Transnational Fascism?

A leftist analysis of the failure to implement authentic transnational fascism.

Read the whole thing; here I examine excerpts and summarize my thoughts on the matter. To start with – the author.

See this.

Also see this.

Abstract

To better understand cross-border fascist solidarity, this article suggests a new conceptual framework revolving around the term ‘pan-fascism’ and its ‘paradox’. It argues that the existence or non-existence of a pan-fascist ‘paradox’ in the minds of historical fascists is a matter of optics, as it all depends on who is mobilizing the notion of fascist transnationalism. 

It is always easy to identify pseudo-intellectual leftist pablum by reading such phrases as “mobilizing the notion of fascist transnationalism.”  And now we have “unpacked” - 

Because of such optical issues, which all must be unpacked historically...

…the conceptual framework of ‘pan-fascism’ does not offer a simple solution. It, rather, puts emphasis on a key question: how did certain fascists, at various moments in their lives, think about the possibility of fascist transnationalism? To demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach, this paper takes the work, thought, and practices of the French editors of Je suis partout as a case study, and demonstrates how they attempted to reconcile their commitment to French nationalism with fascist transnationalism.

If we overcome the Culture Retarding petty nationalism promoted by some on the Far Right, then there would be no need to “reconcile” national and transnational fascism.

Although these editors at JSP publicly engaged in collaboration with foreign fascist movements from mid-1936 onward, they never renounced their commitment to French nationalism. This, then, raises a thought-provoking question that transcends the particularities of these French fascists and their unique contexts: how do nationalist-minded fascists think transnationally?

The people best suited to answer that question are actual fascists, not snide leftists writing superficial analyses that use obfuscating language to hide the lack of intellectual heft.

This article sets out to answer this question. The first section examines the historiography on transnational fascism and argues that the current theoretical framework for understanding cross-border collaboration and interaction between fascists is limited. It, thereafter, demonstrates that cross-border connections between fascists can best be examined from the conceptual framework of ‘pan-fascism’. Pan-fascism, as defined in this paper, contains the capacity of a very distinct way of understanding fascism, seeing that it seems to bear a paradox within its own name: how does transnational fascism comport with nationalist and imperialist aspects inherent to many fascist ideologies?2 It is this friction which makes ‘pan-fascism’ inherently unstable.

Putting aside the irritating leftist jargon, the core point here is the assumption that a paradox exists because fascism is inherently hostile to the other, with self and other defined in strictly ethnic and national terms; therefore, any type of transnational ”pan-fascism” is “inherently unstable.” This fallacy – or is leftist wishful thinking – will be exposed by my critique and comments below. At this point, we can understand that is petty nationalist/ethnonationalist versions of fascism that results in the stereotype underlining the assumption leading to the “paradox.”  It should come as no surprise that the name “Yockey” does not appear, not even once, in this leftist screed.  After all, a certain agenda must be promoted and, hence, source material must be cherry picked to fit that agenda. The agenda is, of course, to delegitimize transnational fascism, and, by extension, pan-European racial nationalism, and promote division within the international Far Right. That the Left finds willing accomplices for this agenda among certain denizens of the Far Right supports the Yockey’s contention that petty nationalist Culture Retarders are, essentially, traitors to Europe and to the West.

The word ‘paradox’, here, helps to underscore that there is a tension between the desire to create a community of fascist nations, or perhaps even a supranational fascist community, and the seeming impossibility of achieving this.3 This goes beyond the question of how one could create an international movement out of national movements, as there are a multitude of examples from the eighteenth century onward where nationalism was not primarily organized around defeating other nationalisms, but where nationalist movements aimed to dismantle—for instance—absolute monarchies, and dynastic state formations. Buried in there was also a latent possibility for conflict, but ‘ideologically’ these forms of nationalism were mostly structured around a common enemy. A great deal of ‘fascist’ ideologues in the first half of the twentieth century, however, primarily structured their thinking about ‘nationalism’ around defeating other nationalisms, rather than implying that national movements in different countries could happily exist besides one another.

That’s the sort of petty nationalist ethnonationalist that treasonous filth like the Counter-Currents crew promotes.

Apart from a conceptual friction in the term ‘pan-fascism’, the existence or non-existence of a pan-fascist ‘paradox’ in the minds of historical fascists is clearly a matter of optics, as it all depends on who is mobilizing the notion of fascist transnationalism; as well as on their reasons for doing so. Because of such optical issues, which must all be unpacked historically, the conceptual framework of ‘pan-fascism’ does not offer simple solutions. Rather it puts emphasis upon several key questions: how did certain fascists, at various moments in their lives, think about the possibility of cross-border fascist solidarity? Why did they—or: why did they not—believe that fascist transnationalism was intrinsically paradoxical, and how did this affect them, their thinking, and their actions? This framework, in other words, offers a distinct perspective to analyze how fascists mediated the relationship between nationalism and transnationalism.

The preceding paragraph is essentially meaningless nonsense.  It has no explanatory power nor does it point to any direction leading to such power.

The second section of this paper employs this conceptual framework in a very practical sense. It takes the work, thought, and practices of the French editors of JSP as a case study, and demonstrates how they attempted to reconcile their commitment to French nationalism with fascist transnationalism. 

I’ll look at what this buffoon has to say about that, see below.  Essentially, the French were hoodwinked by the Germans, but the delusional French were complicit in their own hoodwinking.

The third section of this article argues that one should consider ‘pan-fascist romanticism’ to understand how individual fascists thought transnationally. By zeroing in on the relationship between these French editors and foreign fascists, it illustrates that most instances of ‘fascist transnationalism’ were driven by distinct ‘romantic’ narratives. 

I’m sure I will not like any of that nonsense.

Practically, this means that the ‘myths’ are altered to cater to a different ‘in-group’. These narratives could be grounded upon antisemitism, pan-Europeanism, various forms of transnational racialism (such as Aryanism or white supremacism), anti-Bolshevism, anti-capitalism, or a complicated combination and overlapping of these and other ideas. 

Note – “myths.”

This third section also examines cases of interaction between the editors of JSP and various representatives of the German National Socialist regime in the 1930s. 

This emphasis on “the German National Socialist regime in the 1930s” mirrors the “movement’s obsession with that regime. Given what we will learn here (see below), which is generally supportive of the known historical narrative of the Germans being selfishly focused on narrow ethnic – or at nest, pan-Germanic or subracial – interests, this obsession has been unfortunate and feeds into the “movement’s” Nordicism and culture-retarding ethnonationalism.

