The last chapter of Yockey’s book.
Introduction
The last chapter of Yockey’s book Imperium, which has the same title as the book, neatly summarizes his fundamental idea, his main objective – the empire of the West, Imperium. It is useful to take a careful look at the most relevant excerpts from that chapter to gain a better understanding of Yockey’s pan-European ideal.
First, it is useful to read some of my previous writing about Yockey and his worldview.
Reading that material, and understanding the controversies surrounding Yockey’s ideas, it is clear that pro-White activists have had a number of problems with Yockeyism. The issue of biological race is often foremost among these and is a focus of some of the posts linked to above. My contention has been, and remains, that Yockey’s views on biological race were a response to the sort of divisive and dishonest (and pseudoscientific) Nordicism practiced in his time by the lines of Gunther and Grant and today by the likes of Kemp and Durocher. Yockey lacked the training and empiricist mindset to address Nordicist theory head-on, so he side-stepped the issue by equating biological race differences to what he termed “vertical race theory” to be considered outdated and wrong, in favor of the "new idea" of "horizontal race.” Another point of controversy is his objectively wrong opinions and dismissive attitudes toward science; there are also his attitudes toward Eastern Europe (see below), as well as the issue of “Spenglerian pessimism.”
The major point I make in this essay is that those issues are all peripheral in the sense that they are not the fundamental idea promoted by Yockey, not his fundamental thesis. Some of those issues are related to his main thesis, no doubt, but they are not fundamental to it. His main idea is not dependent on those other ideas and issues and it is entirely possible for someone to disagree with Yockey on these other, peripheral issues, while still being a “Yockeyite” with respect to his main thesis. It is entirely possible that Yockey would have disagreed with me on this and considered these other issues as being fundamental to his thesis. That does not matter. I make my own arguments here, and it is up to the Yockeyites of today to interpret his work in light of existing fact and logic, and to do what they can to promote the main thrust, the main thesis, of his work.
The main thesis of course is the subject of his last chapter, and the title of that chapter and of the entire book – Imperium. The main points of the book Imperium were distilled into a more concentrated form in The Proclamation of London. Yockey’s fundamental idea was the Empire of the West, the underlying ideology being pan-Europeanism – a militant pan-Europeanism – that for him was specifically Western European but which we can extend to Eastern Europe as well (see below).
And here is another crucially important point. Yockey’s pan-European polemic did not really spell out the crudely practical benefits of Imperium. While it is possible he assumed that the pragmatic benefits would be self-evident, I believe the major reason for this is that Yockey was not concerned with cataloging and weighing costs and benefits on a point-by-point pragmatic basis. To him, Imperium was the inevitable and desirable evolution of the West, something naturally being self-evident to thoughtful leaders, and was something so inherently good, so necessary, that the cost-benefit accounting was to his mind superfluous.
Now, I do not like talk of “inevitability” with respect to political and social matters. It is a particularly weak – and (intentionally) self-fulfilling – “argument.” Often, people say something is “inevitable” because they believe that (a) it is something desirable and they want it to happen and so they convince others with talk of its “inevitability” or (b) it is something undesirable, but they can’t or won’t put the effort in to stop it, so they excuse their inaction by talk of “inevitability,” and they want to convince others as well so that their own cowardice and laziness is not so obvious (possibly, they may believe that fighting the “something” will be more trouble than it is worth).
Regardless of that, Yockey’s attitude holds for his perspective and, inevitability aside, he saw Imperium as a self-evident good and a natural evolution, a move forward, something actualizing in the minds of the new leadership elite of the West.
[Note: For those with a pragmatic bent, I review the practical advantages of Imperium in the footnote below, as well as address some ethnonationalist objections. However, that is not meant as a comprehensive study, since these issues have been addressed here and at EGI Notes previously and will not doubt be so again. However, for the sake of completeness, they are included.]
Analysis of chapter excerpts
Imperium
Finally the insistence upon nationalism became so great, that some leaders were willing to betray their nations into bondage to extra-Western forces rather than join a united Western organism.
