Category: Yockey

Odds and Ends, 9/20/19

More of the same.

Yes, he’s an “abiding influence” and all, but you’ll reject, and constantly attack, the central theme of his work.

Ah…but Gottfried “gets it wrong” only from your perspective.  Gottfried is a Jew, so from that perspective, it’s business as usual.

Note:

Exile
Good point to remember. Trump’s jailing & even executing Whites to please his handlers & pander to muh Browns. It’s going to be just as bad or worse until at least 2024. Brandish or use a weapon only if the situation demands risking serious jail time (ie if your life or others lives are in immediate danger).. We’re the enemy to the Feds & most local LEO’s – don’t kid yourselves.

But…Trump is a man of genuine greatness, and don’t you forget it!

I’m not sure why Spencer is re-tweeting this.  Who was the “leader of the Alt Right” when this window of opportunity was lost?  Who was doing the Beavis-and-Butthead podcasts during this time?  

Never forget – we need more men like Hubert Humphrey!  He was, like, “valorous” and all that.

Advertisements

Oppose the Movement Caste System for Europeans

No hypocrisy.

Let’s consider the following, emphasis added:

Bolton cites some of the anti-“Med” ramblings of the King of Ethnic Fetishism, “Wilmot Robertson,” and also quotes Stimely’s correct verdict on Robertson’s self-defeating rambling obsessions.  “Robertson” and his legacy remain a highly destructive force within (mostly American) racial nationalism, one major infection point for the obsessive fixations that still remain extant today.  But, let us give some credit to “Robertson” and his followers: at least they are honest about their disgust and contempt for Europeans deriving from the south of Vienna (or Munich) and to the east of Berlin. Worse perhaps are those types who actually believe the same as “Robertson” but make a pretense of being “pan-European” or “pan-Aryan.”  Note to those latter individuals: Europeans – Westerners – are not Hindu Indians, we do not have, or want, a caste system (with Eastern Europeans being lower caste and Southern Europeans being “untouchables”).  Pick your ingroup and that’s your ingroup – if you despise a group, then don’t include them; if you include them then don’t despise them. The basic definition of any group is “in/out” and if Der Movement can’t even get that straight, after decades of discussion and debate, then what good is it?  If that is “vertical race” then Yockey was right to oppose it, but not at the cost of disavowing biological reality

This is an important point I’ve made time and again. Pick your ingroup and then accept the consequences of that choice without being a hypocrite. If you despise certain European types, all well and good, but then please do not pretend that they are part of your ingroup for reasons of self-interest (to maximize followers and “D’Nations” and/or to appeal to members of your real chosen ingroup who have more pan-European ideals than you do yourself). If, on the other hand, you accept X,Y,Z in your ingroup, then there should be no caste system that says that X,Y,Z are inferior to, and subordinate to, A,B,C and that only A,B,C can be leaders and not X,Y,Z.  And don’t accept X,Y,Z with condescending contempt, use them for what they are worth, and then later state that “we need to re-evaluate the ingroup,” after which you exclude those who’ve already invested time, effort, and money for your cause. This latter type of behavior is particularly distasteful, despicable, and dishonorable (and has occurred in Der Movement).

Where Things Stand Indeed

Critiquing Strom’s piece.

Dr. Oliver made his assessment as part of a promotional film, After Fifty Years, for the National Youth Alliance — the predecessor of today’s National Alliance. The book the Youth Alliance chose to inspire young people was Francis Parker Yockey’s flawed but powerful Imperium — which is today still available from our Cosmotheist book store.

That’s a pleasant surprise, since Pierce was not selling Imperium back when I perused his book catalog.  He did sell books by McCulloch, as does your book store today. Don’t expect much support from so-called “White ethnics” by the way.  Why should they support you if you do not support them?  Why should they support people who despise them?  Good luck achieving your objectives while writing off a significant fraction of the American and world-wide European-derived population.

As we approach 2020, much has changed.

Has it?  Really?

Today, we have much more than Imperium.

