Yockey’s wisdom.
All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.- T.E. Lawrence
I would like to make an important statement concerning my pan-European focus, clarifying my thoughts on the issue, stimulated by reading a phrase written by Yockey in Imperium.
First, some of my previous writings about Yockey’s views on race.
Here is my TOQ essay on the integration of the worldview of Yockey with the EGI concept of Salter. That is all good background material for the current essay. As is the following that Yockey wrote in Imperium:
The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro, however, shows to Europe a very important fact—that race-difference between White men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Europe, where hitherto the race difference between, say, Frenchman and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Europe, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestan! from the Russian Empire.... . .
...If any Westerner thinks that the barbarian makes nice distinctions between the former nations of the West, he is incapable of understanding the feelings of populations outside a High Culture toward that culture…
Now, here is the key Yockey statement (emphasis added), including his crucially important nine word phrase (with italics and underling added):
Gone — forever gone — is any notion that one of these Ideas —national, linguistic, religious, social — has the mission of wiping out another Idea. The adherents of Empire are still distinct from the adherents of Papacy— but this distinction does not rule their minds, for uppermost now is the Idea of Imperium, the return to superpersonal origins, and both of these mighty Ideas have the same spiritual source. The difference between Protestant and Catholic — once excited into a casus belli — has gone the same way. Both continue to exist, but it is inconceivable that this difference could again rend the Western Civilization in twain. There have been also the racial and temperamental differences of Teuton and Latin, of North and South. Once these may have contributed to the furnishing of motives to History — this can they no longer do. Again, both are part of the West, even though different, and the Imperium-Idea monopolizes the motivation of History. The former nations, the religions, the races, the classes — these are now the building-blocks of the great Imperial structure which is founding itself. Local cultural, social, linguistic, differences remain — it is no necessity of the Imperium-Idea that it annihilate its component Ideas, the collective products of a thousand years of Western history. On the contrary, it affirms them all, in a higher sense it perpetuates them all, but they are in its service, and no longer in the center of History.
The power of Yockey’s writing is that he summarizes in only nine words the entirety of the meaning of my pan-Europeanism, with a succinctness I can only admire:
“…both are part of the West, even though different…”
My critics always lie that I consider Europeans fungible, and ignore real differences between them. Those of you who have been reading my work over the years understand that is incorrect. While I do not exaggerate intra-European differences as many in the “movement” do, neither do I minimize them. There are indeed “the racial and temperamental differences of Teuton and Latin, of North and South.” There are also differences of East and West. Differences exist within single European nations, that of Italy (North vs. South) being the greatest (*), but others exist as well, albeit to somewhat lesser extents. I, like Yockey, do not deny these differences of genotype and phenotype. But “even though different” they “both are part of the West.” With respect to “West” I expand this a bit more than Yockey and extend it to the entirety of the European Race-Culture, including areas of Eastern Europe some would consider part of a different (“Orthodox”) civilization. Also of relevance are the comments by Yockey about how race differences in Europe pale when compared to that of “The West Against the Rest” thus: “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, now, I’m making the mistake of being long-winded again, and diluting the power of Yockey’s precision and brevity:
“…both are part of the West, even though different…”
Thus, as long as the EGI Firewall ensures that basic genetic interests are considered, what’s important is that all of the constituents of “the West” cooperate in Actualizing a High Culture. When the Italian Julius Evola (of Sicilian ancestry) met with the Romanian Corneliu Codreanu (of Romanian-German ancestry), their respective ethnic origins were secondary to their shared interest in a New European Order. When the Northern Italian Benito Mussolini (from Emilia-Romagna) collaborated with his Philosopher of Fascism Giovanni Gentile, a Southern Italian (from Sicily), differences in their specific ancestral origins were immaterial to the greater goal of building a Fascist Italy. Francis Parker Yockey was of North-Central European origin, Oswald Mosley was English; both men promoted the idea of Europe as Nation, pan-Europeanism, along with others of different ethnic origins, but all part of the same High Culture, the same civilization, the same Race-Culture. The Montreux conference of 1934 was organized by Italian Fascists, and was also attended by representatives from Romania (the New Men), Norway, Greece, Spain, Ireland, France, Lithuania, Portugal, and other European nations. My point, an extension of Yockey’s original comment, and a broad summary of my pan-European philosophy, is thus:
All are part of the West, even though different.That indeed summarizes my pan-European philosophy.
