Some new thoughts on some of my old ideas.
Given the recent ethnonationalist broadsides at Counter-Currents, it is time to revisit and reanalyze my essay on pan-European preservationism, which is of relevance to the issues brought up in the aforementioned Counter-Currents piece. I’ll examine parts of this essay, sometimes putting sentences from different sections together so as to address particular issues in their entirety. Of course, the original essay is at the link.
As a long-time “pan-Europeanist,” I have read a number of critiques of pan-Europeanism focused on that ideology’s alleged opposition to the preservation of differences that exist between various European peoples. Further, it is said that pan-Europeanism believes that all whites are identical and interchangeable; therefore, the pan-European worldview has been viewed as fundamentally incompatible with intra-European ethnoracial activism. These critics do not distinguish between a pan-Europeanism that does value, and wishes to preserve, intra-European differences and a more panmictic version of pan-Europeanism that does not… One meme asserts that pan-Europeanism means that all whites are “fungible/interchangeable.” I do not believe that most responsible pan-Europeanists hold that view. I certainly do not. I believe in a mixture of racial conservationism—making certain that extant ethnoracial stocks are preserved in significant numbers in specific territorial states—and racial palingenesis—which supports eugenics as well as the acceptance of new, stabilized Euro-breeds that may occur in the European Diaspora and that can constitute new ethnies and expand the range of European-specific genetic and phenotypic biological diversity.
When the two ideas are in conflict, racial conservatism trumps racial palingenesis, since the original stocks, once lost, can never be recovered. Hybridization, if it occurs in Diaspora regions, should be carefully monitored so as to create productive new stabilized strains while, at the same time, not resulting in the elimination of parental stocks. This pan-Europeanism, which values and wishes to preserve intra-European differences, can be contrasted to other viewpoints.
One can occasionally encounter a more panmictic vision of pan-Europeanism. For example, in his otherwise useful and interesting preface to Norman Lowell’s important book Imperium Europa, Constantin von Hoffmeister writes:
The mixing of different European nationalities should therefore be encouraged. We must support sexual unions between Russian women and German men, Spanish men and Swedish women. Only by radically breaking down the artificial barriers dividing Europe can we create the new breed of man…
Von Hoffmeister’s overall pan-European vision is positive, I agree with much of it, and he should be commended for his support of Norman Lowell, who is a real fighter for our race and our civilization. However, I do not agree with the specific viewpoint quoted here, which does not represent the totality of pan-Europeanist thought. I believe that we should not be in the business of encouraging mating between Russians, Germans, Swedes, Spaniards, or any other groups within Europe. One could imagine Russian, German, Swedish, and Spanish nationalists—people who may otherwise agree to the basic premises of pan-Europeanism—objecting quite strongly to the idea of a general panmixia involving their respective peoples.
We already have here in America an experiment in intra-European cross-breeding, which may produce productive and useful stabilized blends—all at relatively minimal costs to ethnic genetic interests due to the relative genetic closeness of Europeans. However, responsible stewardship of our ethnoracial-genetic patrimony requires that we at least maintain the original ethnic stocks in their European homelands. If these stocks are completely hybridized out of existence, the loss would be permanent and irreversible. I do not believe that the genetic diversity that currently characterizes the extant European ethnies should be lost; while additional stocks and additional diversity may be created in the Diaspora through cross-ethnic mating and breed stabilization, the original genetic strains of Europe need to be preserved.
Indeed, it is wrong to completely erase any legitimate differences between peoples, including groups that are relatively highly related: Norwegians and Swedes are not interchangeable, Englishmen and Danes are not interchangeable, Germans and the Dutch are not interchangeable, Italians and Greeks are not interchangeable, Spaniards and Portuguese are not interchangeable, and Russians and Poles are not interchangeable. And while the differences between the major subraces are certainly greater than that between groups within each subrace, one cannot draw a line within Europe and say that one group of differences are completely inconsequential, and another group of differences are absolutely essential. At the intra-continental level, it is a difference of degree. This can be contrasted to the wider gulf that exists between continental groups, differences that are magnified, in a synergistic fashion, by the overlay of the great civilizational divides.
