News: Stories From a While Back

The Asian threat.

Asians killing Russians. Strike back, my Russian brothers, strike back with righteous Slavic fury.

From Chateau Heartiste comments, on White-killing government-sanctioned assassin Horiuchi:

Horiuchi, of Japanese descent, is a graduate of West Point, class of 1978 (about the same time that women were first admitted as cadets) That his classmates, or the WP Association of Graduates for that matter, haven’t disavowed him is a disgrace to the U.S. Military Academy. In olden times a WP class would have “silenced” one of ts own for such an egregious act.

There is also evidence that Horiuchi was present at Waco after the FBI took over Operation Show Time from the DEA.

In a just society Horiuchi would have been tried and convicted for murder, and Clinton and Reno would have at the very least been impeached for the massacre of 80 some odd people, including 28 children, using U.S. Army tanks and ordnance from Fort Hood, Texas.

Von Hoffmeister on racism.  He’s right – “British Asians” for example are alien spores contaminating that blessed isle and should be ejected ASAP.

“Border guards of the West” tormenting the people of France.  Remember: Asians hate, hate, hate Whites.

Stockholm and Morgan: Critical Points

Some comments on the Feb. 25 Stockholm Identitarian meeting as well as Morgan’s Counter-Currents article on the Alt Right.

Some of the speeches were just awkward or silly; no need for me to embarrass those speakers – and infuriate their fanboys – but focusing on those.  I’m also not interesting in hearing about “money and banking.” Although I have some interest in social credit/citizen dividends ideas, I’m afraid if I hear the words “federal reserve” or “fractional banking” I may start weeping.  Ramzpaul’s talk was terribly boring, so I don’t have much to say about it.

How about some more relevant speeches for the state of the Alt Right today?

Hoffmeister’s speech was more or less OK.  Putting aside the “He-Man” stuff – after all, I don’t want to sound like a bitter, neurotic, cranky old fart – the only problems with this talk is the error about Kennewick man, and also the suggestion that Whites had to be in America first in order to have a claim to the territory. For some reason, other racial groups feel no need to justify their own dispossession of earlier aboriginals.  I don’t see the Japanese agonizing over the Ainu, or see standard Negroes regretting displacing Pygmy or Khoisan populations.

Millennial Woes’s speech was interesting, and he admitted the profound “malaise” of the Alt Right since Trump’s election, and cited two legitimate reasons for this.  First, that the Alt Right doesn’t really know what to do next, and seems ill-prepared for the adult, disciplined work to build a real movement to take advantage of Trump’s breaking the “glass ceiling” of American right-wing populism.  Second, the constant attacks against the Alt Right by the System and leftist thugs.  Indeed, this speech legitimizes much of my criticism of the Alt Right – showing their ill-preparedness, both to move forward and to anticipate the obvious response of the Left to Trump’s victory and to the Alt Right’s brief ascent to prominence; their lack of discipline; and their current squandering of the golden opportunity handed to them by the events of 2016.

Kaalep’s (nice haircut there) speech started out well and degenerated into stupidity.  Err…which part of Europe dominated for the past several centuries?  That’s been the north, Kaalep’s “north star” “northern barbarians.” The “over-civilized” Greco-Roman world doesn’t run things now, and not for a long time.  It’s not the “Greco-Romans” who created the 19th century colonialism that is backfiring on Europe through reverse colonialism.  It’s not the Greco-Romans who started the two world wars that wrecked the White world, not the Greco-Romans that created the current EU, and who are running it into the ground.  The lazy and hedonistic PIGS countries – siesta-loving swarthoids with their palms out for handouts – are followers in the EU, not leaders. It’s those “northern barbarian” Germans, led by their Queen Merkel, who are today leading Europe to the abyss.  Instead of having one part of Europe dominating over the other, how about cooperation, with each nation and area maintaining their own identifies?  We don’t need historical revisionism that ignores the last half millennium, or self-serving “my nation will lead us out of the wilderness” navel-gazing.  I support Estonian nationalism, and Kaalep seems to be doing a fine job in his nation.  But it’s ironic that these ethnonationalist types have no qualms about ideas of domination when it’s their folks doing the dominating, eh? 