And let us not forget Yockey against the ethnonationalists (emphasis added):
…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 ethnonationalists like to cite the fact that people in Europe are turning against the EU as “proof” that pan-Europeanism is “impossible” (skipping over the act that Europeans originally agreed to be part of the EU to begin with), without honestly noting the specific reasons why people develop anti-EU feelings:
1. Immigration, both intra-European and extra-European. This would not be an issue in any Imperium run according to my principles, where local sovereignty, borders, and ethnic preservation would be core values.
2. Nitpicking micro-management from remote and isolated centralized bureaucrats. Again – local sovereignty as a core value of Imperium for most issues. Granted, there will be core issues where group interests supersede others – race, immigration control (we cannot let any European nation re-invite in aliens), security, foreign affairs, and large scale scientific-technical-cultural projects, etc. But that will not interfere with the daily lives of the common citizen, it will not be the micromanagement of the EU, it will be agreed upon by the constituent peoples of the Imperium, and much of this would be no different than what a racialist ethnonationalist state would be doing anyway.
3. Domination by Germany (or Germany coupled with their junior partner of France). An Imperium should be a cooperative effort of all its constituent nations, all accorded respect, all having their voices heard and their interests actualized, with fair resolutions where interests conflict – no one nation or alliance of nations will be allowed to dominate. And wouldn’t an ethnonationalist “free-for-all” result in even more domination by larger and richer nations, unrestrained by membership in a larger entity?
4. Economics – the hard-working North and West being resentful of having to subsidize the insolvent South and East, with the latter being resentful of the restrictions and conditions put upon them by the former as a condition of the assistance granted. This is likely the hardest problem to solve; to compete with China, etc. and to have sufficient autarky, some degree of economic integration will be necessary. But we cannot have lazy and/or inept parasites leeching off of the more productive. Integration will need to be a slow process, in stages, initially only between groups of nations with similar levels of productivity, and with some sort of “division of labor” between the economic mini-blocs. Whether full integration is possible or desirable remains to be determined. No one will be allowed to be lazy and/or inept –and this does not violate point 2, because being a lazy incompetent should not be an accepted part of any White nation’s character or culture. Local sovereignty does not justify being a deadbeat. To the extent this is a biological problem, eugenics must be a component of the Imperium’s core values, one that supersedes local sovereignty. Self-determination does not justify being a tin cup panhandling incompetent.
Similar ethnonationalist comments about “you can’t get the Czechs and Slovaks to live together in one nation, so how are you going to get all Europeans in one nation,” fail because the Slovaks always historically resented being subordinate to the Czechs – I do not propose anyone being subordinate to anyone else; all can have local sovereignty.
In my Imperium, Denmark would continue being Denmark and Italy would continue being Italy (unless there was a desire for regionalism there) and each would not interfere with the continued ethnic and cultural existence of the other.
What can be achieved by having different types of Europeans working together, all part of the West? Thus:
Europe is equal to its historical task. Against the anti-spiritual, anti-heroic 'ideals' of America-Jewry, Europe pits its metaphysical ideas, its faith in its Destiny, its ethical principles, its heroism. Fearlessly, Europe falls in for battle, knowing it is armed with the mightiest weapon ever forged by History: the superpersonal Destiny of the European organism. 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.
Going back to the quote at the beginning of the post, this is the sort of dream of the day that we should be actualizing, and what my work is aimed at actualizing, achieved by, and for the benefit of, ALL European-derived peoples. And it is that “ALL” that separates me from the divisive fetishists of the “movement.”
Footnote (emphasis added):
*Yockey: “Race cannot be understood if it is inwardly associated with phenomena from other planes of life, such as nationality, politics, people, State, Culture. While History in its advance may bring about for a few centuries a strong relationship between race and nation, that is not to say that a preceding racial type always forms a subsequent political unit. If that were so, none of the former nations of Europe would have been formed on the lines they were. For example, think of the racial differences between Calabrian and Lombard. What did they matter to the history of Garibaldi’s time."
