I’m having a conversaton with race-denying, White Supremacy-denouncing denizens of a New-Right elist headed by someone named Troy Southgate, him of La Rose Noire and farcical National-Anarchism, a very stupid, woolly-headed “ideology” for not-too-bright, pot-smoking teenagers. I have yet to meet a virtual nobody with a higher opinion of himself than this character. Maybe some day I’ll make the effort of taking apart that individualistic “movement” (of three fat girls, besides Southgate), but it’s a bit of a waste of time, as it’s not a serious current of thought. Has anyone in North America and continental Europe even heard of it?
See also a discussion of National-Anarchism here.
How would a racial conquest “hasten our decline further”?
The existence of significant biological differences between groups of human beings means there will probably be social differences between them: differences in educational and economic achievement, personal and political behaviour, and social and political institutions. And if there is social differentiation between races, then competition and conflict between them is also likely (especially if they occupy the same or adjacent territory).
“Hatred,” racial conquest, domination, and racial antagonism will therefore result. It’s a consequence of the natural reality of racial differences and the effort to deny and ignore such differences by the delusions of “multiculturalism,” “multiracialism,” “universalism,” and “egalitarianism.”
Racial supremacy or “ethnic hierarchy” has been the norm in multiracial societies throughout history. It is hardly an accident that so many multiracial empires in human history have been authoritarian regimes in which the superior, dominant race monopolizes power.
Throughout their racial history from the prehistoric Indo-Europeans invasions of Western Asia and India to the nineteenth century, whites have always conquered and dominated the inferior races with whom they came in contact, at least until they themselves were absorbed by the very races they conquered. A salient reason to oppose miscegenation.
To say that “I’m against racial conquests” is like saying “I’m against the moon.”
“Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws…”
Nietzsche.
Anti-Imperialism is indeed a fundamental aspect of any kind of Anarchism. Considering the primitivism etc. of National-Anarchism, it’s quite justifiable, but your critique is a classic. There indeed is no way to truly prevent man’s imperialist nature, so even if the world were to utopically primitivise and split up in independent communities, then, to paraphrase Josef Klumb:
“We’ll just build marble columns alongside the forest paths again. There is no way to return to the Celtic Winters, we should carry these in our hearts to the South.”
There is a reason for this, and N-A’s, as well as Ecofascists and the like, blame this on man’s evolution having gone the wrong way. This of course is true so primitivism is a more ‘just’ conclusion to draw from this than Darwinism. But is ?-gressing in that direction really the way to go?
So Friedrich, I most certainly agree with your critique on N-A from this point of view. However, N-A is about more than just this. I’ve found great inspiration in their perennialism, considering, well, let’s face it, all Western cultures are pretty much dead and buried! I like to toy around when I’m with people from the local movement by asking them:
“So what is German culture then?”
They usually fall silent. This is the reality we face these days, so why not be more pan-european, ‘open minded’, I often wonder.
Another thing I like about N-A is how they give a valiable solution to our post-modern society. Seriously, at least they think with an open mind about how we can still save ourselves these days! And as I have stated elsewhere, from an apocalyptical point of view, N-A’s are survivalists who stand a chance. Well, stand a chance, perhaps, if only they would organise, which they don’t. The Third Position movements they came from may have been corrupted more often than not, but they at least realised a few things, or at the very least got close to doing so.
Currently, I believe standing somewhere between Third Positionism and N-A is the best way to go. Depending on how the next decade or two will be, either one or the other will become our last means of both attack and defence.
Friedrich, before you start, please note I share your sympathies with times long gone. But being part of the national movement myself, I’m looking for answers. Up until now, although I greatly respect your intellect and your work, I haven’t seen any answers from you yet, save a form of angry defeatism.
Upon reading my little post, Southgate cryptically called it “a crap American movie.” No idea what that means. He has no answer to my exposition, so he has to put me down with a non sequitur. He can’t argue on the merits.
Actually, Troy doesn’t push N-A very much on his list or at his meetings. Welf Herfurth’s group in Oz and the Bay Area group appear to be far more singular in that respect, and more involved in the political. And good luck to them.