The fourth section of this paper demonstrates that the narratives of ‘pan-fascist romanticism’ could be employed to achieve contradicting goals. Whereas they could stimulate and facilitate interaction and collaboration between fascists, they could also be used to manipulate foreign fascist peoples, movements, and regimes. Certain representatives of the Nazi regime, for instance, fed into a specific narrative of cross-border fascist collaboration, as a vehicle to further their own ultra-nationalist, imperialist, goals. Some of these representatives saw ‘pan-fascist romanticism’ as a form of camouflage, which could be employed to—temporarily—conceal Nazi Germany’s drive for geographical expansion and physical struggle.9 Through the continuing assertion and dissemination of ‘pan-fascist romanticism’ in their communication with French fascists, these individuals hoped to implant ‘pan-fascist illusions’ in the minds of France’s ultra-right, and aimed to further ‘obscure’ something which these Nazis regarded as the irreconcilable paradox of fascist transnationalism.

This is important and exposes one reason why the “movement’s obsession with the Nazi experience is so destructive.  Rather than being authentic “pan-Aryan” fascists, with an interest in the well-being of all Europeans, the Nazis had a “drive for geographical expansion and physical struggle” against other Europeans, and faked an interest in transnational fascism. Indeed, it was only after the disaster of Stalingrad that the more pan-European elements of the SS dominated over the more strictly Nordicist faction and it is questionable how sincere even that pan-European faction really was.  Did they have an authentic attachment to the pan-European ideal, or was it a desperate expediency to mobilize anti-Bolshevik Europeans to “buy into” German war aims?

And here is another important point. Is it possible that the “movement” learned from the Nazis too well? Just as the German Nationalists used transnational fascism as a camouflage to mask their narrow national imperialist agenda, and thus hoodwinked foreign fascists into accepting Germanocentric agendas under the guise of “unity,” so do modern White nationalists who are really Nordicist hoodwink Southern and Eastern Europeans to follow an agenda that exclusively serves Northwest European interests, with those narrow interests camouflaged behind a mask of “White unity.”  Thus, exposing the Nazi scam may assist in exposing the modern one, and pointing sincere pan-Europeanists away from the modern scam and toward an authentically pan-European movement.

The goal of this article, ultimately, lies beyond discussing the particularities of its case study.10 It demonstrates that approaching case studies from the perspective of ‘pan-fascism’ and its ‘paradox’ can make sense of the ideological flexibility found in the work, thinking, and practices of historical agents involved in fascist connections and collaboration across borders. It might stimulate scholars to turn, or stay, away from one-dimensional approaches to fascist transnationalism. And instead of trying to replace these inflexible perspectives with a new, global, or more complicated theory of fascist transnationalism, this paper—again—points towards ‘the pan-fascist paradox’. It does so for one reason in particular: fascism as a clearly defined body of ideas does simply not exist. 

That last part is really a stretch. Fascism may be protean but there is always a core present.  Whether one wants to deny that core id “a clearly defined body of ideas” depends upon one’s “optics” – to borrow the phraseology of this author.

The Heterogeneity of Fascist Transnationalism

Fascist politicians and intellectuals have often been depicted as ideologues who espoused extreme nationalism, condemned cross-border collaboration, and preached cultural parochialism.12 As a result, many scholars have approached fascism from a ‘national’ lens, and investigated their historical subjects in the context of national histories. Scholars of ‘international fascism’, in contrast, predominantly aimed to discern characteristics to differentiate between fascist ideologies and movements in time and space. Rather than examining fascist parties and practices in their unique historical contexts, they focused on constructing abstract typologies.13 A recent strand of research on ‘transnational fascism’, however, foregrounds cross-border cooperation and intellectual exchange between fascists. Certain scholars affiliated with this emerging school of thought have started emphasizing the pan-European elements of fascism, to challenge the conception that right-wing movements were purely driven by nationalism.14

Those “certain scholars” are on the right track, at least for fascisms other than the German variety.

One example of this is Arnd Bauerkämper’s article ‘Ambiguities of Transnationalism’ (2007) in which he effectively employed the idea of pan-Europeanism to emphasize the vital role of cross-border exchange and collaboration between European fascists.15 Recently, Bauerkämper published a collection of thirteen essays on the same topic with Grzegorz Rossollinski-Liebe, entitled Fascism without Borders (2017). The editors argued against the idea that fascism is inseparable from nationalism. Instead, they focused on ‘transnational connections and cooperation between movements and regimes in Europe’ and urged scholars to recognize the pan-European aspects of fascism.16 But while setting out to show that fascism transcended borders, the underlying thought that connected all the contributions in this collection was that a small group of right-wing politicians and intellectuals, to a certain extent, had substituted national borders with European borders. Rather than truly dismantling the logic of ‘thinking in borders’, and the nationalist sentiments underlying fascism, they simply displaced them.

So?  Leftists are offended that the fascist ingroup is limited to Europeans and does not include their favored Colored populations of African and Asian racial descent? I realize that leftist academics become hysterical over borders and any exclusion, but an ideology based in part on “ultra-nationalism” needs to define some sort of “nation” – be it ethnic or racial. A “nation” encompassing all of humanity loses any substantive meaning.

Studies that approach fascism from this pan-European fascist paradigm are particularly effective in elucidating the limitations of ‘national’ approaches to fascism. When trying to analyze the transnational dimensions of fascism, however, this perspective is limited in its own right, as it heavily relies on one particular possibility of transnationalism: pan-Europeanism.

Again, so?

Firstly, this notion of pan-Europeanism deals awkwardly with fascism outside Europe or collaborations between ‘European’ and ‘non-European’ fascists. One thing that comes to mind is South African right-wing nationalism in the 1930s. Whereas many members of the Ossewabrandwag felt closely related to the Netherlands and Belgium as their Stamlande [‘root-countries’], some of them supported the Nazis in their occupation of these countries, as they felt that it was a necessary step to defeat the British and dismantle their empire. Other examples are how the leaders of the Chinese government in Nanjing had become particularly enchanted by Italian and German fascism, or how a group of predominantly white and Dutch settlers in the Dutch East-Indies wanted to establish an Indonesian ‘fatherland’ independently from the Netherlands; for which they employed anti-Dutch and anti-European fascist language and attempted to mobilize native nationalism among the population of Indonesia. To examine such complicated cases of fascist transnationalism, the prism of pan-Europeanism falls short.

