North American New Right 1

by Greg Johnson

  . . . Against a united Europe, they could never have made their way in, and only against a divided Europe can they maintain themselves. Split! divide! distinguish!—this is the technique of conquest. Resurrect old ideas, old slogans, now quite dead, in the battle to turn European against European. . . .

  . . . The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro, however, shows to Europe a very important fact—that race-difference between white men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Europe, where hitherto the race difference between, say, Frenchman and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Europe, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestani from the Russian Empire. . . .

  . . . 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.

  Gone—forever gone—is any notion that one of these Ideas—national, linguistic, religious, social—has the mission of wiping out another Idea. The adherents of Empire are still distinct from the adherents of Papacy—but this distinction does not rule their minds, for uppermost now is the Idea of Imperium, the return to superpersonal origins, and both of these mighty Ideas have the same spiritual source. The difference between Protestant and Catholic—once excited into a casus belli—has gone the same way. Both continue to exist, but it is inconceivable that this difference could again rend the Western Civilization in twain. There have been also the racial and temperamental differences of Teuton and Latin, of North and South. Once these may have contributed to the furnishing of motives to History—this can they no longer do. Again, both are part of the West, even though different, and the Imperium-Idea monopolizes the motivation of History. . . . The former nations, the religions, the races, the classes—these are now the building-blocks of the great Imperial structure which is founding itself. Local cultural, social, linguistic, differences remain—it is no necessity of the Imperium-Idea that it annihilate its component Ideas, the collective products of a thousand years of Western history. On the contrary, it affirms them all, in a higher sense it perpetuates them all, but they are in its service, and no longer in the center of History.101

  Again, this is no “appeal to authority”; one is free to agree or disagree with Yockey’s views as one sees fit. However, Yockey’s views can be considered a reasonable summary of pan-Europeanism from a more historical, cultural, civilizational perspective.

  So far, this discussion has emphasized culture and civilization, which was Yockey’s specialty. I have often brought up biology and genetics elsewhere; here, I will briefly cite the following. In Lao et al., it is reported that European genetic differentiation mirrors geography and that Europe as a whole is relatively genetically homogeneous:

  . . . we found only a low level of genetic differentiation between subpopulations, the existing differences were characterized by a strong continent-wide correlation between geographic and genetic distance. . . . This implies that genetic differences between extant European subpopulations can be expected to be small indeed. . . . Overall, our study showed that the autosomal gene pool in Europe is comparatively homogeneous but at the same time revealed that the small genetic differentiation that is present between subpopulations is characterized by a significant correlation between genetic and geographic distance.102

  This view is supported by Bauchet et al.:

  In line with previous studies, there is low apparent diversity in Europe, with the entire continent-wide sample only marginally more dispersed than single-population samples from elsewhere in the world.103

  In other words, the extent of genetic diversity in the entire continent of Europe is in the same range as what is found within single ethnic groups of other continents. Certainly, important racial/genetic differences exist between European peoples, particularly along the north-south and east-west axes. Further, researchers can now distinguish the gene pools of quite closely related European peoples; for example, Norwegians vs. Swedes, or French, German, and Italian-speaking Swiss. All these differences are important; nevertheless, the similarities are important as well.

  A pan-Europeanism that respects and preserves genetic and cultural differences, while also respecting genetic and cultural similarities, is wholly consistent with ethnic genetic interests. For example, in On Genetic Interests,104 Frank Salter cites the Civilizations of Huntington105 as possible core units of ethnic genetic interests for defense against other genetic/civilizational entities. Note that Salter speculated that Huntington’s “Orthodox” eastern European bloc may be considered a subsection of the West.

  In summary, Europeans are relatively genetically similar and share a core civilizational history. This is the fundamental foundational basis for pan-Europeanism.

  BALANCING PARTICULARISMS: BROADER & NARROWER

  Specifics of how to balance broader and narrower particularisms are beyond the scope of this essay. However, I point the reader to an examination of pan-European genetic interests1 as “concentric circles” of genetic interests, which is similar to, and partially based upon an analysis of ethnic relations by Kevin MacDonald106 as well as, of course, the work of Frank Salter.13 MacDonald states:

  The problem, then, is how to best create strategies, including control of land areas, which promote ethnic genetic interests in the current environment. There is no precise or entirely natural way to establish the best boundaries for such an endeavor, but it certainly does not follow that such boundaries are arbitrary. It is the sort of problem that is solvable with rational choice mechanisms. For example, in the United States I propose that a grouping of people deriving from Europe, including Eastern and Southern Europe, would be far preferable to a strategy in which there were a large number of separate European groups (e.g., Danish, Scottish, English, Italian, etc.) each acting independently of the others.107

  Similarly, there is a rational and fitness-preserving pan-East Asian strategy that would follow the same logic as that of pan-Europeanism. Therefore, this Asian strategy would in no way no suggest that the Japanese give up their national identity, or that Koreans or Chinese do the same, or that all Asians intermix and erase all distinctions; nevertheless, they do have fundamentally important shared interests in their larger ethnic commonality. Indeed, Asian racial militants in the USA in some cases do adopt such as pan-East Asian policy. Ethnoracial interests can always be considered from a universalist perspective; i.e., to situate particular European interests within a broader framework.

