Saturday, September 30, 2017

Badmouthing Balkanoids

An obnoxious guest.

Some specimen who uses the surname “Deasy” writes on a certain Alt Right blog about visiting Bulgaria. Among the smug air of superiority he affects, one finds the following paragraph:

The faces of most of the people took getting used to. This was an important lesson in ethnonationalism: Southeastern Europe would not mix well with Sweden, England or France. It isn’t clear to me that expelling the Gypsies and other nonwhite populations from Bulgaria would drastically reduce poverty the way it would in the US or Western Europe. Bulgarians are a different kind of people, with a different kind of multicultural problem. Their birth rate is low, not unlike Germany or Korea. The Gypsy population meanwhile is booming.

Let’s consider this.

The faces of most of the people took getting used to.

Gee, that must have been terrible for you.  Tell you what, next time, decline to visit nations outside of your comfort zone and spare yourself this obvious trauma.

This was an important lesson in ethnonationalism:

If you are an ethnonationalist, and not an ethnic Bulgarian, probably you should have declined the invitation to visit there; it’s not “your people” after all.

Southeastern Europe would not mix well with Sweden, England or France.

Good thing one can walk around, say, Stockholm, London, or Paris and not see a single non-native face.  By the way, did any of your Bulgarian buddies profess to believe that their countrymen should live in Sweden, England or France?  And what do they think of British retirees buying up prime real estate in Bulgaria?

It isn’t clear to me that expelling the Gypsies and other nonwhite populations from Bulgaria would drastically reduce poverty the way it would in the US or Western Europe.

Translation: Bulgarians are dumb, inferior Swarthoids, themselves responsible for their own poverty.  Forty plus years of Stalinist communism had nothing to do with ruining the country and its people.  On the other hand, the poverty of, say, North Korea or rural China is 100% the result of communism.  After all, they have high, high, high test scores, and test scores from North Korea and China are as pure and untainted from government manipulation as freshly laid snow.

Bulgarians are a different kind of people, with a different kind of multicultural problem.

They’re terrible, terrible, I tell you, and they look all weird and all.

Their birth rate is low, not unlike Germany or Korea. The Gypsy population meanwhile is booming.

No problem.  Just get rid of the gypsies and repopulate the country with some nice high-IQ Jews and Chinamen.

The bottom-line: all people - including all those worthless Balkanoids! - have interests in their own genetic continuity, despite what condescending ethnonationalists like Deasy, or anyone else, thinks about them. 

Friday, September 29, 2017

As Much Comedy As Tragedy

Exposing the "spin" of the Alt Fail account.

Reading what the Alt Fail writes about the Hermansson infiltration, the following minimizing spin emerges: “Somehow – who knows how! – the fellow evaded Steadman’s extreme vetting.  Well, he attended a few meetings here and there, and he talked with a couple of people, but, you know, he was so inconsequential that no one remembers him, and, like, you know, no harm no foul.  Move on, move on, there’s nothing to see here.”  However, Hermansson tells a quite different story; his story, backed up as it is with voluminous (and very believable) details, and videos, seems to be closer to the truth than is the official (and sanitized) “movement” version.  Let’s read excerpts (emphasis added) from Hermansson’s account (I’m not linking to the execrable site from whence this came, you can find it yourself if you are so inclined):

At any normal dinner the prospect of forcibly removing all non-whites would be greeted with shock, but repatriation was a relatively uncontroversial topic around this table.

The rest of the night I talked with Brits, Swedes, Lithuanians and Americans. Some of these were super-stars within the movement, such as the never-before-photographed American alt-right figure, Greg Johnson.

