Beneath the surface of the contemporary renaissance in far-Right thought, a shift that has been notable for its movement away from embarrassing public spectacles of roaring skinheads with bad teeth and vast collections of National Socialist paraphernalia, there has been a growing chasm that could be situated somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean, one that is for many becoming harder and harder to ignore.
A collective sigh of relief has been heard from both the United States and the European continent as the idealogical shadows cast by World War II are dissipating, memories of that time growing distant, and vitality once more able to enter our circles of thought. This said, there are key underlying differences that are very visible when one considers the two fresh movements towards a Rightist vision of the future, one American, the other European. I was wary before of drawing such distinctions, but the maturation of these movements is approaching, giving us a better idea of what they look like, and thus it is incumbent to comment upon a delineation within the broad Occidental world.
The Alt-Right, as it has now been popularized, is very much an American movement. It has energized non-Americans for sure, and contributed much to an awakening of consciousness on this side of the Atlantic, but in both its numeric majority and its realm of focus, it is American. Both the aspects I have decried (short-sighted white nationalism) and aspects I have applauded (memetic warfare) are American phenomena.
For a moment then, I want to talk about the United States as a unique socio-historical construct. The United States cannot be compared to any European country for a variety of reasons, both rooted in the past and the present.
1) American “whiteness” is a new ethnic identity, one without a history.
Everyone privy to the realities of human biodiversity can recognize race as a product of hard biological, psychological, and spiritual factors as opposed to social indoctrination. Few white Americans with at least some generational history in that country can be described as a “Swede abroad” or a “German in diaspora.” It isn’t that America is the product of genetic mongrelization (that has happened at some level in Europe for centuries without huge consequence), but a denaturing of the original additional factors of race that migrants to the New World arrived with. Similar to how “Hispanics” can neither be lumped in with Native Central Americans nor Spaniards, neither can American whites be considered outside of their own ethnicity, an ethnicity which might itself be differentiated between Northerners and Southerners, as I have been reminded on more than one occasion. Also worth noting is the fact that, for the most part, American whites have not been allowed to identify themselves as separate from other U.S. passport holders. In the sense of self-declaration; blacks are more likely to say they are “African American” than whites are to say “European American.” They are of course Occidentals, unlike Mestizos, but they cannot tap into the deep history of countries like Poland or Denmark. That history isn’t there. This, I fear, is why various elements have sought to downplay national distinctions in Europe at the behest of “white nationalism,” which is, in the worst situations, a vehicle for pooling the historical achievements of very different societies and passing them off as one’s own. We can all find ourselves occasionally guilty of this, seeing for example the heights of Greek philosophy as a “white” achievement, when really they are a Greek achievement. To be celebrated by all for sure, but ultimately a product of the Greeks as a people.
Europeans should reject “white nationalism” as anything other than a defensive posture emblematic of the fact that it is whites collectively who are held in contempt by the current dominant power. As any kind of foundational doctrine, white nationalism is an American import that would dilute the tapestry of what we cherish in pursuit of an unattainable goal. It may be that the European continent is at some point united informally under one leadership, but this will follow the pattern of historical example. It will be an imperium of strength and prestige, not of race. Nowhere in history have we seen an empire constructed on race, with one exception; the short-lived Third Reich. We share much, but the things that could unite us at a deep level are not biological, they are spiritual. While we ought to give the highest priority to the most pressing concern of our racial survival, we cannot sacrifice upon that altar our other core Rightist beliefs, nor do we need to. If we did, then our race would not be worth saving, period. Our race is worth saving because it is a divine gift that has expressed its unique beauty in myriad forms throughout history. It is not worth saving just because it exists.
2) American whites do not have an authentic Christian history.
I have developed a new appreciation for those who wish for Americans to “create their own religion” centered around the deification of whiteness, or those who want Americans to revive the old gods, or come to worship some kind of artificial intelligence. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that with imagination, anything is possible, so the ideas are not in any way incoherent. Now, I think they are wrong, and I think such efforts would ultimately fail to provide what religion needs to provide (I believe Traditoinal religions are based on actual mystical experiences), but I have come to understand these inclinations in light of American history.