Given recent controversies about Hoffmeister, that is all relevant. I essentially still agree with what I wrote there, but I do want to defend Hoffmeister against attacks coming from self-interested Asiatics and their White extended phenotypes. Yes, I have some areas of disagreement with Hoffmeister, but broadly speaking, we are on the same page – pan-European Futurists. So, from my perspective, sometimes he may go too far, use overly bombastic language, and make some poor interpretations of history and where we should be going, but he is still “one of us.” That can be contrasted to Asian imperialists who covet the Russian Far East and who want to colonize the West and who think that screaming about “the Jews” will give them the cover to achieve their objectives. As if being subjugated by Asians is going to be better than being subjugated by Jews. How about we be subjugated by no one and follow our own destiny, thank you very much.
Now, do I still hold out hope of cooperation between different types of racial nationalists, as suggested as follows?
I would argue that—at least theoretically—a person can be, at the same time, both pan-Europeanist and Nordicist, or pan-Europeanism and pan-Slavist, pan-Germanist, ethnic nationalist, etc., so long as the all the latter “ists” in question are of a “defensive” nature, and that the pan-Europeanism respects and values narrower particularisms. Of course, even if this is true, it is natural to expect that certain levels of ethnic interests would be more important to an activist than others (e.g., a Russian may be a Russian nationalist first, a pan-Slavist second, and a pan-Europeanist third)… An optimal outcome would be if pan-Europeanists, Nordicists, pan-Slavists, pan-Germanists, ethnic nationalists, and all the other “ists” and “isms” within the white activist framework can work together in a productive fashion to achieve common objectives, even if fundamental points of important disagreement remain. If the majority of such people share a common goal of European, Western survival—albeit with different emphases, strategies, and tactics—then this could be a starting point to consider the possibilities. Given the immensity of the task before us, it would be helpful to at least be “in the same book,” if not “on the same page.”… Indeed, if we reach the point in which Basque separatists can work with Spanish nationalists, Irish Republican nationalists with Ulster Protestant Unionists, Padanian separatists with Ausonian nationalists, Flemish separatists with Wallonian nationalists, Hungarian nationalists with their Romanian counterparts, pan-Slavists with pan-Germanists, and American pan-Europeanists with American Nordicists—all in the cause of white, Western survival—this will be a development which will give the enemies of white, Western survival cause for grave concern…This essay is an open call for a paradigm shift in the relations of the varied types of (Western) ethnoracial nationalism to each other, a shift in the direction of increased cooperation. For approximately the last ten years there has been (sometimes acrimonious and mostly online) debate between proponents of these various “ists” and “isms” with no furthering of those objectives we all hold in common. Careful consideration of the possibilities for cooperation in areas of overlap should occur, and hopefully, these possibilities will become manifest in real-world collegial, productive endeavors. We can and should be able to move forward together to achieve our common objectives. The status quo has not been productive.
The answer is no.
While such cooperation is still desirable, I have long since given up any hope that it is plausible, at least in the current activist climate. My original essay can be reasonably seen as a conciliatory overture to those other “isms” of racial nationalism; unfortunately, unless I missed something, this conciliatory attitude has never been reciprocated. Hence, my pessimism as to whether such cooperation is truly possible. Ethnonationalists have an almost hysterical aversion to the idea of any sort of integration or serious cooperation between European nations. This may be at one level a somewhat understandable, albeit pathologically inflamed, reaction to the excesses of the EU. However, I also suspect it has origins in feelings of disdain for other Europeans, an exaggerated sense of worth inherent in identifying with a particular ethnic group, an inability to get over historical grudges from long ago that are no longer relevant in today’s world (and folks call me “bitter”), or some other sort of baggage. Nordicists definitely have racial contempt and disdain for non-Nordic Europeans, so there’s not much probability of cooperation and compromise from that direction. Both ethnonationalists and Nordicists are firmly in the “narcissism of small differences” camp. Pan-Germanists are similar; if you’re not Germanic, obviously you are no damn good. Pan-Slavists also hold grievances about past history (cooperation among Europeans will cause those German tanks to start rolling in again, no doubt), and my experiences in dealing with some Eastern Europeans suggests they have some sort of inferiority complex toward Western Europe. I cannot forget the hysterical enthusiasm of some Eastern Europeans “normies” for membership in the EU, despite my earnest and repeated warnings to them about it. The general attitude was “now we’ll be taken seriously, now we’ll be considered as European by the West.” Why should the more healthy Eastern Europeans care what the more degenerate Western Europeans think about them? In some Eastern European people – the “normies” – this sense of anxiety manifests itself in a desire to “become Western European,” but for the more nationalist-minded, the opposite occurs, and a hardening of anti-Western European feeling occurs, resulting in extreme pan-Slavist attitudes. HBD/race realists are not racial or ethnic nationalists at all, but Judeophiles and Yellow Supremacists, so nothing can be expected from that quarter. And the new sickness of Silk Road White nationalism is simply whitewashed Asian supremacism and Asian imperialism, so hostility to pan-Europeanism from them is to be expected.