Quantity wise, yes. Quality wise, hardly.

We have the great example of what Yockey, in that book, called The Hero of the Second World War — Adolf Hitler — and his titanic, even mythic, struggle — not yet finished, despite his martyrdom — against the Enemies of Life. We have that great example shining in front of us, and shining before the new generations of our Folk, more than ever now, as the tired myths promoted by our enemies deservedly and inevitably expire.

Sigh. Hitler worship is not going to get us anywhere.  Yes, I’m sympathetic to Saint Adolf’s struggles against “the Enemies of Life,” but we also need to be cognizant of the man’s majestic flaws.  Hitler stained his legacy by his propensity for hegemonic war against other European peoples.  An honest reading of history – including by authors like Irving who can hardly be labeled as biased against Hitler – will demonstrate that Hitler’s foreign policy was always aimed at territorial expansion to be achieved by dispossessing the Slavs.  His racial views were Nordicist and Germanocentric. I realize that none of that will trouble Der Movement, but the question goes back to whether you honestly want to achieve your ostensible objectives.  If you do, a more balanced appraisal of Saint Adolf would be helpful.

We have the life’s work of Revilo Oliver, the greatest of which he created after 1970 — after the age of 62 — when he renounced conservatism and Christianity, fully endorsed racial-nationalism, and promoted the National Alliance and National Socialism.

Oliver had some good points, but bad points as well – in the end, descending into Type I fetishism and dogma.

We have one of the greatest books of the 20th century, Which Way, Western Man? by the thinker and philosopher — and National Alliance member — William Gayley Simpson.

Another dogmatic and limited fetishist.

We have the life’s work of the founder of the National Alliance, Dr. William Luther Pierce, whose leadership had just barely begun in 1970. Dr. Pierce relentlessly wrote and organized and broadcast his works to the world until his death in 2002…

Ditto.

… — and Will Williams, the current chairman of the Alliance, has dedicated his life to not only preserving those works, but to vividly and repeatedly promoting them and making them available — again and again, week after week, year after year — to new generations of our people.

I’m not sure promoting all of those works is a positive.

Today, unlike in 1920 and in 1970, we have the ability to propagate our message to millions of our people via nationalvanguard.org and our other outlets. It’s been a long time since our pages were visited fewer than a million times per month. 

The Internet shall save us!  We’ve been hearing that tired old tune for about two decades now.  The Alt Right was real prominent on the Internet…where are they now?  How is the NA translating that online success to analog activism?

We — and other racial-nationalists, many of them awakened and inspired by our work — have been so successful in doing this that the Jewish power structure is desperate to shut down our media operations by any means, fair or foul. 

Are you prepared for that contingency?

The hundreds of thousands of young White people who read our words are making themselves known. They have been censored, delisted, banned, and shadowbanned again and again and again — yet, on Twitter alone, they still number in six figures by my estimate and are growing by the day — young people who know that Pierce and Rockwell and Simpson and Oliver and Hitler will be the saints of the future — and its architects. As one wag put it, the only question is: “How tall will their statues be?”

Oh dear god…can you believe this?  Can we stop with this “we will win in the end” optimism that is backed up by 100 years of complete failure HOW are you going to achieve that future?

It is true that the hundreds of thousands who read our words have mostly been free riders. Most have not joined us, or sent donations. Some are doubtlessly intimidated by what the Jews have done to ruin the lives of conscious Whites.

How about a bit more self-awareness as well?  It’s also that these “free riders” have absolute zero confidence in the “movement” and its affirmative action leadership.  They see humiliation after humiliation, defeat after defeat, infiltration after infiltration, endless failure after endless failure. Why should they get involved?  Has the NA in its more recent incarnation been free of this? “Smoky Mountain SS” (or whatever he called himself) delivering NA files to the enemy, and then the DeCourcy fiasco.  Even putting the best face on all of that, it shows questionable judgment regarding the types of people in the organization.  That’s the same type of bad judgment that led to the Hermansson infiltration and the Disqus exposures for other groups.  Can you blame prudent people for not trusting “movement leadership?”  I won’t even get into the Gliebe and Walker era with respect to the NA, etc. – but you have to realize that anyone looking into the group online – the vaunted Internet! – can see (and smell) all the dirty laundry. Thus, people may agree with your writings and broadcasts but they do not believe that anyone involved has the character and competence to be effective leaders. Are they wrong?  Then prove it.  