Above the sound of clinking glasses men in rented tuxedos discussed eugenics, the coming “race war” and the supposedly ongoing genocide of white people. Smugly they congratulated themselves on managing to keep the dinner a secret, away from the prying eyes of anti-fascists. Little did they know, I was secretly filming the whole thing.
Becoming part of the London Forum, the UK’s most important far-right ‘think-tank’, was not as difficult as its reputation would suggest. I got my foot in the door by claiming to be a disillusioned Swede curious about the alt-right movement in the UK. I said I came to London inspired by Brexit and to get away from the “cultural Marxism” (a favourite phrase for conspiracy-minded, far-right activists) of Swedish universities.
Jez Turner, leader of the London Forum and one of the best known far-right activists on the UK scene, quickly invited me to meet up. Later, as paranoia about a mole increased, new members began to be thoroughly vetted and were required to provide letters of recommendation from trusted members.
Luckily for me, Scandinavian heritage and culture is fetishised by some within the UK far right, meaning interest in my Swedish background overcame most suspicion. At formal dinners, for instance, we sometimes opened by drinking from a ceremonial Viking horn, then raising it to the ceiling in a prayer to the mythological Norse god Odin.
One figure from the London Forum showed a particular interest in me as soon as I arrived. Despite being in his mid-fifties, Stead Steadman, a man of diminutive stature, was always dressed in a khaki shirt, khaki shorts and black walking boots; he looked like a cross between a boy scout and a member of the Hitler Youth. Little did I know at the time but this man was to be central to the whole project. Once close to him he opened doors to some of the most influential far-right figures in the world.
Once the trust was built Steadman began openly discussing the London Forum, people they planned to invite and who he liked and disliked within the movement. The information I gathered helped HOPE not hate map the London Forum network and the movements of key activists with precision. We learned of international conferences in Lithuania, Italy and Sweden being attended by British extremists.
It even got to the stage where I was asked to sit in on the vetting meetings for new London Forum members. Steadman, Turner and I would meet applicants who wanted to attend meetings and question them on their background, politics and commitment to the cause. Soon there was almost nothing happening in the London Forum that I and HOPE not hate did not know.
On the face of it the meetings are comical. A man in a long, white, curly baroque wig introduces two to three speakers per night covering topics such as gun laws, religion and the lack of freedom of speech, interspersed with poetry performed in Old Norse or Anglo-Saxon English.
Also active in London are tiny Odinist groups, often with a healthy smattering of nazi adherents. One sunny afternoon a group of us gathered in the Barbican Centre, an iconic brutalist housing complex replete with green areas, for a ‘moot’.
Steadman, in his typical khaki shorts, lifted a horn to the sky and began to pray to the Nordic gods before taking a gulp of mead. Then he placed a Viking horn to his lips and blew, but instead of a bellowing blast echoing out a stuttered honk spluttered from his lips.
Sometimes being a mole in the far right was dangerous, nerve racking or scary but at other times it was surreal, ridiculous and frankly comical.
Gregory Lauder-Frost
He doesn’t hold back and I can feel little drips of his saliva hitting my face as he speaks. He describes his colleague Brooks as a “common bloke” and how Daniel Friberg, founder of Arktos and a leading alt-right figure, is “not a big thinker”. Neither does Lauder-Frost like Richard Spencer. He tells me that Spencer, who has spoken at the TBG, is “naive” and “doesn’t understand Europe”.
By the time I leave the pub it is clear that an important split is emerging within the alt-right movement between some of the biggest players.
If you want to get to the very heart of the alt-right, all roads lead to America. While Europe has produced its fair share of prominent alt-right activists and big names from America regularly visit, it was clear that if I was to better understand the alt-right movement, the emerging split and generally to get closer to the big names, I would have to head across the Atlantic.
During Greg Johnson’s short visit to London I had got to know him well. In addition to the Bowden dinner and the conference the following day I had spent an afternoon at his hotel alongside Steadman. With Johnson being at the very heart of the emerging split in the alt-right, it was decided I should start the American part of my infiltration with him.
Johnson admired the London Forum so much that he replicated the concept in New York and Seattle with closed conferences of hard-core activists addressed by leading speakers from the far right. Recent events had been attended by big names, such as the internationally recognised antisemite and editor of The Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald, as well as the UK’s most well-known alt-right vlogger Colin Robertson (aka Millennial Woes).
One sunny Saturday in June, I joined the list of speakers at one of these forums in Seattle. I had intended to attend as a guest but one week before the event Johnson contacted me and asked me to give the opening address, removing any doubt in my mind that I was now accepted as part of this movement.
With delicious irony I opened the event by talking about the danger of anti-fascist infiltration.
After the Seattle Forum I head to New York. The split between Counter-Currents Publishing and AltRight Corporation (the result of the Arktos row mentioned earlier) had got especially nasty. 
Having spent a few days at the heart of Counter-Currents, I decided I had to go get the other side of the story.
“We had connections in the Trump administration, we were going to do things!”
I manage to convince Jason Reza Jorjani, co-founder of AltRight Corporation and editor of Arktos Media, to meet for a drink. I’m sitting across from him in an Irish pub in the shadow of the Empire State Building. The first thing he said was: “You’re not in touch with Greg [Johnson], are you?”
I assure him I’m not, knowing he would leave if he ever found out I had spent the last month getting to know people on the other side of the split, some of whom had recently accused Jorjani of being a CIA agent. “It’s like the SA and the SS,” Jorjani said. “A Night of the Long Knives is coming though.”
Jorjani talks for hours, displaying a remarkable arrogance coupled with a tiring self-pity. He’s a remarkably extreme character, much more so than his public persona. He sees the world one day being run by a single strong leader and predicts it won’t be long before bank notes are adorned with images of Hitler.
I ask about AltRight Corporation and its aims and objectives and he explains how it is a “government in waiting”. But then, out of nowhere, as though it was no big deal, he says: “We had connections in the Trump administration, we were going to do things!”
I lean forward, praying that the camera I have hidden in one of my shirt buttons captured what he had just said. I can hardly believe it. 

I thought the Keystone Cops stupidities of the real world meetings from the 1990s were bad, but whatever we Old Right types experienced back then is nothing compared to the tragicomedy of today.  Twenty years ago, maybe the utter incompetence of “meeting security” allowed an infiltrator into a public (never private!) meeting, where the infiltrator took notes, and/or wrote down license plate numbers outside after the meeting. Today, the infiltrators get all cozy with leaders and with actual decision making, and then infiltrators actually lecture genuine activists about “the dangers of leftist infiltrators.”  The infiltrator sits with leaders discussing how to "vet" genuine activists!  

And the other side of the Alt Right feud is not much better.  At AltRight.com, we read the following from a blogger there talking about Charlottesville:


We forced the President of the United States to weigh in on our side…

Yeah…if you didn’t notice, Alt Righter, he denounced you, and then signed a declaration, in writing, not only denouncing you but pledging to use all of the resources of the US government against you.

Delusional much?

Thursday, September 28, 2017

The Alt Fail

Navel-gazing ideological contortions.

One wonders how Andrew Joyce squares his recent series on homosexuality (*) with this expression of tolerance.

It would seem that AltRight.com’s current crusade against homosexuality is to a large extent informed by their feud with Counter-Currents.  But let’s give the other side equal attention.  Greg Johnson’s crusade for ethnonationalism, and crusade against pan-Europeanism, which came as an unpleasant surprise to me (who considered him to have been a pan-Europeanist), mysteriously coincided with the deterioration in his relations with Richard Spencer.  Memes in the service of personal animus, it seems.