The simple fact is, even if Americans look to their earliest history, that of colonial possessions of the British Empire gradually growing apart from their mother country, they cannot find a single example of positive Christian rule. Not one exists (exception perhaps for some segments that were formerly owned by other European powers). The United States has never had a leader it believed was empowered by God, as much as modern Evangelicals and Mormons like to post facto turn the Founding Fathers into a conference of prophets. It has never had any type of Traditional Christianity, or for that matter any other Traditional religion as its guiding social force. Instead, it had from conception a hodge-podge collection of Christian elements deemed not conducive to British life, various cults with heretical teachings, and zealous puritans who could never quite find enough holiness in their communities. This was a rotten foundation, and fused as it became to a watered down French Revolutionary spirit, the seeds of America’s disintegration were planted in its young roots, only needing catalyst and encouragement from nuisance Jewish actors along with some later Soviet subterfuge to ripen into bitter fruit. It really is no wonder that Americans on the Right are more hostile to Christianity than their European counterparts often are. To them, the religion is epitomized by Joel Osteen and the televangelist racketeers. Unlike Europe, the majority of the faux elite in the United States still profess Christianity and even on occasion go as far as to practice it. In Europe, the worst elements long ago shed the need for this theater. American presidents of both parties insert God into every other campaign speech, while for the most part leaders in Europe “don’t do God” on any substantive level.
In contrast to America, every European country has at least some history of Traditional religious expression that it can draw forth. One can call upon Greece to invigorate its Orthodox roots, but what roots can America invigorate? It could indeed become a Traditionalist Catholic country as some would prefer, but we must acknowledge such a project would be almost as much a transformation as embracing a Himmlerific blood cult, at least on the structural level. The religious question in America is not the same as the European one, though by no means is it less important. Those who dismiss the spiritual aspect of national revival do so at their own peril.
3) The United States faces different problems than Europe does.
Because of geography, history, and ideology, American whites are not facing the same specific problems that European peoples are:
- Twelve-point-three percent of America’s population are blacks of varying ancestry. By contrast, France has the highest percentage in Europe at, according to the most liberal estimate, five percent.
- Seventeen percent of America’s population are Hispanics, most of whom could not be classified as being white, and most of whom exhibit similar social problems to African Americans. Europe has no significant population of such people to my knowledge.
- More than six percent of Europe’s total population is Muslim, and that is heavily concentrated in certain countries. Less than one percent of Americans are Muslims.
As a result of these differences, Europe is far more likely to deal with Islamic terrorism than things like “Dindus 4 Justice” riots. Obviously Europe has problems with its black population, and America does deal with Islamic terror attacks, but the threat levels are not the same, and the trajectories these locales are travelling within the next twenty years if nothing changes are dramatically different. Prospects of a white minority nation-wide are distant fears for most Europeans, while in America they are a clear and present danger, celebrated by every Liberal on television who discusses “electoral demographic destiny.” In one-hundred and thirty years of demographic change, the United States would look a lot like Brazil. Europe however would look more like a cross between Libya and Dagestan.
If I had to quickly summarize the difference between the obstacles facing Rightist movements in Europe and the United States, I would say this: in Europe, the problem is not enough of the right people willing to do what has to be done. In America, the problem is not knowing what has to be done, or what can be done.
As many have pointed out, the Alt-Right is sadly now awash with a host of ego-stroking publicity-whores and social provocateurs, eager to define themselves as the “leaders” of a new populist insurgency with a growing desire to tone down the “white” stuff, and tone up a fetish obsession with so-called “Western civilization,” dancing across the border of ambiguity that divides two very different things. This ambiguity is what I think will lead many to disappointment even in the now-quite-likely event of a Donald Trump victory. He may just postpone the death of “Western civilization” as America’s bedrock, but he will do virtually nothing to forestall the demographic Armageddon of the United States. On the other side are fantastical dreams of a pan-white empire based on eugenic perfection, where hover cars meet forced sterilization (essentially Gattaca as an instruction manual). These two extremes of politically incorrect populism and racially-obsessed fantasizing are bound to eventually come into conflict, no doubt with a huge amount of needless drama, but I don’t think either paint a realistic picture of what is to come.
It’s unclear just which reasonable vision of America’s future is more desirable or more accurate. Personally, I have some difficulty with Jared Taylor‘s idea of the new dawn of free association, where America remains as she is, but unimpeded self-segregation reduces the friction between incompatible peoples. This would represent something of a return to a very specific prior state of affairs, and is actually surprisingly moderate. I am less skeptical of even the Moldbuggian/Landian prediction of the economically driven “patchwork,” a vast wash of small states ruled by semi-corporate juntas (like a more well organized version of China’s “Warring States Period”), which would segregate the country via “exit” of people to preferred types of society with the federal authority becoming unworkable and eventually non-existent. This of course entails the dissolving of what we formally call the United States, which, by the way, I see as not only essential to the survival of American whites, but to the survival of European whites as well.
The bottom line, however, is that Americans will determine their own fate, and any predictions about that fate will be highly speculative at this point. So what areas of cooperation should exist between these different Rightist environments that while facing down a common enemy, are not facing it on the same terms or with the same background?