I may be accused of a Frankfurt School-like pathologization of ideological opponents…whatever. What I have just written is what I believe to be some of the underlying issues. If these folks were being rational, then they wouldn’t start screeching about my wanting to insert “one million Russians into Ireland” and other such stupidity. It I see hysteria, I call it hysteria. Stop acting irrationally if you don’t want to be called irrational.
I am talking here about pan-Europeanism. It strikes me that one problem in these debates is a lack of agreement on definitions; if we cannot understand what the other side means by their arguments, then we are just talking past each other. To my mind pan-Europeanism is not “a new Roman Empire” or some sort of impossible panmixia, but rather:
Perhaps pan-Europeanism is best viewed as a flexible meme and not as a rigid set of specific polices; it generally promotes the idea of mutual respect among the varied European peoples, and therefore attempts to search for solutions that will allow for the biological and cultural preservation of all Europeans worldwide. Pan-Europeanism asserts that all persons of European descent should have a “seat at the table” when decisions are made about the fate of the West and its peoples. Pan-Europeanism, properly considered, can be consistent and compatible with concerns about narrower ingroups: Nordicism, pan-Slavism, pan-Germanism, or whatever ethnic or subracial nationalism one wishes to consider. What pan-Europeanism introduces to these other ideologies is an additional concern for the broader European family. What if an individual does not care about the broader family of Europeans, and has an interest solely in his ethnic group or subrace? There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with that; everyone has the right to define the limits of his ingroup as he sees fit, and invest in that defined ingroup as is appropriate.
Yes, that is all true, but given the aversions and hostilities discussed above, in the end it becomes meaningless. It is certainly possible for someone to be both a dedicated ethnonationalist and pan-European, but, practically speaking, I don’t see many such people around. The supporters of ethnonationalism (pan-Germanism/Slavism or Nordicism or whatever) seem to define their identity not as a positive in and of itself (which they claim to do but really do not) but rather as something in opposition to an undesirable “other.” So, rather than saying “I’m a proud Irishman and have as my first priority saving the Irish but I’m also deeply committed to saving all Europeans, and let’s end this Irish-English feud” we instead get paranoid fantasies of “the Russians are coming” and of course the endless grievances against Great Britain.
In summary, pan-Europeanism is an ideology which respects, strives to preserve, and fights for the interests of, all peoples of European descent worldwide—whether these peoples are of single ethnic origin or if they are of “combinative” ethnic European ancestry. There is nothing in this definition which asserts that panmixia must take place and certainly nothing which can be characterized as a lack of interest in preserving various ethnies (keeping in mind, of course, that “ethny” is not always the same as “ethnic group”). To say that pan-Europeanists in general do not see an intrinsic value in individual ethnic groups is simply not true. Thus I argue against the assertion that pan-Europeanism means that all whites are “fungible” and “interchangeable” and that this will lead to a panmixia resulting in a complete loss of biological and cultural particularisms. Instead, pan-Europeanism is better viewed as a cooperative effort, aimed toward the objective of Race-Culture preservation and renewal, an effort that recognizes both the differences and the commonalities of Western peoples.
That’s always been my focus. But it’s easier to look for outliers who talk about “new Roman Empires” and mixing Swedes with Spaniards, than to deal with more nuanced perspectives. If, for example, the ethnonationalists were truly interested in collegial cooperation, then they’d actually focus more on my vision instead of the “amalgamation-empire” group. I doubt they want cooperation, after all, as ethnonationalists why cooperate with those “strange folks over there.”