Feuds between “movement” leaders is a “grand tradition” – one can remember Pierce-Carto and Pierce-Covington, but in those cases, the disagreements were personal/tactical.  The situation in which “movement leaders” actually take ideological stands on important issues merely to spite each other is totally unprecedented.  Yes, it seems that “youth culture” is indeed a key component of the Alt Right scene: narcissistic, feckless, and juvenile.

On a related note (emphasis added):

However, more important is understanding how a far-right movement operates, organizes and functions. This is invaluable for finding the most effective strategies for opposing and undermining them. I spent hundreds of hours with these people and came away with a real understanding of what drives their activism, the tactics they seek to use, and what they were planning to do. This allows Hope Not Hate to always be one step ahead, and to plan responses and opposition earlier than anyone else.

But don’t forget…the problem is not with the outrageously irresponsible, feckless, imprudent, failed leadership that allowed an effeminate homosexual anti-racist infiltrator to joyride through the “movement” for a year with a tragicomically flimsy cover story while legitimate activists were frozen out of meetings because of “extreme vetting.”  No, the problem is with anyone who states that there should be some accountability for this pathetic failure of common sense and good judgment – or so say our “betters” among “movement leadership.”  I guess when faced with the possibility of the panhandling donations running dry, hysteria ensues.  Too bad they weren’t more hysterical with basic operational security.

*Before someone accuses me of being “queer,” I’ll say I’m in general agreement with Joyce (excepting the Christian apologetics and the idea that Tacitus was a historian in the modern sense, instead of in the ancient sense – a story-telling propagandist), but more nuanced.  However, my view remains that if someone is homosexual but is pro-White, and if they acknowledge that homosexuality is a defect, and if they “stay in the closet,” then tolerance could be given.  In On Genetic Interests, Salter asserts that homosexuals should actually be very pro-extended family and pro-ethny, given they have a greater genetic interest investment in broader circles of relatedness, as most of them do not have children of their own.  If a homosexual actually behaved in that fashion (most do not, including some “anti-natalists” masquerading as WNs), then some degree of societal tolerance could be acceptable.  That doesn’t preclude personal disgust and the acknowledgment that overt homosexuality, celebrated by society, has the pernicious effects described by Joyce.


Tuesday, September 26, 2017

EGI and National Socialism, Part I

Several definitions and an analysis.

Defining national socialism (small “n” small “s”): A collectivist authoritarian system centered on a race-based palingenetic ultranationalism.

In other words: racial fascism.

A more modern definition: An authoritarian political system that utilizes collectivist organization to promote the ethnic genetic interests of the population, in the context of palingenetic ultranationalism.

Note that, contrary to those who misread Salter's work, a pursuit of genetic interests is wholly compatible with eugenics (which is traditionally important in national socialism), since a population's fitness can be enhanced by replacing maladaptive, or even merely less adaptive, alleles with those more optimal. They key in preserving genetic interests in a manner compatible with eugenics is to avoid unnecessarily large and rapid genetic changes; when directed (eugenic) change occurs it should be "just enough" to get achieve the desired goal (and no further)  Superfluous changes and, certainly, large-scale genetic replacement, must be avoided.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter is critical of historical National Socialism and Fascism as vehicles for genetic interests, and his criticisms have some validity.  In particular, Hitler was a reckless gambler with the genetic interests of the German people, endangering long-term stability in a quixotic quest to colonize Eastern Europe and set up a Germanic archaeo-futurist peasant society on the lands of Russia and Ukraine.

However, the historical actualization , in a given place in a given time, by flawed leadership, of particular political philosophies does not logically lead one to conclude that the underlying political philosophy itself is either good or bad for a specific purpose. What political philosophy extant since WWII has proven itself capable of preserving Western genetic interests?  None.  One can also point out that certain inter-war fascisms, such as Condreanu's Legionary movement, were not based in a foundation of hegemonic militarism, but were rather focused on internal renewal and thus did not characterize reckless gambling with national genetic interests.  So to my mind national socialism/fascism, correctly implemented, are still "in the running" as political systems capable of promoting EGI.

What about the argument that these “extreme” political philosophies are unrealistic, that “the average White person won’t accept them.”   Let’s be realistic, and not the crazed dreamers mocked by Roger Griffin in his works on fascism.  The most minimal objectives of racial nationalism – even stringent ethnonationalism – are today completely unrealistic and would be rejected by the large majority of Whites.  However, if – and that is a big if – these objectives could ever be realized, it would be during and after a period of extreme crisis, a collapse (slow or fast, partial or complete) of the System, a situation in which Whites driven to the wall by dispossession and the hostility of the now-decaying System, would be willing to listen to reason.  At this time, the sheeple will be considerably less picky about what forms of government they would, or would not, be willing to accept.  Also keep in mind Shakespeare’s “a rose by any other name” admonition – if the tenets of national socialism are actualized under some other name, fine, if it’s called Futurist Collectivism or Western Patriotism or Klassen’s Racial Socialism, or something else entirely, all well and good.  And if the lemmings are at such a condition they would not care if they rallied behind overtly named national socialism, all well and good as well.

This discussion will most likely continue in future posts.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

It’s Time to Defund the “Movement”

Problems and a solution.

There are those who perhaps do not understand why a blog called EGI Notes comments on the state of the “movement.”  I would have thought it obvious, but there are of course cognitively deficient individuals in racial activism, as there are in the general society.  More to the point, likely many of these people merely pretend not to understand in order to oppose such criticism, and in some cases the opposition to my criticism has its basis in rent-seeking behavior.  After all, if one lives off of supporter donations, one wouldn’t want those supporters to get any idea that the money is being wasted, would they? Is that one reason Pierce had an online unit dedicated to discrediting Covington?  And is that why some today become so hysterical when I and others point out objective facts about “movement” ineptitude?