  I suppose that in order to build a united Euro-Western front, a pan-European compact, compromise will be necessary. For example, if US immigration policy greatly restricts Asian and African immigration, that benefits all Americans of European descent. However, if it also restricts non-“Celto-Germanic” immigration (e.g., the 1924 act108) that will theoretically benefit some American whites more than others (although full assimilation of these others would make the point moot). Alternatively, if it does not discriminate at all between European immigrants (e.g., pre-1924) that could disadvantage the original founding stock American population. Therefore, I believe that the “1924 immigration act” national origins approach is essentially valid, and Stoddard’s demand that the earlier Euro-American population maintain control and preeminence while assimilating the later Euro-American “ethnics” is perfectly reasonable.

  Of course, the fundamental threat to the interests of all Euro-Americans originates from both elite non-Western groups (e.g., those of Asiatic origin) coupled with a mass of alien lower types (e.g., those of African and Latin American ancestries). In Eu
rope itself, the threat also includes mass migration across racial and civilizational divides from north Africa/Middle East as well as from groups similarly invading the USA (e.g., there is a growing “Latino” population in Spain, and of course sub-Saharan Africans are present as well). Certainly, the narrower particularist viewpoint can be expressed in ethnic genetic interest terms, and that it is valid as far as it goes. But it misses the larger point: the threat is not superficial or temporary but fundamental and encompasses the totality of Western civilization and all of the European peoples. The worldwide racial crisis exists and the fundamental issue remains: European-descended populations are threatened with replacement by Third World peoples.

  As a general model for balancing broader and narrower particularisms, one could envision—along the lines of Norman Lowell’s Imperium/Dominion split109—an overarching pan-European, Western Confederation resting on the framework of internally autonomous states that safeguard their narrower biological and cultural uniqueness. Regardless of these details, the fundamental point remains that all parties to preservationist solutions need to have their voices heard; in particular, all groups that make up the Western family of peoples need to join in this endeavor and participate in the process.

  CONCLUSION

  An optimal outcome would be if pan-Europeanists, Nordicists, pan-Slavists, pan-Germanists, ethnic nationalists, and all the other “ists” and “isms” within the white activist framework can work together in a productive fashion to achieve common objectives, even if fundamental points of important disagreement remain. If the majority of such people share a common goal of European, Western survival—albeit with different emphases, strategies, and tactics—then this could be a starting point to consider the possibilities. Given the immensity of the task before us, it would be helpful to at least be “in the same book,” if not “on the same page.”

  The following quote from Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe summarizes the palingenetic objective that we could, if we so wished, strive for:

  Our European Mission is to create the Culture-State-Nation-Imperium of the West, and thereby we shall perform such deeds, accomplish such works, and so transform our world that our distant posterity, when they behold the remains of our buildings and ramparts, will tell their grandchildren that on the soil of Europe once dwelt a tribe of gods.110

  That this tribe is not homogeneous, and contains within itself smaller tribes with unique and valued characteristics, is a given. But I believe, nevertheless, that this greater Western tribe does exist—and that together we can achieve great things, if we only can take the essential first steps forward. This essay is an open call for a paradigm shift in the relations of the varied types of (Western) ethnoracial nationalism to each other, a shift in the direction of increased cooperation. For approximately the last ten years there has been (sometimes acrimonious and mostly online) debate between proponents of these various “ists” and “isms” with no furthering of those objectives we all hold in common. Careful consideration of the possibilities for cooperation in areas of overlap should occur, and hopefully, these possibilities will become manifest in real-world collegial, productive endeavors.111 We can and should be able to move forward together to achieve our common objectives. The status quo has not been productive.

  Counter-Currents/North American New Right,

  May 31, 2012

  VANGUARD, AESTHETICS,

  REVOLUTION

  ALEX KURTAGIĆ

  _____________________

  I have on various occasions criticized the tendency among a subset of racial nationalists to indulge in improbable revolutionary fantasies, where the liberal system collapses, the white masses rise up, and evildoers hang from lampposts in one great Day of the Rope. “Mainstreamers” have, in turn, criticized the tendency among another subset to be bookworm revolutionaries, hermitic, eccentric, and too absorbed in their abstruse intellectual vaporings to be effective harbingers of change in the real world. Both subsets are emblematic of the retreat from reality that results from perceived powerlessness. Both represent vanguardist tendencies. Does that mean that vanguardism is a failed strategy, and that only mainstreamers offer a viable approach?