In October 1948—the dangerous year of Stalin’s blockade of Berlin—Mosley spoke to an enthusiastic meeting of East London workers and called for “the making of Europe a Nation.” Yet, as he said in later years, making Europe into a nation with its own common government did not make him feel any less an Englishman, and an Englishman of Staffordshire where he was born. All other Europeans, Normans and Bretons, Bavarians and Prussians, Neapolitans and Milanese, would through his idea remain Frenchmen, Germans, and Italians, as would Britons remain Britons, yet they would all think and act together as Europeans.
In those later years he also proposed a three-tier order of governments in Europe, each with a different function. In fact this was taking the best part of the old fascism, the corporate state, and the best of the old democracy, creating something higher and finer than either, through yet another synthesis. The corporate state had envisaged the nation like a human body, having a head, with a brain, with all members of the body working together in political harmony. Thus in Mosley’s vision of the future nation of Europe the first tier, the head, would be a common government—freely elected by all Europeans—for Europe’s defense and to organize a single continental economy. The second tier would be national governments for all national questions—elected as today—and at the third level many local governments for the regions and small nations like Wales and Scotland. They would have the special task of preserving the wide diversity of Europe’s cultural life: regional democracy with a new meaning.
While I may quibble in detail with Mosely’s plan, the fundamentals are sound.
Charles Lindbergh, in a famous pre-war essay on aviation and race stated:
We, the heirs of European culture, are on the verge of a disastrous war, a war within our own family of nations, a war which will reduce the strength and destroy the treasures of the White race, a war which may even lead to the end of our civilization. And while we stand poised for battle, Oriental guns are turning westward, Asia presses towards us on the Russian border, all foreign races stir restlessly. It is time to turn from our quarrels and to build our White ramparts again. This alliance with foreign races means nothing but death to us. It is our turn to guard our heritage from Mongol and Persian and Moor, before we become engulfed in a limitless foreign sea. Our civilization depends on a united strength among ourselves; on strength too great for foreign armies to challenge; on a Western Wall of race and arms which can hold back either a Genghis Khan or the infiltration of inferior blood; on an English fleet, a German air force, a French army, an American nation, standing together as guardians of our common heritage, sharing strength, dividing influence.
Note Lindbergh warning us against Asia, Lindbergh warning that Europeans need to stand together against Asians. One could only imagine how repulsed Lindbergh would have been by the madness of Silk Road White Nationalism, in which Asians are allowed to colonize White lands, and cringing Europeans are bossed around by Chinese girls with guns (although perhaps Charlie would laugh at the impertinent stupidity of it all). In any case, Lindbergh wanted a united “Western Wall of race and arms” – so much more is that needed today.
Keep in mind that if all Whites worldwide are counted, the total number would be hundreds of millions less than what one can find in single – single! – Asian nations such as China and India. There are entire European nations with populations smaller than what can be found in single – single! – Asian cities. And these Asiatics are not the pushovers of the past; China and India (and Pakistan and North Korea) are nuclear powers; these are hate-filled populations burning with hostility toward Whites and dedicated to the denial and destruction of the West. They really could care less about European concerns and we first have to safeguard our existence and then we’ll be able to safely safeguard our uniqueness, including at the smallest levels of nation and region.
Also of relevance are Greg Johnson’s comments at the Counter-Currents website:
If you go back far enough in history, you find times, such as the high Middle Ages, when there was a sense of the unity of the European race. Petty state nationalism is a far more modern phenomenon...During the high Middle Ages, there was a sense of European Unity as “Christendom” that was not explicitly racial but was implicitly so. The first Crusade in particular was an expression of this sense of unity. Of course even then Christianity was not coextensive with the European race, for there were Nestorian and Arab and African Christians, but the average European did not know that.
If you go back even farther, you find the essential genetic unity of all European peoples. The concept of “whiteness” today can be seen as an attempt to recapture that essential unity... In North America, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, the mixing of recently differentiated European stocks is bringing us back to that original unity.
Whiteness also is natural as a unifying concept in the face of non-whites, particularly in the colonies...In the end, though, the political validity of the concept of whiteness has nothing to do with its temporal pedigree, but with the fact that all whites are perceived by our enemies as essentially the same, thus we are treated as the same. Our skin is our uniform in the global struggle for domination.
For some reason Greg seems to have moved away from this position and now is in more favor of the “petty state nationalism” he at one time criticized. Of course, everyone has the right to change their mind; however, my views are more in tune with the quote above than in more recent support for ethhnonationalism.