To those of you who are in that category, let me say two things: 1) There is great safety in numbers. When 250,000 people are supporting the National Alliance instead of just reading our words, we will be strong enough to be a social force that few will want to tangle with, legally or otherwise. 

How are you going to achieve this?  How are you going to straighten your own activist core out, win victories, and be palatable enough to attract 250,000 people? Or 25,000?  Or 2,500?  Or even 250?

Then the fence-sitters will leave the fence in droves — and a quarter million will be just the beginning. They won’t have enough corrupt US Attorneys or jails to make a much of a dent in our numbers or our morale then. In fact, by then, we might have more than a few prosecutors on our side, as well as leaders in every field of our society — when these people see that someone’s finally doing something. 

Ah, the key is – “someone’s finally doing something.”  The problem is that this is not happening. Ball in your court.  Clean up your own operation first.  Can your group go several years in a row without some new scandal, infighting, arrests, embarrassments, etc.?

2) It is, using cryptocurrency — which is not hard to use, quite possible to support our efforts with perfect anonymity. Even we won’t be able to know who you are unless you want us to.

For people to go to the trouble of doing that, they need to have the confidence to know it’ll be put to good use.  NONE of the “movement leaders” have presented us with evidence to build that confidence.

Another reason for the free riders is, I think, a psychological peculiarity of White people: Despite our great propensity for free thought and individual innovation, we are deeply law-abiding people who respect authority and hierarchy. We need psychological permission from a leader before engaging in warlike acts, or going against convention, or going against powerful interest groups. But once that psychological “permission” is obtained, no one is a stronger or better fighter — and conqueror — and destroyer of his enemies — than the awakened White man.

That leader has to be someone respected – not a laughingstock.  Not someone who has more skeletons in their closet than a graveyard.

We need to position ourselves as worthy — and actually be worthy — of leadership. We need to be excellent in everything we do. We need flawless logic and sterling character. We need authenticity and honor. We need the authority that comes from knowledge and truthfulness. We need the moral authority that comes from wisdom — and from right living that will be an example to all who see it. We need to be unforgiving — and totally dedicated to stamping out each and every threat to our people’s existence, forever. We need relentless effort that never tires, never quits. We need to engage the “authorities” of our society and publicly challenge their corruption. Most of all, we need to be strong —for no one and nothing in Nature respects the weak.

Very good.  Get started.  You haven’t even taken the first step yet.

As William Pierce said, the National Alliance needs to embody a society in the making — embody, with excellence, every function needed to assume societal leadership when the time is ripe.

Too bad he failed utterly in achieving any of that when he was alive.

Have we done that yet? No. 

Honesty.

Are we ready to take on such in-depth leadership of our society now? No. No one is. But when the hundreds of thousands see that we are serious about doing exactly that, our cause, in the words of Dr. Oliver, “will move forward with the gathering momentum of an avalanche.”

Doubtful. Wishful thinking.

No offense Kevin, but there’s nothing here.  Granted, of course, I don’t expect you to publicly reveal your plans in any detail (but given the reality of infiltration and System surveillance, it would probably be known anyway), but how about some discussion of strategic direction, at least in general terms?  Again, there’s nothing here, except the usual praise for Hitler, Pierce, and other Type Is, obvious statements on how you need more supporters, calls for more effective leadership, and of course the type of overly optimistic “fascist” thinking mocked by Roger Griffin, exemplified by:

…young people who know that Pierce and Rockwell and Simpson and Oliver and Hitler will be the saints of the future — and its architects. As one wag put it, the only question is: “How tall will their statues be?”