For those who, for reasons of deficiency or mendacity, do not see the point of linking genetic interests with criticism of the “movement,” the following may be helpful:

1. The only credible approach for pursuing ethnic genetic interests (with “ethnic” here meaning “ethny” in its broadest sense) is through racial nationalism (at the racial level) and ethnic nationalism (at the ethnic level).

2. For a long time, such nationalism has been encompassed within a sociopolitical artifact that I call “the movement” (or “Der Movement”).

3. Therefore, it is quite clear that the state of such a “movement” has a powerful, direct influence on our ability to pursue our genetic interests.

4. Hence, any blog dedicated to “EGI” will as a matter of course have analysis of this “movement” as a major area of concern.

QED.

Having put that aside, let’s consider some recent events. Emphasis added:

The Head of Research suggested infiltrating London Forum, a convention that attracts right-wing extremists of varying piousness, from the ethnosocialists in British National Party to downright Holocaust deniers. Hermansson quickly connected with the founder of the forum, Stead Steadman, who as many others in the subculture nurtures a fetish for Sweden.
”He learned Swedish and Icelandic by studying the Edda. He worships Thor and Odin.”

One could write volumes about that, but two quick points will suffice. First, when reality converges on caricature, you know you have a real problem. Second, any reader of my work over the years could have predicted this embarrassing nonsense with 100% accuracy.  
His guide, Stead Steadman, the man behind London Forum, opened his big, black phone book with numbers and e-mail addresses to all of the Nazi leaders in the West. Many happily participated in interviews for the “thesis.” 

No doubt they “happily participated.”  

Hermansson met dark horse Greg Johnson who founded a Nazi-convention in Seattle. ”He offered me to speak at the opening about my thesis topic: how the left has infiltrated the right. I spoke in front of 75 armed white supremacists.”

Now, the heavy breathing about “75 armed white supremacists” is just moronic leftist hysteria, which can be more accurately written: “75 white nationalists who were either unarmed or, if in any way lightly armed, was merely for protection against leftist attacks.” 

That one phrase aside, is any of the above in any way inaccurate? Essentially, reading between the lines of accounts written by “movement” figures themselves, it would seem the above storyline tracks well.  We have a young Swedish homosexual, posing as a “newcomer” to the “movement,” with a transparently flimsy cover story that no one involved in the vetting bothered to seriously and comprehensively check out, being given year-long access to private “movement” meetings, getting to interview prominent “movement” figures, while – as these figures tell us in their own explanations – sincere, legitimate activists were blocked out of various events because of the vetting.  Obviously then, it stands to reason that the infiltrator was given special treatment. Hermansson states that his preferential treatment was because of his Nordic Swedish ancestry and the “movement’s” obsession with that background, as well as Steadman’s own particular interest in, and practice of, “Germanic paganism.”  Indeed, it seems that Hermansson was chosen to play the infiltrator role precisely because the leftist extremists knew that he would be attractive (in one way or another) to “movement” activists. This much is clear, and “movement” figures really do not deny any of this, they just attack those who point it out.  

Now, no doubt, the “movement” spin doctors will tell us that the Hermansson incident may well not have much of a long-term impact.  It’ll be in the news for a while, fade away, everyone will forget about it, and then it’s back to business as usual.  

Maybe so. But that’s not the point of course.  It’s not the incident itself that is the major problem, but what it tells us about the incredibly bad judgment and raw incompetence of “movement leadership” and how it tragicomically lifts the lid on underlying “movement” obsessions and fetishes. You see, it is precisely “business as usual” that is the problem here, and in the long run, the best thing for a real movement is if this incident does not go away, and we do not have business as usual (sadly, given people’s short attention spans, likely it will all be forgotten in a week or two).

Business as usual will one day lead to a situation in which there is an extremely serious “movement” private meeting, where crucially important high strategy is being discussed, and fundamentally important planning is being conducted, and sitting at that meeting, secretly recording everything, will be some anti-racist infiltrator, let in and given the keys to the kingdom because of some stupid reason (e.g., “he’s Swedish”)..

And now we move on to recent events involving AltRight.com.

Surprise!  EGI Notes right once again: Spencer on Jorjani.  The two in happier days.

OK, all true I guess, but a little late, no?  I can’t help think back when I was criticizing the involvement of Jorjani in the Alt Right, and when the “white trash” (Jorjani’s words) of the AltRight.com commentariat were rightfully skeptical, the Alt Right crew were all on board the Jorjani train. To be fair to AltRight.com, they weren’t the only Alt Righters taken in by Jorjani. Those other individuals know who they are – as do I.  It was obvious from the beginning that Jorjani was everything the Alt Right is realizing now.  Even Silver had the good sense to question the Alt Right's judgment on this, many months ago. So, from my third party observation deck, I shake my head sadly, and have my understanding of the poor judgment of “movement leadership” confirmed once again.

What’s the solution?

Out in the real world, when people fail miserably, when they make horrendous mistakes, when they make their businesses or institutions “crash and burn,” they typically resign or are fired. “Movement” leaders, being without shame, will not resign, so they must be fired. How are they to be fired? Look at it from the economic angle, supply and demand, costs and benefits, payment and service.  Are supporters getting their money’s worth from their donations?  If not, then why give?  Defund the “movement” as it currently exists, and stop supporting failed leadership.

Cut them off financially.  Don’t give them a penny. No donations.  No book purchases. No nothing.  Do not support them as professional activists any longer.  After all, most of these individuals complain all the time about the sacrifices they make, so we can assume they would certainly prefer the experience of actually having to earn a living through regular work. These individuals could, if they so wished, still be part-time unpaid activists, but they would no longer be financially supported allowing them to fulfill the leadership roles they have so clearly failed in.