1) Information sharing
Invaluable to both centers of Occidental people under assault is the sharing of information regarding our common enemy, their tactics, their movements, their unseen plots. All efforts which can include both Europeans and Americans (i.e., anything in cyberspace) ought to do so, the combined force’s time and expertise being superior than the sum of their parts. In addition, due to the interconnectedness of the globalized world, what hurts nuisance actors in the United States often hurts their counterparts in Europe as well. In this arena there is not much need for ideological purity-tests, and those pushing them are wasting time. To attack something, you need a weapon, not a blueprint. I am willing to allow for a great deal of ideological leniency in these matters so long as the pros outweigh the cons. If your contribution to the movement against Liberal hegemony is meeting the enemy head-on, yet you are spending most of the time attacking people to your Right or giving the movement a bad name with clownish antics, then you deserve to be shunned.
2) Philosophical development
There is also no reason not to have completely open lines of communication as it pertains to developing Rightist critique and philosophy. Bringing together great minds internationally is of course massively beneficial, and I have no problem extending this even beyond Occidentals. As Leftism is a global movement, so Rightism is as well. The bare bones of our prescriptions are, as we say, applicable in some way to all societies in their organic states. Example: patriarchy is truly universal. However, at this level, one’s political leanings become more important. I have absolutely no interest in a “reasonable discussion” with another supposed Rightist on the virtues of secularism or sexual deviancy. If you generally hold what Rightism has historically valued in contempt, you are not a Rightist by definition, and certainly not a “thought leader.” At best you are a useful pawn, at worst a nuisance. Quality control at this level is somewhat essential.
3) Diminishing American Influence in Europe
This has been my motivation for involvement with the broad Alt-Right since the term came into vogue, even with elements I have strong disagreements with. Both the Alt-Right’s lack of central ideological commitment to proselytizing Liberalism as a religion, and its support of geopolitical realist Donald Trump are positive for the European continent. In today’s world, American influence means Liberal influence in the globalist sense, and in fact this has been the case since World War I when the United States government started to gear itself to lead a unipolar world. Through a web of well-funded embassy operations involving N.G.O.s, sympathetic governmental bureaucracies, and military contracts/agreements, the United States exerts a force on this distant land that prevents a burgeoning shift away from utopianism and the interests of the global financial elite. This is why America opposed Brexit, and it is why I’d advise Hungary’s Viktor Orban to watch out for the seeds of a new “color revolution” that might seek to end his pesky stubbornness.
The rise of Donald Trump has been, rightly or wrongly, coat-tailed by the American libertarian movement, paleoconservatives, and the far-Right. All of these groups, with minimal exception, want to see American involvement with the rest of the world minimized, to erect walls both economic and physical, and to cease foreign military entanglements that are not only causing devestation around the world, but also bankrupting people back home for no general benefit. This would be a godsend for Europeans. It is my estimation that without the hanging anvil of the United States, epitomized by U.S. President Barack Obama‘s last speech at the United Nations in which he warned of, “religious fundamentalism; the politics of ethnicity, or tribe, or sect; aggressive nationalism; a crude populism — sometimes from the far-Left, but more often from the far-Right — which seeks to restore what they believe was a better, simpler age free of outside contamination…” and declared unequivocally that he was not neutral in the fight between Liberalism and emergent authoritarian tendencies, new opportunities would be opened for us. I do not think the necessary ruthlessness that will be required to expunge Leftist dogma from Europe will even be possible until this foreign occupying force is pushed out.
The factors that push apart Rightism in Europe and the United States are as numerous as those which unite us. I emphasize that while we should do together whenever we can, there are some things that will eventually happen apart, and one of those is charting a course post-Liberalism, among the ruins. Europe will have to re-invigorate what it has deep inside of itself, it will have to be “resurrected” in the Legionary sense, and write the next chapter of a story that has remained untouched for a two-hundred and fifty year period of writer’s block. America has a different task, and that is deciding what it wants to be in the wake of the inevitable collapse of the “American Experiment,” and who the next American elites are who will navigate those waters in the face of serious threats, nearly all of them domestic. Europeans have seen the many faces of their true selves, they know what they can be. Americans meanwhile have never had that opportunity to express themselves in a Traditional form, and whatever that expression is lies as yet undiscovered, waiting to be tapped into by the right group of people.
Even as we put aside old hatreds, Europeans must recognize that no country on the continent possesses at present a model that can be followed, but trajectories point the way, and we should imitate and seek close relations with those who are leading the long walk out of the darkness, even as they stumble along the road. At no time has the development of a Reactionary International above the minutia of petty temporal politics been more vital to the survival of Europe, a new era of cooperation which would have as its creed the destruction of Liberalism, pursued with even greater ferocity than the Communist International’s mission to eradicate Capitalism, and would take into account at all times the peculiarities of nations, all of which have a divinely ordained claim to cultural integrity.
The American and European Right must work together for their shared goals, but their experiences are distinct, and their futures will be equally distinct, whether the outcomes of either of our efforts are glorious or tragic. On both sides of the Atlantic however, he who dares wins, and fortune favors the brave.