  Far from it.

  Vanguardism plays a key role in any movement seeking fundamental change when a system that can no longer be reformed, that has to crumble to make way for a new one, built on different foundations. What is more, it needs not stand in an either-or relationship with mainstreaming: it is possible—indeed it is preferable—to integrate both approaches into a coherent strategy.

  Before I begin, I will define the political categories “Right” and “Left” as I intend to use them in this article. By Left I mean those who believe in the ideology of equality and progress; they are associated with liberalism and modernity. By Right I mean those whose outlook is elitist (inegalitarian) and cyclical; they are associated with Traditionalism (in the Evolian sense). By Right I do not mean conservatives, whom I regard as classical liberals, only with socially conservative attitudes.

  FROM DYSTOPIA TO UTOPIA

  Commentators on the Right are prone to spend most of their energy analyzing and critiquing the modern dystopia. But while this is necessary, it is not sufficient: saying that we have arrived at a wrong destination and that we need to be elsewhere without at the same time indicating where that elsewhere is does not imply motion, only the recognition of the need for motion; therefore it is not a movement. For movement to occur, for an idea to gain adepts who then follow each other in a collective act of motion, the destination must be known, a priori, which implies it must be communicable in some way. This destination is the movement’s utopia: the perfect accomplishment of its goals.

  Utopias exist only in the imagination. Most of the time they are communicated through fantastic art and literature. At best, they are only ever partially and/or imperfectly implemented. At worse, they are highly unrealistic and impractical—most are to some degree. Yet this does not mean they are not useful: they are in fact necessary, and a precondition for movement. Their active ingredient is not their being scientifically accurate, but their capacity to exert an enormous sentimental force on a large enough collective of individuals. And its conception is the charge of the vanguardist, the intellectual outsider, the pioneer, the dreamer, the creator—the individual, or group of individuals, whose task is to break us out of the cognitive cages built by the incumbent system; out of the system-sponsored illusion where anything that is anathema to it seems unthinkable.

  Those who adopt mainstreaming approaches often despair at these dreamers because they appear—obviously—impractical, eccentric, and lacking in good sense. The problem is that creative innovators and iconoclasts often are: creative types comprise a peculiar breed, and within that, those who are truly innovative, truly at the vanguard, often shock, worry, and discomfit their less creative peers because they are less fettered by convention. There are undoubtedly good and bad sides to this, but this does not detract from the value of the creative process, even if not all of its byproducts are eventually adopted. The task of the mainstreamer, who abuts the vanguard and the mainstream, is to calculatingly take whatever can be used from the vanguard to stretch the limits of the mainstream, with a view to fundamentally transform the later in the long run.

  DREAMER AS PRAGMATIST

  Despite having the science, the data, and the logical arguments on its side, the Right has been in retreat for many decades. This alone should be sufficient indication that humans need more than just data, arguments, and truth to be persuaded into a change of allegiance. Yet many who identify with the Right continue operating under the illusion that this is not the case: if people believe in equality it is because they do not know about race differences in IQ; if people believe in multiculturalism it is because they do not know the black-on-white crime statistics; if people believe in liberalism it is because they have not read Gibbon, or Spengler, or Schmitt; and so on.

  The irony is that the best example of why this
approach is flawed exists all around us: the consumer society. As a child I was irritated by the unrealistic scenarios, the catchy jingles, and the constant sloganizing of television advertising, and I resented the irrational superficiality implied in this method of selling products. I thought that it would be far more logical to have a man in a suit seated at a table, facing the camera, like in a newsroom, and listing the product specifications to the audience in an unemotional monotone, so that viewers may be able to make a rational choice, based on solid data. Any adult with sense knows, even if he cannot explain exactly why, that this would never work in the real world. The reason is simple: the consumer society is not founded on utilitarian logic or reason, but on romanticism, daydreaming, status display, and utopias. And it is founded on these principles because that is what has been found to work—vast sums of money have been spent researching human psychology in the effort to maximize consumer mobilization. Colin Campbell and Geoffrey Miller provide theoretical and evolutionary explanations for the human motivational aspects of consumerism in The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism and Spent respectively.112

  Therefore it is fair to say that he who daydreams and purposefully induces others to daydream is, in fact, more of a pragmatist than the self-avowed pragmatically-oriented rationalist who seeks to persuade through reason. The former at least understands the irrationality of human nature, and plays (preys?) on it, while the latter fantasizes about abstract humans who act on the basis of rational self-interest.