Long time readers of this blog may point out that I have previously written about the need to support full time activists and that a step toward victory would be when such activists could live a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. I stand by that and there is no inconsistency, because it is expected that in exchange for that support, the leadership will be effective and accountable, and neither of those two characteristics define current leadership. Letting Hermansson joyride through the “movement” for a year, or enabling Jorjani’s rambling, are certainly not examples of effectiveness, and no one is being held accountable for any of it.  And those are just two examples from an endless litany of “movement” woe. Further, much of the largesse being bestowed on the “movement” isn’t even going to racial nationalists.  For example:

The Connecticut-based VDare Foundation is led by Peter Brimelow, founder and editor of an anti-immigration website. Brimelow, who spoke at the National Policy Institute’s conference last month, founded his nonprofit in 1999 and raised nearly $4.8 million between 2007 and 2015.
Brimelow has denied that his website is white nationalist but acknowledged it publishes works by writers who fit that description “in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites.”
Brimelow received $378,418 in compensation from his nonprofit in 2007, accounting for nearly three-quarters of its total expenses that year. Brimelow says his salary that year was $170,000 and the rest reimbursed him for travel, office supplies and other expenses.
From 2010 through 2015, VDare Foundation didn’t report any compensation directly paid to Brimelow. But, starting in 2010, the nonprofit began making annual payments of up to $368,500 to Brimelow’s Happy Penguins LLC for “leased employees.” Brimelow disclosed his ownership of that company on tax returns.

All that money for VDARE, it’s milquetoast articles, Sailer writing about real estate and golf courses, “cheesecake” photos of women accompanying stories, and last but not least Derbyshire. Brimelow: a $170,000 salary (year 2007) for being the editor of that website; that is is pretty good “work” if you can find it.  And can we be told who are the "leased employees" who are being paid out of the “up to $368,500” (2010-present)? That is actually indicative of another issue: financial accountability.  Why don’t all these activists living off donations tell supporters how the money is spent?  How much goes for salary? How much for operating expenses, and what are those expenses?  If we are talking about hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars shouldn’t those who donate know how it is being spent?

Not to put too fine of  a point on it, but some "activists" seem to live a lot better than most of the supporters they implore donations from: trendy blue state lifestyles, frequent international travel, vacations, pets (how much donation money goes for dog food, for example?), etc.

That’s step one, at least: get financial accountability.  Step two is actual accountability of performance, and since “movement leadership” has so clearly failed in that respect, they should be feel it in the pocketbook.

What about those activists who come from wealthy families, and who do not require handouts?  Won't my suggestions give them an unfair advantage in the “Darwinian competition” between activists?  Perhaps, but life isn’t fair, and we must do the best we can. If such individuals exist, and if they fail as leaders, they can be dealt with by withdrawing other forms of input and support.  A stereotype (and don’t we believe that all stereotypes have a basis in truth?) of inherited wealth is that such individuals have a sense of entitlement, a habit of immediate gratification, a low threshold for frustration, and a lack of long term resiliency.  If they observe that their followers are getting frustrated with leadership failure, if they see they are being constantly criticized or increasingly ignored, then they may take their private money and find a new toy to play with; they may give up on activism even if they would still have the financial means to continue.  So, in all cases, shutting off the money spigot isn’t enough; if you have had enough with failure, then take your business – ideological and social as well as financial – elsewhere.

Assuming we stop wasting donations, what should be done with the money instead?  A good short term solution is to fund specific projects instead of just showering individuals with money; at least one website to do so has been established, and that is a good start, assuming that the projects have clearly defined goals and the recipients of the donations are held accountable (that word again) to the donors for successfully completing the project. That would be equivalent to a grant award.  More long term solutions would include establishing competent think tanks and other organizations, professionally run, with – you guessed it – performance and financial accountability, and these groups, openly racial nationalist, can support competent full time racial activists at the lifestyle level alluded to above.  

But the way things are going now, any of my readers who are donating to the “movement” are essentially performing the equivalent of flushing money down the toilet. You are feeding a metastatic cancer. We need chemotherapy here.  Analogous to an “angiogenesis inhibitor” cutting off a tumor’s blood supply, we need to cut off the money supply to the various “movement” cancer cells proliferating around us.

I’m not optimistic that I will be able to get most activists from pouring good money after bad. But I can certainly try.  Any progress, even incremental, in preventing the enabling of chronic failure, would be helpful  Even though many precincts of the “movement” are well-funded, a big enough financial hit may well slow them down enough to open the field for other people, better people, to establish themselves.  And once a New Movement gets established, then you will have a real choice as to who you can support.

The power – including the power of the pocketbook – is in your hands (and wallets).  And if you need a reminder as to why this is important, let's consider some of the things that have occurred in 2017 alone (forgetting for a moment the last 50-60 years of utter "movement" failure):

1. The Spencer-Friberg-Johnson feud
2. The Charlottesville fiasco and subsequent "deplatforming"
3. The humiliation of the Alt Right by Trump's constant betrayals
4. The Alt Lite turning against the Alt Right after the latter tried to bring the former into a "big tent" against all reason and common sense
5. A prominent "movement" activist promoting the idea that Europeans should "ethnically cleanse" each other after national disagreements
6. The Jorjani fiasco on the Alt Right
7. Last but not least the Hermansson infiltration came to our (and world) attention

Is that worth your continued support?

Friday, September 22, 2017

A Response To Greg Johnson

Behold the "movement."

