2 Questions about a 'European Imperium'

submitted by VarangianRasputin from self.debatealtright

So I finally got around to studying Yockey, and it's introduced me to the idea of a United Europe, or at least made me think about it more.

First, obligatory praise for Yockey; I once heard he was basically the 'Karl Marx of the Right', and good god is it true. 'Imperium' is our 'Das Kapital', and 'The Proclaimation of London' is our 'The Communist Manifesto'. Confessedly, I'm reading Kerry Bolton's 'Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey' before I dive fully into Imperium, just so I can get a better understanding of Spenglerian Thought and have a picture of who Yockey was so I can better understand his work. So far, I'm absolutely loving it, and can't wait to pick up Imperium and dive right into it fully. How is Yockey not more well known?

Now onto my main line of questions and thoughts:

  1. In the world today, are the ideas of Imperium or Europe-a-Nation still workable (as in, the formation of a United European Federation based on Nationalist principles)? I'm not entirely convinced. Given how Ethnic Unions seem to work out, it seems like a very mixed bag of results. Yugoslavia is probably the main example, and maybe Czechoslovakia. Both of these countries fell apart, partly because of these ethnic tensions. On the other hand, Russia, as it stands today, is a mix of multiple nationalities (Slavs, Tatars, Ethnic Finns, and more recently, Chechens), and back in the era of the Soviet Union, even more. What do you guys think? How would we maintain order in such a super-state?

  2. Kind of a more out-there thought (I feel like I'm gaining a reputation for those), but is the Neo-Eurasianism as proposed by Russian National Bolsheviks (I say that in a very broad sense, as even a lot of the mainstream CPRF are considered NazBol, and aren't opposed to Eurasianism) a modern extension of this idea in your eyes? Keeping in mind that most of the Asian in Eurasian just means Siberia. They consider Russia itself to be Eurasia, as they sit right in the middle; I'd say Europe Eastwards ends at the Urals, and I'm not alone in that presumption. Even Yockey considered that European Cultural Renaissance would come from the east, and was 'Pro-Soviet' as a result, seeing Bolshevism as less harmful than Plutocracy (a point I agree with), which was the cause of his regrettable break with Mosley.

all 18 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The majority of human history people have not been separated into different ethnic nation states. It has been the norm for many different nations to live under 1 larger system. This should not be confused with todays version of mass immigration multiculturalism or the "melting pot" because the various peoples had the own areas and communities. The idea of a United Europe has never been more workable than today. The modern issue is not that Europeans are too hyper nationalist, it is the opposite which is why they don't even have the will to stop mass floods of foreigners coming into their nations who will make the majorities minorities in the coming decades. Nationalist conflict between European nations has ceased with the exception of some in Eastern Europe.

The EU is bad not because it is a union of nations but because it is ultimately an "anti European" Union that is aligned with global capital and corrupt liberal values. We need a "pro- European" Union.

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

On that note, I'm pretty sure Yockey noted that Europe, despite being separated into kingdoms, still found unity in the Pope and put internal matters aside to deal with outer threats (for example, the Turks) as an argument for an Imperium.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. Another interesting bit was he talks about agons in Greece being wars between Greek states being differentiated from wars between non-Greek states. He brought up a parallel with the Gothic age, the Church banned the use of crossbows for wars against other Christians (basically synonymous with Europe) but they were permitted with wars against the barbarian. The underlying unity of Europe whether perceived culturally, religiously or racially has existed for a thousand years IE since the birth of the Western Culture that Spengler, and later Yockey, wrote about.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

1) How many ethnic, tribal, religious, petty state etc rivalries were overcome in the formation of European nation states? Why can't this process be repeated? China and the whole of Europe are roughly the same size, if the Chinese are considered one nation why couldn't Europe be? The only arguments against this are always romantic/reactionary sentimental ones that don't actually make sense or ones that postulate a weird kind of irreconcilability due to extremely strong sense of identity unique to white people. Both of the angles are patently absurd when you look at how deracinated and Americanised all of Europe has become. All of Europe has already McDonaldsised into being indistinguishable neoliberal slop just like the rest of the world. White people aren't magical beings that have their own flavour of neoliberal anti-culture slop that is somehow irreconcilable based on a few kilometres distance, we need to get real.