Now, I don’t want to be too critical here.  Kaalep seems like a sincere fellow, he’s doing good work for his country, he does think about Europe, and he means well.  The problem in general seems to be (shades of the American “movement”) one of too narrow perspectives. Any Euro-swarthoids there? Any Russkis (a giggling “Russian-American” doesn’t count)? They have the likes of Jorjani and Ramzpaul there, but no one from, say, Golden Dawn or Casa Pound was interested?  Are there no Identitarians from Spain or Portugal?  How about a Russian perspective that is independent of Putinism and Duginism?  How about the Ukrainians – what do real nationalists there think about having their sacrifices hijacked by globalists?  Maybe those folks were at the meeting and participated and I somehow missed it; but if so, Der Movement certainly isn’t popularizing such talks. More likely they simply were not there.

Do we always have to hear from the same people spouting the same things over and over again?  If you want a Europe-wide movement, how about having a Europe-wide meeting?

Now we come to Jorjani.  Let’s for a moment forget about the Iranian issue, partially manifested again by the pathetic potshots against the Ancient Greeks (NECs hold grudges, do they not?).  Let’s forget about all the ramblings of the last 2/3 of the talk. Let’s forget that he himself brought up an issue that I previously refused to discuss, his personal situation. Even though he brought it up, it’s not something to dwell on other than to say it is puzzling (for reasons which should be obvious).

Here my major objection is something which constitutes my objection #1 to the Alt Right – their ideological imperialism in the “movement;” the idea that the Alt Right and today’s racial activism are one and the same.  Non-Alt Right activists such as myself object to, and will continue to resist, the Alt Right’s attitude of dominance and entitlement.  I must say that the first 4.5 minutes of Jorjani’s talk constitute some of the most disturbing examples of Alt Right imperialism and premature centralization in Der Movement today. Alt Right corporation…I have a fairly good opinion of Spencer, but the rest of them?  The term “confederacy of dunces” comes to mind.  Who the hell are these people, and this pushy NEC, to be dictating to us all that from now on the Indentitarian Right, broadly defined, “is the Alt Right?”  I give an extended middle finger to that hubris.

Some would say – “it’s survival of the fittest” and if the Alt Right displaces other forms of racial activism, then that’s all for the good.  My reply is that fitness in a particular environment doesn’t always equal the best outcome from the White racial standpoint.  So, if Negroes out-reproduce and displace Whites from a territory, demonstrating superior biological fitness, is that the best outcome?  I would say no.  In a given environment, a roach or a bacterium may be more biologically fit than a human, but that doesn’t mean humans are then obligated to make way for insects and prokaryotes.  That the Alt Right is more fit for today’s pathological “movement” environment tells us we need to change the environment, not that we should embrace the metastatic fitness of the inept Alt Right.

The Alt Right, on the other hand, is a culture primarily of blogs, memes, podcasts, and videos. It has yet to produce a single book or other statement of principles that everyone involved would agree is the quintessence of the Alt Right’s worldview. This is a natural outgrowth of the anti-intellectualism inherent in Anglo-American political and cultural discourse…

Anti-intellectualism is putting it mildly.  But get this:

The American Right (just as the American Left, albeit in different ways) is absolutely obsessed with race: evolutionary theories, comparative IQ scores, crime statistics, and the like.

But at the same time it is anti-intellectual.  Does that make sense?  Actually it does, when one realizes that the “racial science” of the American Right is for the most part a combination of pseudoscience, science fiction, and Ostara-like fantasy.  The paradox of an anti-intellectual “movement” being at the same time obsessed with racial theories and “HBD” is no paradox when you realize that “racial history/HBD/race realism” is anti-intellectual hokum.

In no way can neo-Nazis be regarded as Alt Right or New Right.

You got that right.  Except instead of a cartoonish “neo-Nazi” instead use “principled national socialist.”

We can’t pretend that an Irishman and a Russian are interchangeable.