Certainly. Today, we can substitute “ethnonationalism” for “nationalism” and the same effect holds. Who are the “extra-Western forces” we are being betrayed to? Given that the ethnonationalists are part of an alliance with the HBDers and Nordicists, we can suggest that Jews and East Asians (and perhaps to a lesser extent “high IQ” South Asians) constitute the forces in question. Indeed, Yockey wrote earlier in Imperium:
Perhaps before it is over, the outer forces will have mobilized the swarming, pullulating masses of China and India against the body of the Western Civilization.
At the time Yockey wrote Imperium, China was viewed by many, including him, as a passive nation, to be manipulated by others. Today, we observe China as a major threat in its own right, an aggressive center of Sinic civilization, opposed to the West
The Synthesis is the period of the Future. It exists everywhere in the minds of the Culture-bearing stratum of the West, and for a while it was actualized, in its first crude, provisional, form during the Second World War.
This expands upon the point made above. Yockey’s objective in his polemic is not to justify the Imperium idea with a nitpicking point-by-point enumeration of its benefits. His objective was to create a stirring text to inspire White Men to achieve the synthesis of trends that Yockey saw as the natural evolution of the High Culture of Europe. It is true that the pan-European idea had been percolating in the minds of the highest cadre of the West for some time. Napoleon – quoted by Yockey in his book – had some general ideas of European Unity. Nietzsche preached being “a good European” and against petty nationalism. During WWII, after Stalingrad at least, the more pan-European faction of the SS came to the forefront, and Mussolini dabbled with pan-Europeanism in the Italian Social Republic (note that those ethnonationalist leaders had to turn to pan-Europeanism after their ethnonationalism utterly failed them). Then there was Yockey himself, as well as Mosley. Others in more recent times have promoted variants of this, such as Norman Lowell’s Imperium Europa. Visionaries naturally gravitate to Yockey’s Imperium idea. Small-minded culture retarders instead defend petty nationalism.
It returns to the Thesis, but retains the creations of the Antithesis, for this great Synthesis is not a mere negative. No European “nation” of the older type can any longer, under this new Idea, be the object of any forcible attempt to change or abolish its local characteristics.
Once again, Yockey makes clear that the nation state would NOT be subject to any forcible attempt to “change or abolish its local characteristics.” The ethnonationalists may counter that such change may occur non-forcibly as a result of the Imperium itself, but Yockey in his later writings made very clear that the “local characteristics” were to be explicitly preserved. In The Proclamation of London, Yockey wrote:
Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy in the European Imperium, now that the oppression of vertical nationalism is dead
Back to Imperium:
Considered as a spiritual reality, the Synthesis cannot be spread by physical force.
Cries of “imperialism” and “forced empire” are mendacious. The EU for example was not created by force. Yockey considers his idea to be one that would spread among the European biocultural elite naturally, who would enact it in concert to actualize Imperium. This of course applies to Western Europe; it is true that Yockey, at least in Imperium, discussed military force (below), but that was specifically in the East.
Not only in the sphere of nations, but in the totality of the life-manifestations of the Western Civilization, the Synthesis penetrates with its new values, its higher imagination, and its new creative powers.
A bit of the “inevitability” here, but this book is a polemic and Yockey is making his point.
…there is inner necessity in the final passing of the Age of nationalism and annihilation-wars. The great Synthesis, Imperium, replaces it. The Synthesis contains within it the older components of Thesis and Antithesis. The primal Gothic instincts of the Western Culture are still present in the Imperium-Idea. It cannot be otherwise. Also present are the various Ideas which these instincts, within the framework of this Culture, shaped for itself, the religions, the nations, the philosophies, languages, arts and sciences. But they are present no longer as contrasts, but as mere differences.
Again, Yockey sees this as a natural evolution. The previous and constituent elements of the synthesis are still present, but are now part of a greater whole.
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.