One thread which is often prominent in modern pan-European thought is the work of its foremost post-war proponent: Francis Parker Yockey. It is therefore important to take a brief look at some of Yockey’s relevant statements on this issue.
In The Proclamation of London Yockey wrote…considering the issue of preserving intra-European differences:
Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy in the European Imperium...
That seems to me very clear. Unless you believe Yockey was being dishonest, then that statement suggests that one of history’s leading pan-Europeanists was perfectly comfortable with local autonomy.
As another example of what can be done to balance broader and narrow concerns:
As a general model for balancing broader and narrower particularisms, one could envision—along the lines of Norman Lowell’s Imperium/Dominion split—an overarching pan-European, Western Confederation resting on the framework of internally autonomous states that safeguard their narrower biological and cultural uniqueness. Regardless of these details, the fundamental point remains that all parties to preservationist solutions need to have their voices heard; in particular, all groups that make up the Western family of peoples need to join in this endeavor and participate in the process.
Salter’s views are also relevant. A pan-Europeanism that respects and preserves genetic and cultural differences, while also respecting genetic and cultural similarities, is wholly consistent with ethnic genetic interests. For example, in On Genetic Interests, Frank Salter cites the Civilizations of Huntington as possible core units of ethnic genetic interests for defense against other genetic/civilizational entities. Note that Salter speculated that Huntington’s “Orthodox” eastern European bloc may be considered a subsection of the West…Of course, the fundamental threat to the interests of all Euro-Americans originates from both elite non-Western groups (e.g., those of Asiatic origin) coupled with a mass of alien lower types (e.g., those of African and Latin American ancestries). In Europe itself, the threat also includes mass migration across racial and civilizational divides from north Africa/Middle East as well as from groups similarly invading the USA (e.g., there is a growing “Latino” population in Spain, and of course sub-Saharan Africans are present as well). Certainly, the narrower particularist viewpoint can be expressed in ethnic genetic interest terms, and that it is valid as far as it goes. But it misses the larger point: the threat is not superficial or temporary but fundamental and encompasses the totality of Western civilization and all of the European peoples. The worldwide racial crisis exists and the fundamental issue remains: European-descended populations are threatened with replacement by Third World peoples.
Again, Asians are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
In any case, it should be clear I support local autonomy and the sovereignty of the nation state for local issues. But there are issues that transcend the nation state. Despite my differences with him on other matters, it seems, remarkably enough, that Durocher and I agree on this.
In Imperium Yockey wrote, at different places throughout the book:
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 yesterday-nationalists 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...
...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 Turkestani from the Russian Empire…
I agree wholeheartedly with Yockey here. The last part suggests a hypothesis. Just as differences in innate personality and life experiences can determine why one person is Right and another Left, perhaps the same influences affect the choice between being a pan-Europeanist or one of the narrower “isms.” With respect to life experiences, is it possible that (negative) experiences with cross-racial diversity would make someone more prone to support pan-Europeanism? If your life experience is one of Whites broadly defined up against non-Whites that would tend to suggest a pan-European perspective. If on the other hand, your life experience is with a more homogenous population, particularly one that is ethnically/subracially homogenous, that would focus attention on narrower concerns. Even more to the point, imagine someone whose only experience with “minorities” was with members of some European group *(or groups) that is numerically smaller than the person’s own in-the-majority European ethnic group. Then “us” vs. “them” is here intra-European, and if those cross-ethnic experiences are negative, then the feelings of hostility and disdain are amplified.
For most of European history, the biggest enemy was another European people. “Most” is not “all” – there were of course times when the enemy were rampaging Afro-Asiatic hordes and those threats were truly existential. But in general, typically for most of their history, Europeans fought Europeans, laying the groundwork for many of the attitudes and grievances that still plague us today. Consider the history (and island geography) of England and it is not surprising that ethnonationalism is well developed in the English Right (Mosley notwithstanding). But today we live in a global age of The Clash of Civilizations, and Europeans need to understand that the old ways are over – something Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color foretold as far back as the 1920s. The past is prelude, but it’s now time to write the story of the future, and that is the story of The West Against The Rest – West being broadly defined as all Europeans worldwide.
The following quote from Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe summarizes the palingenetic objective that we could, if we so wished, strive for:
Our European Mission is to create the Culture-State-Nation-Imperium of the West, and thereby we shall perform such deeds, accomplish such works, and so transform our world that our distant posterity, when they behold the remains of our buildings and ramparts, will tell their grandchildren that on the soil of Europe once dwelt a tribe of gods.
