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.

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.

@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.

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?

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.

http://www.dissidentcongress.com/index.php?page=articles/schooling.html

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

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.

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!

“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.