I have analyzed this passage, and those related to it; see here. We can of course recognize here a strong statement of pan-Europeanism, and thus we can understand why pan-Europeanism is opposed by Nordicists and HBDers, and why Yockey is mostly ignored by such elements in the wider “movement.” Those factions have as an objective dividing Europeans against each other, and for Nordicists particularly, the North/South split is all-important, existential, and so any attempt to bridge, and unite, “the racial and temperamental differences of Teuton and Latin, of North and South” is met with hostile outrage. Further, there are, remarkably in today’s secular age, still those who make much of the “difference between Protestant and Catholic” and want that to be a casus belli once again. Yockey does not deny the existence of intra- (Western) European differences; however, through the natural evolution of the West, and the “monopolization if the motivation of History” by the “Imperium-Idea” these differences no longer “furnish motives to History.” Thus, even though different, “both are part of the West” – with “both” generally meaning any set of distinctions (e.g., North vs. South) the dividers of Europe wish to focus on.
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.
Again and again, Yockey confirms that his Imperium will not eliminate the existence of, and characteristics of, its constituent parts; however, these “component Ideas” will be secondary to the overarching new “center of History” – Imperium.
Nor is the Idea of Imperium to be confused with any stupid rationalistic doctrine or system, any cowardly millennium. It is not a program, it is no set of demands, no scheme for justice, no juristic quibbling with the concept of national sovereignty.
See my points above. Yockey is not justifying the Imperium by a set of carefully argued details about systems, programs, costs, and benefits. His idea is a synthesis not only of all the parts of the West, but also a synthesis of rationality and irrationality, reason and faith, analysis and vision. The Idea is above all, the details of working it out, while important in the pragmatic sense, are secondary and basically inconsequential in the broadest sense.
Just as the Future has had always to fight against the entrenched forces of the Past, so must this powerful, universal Idea. Its first phase is the spiritual conquest of the minds and souls of the Culture-bearing stratum of the West. This is entirely inevitable.
More inevitability. I disagree with that – look at the enduring power of petty nationalism. But instead of being descriptive, we can be prescriptive – that Yockey writes here is what things should be.
No force within the Civilization can then resist the Cultural Reunion which will unite North and South, Teuton and Latin, Protestant and Catholic, Prussia, England, Spain, Italy and France, in the tasks now waiting.
We’ll see. There are mighty forces in opposition.
Absolute Politics: Authority, Discipline, Faith, Responsibility, Duty, Ethical Socialism, Fertility, Order, State, Hierarchy— the creation of the Empire of the West.
A summary of Yockey’s objective.
The great dream and aim of Leibnitz, the uniting of all the States of Europe, is closer by virtue of Europe’s defeat, for in that defeat, it perceives its unity. The mission of this generation is the most difficult that has ever faced a Western generation.
And the next generation, and the next - we are still fighting. Note that Leibnitz is considered by Yockey to be yet another Western historical figure who exhibited generalized Yockeyian ideals.
…the men of this generation must fight for the continued existence of the West. Ultimately nothing can defeat them except inner decadence.
And the traitors – including the ethnonationalists – opposed to Yockey’s idea. In The Proclamation of London, Yockey wrote:
Anyone who seeks to perpetuate petty-statism or old-fashioned nationalism is the inner enemy of Europe. He is playing the game, of the extra-European forces, he is dividing Europe and committing treason.
Treason now has only one meaning to Europe: it means serving any other force than Europe. There is only one treason now, treason to Europe. The nations are dead, for Europe is born.
Imperium:
The West has something to devote to the contest that neither the Barbarian nor the parasite has: the force of the mightiest superpersonal Destiny that has ever appeared on this earth-ball. This superpersonal Idea has such tremendous force that no number of scaffold-trials or massacres, no heaps of starved or pyramids of skulls, can touch it.
The Idea has force, not the detailed nitpicking arguments about it, and especially not tired, old, reactionary petty-statism.
The soil of Europe, rendered sacred by the streams of blood which have made it spiritually fertile for a millennium, will once again stream with blood until the barbarians and distorters have been driven out and the Western banner waves on its home soil from Gibraltar to North Cape, and from the rocky promontories of Galway to the Urals.