It doesn’t “fall short,” you mendacious retard, if you realize that “pan-European” includes Europeans in the Diaspora, and not only in Europe itself.  If that excludes your precious Chinese, then that is just too bad (HBDers weep).

Of course, no author seems to defend the position that fascist transnational solidarity was exclusively about European categories…

Why do non-fascist (typically leftist) academics feel the need to “defend the position” of fascists?  Isn’t that the obligation of fascists themselves?

This is insufficient, as it perpetuates Eurocentrism…

Do you need any more evidence of the biases of this author?  If academics objectively study the reality that White fascists are concerned with White people, then acknowledging that reality is perpetuating “Eurocentrism.”  On the one hand, it is a good thing that anti-fascist academics are so deluded, but it does make much of their work more or less useless for our purposes.

Secondly, the pan-European paradigm sheds a very narrow light on the thought and work of fascists—both outside and within the presupposed borders of Europe—because it primarily fixates on the extent to which these fascists dreamt about (the rebirth of) a ‘Europe’ for the ‘Europeans’. It does not give much room to recognize that the thought and work of most fascists was only abstractly related to this pan-European perspective, that pan-European language was often employed to convey disparate meanings, and that most fascists evoked more complicated possibilities of transnationalism.18

A mostly meaningless paragraph, the only agenda of which is to be anti-“Eurocentric.”

There was a seemingly paradoxical relationship between France and Nazi Germany in Cousteau’s analysis of the contemporary political situation, as Hitler was regarded both as a threat to France, as well as its savior…What needs to be made clear, here, is that the JSP editors were not primarily driven by Germanophilia. They did not choose Germany’s nationalism over France’s. Instead, they regarded German officials as natural allies in their struggle against the Third Republic and the French government, while remaining loyal to a mythical image of France. 

Mythical?

In contrast to Cousteau, Brasillach—who functioned as JSP’s editor-in-chief from June 1937 onward—was skeptical about collaboration between France’s ultra-right and the German National Socialists.30 Brasillach openly affiliated himself with fascism, but with ‘Latin fascism’ in particular. 

Blasphemy!  

While being particularly fond of Spanish fascism, he had also praised Benito Mussolini for being a Latin poet, and he recognized ‘the Latin fascist traditions’ in the Belgian politics of the French-speaking Léon Degrelle.31 Brasillach asserted that France, historically, had always been the primary guardian of the ‘Latin culture’. 

Durocher weeps.

German fascism, however, was inherently different. Brasillach wrote in the early 1930s that he was worried about Hitler’s ‘primary racism’, that he regarded Hitler’s speeches as the work of ‘a sort of enraged teacher’, and that he believed that Nazi Germany was the greatest political threat to France.32

Blasphemy!

Brasillach still asserted that the German National Socialism could function as a model for French fascism. He admired the fascist aesthetics of Nazi Germany, as well as the ‘social’ impact of National Socialism. In the Third Reich, according to Brasillach, people were energetic and joyful. There, people had a sense of sacrifice and honour. He wanted to reproduce this in France. But, to succeed, ‘the French must find their poetry, their myths, their French images, as well as confidence in themselves and in a national ideal’. He concluded that ‘we can make it ours, not by a useless copy or imitation but by a more developed knowledge of who we are’.37

That seems reasonable to me.

Brasillach’s early engagement with fascism was primarily intellectual, seeing that his journalism and writings mostly discussed aesthetics and racism, without putting forward a political, social, or economic program. His dreams and hopes, however, were of a political nature. He wanted France to arise ‘Phoenix-like’ from the political and cultural decadence of its time, but rather than pushing for this to happen, he believed that it would be the result of spontaneous combustion. 

Passiveness never accomplishes anything.

Brasillach believed that the existence of a uniquely French fascism, grounded in French culture, would be enough to spark a fascist revolution. The fact that it did not, made him increasingly more disillusioned.

He should have blamed himself. You need to work for change.  The greater the change, the more work and effort required.  Nothing comes easy, least of all, a new society.

It made Brasillach’s later work—from mid-1938—more dismissive about France’s culture and people. 

Projection.

It, at the same time, prompted his thinking about foreign fascist movements to become progressively heroic and romantic; as many foreign peoples, in contrast to the French, had brought about profound social and national revolutions. 

And their leaders worked to make it happen; they did not assume it would occur automatically.

To instigate a French fascist revolution, some editors at JSP even considered asking the Nazis, once the exotic other, for military assistance. Rebatet, at one point, publicly invited Hitler to invade France. 

Madness.

While diagnosing the decline and decay of France on countless fronts, these JSP editors prophesied that fascism could bring about a spiritual and cultural renewal. Fascism, for them, was the antidote to the decadency of democracy, capitalism, liberalism, and Marxism. According to them, a fascist revolution would—undoubtedly—lead to the cultural, spiritual, and national rebirth of France. They found proof of this in other countries, such as Nazi Germany. Although Brasillach, throughout the 1930s, kept regarding Nazi Germany as the ‘other’, due to the ‘foreign’ content of its national symbols and myths, the JSP editors consistently presented this country as a magical and safe place, untouched by the corruption of democracy, Judaism, capitalism, liberalism, and Marxism. It was depicted as a place where the Jews and Bolshevists could not impose their decadent ways. Germany, in other words, was sculptured into a purer mirror of an impure France.

More Germany worship from the Far Right. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

While agreeing on the goal, the editors of JSP employed different strategies to spark a fascist revolution: Cousteau warned the French people that they had to eliminate the ‘internal enemies’ and overthrow the French government themselves, in order to prevent Nazi Germany from invading France to eradicate the Judeo-Bolshevists. Brasillach, in contrast, asserted in his early work that intellectual engagement with a uniquely French fascism, grounded in French culture, would be enough to trigger a French revolution. 

Cousteau was right.

Before thinking about the specific relationship between these French fascist editors at JSP and the German National Socialists, one must first recognize that the Nazis themselves were quite hesitant to export their ideology abroad. Hitler himself strongly doubted that exporting National Socialism would be possible, because he regarded it as an exclusively German phenomenon. 

The man was an idiot, despite whatever other virtues he had. National Socialism as an ideology can be applied to virtually any ethny, at least in theory.  It is a form of fascism that stresses biological race, in the form of a collectivist people’s community in which biological-genetic-racial-eugenic principles and interests are paramount.  Now,the particular German manifestation of this ideology was “an exclusively German phenomenon” but not the ideology itself. It is like saying that communism was specifically Russian (or, more properly, Jewish).