That canard again.  I want to know – who says that?  Who believes it?  Who advocates that? If ethnonationalists don’t want to be viewed as fundamentally dishonest then you guys really need to stop making the most absurd strawman arguments.

…and who in some cases have even called for political unification between America, Europe, and Russia, is a severe disservice to the diversity inherent in European civilization. 

Some sort of union or confederation need not imperil local distinctiveness. Even Yockey, that advocate of Western Imperium, specifically noted that local identities would be preserved.  

This is not to suggest that there is no basis for Europeans and those of the European diaspora around the world to work together towards common ends, but I believe this can only be rooted in the specificity of particular nations, regions, and traditions, otherwise we will simply be exchanging the cosmopolitan homogenization of global multiculturalism for a “white” form of homogenization. 

More ethnonationalist strawman arguments.  Who is calling for a general homogenization of Whites (other than Hoffmeister in the Intro to Lowell’s book, and I long ago sharply critiqued him for that.  One person.  One. That’s what you build an argument against?

The various European peoples and their offshoots have specific needs and identities, and these must all be respected and nourished under separate and unique institutions. 

Yes, and?

So while I would never suggest that studies of or concern with race are without value, I believe that ethnicity has to take first priority over race as we consider what we are fighting for.

Prioritizing ethnicity over race led to the two world wars that wrecked the White world, directly leading to our sorry state.  Are we supposed to let dishonest ethnonationalists lead us to the abyss again?

Which brings me to two more deficiencies of the Alt Right project, at least as it has played out so far: it lacks any solid economic or geopolitical viewpoint. It’s too focused on problems at home and on identity politics to be worried about the larger picture…I may have sounded very critical of the Alt Right in this talk, and indeed, I think it still has a long way to go before it can be taken seriously as a political movement worthy of contending for actual power, as opposed to the vague influence it exerts today.

You’re getting dangerously close to “old crank” territory there, Morgan.

I think a marriage between the ideas of the New Right and the techniques of the Alt Right can be a very happy and fruitful one.

I don’t know…given what I’m seeing, it’s just as likely we’ll get a marriage between the ideas of the Alt Right and the techniques of the New Right.

Let’s turn all of this around. Let’s consider the grand ethnonationalist Europe with all the atomized nations with their absolute sovereignty. Let’s take Ireland, since that nation has been mentioned. What if Ireland decides to ditch ethnonationalism and solve its “labor shortage” by importing one million hard-working African Negroes. Do they have the right to import Negroes into a nationalist Europe? Yes or no?

Another one (and more dear to the heart of the Majority Rights Silk Road crowd). Let’s say that Ireland decides to conduct a military alliance with China against England, with Chinese military bases on Irish soil.That OK? Yes or no?

If you say yes, well that’s quite interesting indeed, the “logical outcome” of ethnonationalism. If you say no, then you admit to limits to national sovereignty and a racial veto to destructive behavior of individual nations.

Updated Complete Disagreement

I say no.
I disagree with this essay.  First, why should anyone take the incoherent rambling of von Hoffmeister seriously?  On the one hand, he writes lunatic pan-mixia proposals for Lowell’s book, on the other hand, he promotes ultra-Nordicist works like that Raciology book produced by a Russian wanna-be-German. Does he have any overarching ideology, or is it just a series of romantically radical poses? Spencer is a bit more sound, but after the Hungary fiasco, these aren’t exactly the kinds of folks who should be representing the “grandiose” worldview.
In his various works, Yockey specifically stated that the regions of the Imperium could have full local autonomy and Lowell has stated similarly in his works.  One could have both the narrow nationalism and ethnocultural preservation, as well as an overarching Euro-Imperium dealing with “High Politics” issues: foreign affairs and defense, scientific progress, High Culture, space exploration, etc.
One can look at the pathetic infighting of European euronationalists, who have learned nothing after two world wars that wrecked the White world, and see all the evidence you need that some sort of political unification is required – one that is sufficiently decentralized to prevent the problems inherent in the complaints of the anti-grandiose crowd.