From Ireland to Russia. Now, given the attitude toward Eastern Europe and Russia in Imperium, Yockey is talking about conquest. Thus:
How can the liberated West solve this great task of saving one hundred million Western lives? There is only one solution, and it is the nearest one. The agricultural territory of Russia provides the means of preserving the population of the West, and the necessary base for world-dominion of this Civilization, which alone can save the West from the threat of annihilation by the outer forces. It is thus a military solution— and there is no other. Our commercial-industrial-technical monopoly is gone. Our military technical superiority remains, as does our superior will-power, organization talent, and discipline. The glorious days of 1941 and 1942 show what the West can do against the Barbarian, however superior his numbers. Like Russia, the Western Civilization is situated in the Northeast quadrant. Against the West, therefore, Russia enjoys none of the military advantages it has against America. The common land-frontier enables the West to dispense with a gigantic assemblage of seapower as a prerequisite to the land-fight. The West will be able to deploy all of its forces on to the plains where the battle for the Future of the West will be fought.
Later, he changed his opinions somewhat. For example, in The Proclamation of London, Yockey wrote:
…the true American people and the Russian people figure only as expendable material. In these two populations, there are wide and deep strata which inwardly belong to the Western Civilization and who look to the sacred soil of Europe as to their origin, their inspiration and their spiritual home. To these also, this proclamation is addressed.
So, here, even “the true Russian people” contains elements that “inwardly belong to the Western Civilization and who look to the sacred soil of Europe as to their origin, their inspiration and their spiritual home.”
The Sallis Groupuscule, while acknowledging differences between Western and Eastern Europe, supports the integration of the two as equal partners in the Imperium project.
Imperium:
This is promised, not by human resolves merely, but by a higher Destiny, which cares little whether it is 1950, 2000, or 2050. This Destiny does not tire, nor can it be broken, and its mantle of strength descends upon those in its service.
Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.(What does not destroy me makes me stronger.)
The main thrust of Yockey’s objective was the palingenetic vision of a pan-European Imperium of the West, constituting the ultimate evolved form of Europe and its High Culture. He puts this in the language of inevitability – Yockey sometimes sounds like an Old Testament prophet – but his point is clear.
Notes
It is important to note that Yockey didn’t make any internal distinctions between areas of Western European nations with respect to belonging to the West, an attitude that ran counter to some opposing ideas of his, and our, time. Thus, when referring to Spain he referred to that nation in its entirety, and since he was really talking about Western Europe as a whole, Portugal is included –“Spain” being essentially Yockeyian shorthand for “all of the Iberian peninsula.”
With respect to Italy, Yockey in Imperium refers to the entire nation, with all of its different areas and different peoples; thus:
For example, think of the racial differences between Calabrian and Lombard. What did they matter to the history of Garibaldi’s time?
And:
Between 1900 and 1915 alone, 15,000,000 immigrants came to America from Asia, Africa and Europe. They came mostly from Russia, the Levant, and the Balkan countries. From the Western Civilization came a fair number of Italians, but the rest of the human material was from outside the West.
Yockey, being an educated man of his time, and familiar with the work of Madison Grant and similar authors, was well aware that the “fair number of Italians” who came to America “between 1900 and 1915” were mostly from Southern Italy/Sicily. All Italians were “from the Western Civilization” (as history attests).
Indeed, it was the pan-Western European approach of Yockey that led him to be critiqued in Instauration by the execrable Humphrey Ireland, the latter obviously obsessed with his bizarre fear of being swarmed by scurrying five foot tall superstitious Sicilian dwarves.
Earlier in Imperium, Yockey wrote:
It is absolutely necessary to the continuance of the subjugation of Europe that the outsiders have large numbers— whole societies, groups, strata, remnants of dead 19th century nations— of domestic European populations available for their purposes. 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. But work always with the weak, Culture-less stratum against the strong bearers and appreciators of Culture. These must be “tried” and hanged.
This availability of the under-strata of the Culture to outside forces is one type, and the most dangerous, of that form of Culture-pathology called Culture-distortion. It is closely related however to another type called Culture-retardation.
Question: Was Yockey “crazy” and “bitter” – or “insane” and “indecent” – when he wrote about the petty nationalists:
These must be “tried” and hanged.
Regardless, I’m sure he’d be outraged that his work is being peddled by the types of people who he wrote that about.
From The Enemy of Europe:
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.