He, however, also believed it to be counterproductive, as it ‘would only lead to a strengthening of nationalism in other countries’, which ‘leads to a weakening of Germany’s position’ on the world stage. 

There you go, the self-centered petty nationalist culture retarding ethnonationalist par excellence.  And how did that work out for Germany?  In actuality, Germany’s long term stability and well-being would have been optimized as part of a strong and secure Europe in which all peoples enjoyed the protection of fascistic and national socialist principles.  By attempting to selfishly grasp too much, Hitler and the Nazis lost all.  It is analogous to a billionaire who destabilizes his host society by greedily trying to get more and more money of low marginal value, instead of protecting his already sufficient wealth by supporting a stable society to live in.

Hitler, therefore, was glad that the Nazi parties in other countries had ‘not produced leaders of his own calibre’, who were often ‘mere copyists’ without ‘original or new ideas’. As ‘they only imitated us and our methods slavishly’, he believed that they ‘would never amount to anything’.44 

Wonderful. Some pro-White leader he was.

The primary issue here, for Hitler, was ‘belatedness’. Much of Hitler’s contempt for foreign fascist movements seems to come from the fact that they come late, making them inevitably minions and imitators. For this reason, Hitler did not expect much from most foreign fascists: ‘in every country you have to start from different premises and change your methods accordingly’.45

So?  One could adopt basic principles to each people’s particular traits.

This, however, did not stop the Nazis from interacting with foreign fascists, nor from spreading ‘pan-fascist romanticism’. Already on 16 November 1933, Hitler proclaimed in an interview with the French journalist Fernand de Brinon that he wanted to start conversations ‘between the good French and the good Germans, between the good Poles and the good Germans, and between 100 % English people and 100 % German ones’. He asserted that cross-border collaboration between all ‘superior human races’—such as the ‘Aryan’ French and German races—could lead to a strengthening of the social, cultural, and political position of these peoples in their respective countries.46 People of ‘mixed race’ and ‘internationalists’, in contrast, had to be kept outside of these conversations.

Truth or lies?

This Nazi narrative of pan-fascist romanticism, drenched in transnational racialism, was fundamentally at odds with the core message of most of Hitler’s German-language speeches and writings, which was shamelessly German-nationalist. Hitler, for instance, consistently depicted the French as irredeemable since they had gone too far in their degenerative process of ‘Vernegerung’ [‘negrification’]. In his German speeches and writings, the Führer consistently repeated throughout the 1930s that the inferior status of the French people and race posed a lurking danger to ‘white humanity’ and ‘the white race’.47 

So, the previous comments were lies.  One could imagine his attitude toward Italians. Well, there's a passage in Mein Kampf about Southern Italy that makes the disdain clesr.

For the translation-process of Mein Kampf…This narrative, obviously, contrasted greatly from what Hitler wrote and said to his German audience. There, Hitler continued to argue that France as a country should be perceived as ‘a sin against the existence of white humanity’… Mein Kampf’s original narrative of German-nationalist, fascist, romanticism was thus substituted by a narrative of non-national, racialized transnationalism. Hitler’s book was profoundly altered to lead a second life as a carrier of pan-fascist romanticism.

So the Nazis were lying to non-Germanic Europeans about Nazi attitudes toward intra-European ethnoracial differences, camouflaging the real Germanocentric racial contempt with a false mask of transnational fascism. This is similar to how the “movement” lies to White ethnics, pretending to believe in “White unity” while in actuality the real attitude is contempt for White ethnics.

After Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, Nazi propaganda originally aimed to cultivate and establish amicable relations with French ministers and diplomats. Until early 1936, the Nazis kept close ties with various French officials.56 To help these negotiations, and to further their cause, the Nazis deemed it advisable to deemphasize the ideological and political significance of Hitler’s blatantly anti-French statements in Mein Kampf. 

More fundamental dishonesty.

Seduction, Deception, and Self-Delusion

That sounds like the relationship of the “movement” with White ethnics.

The relationship and interaction between certain members of the Nazi regime and the editors of JSP, however, cannot be fully explained by noting that these French fascists were solely passive recipients of ‘Nazi’ narratives of pan-fascist romanticism. The story, of course, was a whole lot more complicated. In the thought of a handful of Nazi officials including Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels, there was a certainly a strong belief that the nationalist and transnationalist dimensions of fascism were irreconcilable, or, in other words, that transnational fascism was intrinsically paradoxical. So, in their minds there was not really so much a ‘paradox’ as, rather, the recognition of a pattern of delusion on the side of the other fascist peoples and movements that they wished to exploit. 

That shows how absolutely despicable the Nazis were with respect to their relations with non-Germanic peoples, and is akin to how today’s “movement” treat White ethnics.

Consider what non-German fascists tried to do.

The conference was not able to bridge the gulf between those participants who proposed achieving national integration by a corporative socio-economic policy and those who favored an appeal to race.[9] Pretensions to "universal fascism" could not survive this rift, and the movement did not meet its goal of acting as a counterbalance to international communism.

If true, that analysis suggests that one reason for the failure of inter-war transnational fascism was ideological, not any “instability” due to the “paradox” of “ultra-nationalists” trying to engage across national identities.  Also, the German resistance to transnational fascist cooperation and Mussolini’s capture as a vassal of Germany (another hoodwinked fascist) meant that such conference were no longer being promoted by an established fascist state.

Back to the original essay:

Because they were convinced that they saw through the paradox of transnational fascism, and believed they understood where German interests really lay, they attempted to manipulate foreign fascist peoples and movements by feeding into the narrative of ‘pan-fascist collaboration’, and feeding into the ‘delusion’ through a continuing assertion and dissemination of pan-fascist romanticism. This, for them, served the purpose of implanting ‘pan-fascist illusions’ in the minds of foreign fascists to further obscure, what they regarded as, the paradoxical nature of transnational fascism.

The paradox was not inherent, it was due to the petty nationalist tendencies of ethnonationalist filth.

There was, however, a lot of conflict among Nazi officials regarding the desired treatment of France. Himmler and Goebbels were especially hostile to the idea of collaborating with France’s ultra-right, and Hitler was initially hesitant as well. 

Surprise!