Greg Johnson writes at Counter-Currents:

Ted,
This will be your last comment here. You’ve got your own blog for your embittered rants. You no longer have anything constructive to contribute.
Greg Johnson

Greg, believe it or not, I always thought you were a good guy and a useful intellectual contributor (despite our disagreements).  Apparently though, you are a bit too thin-skinned, a trait that won’t serve you going forward.  An inability to accept criticism, however harsh, from your own side, is the path to personal stagnation. To answer your latest criticism (which I accept with no personal rancor):

I may well be a “crazy, bitter, low information moralizer,” but I’m also not the one responsible for the potential doxing of dozens of activists, I’m not the one who let an infiltrator waltz through “extreme vetting” because of ethnic fetishism and affirmative action, I’m not the one who took The Great Persiante Shah Jorjani seriously, I’m not the one who let “Smoky Mountain SS” walk off with secret National Alliance files to be handed off to “watchdog groups,” I’m not the one who invites Hart, Weissberg, and Derbyshire to speak at conferences, I’m not the one who lived on a mountaintop engaging in serial monogamy while living off the donations of members who I secretly (and not so secretly) despised, I’m not the one who cheerfully interviews activists who I publicly accused of being untrustworthy and mentally unstable only a few years prior, I’m not the one who changes fundamental aspects of my worldview essentially to spite other activists with whom I’m engaged in a public feud, I’m not the one who shamelessly panhandles for money online using pictures of my children (who are too young to understand how they are being used), I’m not the one who throws activists who I recently posed with “under the bus” because they did something that may offend some of my Jewish supporters,  I’m not the one who chuckles with Jewish correspondents about how a prominent racialist activist “may get shot,” I’m not the one who considers certain “movement” figures to be “rock stars” that are immune from criticism – while at the same time criticizing the “personality cults” of Jewish intellectual movements, I’m not the one who championed “mainstreaming” for years and stated that Marine Le Pen’s election was the last chance for a peaceful resolution of Europe’s racial crisis while having no comments to make about her humiliating electoral defeat, I’m not the one who publicly airs the most intimate of “dirty laundry” in “movement” feuds (although I do know plenty of such laundry, some of which I’ve kept to myself for two decades), I’m not the one who writes that it is good to sometimes “punch right” but who then myself exhibits a “glass jaw” when a few legitimate memetic punches are thrown in my direction, I’m not the one who publicly questions why possession of child porn should be illegal, I’m not the one who writes under two different names and then does podcasts under each name thinking that no one will notice that the voice is exactly the same (granted, most “movement” activists are so clueless and unaware that I’m sure they did not notice), I’m not the one who wrote that “Trump is the last hope for White America” and I’m not the one who makes the “man on white horse” error over and over and over again, I’m not the one who made a cartoon frog and “Kek” the symbols of racial activism, I’m not the one who gambled away supporter contributions, I'm not the one who organized Charlottesville or threw up my right arm at Hailgate, and I’m not the one responsible for decades of racial nationalist failure and incompetence.  That’s the purview, it seems, of sane, cheerful, high-information activists.  

That’s not an “embittered rant.” It is in fact objective truth, and if there is one single point listed in the above paragraph that is factually incorrect, then please point it out. But there are none. Not a single one. What we have here is simply personal anger and hurt feelings up against verifiable, objective facts. Is this perhaps a clue as to why incidents like a year-long infiltration by a thinly disguised informant repeatedly take place?

Good luck with your blog.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

A Question of Accountability

Another in an endless series of failures and humiliations.

I am sure that by now readers know about the latest unmitigated “movement” disaster, the all-too-predicable infiltration and “exposure” of the Alt Right by a heroic two-fisted Swede ("Oh, look at what a tough guy I am, I really wanted to punch those Nutzis in the face, but I didn’t want to damage my manicure on their coke-bottom spectacles”).



In May of this year, I went to London to speak at the London Forum and the first annual Jonathan Bowden dinner. Stead Steadman introduced me to a young Swedish man going by the name Erik Hellberg. I was told that Erik was, like so many others, a newcomer to the movement who was going to write a master’s thesis on doxing, deplatforming, and harassment directed at White Nationalists.

The day after the London Forum, Stead and I met with Erik in a quiet hotel bar for a brief interview. I talked about my own experiences of harassment in San Francisco. We also talked a bit about White Nationalism in general, as well as other people he might interview. I suggested he talk to Charles Krafft, who had much more interesting stories than mine.
Erik seemed a nice enough fellow. A bit socially awkward, a bit inarticulate, a bit effeminate, but not so outside the norm for academic types that I felt suspicious. And he came with the recommendation of Stead Steadman.
Later Erik told me he was going to the US. I told him that friends of mine were holding a Northwest Forum meeting Seattle in June, and it would be an opportunity to interview Charles. I figured that if he had passed vetting for the London Forum and the Bowden Dinner, he would be fine for the Northwest Forum as well. (Stead actually has a reputation for being too strict in his vetting procedures, which made it impossible for some of Millennial Woes’ fans to see him speak at the May Forum.) 

I initially commented on that at Counter-Currents thus:

First, I am sorry that Greg and others had this bad experience with the low-rent piece of dishonest trash Hermansson.

Second, I've been involved with the "movement" since the mid-90s, and I must say that this sort of thing happens with distressing regularity.  WNs too nice? Too trusting?  Yes, but also horrifically bad security.  There needs to be a careful evaluation of this case.  How did Hermansson pass the "extreme vetting?" What went wrong?  There also needs to be accountability.  Hermansson was recommended by "Stead Steadman" (whoever that is).  Very well.  Why?  What credentials did Hermansson have that impressed Steadman to his sincerity? Without accountability and without responsibility, nothing will ever change.
And can I suggest that "newcomers to the movement" not be invited to private events?  Unfair to those who are sincere?  Yes, but too bad.  Perhaps a higher level of personal interaction needs to be earned.