We can contrast that inspiring vision to the insipid “defense of petty nationalism” and the call for an ethnonationalism” of waring European nations “ethnically cleansing” each other, no doubt to the delight of the outer forces. Ethnonationalism, a backwards remnant from the dead past, has nothing to offer to the European Future.
In 1947, just two years after the fall of Nazi Germany, an American expatriate living in Ireland named Francis Parker Yockey wrote Imperium, a massive tome that advanced a new strategy for post-war European fascism. Yockey insisted that fascists abandon their narrow nationalist viewpoint and, instead, fight for a new European-wide fascist empire, which he dubbed the 'Imperium'. In 1948 Yockey and his closest collaborators left Oswald Mosley's Union Movement and founded the European Liberation Front (ELF), a British-based groupuscule that lasted until 1954. Rejecting the possibility of building a mass fascist movement in post-war Europe, the ELF defined its primary task as ideological: namely, the advancement of the 'Imperium' idea inside the ranks of Europe's 'fascist elite'. The ELF soon ran into stiff opposition from Mosley over Yockey's controversial identification of the United States, and not the Soviet Union, as Europe's 'main enemy'. The ELF also met with fierce resistance from Hitler worshippers inside the British right like Arnold Leese, who rejected the ELF's emphasis on 'culture' over 'race'. Despite the ELF's relatively brief existence as a groupuscule, its introduction of a new kind of 'Eurofascist' thinking has recently led to its rediscovery by contemporary European New Rightists now searching for a new political strategy following both the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the United States as the world's sole 'superpower'.
On the practical matters of Imperium:
Of course, am Imperium has many practical advantages, some of which went into the thinking behind the EU (forgetting for a moment on that project was distorted by globalist, anti-European impulses). We have the economy of scale; we have the pooling of European resources and ingenuity. We have a common foreign policy and defense, putting the Imperium as a major force, a superpower, with the ability to represent the interests of the Western High Culture against all other civilizational blocs in the conflicts of interest that will likely occur. It eliminate the curse of petty nationalism – constant intra-European conflict, including murderous warfare. It allows for the pooled resources to be used for grand projects – space exploration bioengineering, new energy sources, and pan-European cultural artifacts, pushing the limit of science, technics, and culture to heights undreamed of. An Imperium can provide the seed of a New High Culture that our race needs to survive and prosper. There are of course many other practical advantages for European power and prosperity that one can think of; however, the point has been made.
Let’s take a pragmatic look at a claim made by ethnonationalists – that one needn’t worry about individual “sovereign” European nations making alliances with non-White powers since other European nations can form alliances against them and invade the rogue state, overthrow its government, and even “ethnically cleanse” it. Putting aside the repulsive aspects of the ethnonationalist agenda – Europeans waging war and “ethnically cleaning” each other – we can ask whether that’s even practical. Even if we assume hard-nosed nationalist governments and populations willing to go to such extremes, what about the reality? For example, the UK and France are nuclear powers (Russia is as well, of course, but let us for the moment consider nations that are [France] or were [UK] in the EU). We will assume they will continue to be nuclear powers in an ethnonationalist Europe – why should nationalist governments give up such weapons? Very well. One day Europe wakes up to find the Chinese navy in British ports, a military alliance being created between those nations. So…what? Are other European nations going to attempt to invade and “cleanse” the nuclear-armed UK, who now have nuclear-armed China as an ally? What if France feels threatened and decides to conduct their own military alliance with nuclear-armed India, a rival of China that has a score to settle with the British. What’s next? Maybe Germany decides to develop their own nuclear arsenal and allies itself with Russia. Poland would not doubt be threatened by that. Maybe the Poles go nuclear too and join up with the Sino-British or Franco-Hindi alliances. Italy, Spain, et al. would have some decision making to do. Ethnonationalism! With respect to foreign policy and defense, you need an integrated Europe, a Fortress Europa. Letting every nation go their own way, scrambling with alliances and hostility leading to armed conflict, is exactly how the ethnonationalists led us into two world wars and wrecked the White world. Why should we let them do it again? We veto your dream, ethnonationalists.
