Alternative Evropa

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.

Mark Citadel

Mark Citadel is an Orthodox Reactionary, once described by critics as a "pretty consistent ideologue". A purveyor of extreme anti-Modern thought, he blogs regularly at

33 thoughts on “Alternative Evropa

  1. >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.

    Surely there is an Occidental, Western character to Greek thought that all ‘white’ Europeans can identify with? There is definitely a spiritual current that runs through all Occidentals in that way. I think restricting it to the Greeks is to be overly nationalistic.

    1. In that case, Mark’s classification is too broad. There was no national Greek identity in ancient times, there was a common Greek langauge. So Plato and Socrates would not be a Greek achievement, but an Athenian achievement and all of the derivative philosophy of the last 2,000 years is uprooted cosmopolitanism.

        1. Yes, I agree that Greeks were a distinct group of people with genetic differences, but Greek philosophy would be more properly attributed to a cultural development not a result of specific genetics.

          I do agree a Norwegian could not have been a Plato, but a Norwegian Christian from Medieval times would have more in common with Plato’s ideas than say a pre-Christian Odinist from the same region. Culture tends to influence people other than the originators, like the Arabians during the European dark ages who were heavily influenced by Greek and Roman writing.

          Also I do not feel proud of Greek philosophy, but I like some of the ideas and so did certain European thinkers, theologians, etc. It is not my identity, but surely it is apart of Occidental culture.

          1. Its funny you’d say that actually, because I think many Pagans would put Plato in with the Odinists!

            Yes, I don’t think we disagree substantively. The Occidental nations have contributed to a common pool of knowledge in the sense that we can all understand each other at the meta level. Christianity as a political vehicle was useful to spreading some of those good things about Greece up to places like Norway who otherwise might just never have known about them. Thinkers in one nation can influence and inspire thinkers in another nation to compose something entirely new, and this is the beauty of orderly cultural exchange. It is virtually impossible to have that kind of transfer from the Occident to non-Occidental societies or vice versa.

            There are exceptions: think Al-Ghazali’s contribution to theological thought. But even there, we could delve into the distant Indo connection between Europeans and Persians. A whole different can of worms!

      1. If you look at the history of the Greco-Persian wars as well as the Macedonian empire, one could argue that there a common ‘Greek’ identity to some degree, but it was definitely in a more vague and spiritual sense (Greek Liberty v.s Persian Absolutism?)

    2. There is an underlying spiritual and psychological connection between Occidental peoples. This, beyond biology, clearly seperates us from Africans for example. On Greek philosophy however, I have a hard time thinking that Norway could have produced a Plato. They could understand Plato, in a way that someone from the Inca civilization could not, but could they have produced it originally, from Traditional Norwegian culture and society? Similarly, could the Greeks have produced the great things of other Occidental civilizations? I tend to think we are unique, but we can speak this ‘meta’ language to each other.

      Just speaking to personal experience, I do not really feel proud about Greek philosophy. I feel proud about Russian architecture and art, about Norwegian folklore, and about the English language. These are the three places that fed into me. I love Greek stuff, and I do feel I understand it, but I just don’t feel it is in any way ‘mine’.

  2. A good piece but a tough pill to swallow.

    I’ve known Americans to view White identity from a genetic standpoint. Not to the point of somehow believing they could share their ancestry with Europe as a whole to take their achievements but to view it as a unified force, an “Anglosphere” and a “Western Civilization” spiritually. All Americans are aware of their European roots, I’ve not seen an English-American claiming Roman identity.

    On the other hand, to grow the American identity America should never have been involved in either WWI or WWII. The idea of an ‘Anglosphere’ was detrimental to creating a unique American identity. And since both wars the American identity has been Churchillian. Such led Americans to identify more with their European cousins than with their American ancestors and brothers – which led to a compromise of Whiteness.

    I have always viewed White Nationalism as a means for every white country to protect their own and cherish their own culture and identity, but to realize a spiritual connection between the European peoples, and a larger genetic connection.

    I have never seen it as being part of English skinheads or American Neo-nazis.

    Mmm…I guess whatever happens to Americans, English, French, German, Australian, life will go on.

    1. E. Michael Jones claims that, up until the 60s era in the US, everybody who we would today call “white” identified themselves according to their own European cultural heritage, i.e. there were Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans etc.

      It was only due to the deliberate ratcheting-up of racial tensions via the (((Civil Rights))) movement that the notion of a “white” America even entered the lexicon, let alone the popular imagination. This had the effect of dissolving those strong community ties that exited before, and led the way for the process of atomization that is still rampant in this current year…

      1. My grandfather identified as a White American. Of course he realized he was from Germany as well. Likewise my father did the same.