2) I haven't read anything from Dugin or whoever else is considered a Eurasianist or whatever but I would say they prolly are just of the same cloth as Yockey's thought. Dugin is almost 1:1 with Yockey (Fascism + Traditionalism) from what I've heard from him but it's only been small snippets.

Even Yockey considered that European Cultural Renaissance would come from the east, and was 'Pro-Soviet' as a result, seeing Bolshevism as less harmful than Plutocracy (a point I agree with), which was the cause of his regrettable break with Mosley.

Actually he considered the Slavs to be comprised mostly of barbarians who, due to their lack of Cultural development, would be unable to rule over Europe in the same way that America-Jewry could as their stock is of the European/Western Culture. He was basically pro-Soviet because he thought America-Jewry was more powerful and he foresaw the slav breaking free of the jewish control of the USSR which happened very shortly after (it also happened all over Eastern Europe). He basically predicted jews would get kicked out of the USSR then Russia would become enemies of the jews which was a pretty good prediction. You're right this is where his split with Mosley was, Mosley had patriotard/conservative elements in his thinking which are ultimately his downfall, he was a great societal thinker but not much of a political thinker. Mosley would have been best suited to governing internal affairs.

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Going to be honest, you've fully convinced me on the United Europe thing now. I was kind of teetering on the fence about it to be honest. Plus, I guess even if the differences between ethnicities were bigger than we thought, in-group preference would fix that anyhow. But yeah, considering that Liberalism has made all of Europe share what boils down to the same consumerist culture, I guess a Homogeneous counter-culture is in order.

I haven't read anything from Dugin or whoever else is considered a Eurasianist or whatever but I would say they prolly are just of the same cloth as Yockey's thought. Dugin is almost 1:1 with Yockey (Fascism + Traditionalism) from what I've heard from him but it's only been small snippets.

Dugin can be kind of hard to pin-down, which I guess is normal for someone whose been writing for as long as he has, as he's going to change his mind on issues as history develops. He considers Fascism (and Marxism) dead ideologies, and wants to create a 4th Political Theory (basically just '4th Position' as far as I can tell), which he considers National Bolshevism to be the start of (not the end result it would seem), but he talks very little about National Bolshevism in his major works (which is weird, considering he had a hand in creating the National Bolshevik Party). Eduard Limonov is another source on Eurasianism if you're interested, but to be honest, he's no theoretician, more of an agitator. Gennady Zyuganov has been called one but I have no idea if he thinks much of it. It seems to just be a strand of Russian Nationalism. Either way, I'd be surprised if they'd even heard of Yockey (although I do recall Dugin mentioning Spengler a few times in 'The Fourth Political Theory').

Actually he considered the Slavs to be comprised mostly of barbarians who, due to their lack of Cultural development, would be unable to rule over Europe in the same way that America-Jewry could as their stock is of the European/Western Culture. He was basically pro-Soviet because he thought America-Jewry was more powerful and he foresaw the slav breaking free of the jewish control of the USSR which happened very shortly after (it also happened all over Eastern Europe).

Could be I'm just projecting my somewhat similar view onto Yockey then, mainly because as you say:

He basically predicted jews would get kicked out of the USSR then Russia would become enemies of the jews which was a pretty good prediction.

I would say that it was more of an observation than a prediction, considering Stalin's Great Purge targeted the Old Bolsheviks like Zinoviev and Bukharin, who as we know were overwhelmingly Jewish; although I doubt that it was his intention to eliminate them because they were Jewish, but because they were Trotskyists, which I'm pretty sure was actually true. Plus, after that, Stalin repealed a lot of Leninist policies such as re criminalising Abortion and Homosexuality. I won't bore you too much with my Stalinist apologetics, because I've probably rambled about them before, and I won't shut up once I get going.