And how did this nice Swedish fellow get through Steadman’s “extreme vetting” and all the other “extreme vetting” that would likely have had a Codreanu or an Evola booted out with a swift kick in the rear?  Well, I had my suspicions, but kept it to myself until the other shoe dropped (emphasis added):

Mr. Hermansson, who was sent undercover by the British anti-racist watchdog group Hope Not Hate, spent months insinuating himself into the alt-right, using his Swedish nationality (many neo-Nazis are obsessed with Sweden because of its “Nordic” heritage) as a way in.

Hermansson also notes in the video how Steadman's interest with "Germanic paganism" (who would have ever guessed?) made Steadman and friends vulnerable to the attentions of a Scandinavian Nordic

Hoist on the petard of its own Nordicism, ethnic affirmative action, and ethnic fetishism – Der Movement marches on.  Can I say: I told you so?  Yes, indeed, as any reader of EGI Notes know well.  Please note how the enemy knows Der Movement well also: who they choose as an infiltrator, knowing that a Nordic Scandinavian will be given a free pass and handed the keys to the kingdom.  

We have a “movement” that ridiculed and killed a Joe Tommasi but that welcomes an infiltrating scumbag like Hermansson with open arms – and then any have the nerve to assert that there is no such thing as “affirmative action” in Der Movement?  Have you ever seen such a bunch of dishonest individuals with zero self-awareness?  The anti-racists know better, and use that knowledge against the “movement” and its obsessions, as we see in this case.

More from Johnson:

I also suggested that Erik speak briefly at the Northwest Forum about his research project, to see if others in attendance would be interested in an interview.

It turns out that Erik Hellberg is really named Patrik Hermansson, and he was a spy for the antifa group Hope Not Hate. Not only was he recording interviews with people, he was also wearing a hidden camera and taking videos, and the results of his year-long investigations are going to be released as a documentary video.
My initial reaction to this news was a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I imagine that everyone Erik spoke to felt the same way. He certainly made the rounds, attending the Extremists Club in London, the London Forum, the Northwest Forum, and even Unite the Right in Charlottesville, insinuating his way into the good graces of Jez Turner and Stead Steadman, and interviewing not only me but also Millennial Woes, Tom Sunic, Gregory Lauder-Frost, Jason Jorjani, and Daniel Friberg, as well as chatting up countless people at various events.
It is terrible to feel that one’s trust has been violated by a rat, and it is even worse to feel that you lent your credibility to such a person, so he could violate even more people’s trust. In particular, I must apologize to the 30-odd people at the Northwest Forum who were exposed to this snitch because of me…I also have to laugh at the pretense that Hermansson was risking his life. The only person who ever harmed him was a fellow Leftist in Charlottesville. Frankly, one of the chief lessons of this fiasco is that White Nationalists are far too nice. One always regrets being too kind…I wanted to see how long it would take before a photo got out, and I wanted to see who would finally put it out there: the enemy or one of the many loathsome people in our movement. I was betting it would be movement scum, and I was right. An old photo of me was dug up and circulated in January, and other pictures were surreptitiously taken at the last AmRen conference. So Hope Not Hate is a distant third.

In his post, Greg talks about Jorjani.  Let’s take a look in that direction to see what it tells us about the “movement.” Paradoxically (or perhaps not, if one views the fundamental basis of the “movement” as hostility to Southern and Eastern [in that order] Europeans), for some “leaders” Nordicism is mixed with Judeophilia or Oriental worship or an Aryan fetishism that imagines racial comrades in Iran and India.  As an example of the latter was the bizarre Alt Right infatuation with Jorjani.  Apparently Jorjani, subject to ethnoracial insults only a fraction of that experience by the typical “movement Euro-swarthoid” has broken with the Alt Right.  Read (emphasis added):

I hereby resign, effective immediately, from the Alt-Right Corporation that I co-founded and from my position as the Editor-in-Chief of Arktos Media. Of course, I remain a shareholder in both companies and, upon my return home to New York, I will enter into what I hope will be a brief buyout negotiation with my partners Richard Spencer and Daniel Friberg so that the shares I hold may remain within the movement’s leadership. (I am currently in San Francisco, for a private meeting concerning research and development of exotic technology that may someday serve the Iranian Air Force.) It should be added that, from now on, former associates within the Alt-Right movement of Europe and North America ought to consider any interactions with me as diplomatic relations with a representative of the coming post-Islamic political order of Iran and the wider Persianate world. This point cannot be overemphasized. Over the next few years, we will be watching with a hawk’s eye to identify the true friends and enemies of our archeo-futurist Iran.

And read (emphasis added):

What is worse is that in the long months of the Spring of 2017, as I waited for funding to materialize, I watched the corporation that was my brainchild turn into a magnet for white trash…The comments sections of our website devolved into a cesspool filled by the most despicable pond scum, former 4-chaners who would routinely pile on in trolling attacks against me every time I published something with a bit of intellectual content. “Iranians is brown poo-poo people” kind of sums it up. I decided to stop contributing until the investment came in and I could really clean things up…In May, at a meeting in London, I was assured by the investors that the obstacles had at last been cleared and I could expect our collaboration to begin in June. When I reported this to Richard at a New York lunch at the end of the same month, he thoughtlessly and angrily dismissed a plan that the investors had shared with me for creating an economic and security corridor from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and across to the Caucasus. This “Neo-Scythian” Ukraine-based approach to the long-term revitalization and liberation of Europe – linked to a future, post-Islamic Greater Iran via the Caucasus – offended the Russophilia that has been fostered by his wife.