  3. I’ll comment on each pint as you’ve numbered them:

    1) I actually think Americans should reject whiteness as an identity also. The term white itself is useful in short, but not in detailed terms and detailed explanation. I think Americans will either have to make a new American identity, in which they rid their country of all it’s foreign elements and keep all of the USA for themselves. White being the only kind of American. Or, the worst comes to worst, and they have to carve new borders within the old country (the now USA, it sounds weird to say). This could have any number of possibilities. I like the idea of a New European identity in these new lands. But then again, genetically white Americans are pretty mixed. I think may end up being a case of blacks having their own territory, and latinos being so numerous that Americans wil have to give them land aswell. An agreed defeat.

    2) Americans have a Christian history, but it isn’t strong, except in those areas where it is. I’m not saying this Traditional Christianity, but there is some sort of a Christianity. Those places that have it will likely retain it. Those that don’t will have to form a new binding truth to live by. This I think will have to have some traces of that original American spirit, of Manifest Destiny, and Freedom. It’s not brilliant, and I don’t know what they’ll do, but there’s a lot of strength in those words, and I don’t see these old ideas of America going away. Future Americans of the new lands (or New Europe, or whatever happens) may draw on an older idea of what America is supposed to have been, rather than what it has become.

    3) Yes, Europe has to fight off the Muslims, again. Americans are going to have to do something about their neighbours. But what, I cannot say.

    I disagree with your estimation of the Alt-Right. Everyone now is defining it differently, when it seemed not long ago now that we were all part of the Alt-Right, whatever it is. I have always seen it as an umbrella term for everything from white nationalism, to reactionary thought. Everyone I talk to however is against this. I see the divisions, but I was happy to think we were all a part of the same team, more or less. Instead everyone has gone into their little corners, and started bitching about the group of far-rightists. This to me is absurd, when we are in such a minority, in every sense of the word. But reactionary’s like to bash WN’s and WN’s liek to bash NatSoc and so on. I point this out, and I get blasted. What does this constant dividing and separating and “we’re not Alt-Right” posturing actually serve? Maybe I’m in the wrong.

    Either way, you never mentioned his name, but i know who you’re thinking of, and it has been made clear that “they” are not Alt-Right. “They” have made it clear that they are a fellow traveller only. Then they went on to completely mischaracterize the Alt-Right. I think we have done a pretty good job of making this clear. The Alt-Lite/Cultural-Libertarians are not Alt-Right. Before you jump down my throat, I know, you didn’t say it, but you are insinuating it, and you are insinuating that those ideas: Western Civilization as the focus, instead of White Identity, are some sort of parallel ideology within the Alt-Right. You know that isn’t true. They have never been Alt-Right.

    I agree with everything else you said, in principle, but I don’t think it will come to much.

    We share ideas quite easily, so no problems there.

    As for philosophical development: yes, it would be nice if we could all agree to become Catholics and agree to a Traditional way of life, and to propagate that view. Not everyone is there, and not everyone agrees. It would also be impossible to enforce. “Quality control at this level is somewhat essential” sounds good, but theres only so much you can do. I think we need to work with people who have minor or major disagreements about philosophical ideas, as long as they are Alt-Right, or part of the far right, we’re all headed in a simialr direction. We haven’t reached a stage where we can have a reasonable purge, without it doing damage to everyoen else. There are basic tenets that the Alt-Right (which I consider reactionarys a part of) have, and we need to co-operate. I’ve talked about “not punching to the right”, no one cares. There isn’t anything you can do. We have to struggle along with the people we have, even if they kick and scream while we’re dragging them forward with us.

    Yes American influence is poisonous. The internet is somethign we haven’t talked about too much as an engine of globalism/”American” influence. Just thought I’d add that.

    I will say finally that I find some of your intolerance towards certain groups of people with certain ideas fascinating. But you are open to the idea that there isnt a single answer for every nation, or continent, unless I’m reading you wrong. That seems like a contradiction, because one philosophy or ideology may not be suitable to a particular nation, otherwise, you’d be preaching total Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

    Great article.

    1. 1) I am also not fond of the whole ‘white’ thing as it reduces race to color, but it’s the only term I really have to differentiate white Americans. I do think America will be divided up. As much as what I say is true for whites, it is also true for blacks. They cannot return to Africa. They have become different, and return would be negative for both them and the native Africans.

      2) I do think Americans, as Occidentals are as pre-disposed to Christian ideas as any European. Of this I have no doubt. I was speaking more in terms of actual structure, it just doesn’t have what somewhere like Bulgaria has, so would have to build it from scratch if this was the path it wanted.

      I’m glad you caught on to who I was refering to, but actually it goes beyond him. Vox Day made the distinction calling it the ‘Alt-West’ and the ‘Alt-White’, as two co-equal branches of the contemporary AltRight, which incresingly is defined more by the opposition than the movement itself.