You're right this is where his split with Mosley was, Mosley had patriotard/conservative elements in his thinking which are ultimately his downfall, he was a great societal thinker but not much of a political thinker. Mosley would have been best suited to governing internal affairs.

Full agreement. I think even Pre-War Mosley wouldn't have been suited to be PM (although I wouldn't complain if he was), but definitely Chancellor of the Exchequer, which as you say, would have suited him best.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

China and the whole of Europe are roughly the same size, if the Chinese are considered one nation why couldn't Europe be?

I don't think your argument against the difference in ethnic homogeneity, i.e. unique peoples, is sufficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#Ethnic_groups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe#European_ethnic_groups_by_sovereign_state

All of Europe has already McDonaldsised into being indistinguishable neoliberal slop just like the rest of the world.

That may be true politically and possibly economically, but that's a separate argument when it comes to ethnic groups and there deracination and erasure. Maybe I'm more hopeful that European peoples haven't been as erased as you're claiming.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

1) Why not? In a world where the united Chinese state did not exist, but rather it was split into 40+ states just like Europe then all these 'Han Chinese' would have their own national identities; and they too would claim their differences are just too much for them to ever unite.

2) (Not saying you think this but) Anyone who thinks uniting Europe under an anti-materialist organic/corporate state would somehow be more soulless and have less organic regional/local culture is stark raving mad. Take any field of what you consider to be expressions of culture, which country do you think would be better off how they are now rather than if we (anti-materialists that actually believe in transcendent ideals unlike the dominant modern/universalist/egalitarian etc worldview) took power? I find that these kinds of arguments always rely on the same 2 assumptions, that uniting Europe would somehow mean we would standardise the whole of Europe which is absurd as this is the thing we're fighting against and secondly that somehow European nations are infallible transcendent entities that can somehow never change anymore, despite all of history proving that European identities have been very dynamic.

If Europeans would somehow resist say France and Germany becoming one state due to such huge cultural and ethnic differences how come they aren't resisting replacement migration of people much more different to them than their next door neighbours and their culture being genocided by capitalism? We can't possibly hold the position that Europeans are irreconcilable with each other but are fine and dandy with much more extreme changes.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

1) Why not? In a world where the united Chinese state did not exist, but rather it was split into 40+ states just like Europe then all these 'Han Chinese' would have their own national identities; and they too would claim their differences are just too much for them to ever unite.

That's not the world we live in. I don't think arguing hypotheticals, of which we can make infinite, is useful for these conversations. Better to talk about what is.

I agree with your second point that European multiculturalism or ethnopluralism would be preferable to what we currently have.

I find that these kinds of arguments always rely on the same 2 assumptions,

(1) that uniting Europe would somehow mean we would standardise the whole of Europe which is absurd as this is the thing we're fighting against and

Yes and no. It would really depend on how it's done. Realistically and historically, once any single European power starts to rise, insecurities also begin to show, e.g. England as the European hegemon and English insecurity with having an equal continental partner. Currently with the EU we're seeing centralized micromanagement of member states instead of respect for sovereignty and autonomy. This might be hyperbolic of me as I'm not particularly well read on the state of the EU, but would it be a misnomer to label the current form as being more like the United Socialist States of Europe meets neoliberal socioeconomic globalization? i.e. the wrong ideology won and we're left with the worst of both worlds (social and economic policies). So where do we go from here? Have to reverse engineer from where you want us to be to where we currently are.

(2) secondly that somehow European nations are infallible transcendent entities that can somehow never change anymore, despite all of history proving that European identities have been very dynamic.

The problem with this argument, or at least how I would imagine someone would argue it, is that if that's the case and mixing ethnic groups is no issue, then why not African, Asian, etc.? You and I know the answer to that as we understand biology, genetics, etc., but you'll end up fighting with the establishment (genetic egalitarians). So I kind of see this as a possible dead-end, or at least one that requires a lot of finessing. Currently I think this is one reason to argue for establishing unique states for ethnicities, as this has to come first and it's also closer to where we currently are and thus would require less work. Maybe I'm wrong.