When looking at the position of the French fascists working at JSP, one should not forget that they had actively sought out rapprochement with the Nazis themselves. They did so for a couple of reasons. The JSP editors had been extremely hostile to the French government from mid-1936 onward, which caused them to create two dissociated conceptions of France. In their minds, it was their mission to defeat France as a ‘political entity’ to save their ‘ideal’ and ‘mythical’ conception of France. From mid-1938 onward, however, they became profoundly frustrated after they believed that a uniquely French fascist revolution was postponed indefinitely due to the ‘weakness’ and ‘unmanliness’ of the French population. In addition to their racial disillusionment, they were jealous about supposedly successful ‘social’ and ‘national’ revolutions in other countries and hoped to learn—and to receive inspiration—from foreign fascists. At the same time, they understood their position as a relatively powerless minority group in France, which meant that their collaboration with the German regime and officials was grounded upon an asymmetrical power relationship…For the longest time, the JSP editors also kept explaining away anything that contradicted their ‘illusory’ convictions. Whenever Cousteau, for instance, was confronted with the anti-French sentiments from Hitler’s Mein Kampf, he asserted that these statements were simply outdated.

That is all perfectly consistent with the delusions White ethnics have with the “movement.”  When confronted with ingoing “movement” Nordicism and disdain for Southern and Eastern Europeans, many ethnics try to convince themselves (and others) that it is “simply outdated” and doesn’t mean anything.

This logic, of course, was of a circular kind. To explain why they had omitted the anti-French passages in Ma Doctrine, the JSP editors referred to the Nazi’s pan-fascist narrative of the last years to illustrate and prove that Hitler had changed his attitude towards France and the French people, even though their Nazi-authorized publication, at the same time, propounded exactly the same pan-fascist narrative, and was produced and disseminated to re-assert it. Rather than regarding such examples of crooked logic as failed attempts to defend themselves against allegations from negative reviews, it seems to be emblematic of what the JSP editors themselves believed in from mid-1938 onward. 

Sound familiar?  I suppose I was guilty of doing the same in the past as well.

Reality be damned.

Indeed.

Conclusion…many fascists often incorporated countless combinations of contradictory elements into their thinking and constantly kept modifying their ideas, definitions, and principles throughout their careers. Seeing that tackling their self-defined problems was usually seen as a matter of life and death, many fascists, and this is, of course, particularly the case for ‘fascists’ who had not managed to secure the support of their ‘target groups’, and who had become disillusioned by the social, cultural, and political realities of their time, were also overly flexible in their choice of allies. 

Too much flexibility makes you snap, as what has happened to many in the “movement” today.

How did certain individual fascists, at specific moments in their lives, think about the possibility of cross-border fascist solidarity? How did they mediate the relationship between nationalism and transnationalism; and how did these fascists—in other words—‘think transnationally’?

For example, if one does regard nationalism as a core element of fascism, then that logically seems to mean that transnational fascism is—at least partially—paradoxical. 

Again, this describes the ethnonationalist error. True White nationalism – the fascism that makes sense today – has race as nation (what this author decries as “Eurocentric”) and can eliminate the “paradox."

The thought, work, and practices of fascists, however, almost never followed simple logical assumptions. Fascist thinking, instead, is all too often molded by resentment, fear, and shame…

Typical leftist ad hominem.

When doing so, one will easily find that many individual fascists do not regard nationalism as a core element of fascism; and, because of this, most of them will not regard transnational fascism as inherently paradoxical. 

Yes.

…especially after 1945, it is apparent that distinguishable groups of fascists have substituted nationalism with racism.

That’s my whole point.  So much for the “paradox?”

For many of them, ‘the white race’ …

Note the scare quotes. Leftist alert!

…has become the common denominator, which is inherently transnational. The claim to defend ‘white superiority’ ..

Liar.  Who on the Far Right (apart perhaps Spencer) talks about “white superiority?”

The main takeaway from this paper on the usefulness of ‘pan-fascism’ for future historical studies on transnational fascism is that it all boils down to optics. 

Nonsense.

As regards footnotes:

This paper maintains Roger Griffin’s definition of ultra-nationalism, namely that it is essentially xenophobic and is known to legitimize itself ‘through deeply mythicized narratives of past cultural or political periods of historical greatness or of old scores to settle against alleged enemies’. Cyprian P. Blamires, ed., World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2006), 452.

The definition is palingenetic ultra-nationalism, you mendacious leftist scum.

In 2020, Anson Rabinbach wrote that fascism should be understood as an ‘ethos or Gesinnung, a willingness to adhere to the general precepts of a worldview, which was vague and indistinct enough to embrace a variety of related perspectives’. Somewhat similarly, Sven Reichardt argued that one should think about fascism as seven distinctive ‘processes’, because ‘fascism as a movement, acting within a democratic system, should be understood as fundamentally different from a state carrying out a genocide in the exceptional situation of the Second World War’. Sven Reichardt, ‘Fascism’s Stages: Imperial Violence, Entanglement, and Processualization,’ History of Ideas 82, no. 1 (2021): 85–107; Anson Rabinbach, Staging the Third Reich: Essays in Cultural and Intellectual History, eds. Stefanos Geroulanos and Dagmar Herzog (London, etc.: Routledge, 2020), 121, 160, 174.

There’s some truth in that, given that flexible and protean nature of fascism, but shouldn’t be taken too far.

Some individual fascists at various moments in time, however, were primarily committed to the ‘pan-European’ idea. As Roger Griffin wrote: ‘certain strands of interwar fascism were actively concerned with resolving the decadence brought about by the status quo as a whole, not just in a particular nation, and thus thought of rebirth in pan-European or even Western terms’. Roger Griffin, ‘Europe for the Europeans: Fascist Myths of the European New Order 1922–1992,’ in A Fascist Century: Essays by Roger Griffin, ed. Matthew Feldman (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 132–181.

And that’s a good thing.

My bottom line – genuine pan-Europeanism eliminates the so-called “paradox” in fascist thought, and the “paradox” lingers on today because of the culture-retarding ethnonationalists who divide Whites and who proudly self-identify as petty nationalists (e.g., Greg Johnson).

Yockeyian Genetics

Constructing a more cohesive pan-European genetic identity.  Emphasis added.

We all know Yockey’s somewhat questionable views on the issue of biological race, which I have written about multiple times (one example here).  Instead of focusing on that, here I look at another issue – the possible genetic (biological racial) consequences of a Yockeyian Imperium, a subject that I term “Yockeyian Genetics.”