      I actually agree with your definition of the AltRight. It is an umbrella, it is a zeitgeist. Defining it as primarily American does not mean I’m defining it as an institution. Clearly it isn’t, and unless Spencer and co formalize such an arrangement, it won’t be.

      When I am speaking of philosophical requirements, I am not speaking of theology or national particulars. I am speaking of Tradition, which allows for differences in those regards. At the philosophical level, the right can only be Reactionary and therefore I do feel people need to hold some core positions in order to be worth talking to. Just to give you a concrete example: I do not think anyone who believes women’s suffrage was a good idea is a rightist, and as such should not be held up as a ‘thought leader’ on the radical right. This is applicable to EVERY nation. They could be amazingly useful, perhaps they are good at trolling, or they donate money, but their purpose if they have one is not metapolitics and philosophy. But I stress again, the Tradition/Modernity dichotomy being the measure of intellect, there is great leniancy in many fields, which take into account individual cultures and races.

      1. I’m not so sure I care what blacks want.

        I don’t like that term, “pre-disposed”. But I’ll agree to disagree. The fact is we can’t know what will happen. I hope they build strong, Christ based societies aswell.

        I disagree. I don’t think Vox Day is much of an authority either. I actually spoke to him on Twitter, and like the bastard that I am I tried to get an honest answer out of him, ‘Why would Milo say this that and the other? You know him, what the Hell is he doing?’ he replied with ‘Oh stop being so such a sperg, he’s just using rhetoric’. I realised I was getting nowhere so I stopped nagging him for answers. Really, he shouldn’t be taken so seriously. The other day I was set upon by 14/88er’s, whom I had thought were also part of our growing single community: the Alt-Right. Turns out they’re disavowing the Alt-Right, and becoming whats known as the Alt-Reich (cringe), a term coined by the Kyle Hunt of Renegade broadcasting. He’s mutinied aswell. Weveryone is angry, everyone is pissed off, everyone hates the Alt-Right. I just think it’s stupid. Really. More divisions, more stupid little bickering arguments between this and that person, or this and that group. We’re not focussing on the common goal, and it’s only going to get worse the more people adopt this stupid attitude.

        In fact I’ll go and harass Vox on twitter in a minute with that link. I’m fucking sick of this stuff. We don’t need to redefine the Alt-Right. This is probably the design of outsiders who wish to break the Alt-Right up in fact.

        Not everyone is a traditional in the Alt-Right, as well you know. We can’t get into silly arguments about the, at this time, trivial issues. We aren’t in a powerful enough position to start tearing people apart over womens suffrage, it’s irrelevant at this time. This is what I have been trying to say. It’s the same with the whole bickering going on about Richard Spencers opinion of Milo. My reply is, we shouldn’t be bickering over minor differences of opinion on things that are irrelevant to the grand scheme of things. We can’t start purging people now. We have to gather people.

        1. “I’m not so sure I care what blacks want.”

          Thats certainly fair enough, I’m just pointing out the two situations are analogous.

          Nobody is in any position to purge anything. There is no organization yet. Like I said, if Spencer was to institutionalize the AltRight, then that will be his perogitive. Probably nobody else on the American scene has enough clout.

          1. It’ll never happen. He says himself he can’t claim that sort of power over the Alt-Right.

            The Alt-Right is just a community of people with ideas. I think movements can come out of it, but it isn’t a movement itself.

            It’s just known unknowns from here.

  4. Mark, I agree with most of your points. The answer for America is certainly separation of ethnic groups by actual borders not segregated zones. A homeland for supposed “white” Americans lies in the North, we may have to secede from at least 50% of the country.

    The real question is do Americans have the will to accomplish this? As an American, I am naturally pessimistic yet hopeful about the prospect of such an endeavor. Pessimistic in that I know how apathetic and atomized Americans are, the result of modernity for sure. Hopeful in that white Americans are not all tolerant of diversity, still have freedom of speech, and have the right to bear arms.

    In my state alone, 400,000 people (almost all white) own firearms. We are not going to become a threatened minority, unlike white South Africans, because we will not give up the essential weapons of our defense. But unless action is taken to separate from the Federal government, which will be occupied by nonwhites and Jews even after Donald Trump has his fun.

    Europeans and white Americans ought to make common cause by means of communication, but I agree that the divide is far reaching and focusing on our own locales is more valuable than pushing for a pan-European utopia.

  5. > 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.

    What about gypsies? They represent about 8% of population in some Central/Eastern European countries. Or are they counted among the blacks?

    > in Europe, the problem is not enough of the right people willing to do what has to be done.

