Strasser, Part 2

More.

Here.

Strasser and Pan-Europeanism

Some historical background.

Here.

Another answer to those who postulate that pan-Europeanism is some sort of recent invention:

This “New Europe” would be a “league of free nations.” Strasser saw this as the culmination of a long held dream among European thinkers.[35] Indeed the concept of “Europe” is a yearning with a long pedigree. In describing the Battle of Poitiers against the Arabs in AD 732 the Chronicle of Isidore of Spain refers to the Christian armies of Charles Martel as the “Europeans.” The empire of Charlemagne (AD 768–814) is named “Europe” by the contemporary chroniclers. In 755 the priest Cathwulf praised Charlemagne as ruling over “the glory of the empire of Europe.”[36] In 799 Angilbert, Charlemagne’s son-in-law and the Court poet, described the Emperor as “the father of Europe” – “Rex, pater Europae.”[37] The “Kingdom of Charles” was called “Europa” in the Annals of Fuld.[38]

Learning from Codreanu's Mistakes

A coherent ideology and a plan for governing are required.

Here.

Codreanu and the Iron Guard

An important piece of fascist history.

Codreanu.

The 10% Rule?

Is 10% enough?

See here.

This was reviewed in Science magazine, and the "take home message" seems to be as follows (assuming this theory is correct): if at least 10% of a populations holds a belief with an "unshakable conviction" then this belief will eventually win out against competitors and become the dominant meme in that population.

This seems consistent with the idea that history is made by an elite minority - an example given is the American "Civil Rights" movement, which "took off" once 10% of the Negro population became absolutely committed to the idea.

The implications for ethnic and racial nationalism are obvious since this suggests that if a minority (10+ %) of the target population can be convinced to become "true believers" in the nationalist cause, then eventual victory could be achieved.

The "catch" is "unshakable conviction." We are not talking about folks who are displeased by things, but then go and vote for an "electable conservative." We are not talking about "implicit whiteness," "Tea Party," or any other watered down substitute for nationalist fervor. Nor are we talking about the typical "movement activist" - usually only "unshakable" in their stupidity. But, 1 in 10 people who espouse intelligent, rational, disciplined, focused, hardcore "militant" nationalism - may that be enough?

Codreanu's Prison Notes

Counter-Currents.

Here.

Codreanu and his movement are of the utmost importance, and provide an example of important "proximate" interests that transcend the empirical/materialist/genetic-biological - interests that should not be ignored.

The Politics of Resentment

Excellent Greg Johnson piece.

Here.