In some ways, this is related to my essay on the convergence of the Yockeyian and Salterian perspectives, but here I consider it from the more specific perspective of how a Yockeyian Imperium could affect the genetics of the European peoples constituting such a geopolitical entity.

Let us consider this post, which is based on this paper, from which the following is extracted:

Population stratification caused by nonrandom mating between groups of the same species is often due to geographical distances leading to physical separation followed by genetic drift of allele frequencies in each group. In humans, population structures are also often driven by geographical barriers or distances; however, humans might also be structured by abstract factors such as culture, a consequence of their reasoning and self-awareness. Religion in particular, is one of the unusual conceptual factors that can drive human population structures. This study explores the Levant, a region flanked by the Middle East and Europe, where individual and population relationships are still strongly influenced by religion. We show that religious affiliation had a strong impact on the genomes of the Levantines. In particular, conversion of the region's populations to Islam appears to have introduced major rearrangements in populations' relations through admixture with culturally similar but geographically remote populations, leading to genetic similarities between remarkably distant populations like Jordanians, Moroccans, and Yemenis. Conversely, other populations, like Christians and Druze, became genetically isolated in the new cultural environment. We reconstructed the genetic structure of the Levantines and found that a pre-Islamic expansion Levant was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners.

The last part – “a pre-Islamic expansion Levant was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners” – has some relevance with respect to putative “Levantine immigrants and slaves” in Ancient Rome, who may have been much more “genetically similar to Europeans” than are Middle Easterners today. Note also that post-Islamic expansion Muslin influx into Southern Europe may have been mostly Berber types (and that, with a net effect of only a few percentage points of ancestry, at the greatest). But those are details.  

The main point is that cultural similarity can influence genetics to bring culturally similar people to become more genetically similar, and more genetically distant and distinct from culturally alien peoples, even if the cultural aliens are geographically close and not much genetically different to begin with. The same principle can extend to the realm of politics and High Culture-Politics as that of a Yockeyian Imperium. Thus, we can understand how cultural-civilizational-political boundaries can influence genetic boundaries between peoples.

See this, which is based on this.

…during the last 1,000 generations there are more coalescences between Beijing Chinese and Japanese rather than Beijing Chinese and southern Chinese; in more recent times, there are more coalescences between Chinese groups. This makes some sense, if we suppose that -as seems likely- Mongoloids spread north-to-south across China during prehistory; the Japanese are thus linked -in older times- with northern Chinese, both of which are mostly descended from the northern Mongoloids; in more recent times, especially after the emergence of a uniquely Chinese polity and culture, the Chinese tend to marry other Chinese, hence they share more recent common ancestors within the country itself.

The take home point of this:

The same can apply to Europe and any (relatively small) potential kinship overlap that may currently exist between Europeans and non-Europeans.  Once a “Western Imperium” is established, and gene flow from outside is stopped, over time, genetic distance between those groups within the Imperium and those outside will increase.  Thus, even if there is no increase in gene flow within the Imperium, the fact that a genetic division will be established with the “outer groups” will ensure that Europeans will, over time, form an ever more cohesive genetic grouping, more clearly separated from non-Europeans.  Thus, proximate influences ultimate, and genetic boundaries can become increasingly well matched with political-cultural-civilizational boundaries once gene flow between civilizational groups is stopped.  And there is more than enough genetic diversity within each civilizational bloc to satisfy biological requirements in the absence of any inter-continental and inter-civilizational gene flow.

Genetic drift, selection, and other such processes would take place, with the within vs. without distinction further pushing Europeans and non-Europeans farther apart. There would also be, to an extent, increasing cultural distinctiveness to mirror that of the genes/biology. The last part about "biological requirements" refers to an adequate amount of genetic diversity to enhance fitness, avoid inbreeding depression, and to provide the genetic variation to deal with changes in the environment (broadly defined).

So, we see that a political-cultural entity, the Yockeyian Imperium, would affect the genetics of its constituent peoples in such a manner as to support the underlying foundation of the Imperium entity itself, the organic solidarity of the European peoples.

Consider this PCA figure.  By tightly restricting any possible gene flow strictly to the European Imperium, one would expect, over time, the European and non-European areas to be more distinct and segregated than they are presently, with the European PCA likely becoming more concentrated within a space of the two major axes (PC1 and PC2).  Certainly, any tendency of greater intra-European dispersion and European/non-European convergence – the latter of which is no doubt being facilitated by alien immigration into Europe – would be repressed, and the aforementioned opposing trends promoted.  Any possibility that a given European and non-European ethny would be genetically closer than two European ethnies would also be eliminated over time by the processes inherent in restricting gene flow strictly within the European family of nations. Thus any such kinship overlap, if such exist, between, say, Europeans and non-European Caucasians, would be eliminated, as discussed above.

Cypriots are found in between Southern Italians and Near Easterners, thus, between Southern Europeans and non-European Caucasians. If Greek Cypriots are included in the Imperium while Turkish Cypriots are excluded, then the former group will, over time, converge with Southern Europeans in PCA while the latter will drift in the direction of Turks – as a result of restricting any (low level, see below) gene flow to the proper categories.

Now, one could speculate that the EU, and freedom of movement within it, would promote an increasing convergence and concentration of European PCA, but then the introduction of alien elements, not always evenly distributed among EU members) would counter-act that to an extent (e.g., a large number of Turks in Germany would, in the event of admixture, move Germans away from other Europeans infested with alien types other than Turks - with the alien invaders being less interested in moving away from their favorite host nations than are natives willing to move elsewhere).  So, the current EU, which combines both freedom of movement within and porous borders without, is not optimal for the proposed “Yockeyian Genetics.”

Now, one can argue that from the strict perspective of so-called Yockeyian genetics, the optimal situation would be an internal European-only panmixia, with complete internal freedom of movement and significant inter-marriage, coupled to a complete lack of movement and admixture with non-Europeans.  While true, that would have the negative effect of erasing established European ethnic identities, and creating a generalized European type, which is not the objective of pan-Europeanism (regardless of what its opponents claim). Thus, the objective of Yockeyian genetics is not the optimal, and most rapid, creation of a generalized pan-European genetic type (with a highly concentrated PCA). Indeed, the type of Imperium I have in mind would have less internal movement than the current EU, in order to safeguard the uniqueness of specific European types. Instead, I propose to completely shut off outside influences, while allowing for, over time, low level intra-European gene flow to result in an increased European/non-European separation, and a degree of concentration of the European PCA, while still preserving the overall PCA (genes correlated with geography) structure and the uniqueness of the European types. A slow and modest “tightening” of the PCA over time with respect to Europeans, coupled to increased distance to non-Europeans is the objective, with the concomitant, desired elimination of any possible European/non-European kinship overlap. Thus, in every case, genetic distances between any chosen European ethnies would always be less than genetic distances between any European and non-European ethnies (in most cases, this is true today, but there may be some breakdown of that between the farthest ends of the genetic spectrum).