Now, I’ll answer a few specific excerpts:

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.

It’s curious how some blithely dismiss the threat from, say, China.  I’m no fan of the Chinese, but let’s be realistic. They are an intelligent (albeit not creative) and disciplined people, they hate Whites (that’s the truth, despite what miscegenating nerds and their dreams of an “Arctic Alliance” may tell you), they have advanced technology and nuclear weapons, a strong economy, and a massive population – hundreds of millions more Chinese than all the peoples of Europe combined.  India – with an equally massive population and nuclear weapons – has a much lower quality population, but is still a threat.  As regards nuclear deterrents, yes, Whites have them – but would they use them knowing the other side would retaliate?  And the other side has a greater capacity to sacrifice population in any such exchange.  Why should we tempt them to undertake such adventures by presenting to them a fractured and disunited White world?  And what happens if these two Asian giants decide to end their feud and ally against the hated White man?  Well, you can say that we need to use diplomacy to prevent that from happening.  Very well.  But don’t you think they will be using diplomacy against us?
Yes, indeed, how will “paper treaties” and/or ad hoc defensive alliances hold up against, say, Chinese pressure? If the Chinese decide they want Russian territory, including European Russia west of the Urals, maybe Ukraine and Poland too, they can go to the nations of Western Europe with the Carrot and the Stick.  The Stick is obvious, as explained above. The Carrot: a non-aggression pact and alliance, economic and trade concessions, exchange of technology, and maybe a steady stream of Chinese females for the socially awkward “Derb” types – you know, to cement the “Arctic Alliance.”   They can ask the ethnonationalists of London, Paris, Berlin, and Rome: “Why die for Warsaw, Kiev, and Moscow?”  Why indeed?
And as regards an “equivalent to NATO” – the pathetic spectacle of opposition to Russian aggression to Ukraine should give one pause.  Yes, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but strict guarantees were given to compensate for Ukrainian nuclear disarmament.  I’ll also be curious to see what sort of enthusiasm for armed conflict will exist if Russia starts bullying actual NATO states such as in the Baltics.  When “push comes to shove” – with “shove” backed up by nuclear weapons – I don’t think these “alliances” between “sovereign states” will be worth the paper they are printed on. In contrast, if all territories are part of the same overarching political unit, then an attack against any part is, by definition, an attack against all – not by treaty, but by reality, the same as an attack against Kentucky is also an attack against Wyoming, in contrast as how an attack against Latvia is not the same as an attack against the UK or Germany.

Grandiose nationalists oppose anti-EU sentiment because, they dream, nationalists might actually “take over” the EU someday.

That would be an honest statement if the sentence began with “Some.”  Yes, I know Lowell and others think this way, but I for one have always been vehemently against the EU.

The answer is to build upon the pan-European consciousness that already exists in the leadership cadres of “petty” nationalist groups across Europe.

Building nationalism upon petty ethnonationalism is not going to yield any “pan-European consciousness.”  Look at the reality on the ground. Ethnonationalists in Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are at each other’s throats (I won’t even mention the Serbs and Croats).  You have folks in the BNP, as well as Fraser in Australia, who don’t want anything to do with a general “White” group, and in some cases deny it exists.  German and Polish nationalists squabble over territory.  There’s division in Spain, Italy, Belgium, and elsewhere.  There’s the Scots and the English (never mind the Irish).  Russians and Ukrainians obviously get along real well.  Certainly, people should have the right to break away to form more homogeneous units, but even Lowell supports that, an Imperium of regions.  So, that’s not the issue. The issue is one of mentality and vision.  You can’t make the “silk purse” of pan-European consciousness out of the “sow’s ear” of squabbling, animus-filled ethnonationalism.  Where’s that consciousness in the leadership cadres of ethnonationalist European groups?  Who displays it?  Certainly not the top leaders who command our attention.

The ethnonationalists had their day and gave us two world wars and wrecked our civilization. The anti-nationalist globalists rule now and are wrecking our blood and soil.  Maybe we can give the “grandiose nationalists” a shot at it?  Should we condemn them from the outset?