Comment on that is superfluous, other than to note, for the edification of third party observers, that this is the fellow elevated by the Alt Right to a position high in their councils, and who was turned on by the “movement” base only because of his obsessive harping about the greater glories of “archeo-futurist Iran.”  The Alt Right is the lowest sewer of the “movement,” it is a curse on racial nationalism, and anyone who thought it a good idea to give this Jorjani any sort of “movement” forum has, in my opinion, advertised their abysmal lack of good judgement for all to see.

I could say: I told you so.  So I will: I told you so. Check the “Jorjani” archives at this blog for proof of that.

Accountability?  None.  “Movement” leadership admitting gross negligence? Don’t make me laugh. Change?  Don’t expect it. 

Ultimately, it is the rank-and-file of the “movement” who are responsible for this. They can change the “movement,” alter its culture and eschew its obsessions, end its affirmative action program, and force accountability for leadership.  All they need to do is “vote with their feet” (or with their computers, for the digitally inclined, which is the vast majority these days). Gravitate to different leadership, visit different blogs and websites, and donate in other directions.  Will they do so?  For the most part no, for they share these same obsessions, fetishes, and fossilized dogmas as the leadership they so slavishly follow…right off the cliff.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Spencer Video: 9/20/17

Good video.


I agree, petty nationalist ethnonationalism is a zero sum game, and ethnonationalists really do not understand how their vaunted “sovereignty” is guaranteed by other, larger powers.  In a future ethnonationalist Europe, who will guarantee the sovereignty of, say, Estonia?  Yes, I guess Estonia could develop their own little nuclear arsenal (*), but, really, the existence of an ethnonationalist Estonia would be guaranteed by whatever security arrangements exist among European states, which means they would give up some sovereignty for a collective defense arrangement.

Also, Spencer’s overall take on foreign affairs is simply good common sense.  It’s a shame Spencer is wasting himself with the Pepian Alt Right jackasses.

*Actually a good idea.  I’m a pro-proliferationist.  More nuclear weapons – at least in the hands of sane states – can help keep the peace.  And each nation that has such weapons should be upgrading, not downsizing.  The American trend of fewer such weapons, and smaller yields (no, against extreme hardened targets or large “soft” targets, “improved accuracy” cannot compensate for popgun sized yields), is madness.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Der Movement in Der News, 9/19/17

Dumb and useless Right.


That folks are willing throw away money on an execrable piece of filth like Derbyshire tells you all you need to know about why Whites are in steep decline.  If you are going to donate, give to Counter-Currents, for example. It’s clear I disagree with them strongly on some issues, but at least it is a pro-White, intellectually sound site.  Derbyshire is the opposite of that.

Yeah, Trump “resisted” – the far-left, White-hating, cuck buffoon signed it, didn’t he? Yegads, the delusional Trump worship on the Right knows no bounds.  Trump can make a speech announcing that there are too many Whites in America and that he’s sending out death squads to cull the White herd, and the fanboys will mumble about “4-D chess” and how Trump is nobly “resisting” pressure, since after all, he’s only going to kill most White Americans, not all of them.  The lickspittle Trumpism from the Right does nothing but continue to discredit our cause. 

Truth be told, many on the Right are more concerned with defending their majestically obese hero Trump than with defending their own ethnic genetic interests.  Truth be told, if Obama had signed this resolution, the usual suspects would be screaming “White genocide.”  Truth be told, continued Trump worship goes beyond bad judgment and now delves into the realm of some sort of sick masochistic homoerotic obsession.

What’s the Alt Right going to do?  The fundamental basis of its entire ideology is under attack.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Sunday, September 17, 2017

A Lack of Self Awareness

Something is missing.

This is a good podcast as far as it goes, particularly with respect to the DACA fiasco.

But something is missing.  I did not hear the comment: “We here were naïve about Trump, we exhibited poor judgment, we were wrong and others who long ago identified the truth about Trump were right.”

But, no, they cannot do that.  But let me ask one question to the readers here. Some of the readers of EGI Notes are, I assume, also readers of Amren (and other standard “movement” sites).  So, the question to you, dear readers, is this: Which site, months before the election, correctly identified Trump as an unworthy buffoon and beta race cuck; and which enthusiastically pro-Trump site told you that Trump was “the last hope for White America?”

You know the answer to that, don’t you?  You also know that you – and by “you” I mean the “movement” rank-and-file – will do nothing about it, and will continue to support a leadership that has let you down time and time again.

Truth be told, many years ago, the Legion Europa project attempted to reason with the “movement.”  Years ago, when I was interviewed by Robert Griffin for his book, I outlined the types of activities that racial activists can do – centered around those that look to the Legionary movement for inspiration and/or those also centered around community activism – to actually make a difference.  What happened?  The Legion Europa project was either ignored or attacked; the advice in Griffin’s book went for nothing, as if I was speaking to the wind. The “movement” did not like the message, no, actually, the “movement” did not like the messenger, so it was all for nothing.

And old saying: “Every nation gets the leadership it deserves”  The same applies to racial activists – all of you get the leadership you deserve.  And now, the American “movement” sits around and scratches its collective (empty) head and wonders how they got fooled once again by a false “man on white horse” hero.

And so, the “movement” talks about “pattern recognition” – without recognizing the patterns inherent in its own failures.

Can you recognize any patterns?  Good luck with that.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Fisking Ethnonationalism

Against ethnonationalism.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

As I write in my essay “Grandiose Nationalism“:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

See above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

And if they misbehave, they will be ethnically cleansed.

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

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

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

Like the French and British did on their own?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a phrase: I veto your dream.