Thus, this would NOT be any panmixia, but the normal low level gene flow that has always occurred in history between distinct peoples, but in this case, restricted in the manner described above. Of course, if some European ethny wants to follow its own evolutionary path, and be completely genetically isolated from all other groups, in order to promote divergence, that’s fine; freedom of association would be respected (but the opposite, bringing in racial and cultural aliens from outside the European sphere, would not be tolerated).  But, given the behavior of people within the EU today, I suspect the opposite would be more of an issue – people clamoring for free movement between Imperium nations, a movement that would need to be restricted (to some significant degree) in order to preserve ethnic distinctiveness. These are details that would need to be worked out.

The consequences with respect to Salterian EGI would be supportive of the Imperium idea.  Eliminating potential kinship overlap with groups outside the Imperium, and concentrating (to a natural extent over time, again, not a panmixia that would harm the more local specific EGI of individual ethnies) the European genepool, the EGI cost/benefit ratio would ever increasingly move into the direction of maximizing benefits and minimizing costs of the Imperium idea.  Genetic distance to groups outside the Imperium would increase, making it more and more beneficial to exclude such groups and minimizing costs that would have obtained if kinship overlap across the Imperium boundaries existed.  Genetic distances within the Imperium would in all cases be less than any case of cross-boundary genetic distance, again maximizing benefits and minimizing costs.  Not only would net EGI benefit from the Imperium arrangement (in that any significant EGI costs would be more than compensated by counterbalancing benefits), but by eliminating much of the costs, gross EGI would be maximized as well.  This would particularly be the case if the uniqueness of individual ethnies is maintained, so the best of both worlds occur – individual ethnic group EGI is preserved, while pan-European EGI is maximized as well.

To summarize, in outline form:

• 1. A pan-European state (Imperium) would be set up that would have the effect of an enhancement of net EGI, by advancing the interests of the group of peoples and thus the interest of each constituting group.
• 2. In order to safeguard the uniqueness of the constituent groups, movement and mixture between these groups would be restricted, preventing any panmxia and loss of biological and cultural ethnic distinctiveness. Of course, there would be some (limited) movement and gene flow, consistent with what has occurred throughout European history.
• 3. At the same time, movement and mixture from without the Imperium, from biologically and culturally alien non-European peoples, would be strictly forbidden and absolutely restricted.
• 4. Thus, what would obtain over historical, evolutionary time is a complete absence of gene flow from the outside, coupled with continuous, low level, internal gene flow. Genetic drift, selection, and other such processes would take place, with the within vs. without distinction further pushing Europeans and non-Europeans farther apart.
• 5. These processes would have the effect, over time, of increasing the genetic distance of groups within vs. without the Imperium (European vs. non-European), while genetic distances within the Imperium would be maintained and/or slowly decreased (to an extent) over time.
• 6. Kinship overlap within/without would be eliminated due to these processes (particularly the strict isolation from outside gene flow).  Thus, in every possible case, any European ethnies chosen for comparison would be genetically closer (measured with genetic kinship/gene sharing, Fst, or whatever) than would be any European ethny compared to a non-European one. In PCA, European groups would be more separated from non-Europeans, and the European groups may be expected to slowly concentrate around a narrower core grouping along the major axes of genetic variation – Europeans less spread out among themselves, but more isolated from others.
• 7. These processes would take place naturally over long time frames, with ethnic distinctiveness being maintained, preserving local EGI while enhancing group EGI, leading to not only an increase in net EGI but gross EGI as well, a more optimal profile of genetic interests with costs minimized.

Would this process take centuries and millennia? Yes. An enduring structure is required, with an elite caste whose mission is to monitor and guide the process of directing European genetics. One would expect sampling of genetic metrics over time to evaluate the process, make sure all is going as planned, and to make adjustments as necessary. Some formula needs to be designed to make sure the process is politically and evolutionarily stable over time, that it is not hijacked or discarded, and does not become subject to elite free riding.  Considerations of “freedom” need to be put into context – the ultimate freedom is the freedom to exist and to pursue genetic interests. Further, as an elite project, this would not interfere with the day-to-day life of most people, with the exception of restrictions on movement between nations (and more so, in/out of the Imperium). But how many people actually relocate to other nations?  And if one’s nation is an orderly nationalist state, as would be under this scheme, why would they want to?

Yockey in the 21st Century

Relevance of Yockey today.

What relevance does the work of Francis Parker Yockey have for the Far Right today, in the 21st century, after the drama of Trump, in the ruins of the Alt Right, after Brexit, and within the context of current-day nationalist activism?

Yockey’s work, including and especially Imperium, has genuine support from a small and very selective fraction of the Far Right, which includes some of its more thoughtful members. Unfortunately, Yockey’s work is also insincerely promoted by some who Yockey would have denounced as treasonous Culture Retarders – ethnonationalists, some of whom proudly self-described as “petty nationalists” and who oppose pan-Europeanism and Yockey’s Imperium idea. We have also seen a resurgence of another rightist paradigm that Yockey opposed – Nordicism (and other similar forms of divisive ethnic fetishism). Yet another extant rightist paradigm that Yockey would oppose, and that itself opposes Yockeyian pan-Europeanism, is the HBD cult, which worships IQ, divides Europeans against each other, and elevates Jews and East Asians as superior Herrenvolk. Indeed, all three branches of the anti-Yockeyian Right have formed an informal collaboration - the HBD-Nordicist-ethnonationalist alliance, which is particularly strong in the Anglosphere, even more particularly in America. So, while Yockey and his work has some cachet on the Right, in general, the current trends in Far Right "thought" are for the most part unalterably opposed to Yockey’s grand idea. In Europe itself, petty nationalist ethnonationalism dominates the Right; the only group related to Yockey’s ideal would be Norman Lowell’s Imperium Europa in Malta. The negative experience of the European Union (EU) has left a bitter taste in the mouth of many in the European Right, much of which is moving away from the idea of “Europe as a nation,” and some of the support these nationalist parties may get from abroad (Russia?) could have interests opposed to European unity.