If the eastern states that value their people more can withstand the rest of Europe, maybe having a few failed European states will help move things forward. Given where we are, I think things have to get much worse before they get better, so cordoning off the cancer where you can would be the best solution. I think this is a strong argument against creating a unified European state given the current shape the member states are in. What do you think?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's not the world we live in. I don't think arguing hypotheticals, of which we can make infinite, is useful for these conversations. Better to talk about what is.

The point isn't alt-history the point is showing that these identities are historically contingent and ultimately somewhat arbitrary. You can't really say with a straight face that Belgium is a nation but also China is a nation. You don't even need this too you can just look back at European history, pick any random century and look at the tribes and nations that don't exist anymore, the areas that used to have 5 states that now have one etc. There's nothing essential about The Current Year, identities can and do change over time. The heptarchy gave way to England. The political situation of the day being civilisational/racial states calls for Europe to be united or continue decaying further and further into irrelevance on the world stage, and also all of our countries being flooded with racial strangers due to the fact that there's not a single European state that can resist the forces of Finance alone.

This might be hyperbolic of me as I'm not particularly well read on the state of the EU, but would it be a misnomer to label the current form as being more like the United Socialist States of Europe meets neoliberal socioeconomic globalization? i.e. the wrong ideology won and we're left with the worst of both worlds (social and economic policies).

Not really socialist, they're just unironic neoliberals. Most of them are true believers too leading them to not be too fond of Israel genociding Palestinians, which is why all the Euroskeptic parties are hyper-Zionist, they're funded by Israel to weaken the EU in case the EU ever gets its act together and poses a threat to Israel's plans.

The problem with this argument, or at least how I would imagine someone would argue it, is that if that's the case and mixing ethnic groups is no issue, then why not African, Asian, etc.? You and I know the answer to that as we understand biology, genetics, etc., but you'll end up fighting with the establishment (genetic egalitarians). So I kind of see this as a possible dead-end, or at least one that requires a lot of finessing. Currently I think this is one reason to argue for establishing unique states for ethnicities, as this has to come first and it's also closer to where we currently are and thus would require less work. Maybe I'm wrong.

This ties back to the standardisation thing. We're not going to be forcing people to move around and mix and shit, and in fact internal migration would certainly occur less than it does now as economic development would start to equalise rather than western states exploiting the labour of the eastern states. Economic pressures are what force people to move all throughout history, once we have back to the land policies and work opportunities spread all throughout Europe without people having to be ripped from their roots they will have no reason to be mixing and moving around except it being on their own volition.

If the eastern states that value their people more can withstand the rest of Europe, maybe having a few failed European states will help move things forward. Given where we are, I think things have to get much worse before they get better, so cordoning off the cancer where you can would be the best solution. I think this is a strong argument against creating a unified European state given the current shape the member states are in. What do you think?

I'm not sure what you mean

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The point isn't alt-history the point is...single European state that can resist the forces of Finance alone.

Okay. I see where you're coming from. I just think that it's logical that people would more closely identify with their nearer environment/people, and that that should be nurtured in conjunction with that greater European identity.

they're funded by Israel to weaken the EU in case the EU ever gets its act together and poses a threat to Israel's plans.

Makes sense.

economic development would start to equalise rather than western states exploiting the labour of the eastern states

That's a good point. There is a lot of economic imperialism (or whatever you want to term it) at present. Interesting observation regarding forced migration due to economic "enslavement."

I'm not sure what you mean

From what I've read about the Visegrad group (Czechia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia), they seem to be more tightly knit with respect to their ethnic identity and solidarity, e.g. pro-natal and anti-migrant policies. So with these states being outliers to the stupidity going on in much of the rest of Europe, e.g. Germany, France, UK, etc., with how their flooding their countries with non-Europeans and the damage those foreigners are doing, I think that it's at least possible that as these problems grow that the contrast in policy will become more apparent and that maybe the people in those countries will get their shit together. Does that make sense? Like they'll see that their near-neighbor countries did things differently and haven't had to suffer the same consequences as them (truck and acid attacks, bombings, etc.).