Overall, one would have to say that Troy is interested in potentially productive but, of course, at this stage still conceptual politics. White Nationalism’s incessant and emotional commentary upon the grotesqueries of modernity are the opposite. It does not constitute any kind of way forward, but merely catalogues our decline. So what’s new, one is entitled to ask.
It isn’t that impossible to formulate an effective rejoinder to your supremacism post. I don’t know about Troy, but I can dismantle it in 300 words, without any reference to the Hot Gates!
It’s nice to see you, GW. Unlike Southgate, you’re a serious thinker, and someone I respect (notwithstanding our differences). Please feel free to “dismantle” my little post. I’ll gladly reply. That should be fun!
What does it say about the state White Nationalism, when even those who are sympathetic or think of themselves as part of the movement loudly denounce White supremacy? Surely it must be a sign of our collective peecee conditioning and weakness.
““So what is German culture then?”
They usually fall silent. This is the reality we face these days, so why not be more pan-european, ‘open minded’, I often wonder.”
If I were you, I’d stop hanging around morons.
To quote my good old friend Dr. Brandt:
You are right, it’s not worth wasting ones time with. As for Southgate, he should rename himself to Southpark, since he is just as decadent and stupid.
http://forum.grossdeutsches-vaterland.net/showthread.php?t=24344
Troy Southgate is active in the nationalist and patriotic home education community. Maybe he spends more time with his kids than he does with political activism!
http://www.dissidentcongress.com/index.php?page=articles/schooling.html
Simple…
Since we now live in the 21st Century and the world is already carved up (besides a bit of fighting for the scraps, e.g. Iraq) it’s obvious that what is needed is an anti-imperialistic form of White Nationalism.
In fact, I’d be fully in favor of population transfers and the like, for instance the Europeans living in Sub-Saharan Africa could move back to Europe or America while the people of African descent living in Europe or America could return to Africa and take their place. Ditto with Europeans in Arab countries and Arabs in Euro-majority countries.
Der Vermittler — I think that all of these political ideologies are a dime a dozen. The myriad of political opinions only drive people apart and lead to further disagreement and frustration. The majority of people in al societies (of whatever race or ethnicity) really want all the same things politically: social stability, a sound economic base, a few agreed-upon rights and laws, some basic government services, etc.
However, race/ethnicity is so much more primal and fundamental than all of this political theorizing which was all developed rather recently in the history of humanity. Race, ethnicity, and blood ties easily predate politics by very many thousands of years.
Race/ethnicity is just so much deeper than politics — I doubt that politics are in our genes. Because race/ethnicity is so primeval it can be used as a socio-political rallying point to form more stable and lasting political institutions (which can of course be gradually tweaked, changed, and improved) in homogeneous ethnostates where the number one goal in all of societies (the basis of political science I believe), STABILITY, can most likely prevail because of the genetic uniformity under whatever political system a particular ethnic group chooses to adopt.
The Soviet Union didn’t fail because socialism (as an economic/political system) cannot work — it was because the Soviet empire tried to cast far too wide a political net over the dozens if not hundreds of different ethnicities (they called them ‘nationalities’ — and a person’s ethnicity was noted on their IDs) which lived within its territories (see: http://www.top40-charts.info/?title=Image:USSR_Ethnic_Groups_1974.jpg).
I believe that the Soviet Union disintegrated because TOO MUCH political and economic competition existed between all of the different Soviet ethnicities (all of whom had their own designated ethnic homelands where they kept their native languages and customs [except the Soviet Jews by the way, who comprised the majority of the "rootless cosmopolitans" which Stalin stood against in his last years]).
It’s a miracle that the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did with all of the ethnic strife which occurred there on a regular basis, because about the only thing uniting them was the Russian language (which was, by the way, forced upon all Soviet citizens). I mean: just how much does an Uzbek have politically and economically in common with a Lithuanian? Not much, I’d say. So how can we expect them to all live under the same centralized political and economic system which was based in Moscow (very far removed from both of those places) and simply bow down to a government dominated by Russian and Jewish ethnics, not Lithuanian or Uzbek ones?
After visiting Uzbekistan and talking to the locals I can say there is a lot of truth to this about the ethnic strife. The most unifying force of the Soviet Union’s people was the vodka.