Let us consider Estonia, a small European Baltic nation whose ethnonationalist leaders are popular amongst their ideological comrades in America and elsewhere. Long a prize fought over between The Germanic and Slavic worlds, Estonia is now an independent, “sovereign” nation. Did the Estonians break free of Soviet control of their own accord? With all respect due to the history of Estonian dissidents and resistance, the answer must be no. Estonian independence was the result of the collapse of the USSR, prompted by the Cold War pressure put upon it and its defective system by the USA and the rest of the “West,” Left to its own devices, Estonia would not be independent. Indeed, Estonian “independence” and “sovereignty” today is due solely to the protective screen of larger nations. In essence, Estonia is a vassal state of the USA and the EU (and NATO), which provide “protection” from Russia. I put “protection” in scare quotes because - would the USA go to war with Russia to protect Estonia? The EU is a different story in one sense, it is supposed to be a “union” and an attack on Estonia is an attack on EU territory. However, the covid-19 crisis has revealed that – contra ethnonationalist hysteria – the EU is not much more of a “Union” than it is in any real sense “European.” Whether Germans or Frenchmen would be willing to fight and die for Estonia is questionable, and perhaps one day Russia may call that bluff? Who knows? But whatever independence and security Estonia does have today is from its EU membership, as well as of course NATO, but that brings up the same question – will Americans, Germans, and Frenchmen die for Estonia because of NATO if Estonia is considered to be a sovereign independent nation? The ethnonationalists talk about alliances, but what does Estonia have to offer to larger nations as part of an alliance?Estonia’s current population is a little over 1.3 million, approximately half that of Brooklyn, a single borough in the single city of New York. There are many, many, many individual cities, and even neighborhoods of major cities, around the Earth that have larger populations than the entire nation of Estonia. The only thing of practical use is Estonian territory as a “forward base” against Russia, but then doesn’t that make Estonia in essence a vassal state of whatever larger nation places its military protection over Estonia in exchange for military bases? It is not clear how Estonia can be a fully sovereign nation from the ethnonationalist perspective and still maintain its viability in world affairs (e.g., I doubt the Chinese are paying attention to the interests of a nation whose population is less than one-thousandth of that of China).
On the other hand, if Estonia is part of an Imperium, and its territory is that of the Imperium, then by definition an attack against that territory is an attack against the entire Imperium itself. By analogy, an attack against, say, Rhode Island, is an attack against the entire USA. Now, as part of the Imperium, Estonia must have local sovereignty (as even Yockey agreed must exist) and all measures to safeguard its ethnic and cultural uniqueness would exist. Estonia would have representation among the councils of this Imperium as would all other constituents of this confederated “empire.” But as regards is interactions with the Outer World, it is part of the Imperium. In a sense, the Sallisian Imperium would be both more and less integrated than the EU. With respect to relations with the Outer World and with respect to responsibilities and obligations of constituent states and peoples to each other – more integrated. With respect to issues of local sovereignty and the maintenance of borders between states, preserving the ethnic and cultural uniqueness of member states – less integrated. That is part of the “deal” – giving up external sovereignty to ensure local sovereignty and preservation.
Meanwhile, ethnonationalism is a proven failure, not only historically with two world wars and a wrecked White World to its debit, but even today, ethnonationalism brings failure after failure. Exhibit A is Brexit, where anger at “Polish plumbers” has led to an increase in non-White immigration into Britain and genocidal plans such as this.
In addition, ethnonationalists like to make comments such as “hey, when you can get Czechs and Slovaks to agree to live together in the same nation, get back to me about Imperium” – the implication is how can you get these people to abide being in the same Imperium if they can’t live in the same nation together. This is a particularly stupid argument, since both Czechia and Slovakia are members of the EU. They may not want to be stuck together alone in a single nation state (historically, Slovaks resented Czech domination), but they were, and currently are, perfectly willing to both be part of an overarching European super-state, where specific Czech-Slovak conflict is not a significant issue. So, I answer back – if the Czechs and/or Slovaks demand to leave the EU specifically because they cannot abide being in the same union with the other, then get back to me with your silly and illogical ethnonationalist “arguments.”