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1) They would be more inclined to identify with their local area when they have localised architecture, they are able to move back home to their families, they aren't surrounded by foreigners and they have local businesses and communities instead of the same 5 chain stores in every town in across Europe. United Europe can be economically independent of global capitalism, it's the only way that Tradition and community will ever come back short of a massive technological collapse returning us to pre-industrial levels of technology.

4) Yes I just don't think it's going to be relevant to be honest. The eastern states aren't actually pro-white or anything they're just a) less economically developed so they're not focused on by finance, b) behind the times and c) a buffer zone for Europe. If you look into them a little more deeply you find Orban is part of the international zionist group that got Bolsonaro, Trump, himself, Salvini Reagan, Netanyahu etc (look up Finkelthink) into power. Slovakia are putting Kotleba in prison for donating money to poor families etc. The leadership of western states don't want Europeans to survive, it's not stupidity it's malice; they have no interest in stopping terrorism, the east having less terrorism and stuff will not motivate them and it doesn't matter what the people want because we get no say.

Take a look at Ireland, they were Catholic, traditional, had a strong sense of identity etc then the state gave away their country to a couple tech companies and now the Irish are on track to be a minority soon enough whilst they've become one of the most zogged countries overnight. The same fate will befall Eastern Europe as soon as it's chosen and if that's after the west has already sank then there is no chance of them surviving.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Eurasianism is not an extension of Europeanism but rather a rejection of it, as it is Russia ideally embracing its Asiatic elements and its connection to the Asian continent while rejecting a close connection to Europe. The ideology is derived from a conception of Russia from its historical geopolitical situation and how it has previously been perceived by the rest of Europe, where it was rejected as fully European but rather an outlier on the borderlands, as well as an attempt to embrace the Asiatic and Caucasian peoples (and arguably the Finno-Ugrians in it as well, whose European connections are more debatable than the Indo-European groups) within Russia and its link to neigbouring Asian nations as also part of Russian civilisation. I personally disagree and believe Russia is fully European, granting the non-European groups within it self-determination would allow this to finally be the case.

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Aren't some Caucasian People white (Georgians, for example)? Genuinely asking, because I have no idea about the genetic make up of that area.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd consider Georgians and Armenians honorary Europeans. They're some of the oldest Christian countries in the world, and if they're not white, they're the closest thing.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the most fair solution is for ethnes to have a defined homeland, where they have exclusive political (and other) control. Depending on what a people decides, I think it's perfectly fine for them to manage economic migration however tight or loose they want. Same with tourism. In a people's homeland, foreigners should not be allowed any political rights. They can be allowed to live there under the rules defined by the people whose land they're in. This can all be done peaceably.

The problems you're describing in point (1) are due to different ethnic groups having to share their polity. It's axiomatic that more heterogeneity in society results in more conflicts, which results in more third party (government) intervention and waste of resources. The fact that police budgets often exceed 1/4 of a municipal budget should be concerning to everyone. It's a huge destruction of wealth. Ideally you wouldn't need to have police in a society. Unfortunately, the paradox of tolerance has led our societies to putting up with degenerates. The only reason a mixed society can stay stable is either mutual interests amongst a sufficient proportion of the groups, or because there is a sufficiently large majority (big stick) to dictate how things are. More variables mean more working parts mean more problems to solve and issues to balance. I haven't come across any argument that refutes this. I don't think it's possible as it gets to the root of concepts that we value, i.e. justice, sovereignty, etc.

I think this is where the libertarian to fascist pipeline comes from. The NAP is basically sovereignty at the individual level (although it is obviously scalable), but when lolbertarians finally realize that they live in a society with other people that don't think the same as them, then that's where collectives come into the picture. To have a society you need rules that all parties agree on. Diversity destroys this, or at least leads to a downward spiral of compromises and erosion of principles.

No comment on your second point as I don't know enough about what you're describing.

[–]arainynightinskyrim 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

To grow our subs try to crosspost on

https://ruqqus.com/+DebateTheDissidentRight?sort=new

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm a little late on it but it's done.

[–]arainynightinskyrim 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you, the users or ruqqus seem to be more active.