@Friedrich: I chose to try and make a difference with these ‘morons’ who usually have good intentions but lack guidance. I prefer a Stammtisch over an internet forum anytime. Internet intellectuals are smart, but because of their lack of initiative, also smart-ass. If the collective effort of the nationalist movements won’t save us, then at least we have tried to live in truth with ourselves and can die with melancholic satisfaction instead of frustration.
@Zsidozas: What you say is correct, and that’s why I sympathise with two ‘anti-ideologies’, one being N-A and the other Perennialist Traditionalism. N-A believes everyone should live together with the people he or she agrees with, so there can at least be some sort of harmony. In this sense, N-A really isn’t an ideology. Yes, this is utopic, but it is in allignment with what you say. Ideologies are contemporary shelters that limit the view. Perennialist Traditionalism, becaue only ‘eternal’ values should matter, as you say. Other than that, you were diverging from your original point, but I do agree with you on the USSR’s problem. And I too don’t believe in imperialism in the sense of state structures. But in all of this, I always find myself to be a bit too utopic. Oh well.
Re: Riaz Sobrany - “After visiting Uzbekistan and talking to the locals I can say there is a lot of truth to this about the ethnic strife. The most unifying force of the Soviet Union’s people was the vodka.”
Ethnic strife was a huge issue in the Soviet Union and ultimately led to its dissolution I believe. As America becomes more diverse (or ‘multicultural’) you will see many of the same issues that brought down the Soviet Union begin to make America wobble and probably splinter just as the Soviet Union ultimately did; in fact, it’s already happening.
As it relates to ethnic strife, ethnoimperialism (to coin a term, maybe?) was a major issue in the Soviet Union — the Jews as a ‘nationality’ (ethnic group) in the Soviet Union were generally the main ethnoimperialists bcause they were so urban and mobile/rootless, using the lax laws of the empire (liberation from the Pale of Settlement, the criminalization of antisemitism by the USSR, the universality of the Russian language in the SU combined with their high verbal intelligence, etc) to slowly and covertly invade key cities across the Soviet Union where they eventually came to strongly influence and unduly control the trade and economics within those cities and regions (just as they have done in the United States and many other places).
Ethnic Russians (by far the largest Soviet nationality/ethnicity) were also major ethnoimperialists — for instance, in the map of major Soviet ethnic groups which I linked to before [ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/USSR_Ethnic_Groups_1974.jpg/800px-USSR_Ethnic_Groups_1974.jpg ] you can plainly see that ethnic Russians (shown in red) encroached upon the territories of many other Soviet ethnic groups, particularly in the far east of the empire along the border with Mongolia and China, and in Kazakhstan, etc. They also settled in other strategic areas which contained trade routes (i.e., navigable rivers and mountain ranges), largely displacing the native ethnic groups which lived there before by forcibly Sovietizing them. So ethnic Russians aren’t entirely innocent of ethnoimperialism and the exploitation of other Soviet ethnicities either; even today Russians make up an often sizeable ethnic minority in many of the countries of the former USSR (for instance, in Uzbekistan ethnic Russians are still about 10% of the population, about 5% in Lithuania, etc - and they are often resented because they still have economic and political power all out of proportion to their small numbers, similar to Jews in many countries). And it is no secret how utterly despised the ethnic Russian (and Jewish) minorities are in the Caucasus region of the former USSR, even to the point of wars being waged against those countries from Moscow in order to protect the ‘rights’ of these ethnic Russian and Jewish minorities with who have no real claims to those areas besides barging in there after 1917.
And yes, absolutely…vodka was definitely a unifying factor in the USSR as well. Though in many of the current -stan countries where Islam was/is widespread alcohol was/is frowned upon for obvious reasons.
It seemed as if one in four women in Tashkent was a blonde haired Russian when I visited the city in 2006.
The Russian ethnoimperialism by the Soviet communists really was a continuation of the Russian ethnoimperialism of the 18th and 19th centuries under the Tsars.
Vodka flows freely in Uzbekistan and I encountered many Muslims drinking it even in restaurants.
Write an original essay for the blog, Fade.