Indeed, the EU has been a double-edged sword with respect to Yockey’s Imperium ideal.  On the positive side, it demonstrated an inherent European desire for cohesiveness, and it neatly refutes one of the (asinine) arguments of the petty nationalists – e.g.., “how can Europeans be together in the same state when you can’t even get Czechs and Slovaks to stay together in the same state,” or some (moronic) variation thereof. Well, Czechs and Slovaks are no longer in the same nation state, but they are both members of the EU, demonstrating that intra-European ethnic rivalries may be best managed as part of an overarching political structure. On the negative side – and it is a large negative – the way the EU has actually been implemented, as an anti-European, anti-White, and anti-Western globalist monstrosity, enabling genocidal race replacement migration and restricting free speech and the political ability of native Europeans to defend their own group interests, has, to many minds, delegitimized the very idea of a “European Union.” Even a pro-Imperium pan-Europeanist such as myself opposes the current EU and cheered Brexit.  But one must distinguish the fundamental idea of union from the distorted and flawed implementation of the idea. The fact that many on the European Right still support the idea of the EU, at least in principle, despite is horrific actualization, suggests, along with support for the EU across the rest of the political spectrum, broad support, among a large proportion of the European population, for the idea of at least some type of union. In this sense, at the most fundamental level, Yockey has been vindicated.

The future, in the short-term and medium-term, does not look bright for Yockeyism. Obviously, the Left, Center, and Mainstream Right reject a key element of his core message – a European Imperium for Europeans and European interests as opposed to a EU that privileges aliens - and to the extent that Europeans have legitimized part of Yockey’s ideal by embracing the EU, that project has been so mismanaged, has been so hijacked into the antithesis of an authentic Imperium, that it has delegitimized the "Europe as Nation" idea for large swathes of both the Right in general and the Far Right in particular.  In America, Yockeyism has always taken a back seat to Nordicist Nutzism, and even many who superficially promote Yockey’s work actually promote a petty nationalism that Yockey himself would denounce as culture retarding treason. The main currents of Nordicism, HBD, and ethnonationalism inherent in much of American activism is opposed to everything Yockey believed in, fought for, and died for. 

In addition, some individuals who are Yockeyists, or say they are, seem to focus more on the “spiritual” and esoteric aspects of Yockey the man and Yockey the ideologue, and seem uninterested in the hardcore pragmatic political ideals that formed the basis of the Imperium worldview.  Despite the fact that Yockey’s name is often mentioned on the Far Right, and in many ways mentioned positively (but not always positively, of course), the fact also remains that the Far Right for the most part rejects and unalterably opposes Yockeyian pan-Europeanism, and rejects and defames those who actually are pan-Europeanists in a real, genuine sense.

Long-term practical prospects are unknown and I will not speculate on those here. I neither want to be a delusional “victory is assured” fascist of the type Roger Griffin mocks, nor do I want to be equally dogmatic in asserting the inherent impossibility of achieving Yockey’s vision. We can merely be realistic and look ahead, forward to a reasonable time frame, and say that things do not look good at all.

That is all from a descriptive basis. What about prescription?  Here, I suppose I have nothing to say that will be much of a surprise to long time readers of my work. Obviously, I favor, in general, the Yockeyian pan-European perspective, although I of course disagree with Yockey on some fundamental details of epiphenomena associated with his work, the details of which, again, long time readers of my own material should be familiar with. The superiority of the broad Yockeyian perspective should be (but, alas is not for many activists) self-evident, compared to the “competition.”  HBD is transparent Jew-worship and Asian-worship, and is openly hostile to White nationalism and kinship-based racial politics. Nordicism is a factually incorrect, outdated, and needlessly divisive childish ideology, akin in many ways to Afrocentrism, and works against broader White interests. Ethnonationalism is to a large extent responsible for creating the existential race problems Whites face today; further, ethnonationalists typically reveal themselves to be ethnoimperialist hypocrites. Everything Yockey said about “vertical racists” and “culture retarders” fits the Nordicists and ethnonationalists; Yockey couldn’t imagine the stupidity of HBD, but I suppose if you stretch some of his comments against a self-destructively hyper-rationalistic materialist outlook (“it’s all IQ!"), then there would be grist for the mill there. Certainly, one could only imagine what Yockey would think about prioritizing Jewish and Asian interests over those of ethnic Europeans, or what he would think about White “Yellow Supremacists” or “The Arctic Alliance” or “Jeurasian” mongrelization.

We see more and more that the Clash of Civilizations endangers the West.  The threat of the Global South, Islam, China, the culture retarders and other traitors in our own ranks, all of this comes down to the hatred of those opposed to the High Culture of the West, and the treason of those within the West with a vested interest in its downfall, or, at least, a vested interest in perpetuating the intra-West fissures that have led to our sorry state. Against all of this the Yockeyian perspective stands like a colossus.  We also observe that basing White resistance solely on a pure materialist basis not only runs the risk of degenerating into HBD and Nordicism, but lacks the proper motivating passion, the idealism that has always underpinned the self-sacrificial fervor of the leftist enemy. Yockeyism and its objectives - even if possibly “irrational” from the purely empirical perspective - remedies that.  The fact that petty nationalist enemies of Yockey’s Imperium ideal find themselves trying to associate with Yockey, find themselves attracted to his work, even promoting and selling that work (that they actually oppose), attests to that work's power. The EU, for all its faults, points to an inner recognition of European organic solidarity, of White comity, and recent events creates more and more an idea of White solidarity and comity in the European Diaspora, as anti-White forces gather their strength.

Hence, Yockeyism is more relevant than ever, and has more to offer than ever. It is only because of the inherent defects of the “movement” – in America, Europe, and elsewhere – that the descriptive, on-the-ground prospects for Yockeyism is so poor, so disheartening, and why, regardless of what attractiveness “The Cult of Saint Francis” holds for some activists, they reject Yockey’s fundamental message.

The problem is not with Yockeyism; the problem is with the “movement,” broadly defined. Hence, the paradox - in the 21st century, Yockeyism is more relevant than ever, yet it is ignored and disregarded, at least with respect to its practical fundamentals, more than ever. That is a world historical crime for which the “movement” – and the Right more generally – can never be forgiven.

Whither Imperium?

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.

Number one.

Number two.

Number three.

Number four.

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.

On Yockey’s ELF Groupuscule:

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.”