That this tribe is not homogeneous, and contains within itself smaller tribes with unique and valued characteristics, is a given. But I believe, nevertheless, that this greater Western tribe does exist—and that together we can achieve great things, if we only can take the essential first steps forward.
Well, all true, and narrow petty nationalism is not going to get us there. Unfortunately, I do not see much progress in the directions I support.
Of relevance to my points is this except from a Bolton Counter-Currents article:
Our Race Relations commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy, whose qualifications for that job consist of her acumen as a squash champion, stated that although she is proud of her Irish heritage, she will be keeping a close watch on the European Students Association. What makes an Irish or a Celtic dance society acceptable, but not a more generalized “European” society that includes Celtic plus other European heritages?
In order to become acceptable the association would presumably have had to form separate but affiliated ethnic groups for each European ethnicity, with say one member forming an Irish branch, another the Slavic branch, one the Italian, branch, another the Swedish branch, then forming an umbrella group but without the name “European.” Presumably “White” or “Aryan” would also be unacceptable so one is left wondering exactly what name would be acceptable. The conclusion must be that none would be acceptable. Anything of a “European” character is going to be innately objectionable.
Isn't that interesting? The same holds for the American school and university system. And what does that tell you? It tells me that organizing on an ethnic basis - individual atomized European ethnic groups - is NOT considered a threat by the system. Organizing on a pan-European, racial basis, with an emphasis on a "European" character, is deemed a threat and considered unacceptable. I think there's a lesson there if you think about it.
And that’s not only in schools. In the USA in mid-March we have St. Patrick’s Day marches – all acceptable, all celebrated, with politicians of all types marching joyously. No problem. Irish, Italian, German, whatever…no problem. Guess what would happen if someone – even a “normie” – tried to organize a “European-American” march. Permits denied! Neo-Nazi! Denounced by every politician! Anti-fa violence! Media in an uproar!
Interesting, isn’t it? And why should racial nationalists play that atomization game?
Finally, I would like to make an important point here, related to certain alien individuals who take it upon themselves to preach to Europeans about what we should or should not do, and if the reader takes away nothing else from this essay, then do take away this. It is up to Europeans, and Europeans alone, to decide what their relationships to each other will be. We can support each other, hate each other, oppose each other, ally with each other, come together or come apart, but in the end it is about us, for us, and by us. Ourselves alone. Questions of pan-Europeanism vs. ethnonationalism vs. Nordicism vs. pan-Slavism vs. HBD race realism vs. Hoffmeisterism vs. whatever – those are questions for us to answer. Those questions are not addressed to anyone else – not to Jews, Iranians, Russian-hating Japanese, Chinese “maidens,” mestizos, Negroes or what have you. If these others have an opinion on those topics, then, fine, express your opinion and move on. Similarly, if I have an opinion on, say, Chinese-Japanese relations, I will express it, once, and then move on to my own business. I certainly wouldn’t try to weasel my way into Asian nationalist groupings and attempt to sway their ideology to my liking – and I certainly wouldn’t expect to be welcome there (unlike how pathologically Universalist Whites welcome non-Whites into the business of White nationalism). And even if these others seem to be sincere, and argue that somehow our racial business is their business, how can we know for sure? How can we be sure they are not actually arguing in favor of their own racial self-interest at our expense? Some would say that is ad hominem. So it is. What of it? I would argue that ad hominem is not always a fallacy, particularly when it shines a light on questions of Cui Bono? It’s not as if these people are offering fresh perspectives and novel ideas to advance the pro-European position. Instead, they take sides in ongoing debates, simply parroting pre-existing positions, typically (from what I see) to advance their own racial agenda. They are not essential and they are not helpful; at best they are a curiosity and at worst they are enemies in the ranks – Kipling’s Stranger in our midst. It is one thing to have allies – alliances imply cooperation between distinct groups – it is another thing entirely to have these people actually as part of our own groups, blogs, groupuscules, etc. Non-Whites intimately involved in White racial nationalism is not an alliance, it is an infiltration. And between alliance and infiltration is a world of difference. Finally, the interpretation of the fact that these types are almost invariably opposed to pan-Europeanism is an exercise I’ll leave to the reader.