Great.  And how is that future going to be achieved?  How are ANY of the steps required to even make the initial moves to get to that future going to be achieved?  Again, I’m not asking for details, I’m not asking for secrets or anything that can be leveraged against your plans, but just the broadest outlines of a winning strategy.  

But there’s nothing.  There’s always nothing. This is my point.  In 1969 Oliver talked about 50 years of failure and here we are after 50 more years of failure and all we can point to is how popular certain websites are on the Internet.  And when those get deplatformed, then what?

This Strom piece is a gross disappointment. It’s not enough to say that “you should all support the NA.”  It’s not enough to dream about a future in which we debate how tall the William Pierce Memorial Statue should be.  And it’s not enough to talk about what is needed about quality leadership.  You have to DO.  And the first step in DOING – and what you can do right now with the limited resources you have – is to run a professional, sane, disciplined organization that does not provide SPLC gossip every few months via some embarrassment, infiltration, scandal, infighting, or other incident.  Start by stop making avoidable errors. You need to have a different attitude toward the people you hire, the people you accept as leading activists. Warm bodies willing to live on a mountaintop somewhere are not enough. The attitude of “well, these are the only people willing to come out in the middle of nowhere and work for us” is not helpful.  Maybe that’s the problem? It’s a self-perpetuating cycle where the low quality of the operation attracts low quality people who lower the quality of the organization even more.  And this all repels quality people. Quality people are not going to be attracted by some micro-group, living out in the woods somewhere, with employees whose major attribute is a willingness to endure those conditions. [Note – I’ve repeatedly written that Pierce’s move out of the DC area and into the WV mountains was a gross error].

The first step is to break this negative cycle.  It would be better to take one step back in order to move forward than continuing down a wrong path.  Better to have three quality people to start with than to have 30 defectives. Better to take the time to build an infrastructure that inspires confidence than to push forward under current conditions with an infrastructure that gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you’re trying to lead a worldwide revolutionary movement out of a trailer park. I’m not trying to be overly harsh, just brutally honest.  It’s not like the NA under Pierce wasn’t pulling in money – it was.  It was just all squandered.  It’s not the fault of the “free riders” that that happened.

It’s not enough to “be strong.” You have to look strong as well. You need to project strength, integrity, and competence in order to inspire the confidence required to attract the supporters you want.  People are not going to come to you just because you say you need them.  People will not sacrifice for a leader or for an organization that produces nothing but embarrassment and failure. Again, the very first step is relatively easy and eminently achievable – stop making mistakes, stop the scandals, stop the bad judgment, stop hiring questionable people, stop with the attitude that anyone is better than no one (is a negative number higher than zero?). You need to build a record that inspires confidence. You need to stop all the “facepalm” episodes.  At this point, an absence of embarrassment and disaster can count as a victory.  Be prudent.  Yes, I know – “no risk, no reward”- but this is not what we are talking about here.  Foolishness and bad judgment is not reasonable risk-taking. Endless failure is not a reward.

Rethink your strategy and tactics.

The Salterian Ethics of Imperium

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

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

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

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

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

Yockey’s words…in Imperium are relevant here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From my essay on Salterian ethics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

El Paso and Other News

In der news.

It is too early to know for sure what the facts are from the El Paso incident.
A few points can be made at this early stage.  First, that a “movement” connection is a possibility tells you much about the Type I domination of Der Movement, Inc.  That possibility may turn out to be true or it may turn out to be false, but the plausibility of the possibility is itself an indictment of a pathetic, failed “movement” and its affirmative action “leadership.”

Second, one can one say about an anti-White homosexual pervert, running for President, denouncing the idea of White people defending their interests?

Third, it is also an indictment of the “movement” that a President whose apparent sole concerns are Israel, A$AP Rocky, Big Macs, and releasing Back criminals from prison is publicly labeled as a “White nationalist” or a “White supremacist.”

Now, as far as the second point goes, the System’s anti-White animus is “baked into the cake,” but as regards points one and three, that’s on the head of the Quota Queens who have made a mockery of White racial nationalism.

Read or listen to this.

I look forward to Strom’s forthcoming “After 100 Years” piece that may be – perhaps by coincidence – an answer to my recent challenge to him to tell us how his organization is planning to reverse the disasters not only described by Oliver in 1969, but all that has occurred in the 50 years since then.

One point for right now.  Strom is fond of repeating that the National Youth Alliance was the predecessor of the National Alliance.  Historically yes, but ideologically no.  The NYA was founded, as Oliver alludes, with Yockey’s Imperium as its ideological foundation; the NA has completely ignored Yockey and Imperium in favor of typical Type I Nordicist dogma.  Now, I understand, and have often critiqued, Yockey’s errors about biological race.  Oliver had done the same yet that didn’t stop Oliver from praising Imperium for its strong points despite its known weaknesses.

Strom needs to realize that we need to step beyond Pierce’s Hitler-worshipping Nutzi Nordicism, his warmed over doctrinaire Germanic national socialism, and implement fresh approaches more in line with sanity and reality (and, no, “Cosmotheism” – essentially Pierce’s political views given a religions veneer – doesn’t fulfill that role).

Good to see our “White supremacist President” is accomplishing something.

MAGA! Pepe!  Kek!

The atrociously disgusting subhuman Durocher, the subject of a fascinating stylometric comparative study I performed, is back with his usual hyper-Nordicist “interpretations” of population genetics

Of course, that is at the site of a White-hating HBD Jew who supports Hispanic immigration into America.  In any case, one should always note the fundamental dishonesty of Durocher from the perspective of both commission and omission.  Commission is the lies he peddles in his pieces; omission is his refusal to discuss the reality and implications of East Asian/Siberian admixture in Northern Europe.  Omission can also be applied to the findings of my stylometric analysis (that is also apparent to anyone who has normal hearing when listening to podcasts).

My low opinion of Durocher is confirmed once again.

Frankennutzi

Building the ideal activist.

Imagine trying to build the ideal White racial nationalist out of the attributes of different individuals, akin to how the Frankenstein monster was built out of the body parts of different individuals. We can call this creation Frankennutzi.

We can mix the pan-Europeanism of Francis Parker Yockey, Oswald Mosley, Norman Lowell, and Ted Sallis; the futurism of Marinetti; the radicalism of William Pierce; the intelligence of Kevin Strom; the optics of Jared Taylor; the gravitas and seriousness of Revilo Oliver; the scientific understanding of Ted Sallis; the ethnological insights of Frank Salter; the prescience and judgment of Ted Sallis; the JQ attitude of MacDonald; and the sexual realism of Roger Devlin.

We can also consider the reverse.

Frankennutcase:

The humility of Richard Spencer; the tolerance of criticism, ethnonationalism, judgment, and traditionalism of Greg Johnson; the class, elegance, and sexual restraint of Donald Trump; the trustworthiness of Silver; the rampant masculinity of James O’Meara, the fiscal responsibility of David Duke; the maturity and optics of Anglin, TRS, and the cosplay crowd; the science of Greg Cochran and Richard Lynn; the Nordicism of Hans Gunther, William Pierce, and Richard McCulloch; the gravitas of Parrott and Heimbach; the racial science of Durocher; the seriousness of Roissy; the attitude toward Asians of Majority Rights; the intelligence of the current crop of Counter-Currents writers; the racial loyalty of John Derbyshire; the JQ attitude of Zman; and, well, you get the picture.

Delenda Est Ethnonationalism

Against the culture retarders. Or just plain retards?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True, and Johnson must know this.

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

I’ve criticized that individual before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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

Fair enough.

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough.

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

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

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

WE’VE BEEN IDEOLOGICALLY MARGINALIZED FOR YEARS…

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

I wish you all nothing but the best.

You are being naïve. They are the enemy.

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

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

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

Your Spencer-ite vision…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a template for the ethnonationalists. Watch closely!

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

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

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

Crazed gibbering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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