    Now this is interesting. Is the plan for European reactionaries already fleshed out so that it is only their quantity which is lacking?

    1. Its not so much that a ‘plan’ has been fleshed out. That hasn’t happened anywhere and will be dependent upon the given factors at the time of opportunity, however it has models it can go off of. Othmar Spann’s model of the Austrian ‘true state’ is an example of this. America needs something similar.

  6. Mark, this is a really good piece, nay, it is an excellent piece. You’re getting better… fast.

    What people at Radix mean, I suspect, when they speak of “Whiteness” is actually a culture American whites tend to share: common decency, bourgeois norms, etc. This is lost on a lot of European who don’t have a lot of experience with U.S. Culture. They just think this culture is downstream of race, which is, well… wrong.

    Anyways, another thing: I believe it is best to understand White America as being primarily an Anglo-phenomenon. Its northeastern elites inherited their values and worldview of their English ancestors and looked to England as a model. Most of the philosophical sources of inspiration for the American Revolution were English philosophers (which continues today, with the American obsession with Analytic, which was a purely British phenomenon). Likewise, the American Empire today (a commercial sea power) operates most like the British Empire of the 19th century.

    Most of the Religious manias that are manifested in America had their roots in England (premillennialism courtesy of John Nelson Darby, for instance). Thus, American and England are best understood as two parts of the same civilization. American is not truly a part of European in the same way England is not truly a part of Europe.

    What I’m trying to say is that you and Adam need to face up to your responsibility as eternal Anglos.

    1. “The Anglo is immunised against all dangers: one may call him a natural liberal, analyst, humanist, un-Roman common-law-abiding individualist — even beady-eyed — it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a descendant of two Aryan brothers, whose only empire was a vast mechanised money-making scheme which served a Jewish dynasty and only a Jewish dynasty, and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: ‘Cor blimey mates, I’ve been riddle-diddled init.'”

    2. Haha. thanks for your kinds words. But as most are aware I don’t really identify with the Anglo mindset. At least in terms of spirit and psychological outlook, my influence comes from my patrilineal Russian roots. The English part of my identity is about as powerful as the Norwegian part to be honest. Meanwhile, Adam is the quintessential Englishman, as photos of him looking super-smug in an old fashioned car attest.

  7. When Angela Merkel and Germany pour refugees into my community they are no friend of mine.
    When Italy and Greece move refugees into my home they are no friend of mine or ever will be.
    When they tell them where to go I could spit on them.

    I hold many countries in contempt and wonder if it is not better if they fall.

  8. Re: information sharing: It could just be me, but I find that here in North America, it is next to impossible to find Rightist information from Europe. It’s very difficult to keep up to speed even with what’s going on in the UK, and the Continent just seems to vanish into an impenetrable fog. Information can’t be shared if people can’t find their way to it in the first place. Anyone else from the USA/Canada know what I’m talking about?

    1. I think part of that is certainly a language barrier, at least for mainland Europe. As for the UK, I try to cover stuff I see (London’s mayor for example), but not too much goes on here, at least not right now. I’d hope that changes

  9. > 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.

    I’m not so sure. You’d be surprised how many churches we have. They could easily be converted to Catholic places of worship. Protestantism is an outgrowth of Catholicism , so theologically it wouldn’t be difficult for the people to accept it if they had a will to convert. We also have a fairly strong Catholic scene, both post-Vatican 2 (majority of American Catholics ) and traditional Catholicism (a minority but still here).

    The real issue facing American traditionalism is identity. Personally my grandparents on my dad’s side are from a small town in Calabria and are members of the last wave of Western European immigrants to America. They speak Italian and never lost touch with their family in Europe. My dad married a more “American” girl however, so I didn’t have any ethnic trappings during my upbringing sans food and stories. (to prove I’m not simply spouting “We wuz kangs,” I took the ancestry DNA test over the summer and the results were 54% Italy/Greece, 25% Great Britain, 8 % Middle East , 7 % Caucasus, 3% Scandinavian, 2% European Jewish and 1% Irish.)

    This puts me in an awkward situation. I don’t necessarily relate to American culture, even in her non-degenerate variants and can’t say I prefer American values or traditions over what is found in Italy. At the same time I’ve never been to Italy. I’m an Italian, but speak English and lived in America all my life.

    Plenty of “White” Americans are in the exact same boat I’m in. Our best bet is what? Returning to Europe? Restoring an “traditional” American culture of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism based on land ownership and libertarianism that we don’t even belong too? Creating something new entirely?

    1. Sounds a lot like my situation, but it is somewhat uncommon. You could settle in Italy, but this isn’t so much determined by the genetic aspect of race, but the spirit. Do you have the Italian outlook on life, because that will be something unique, and heck its likely bifurcated as Italy is something of a made-up nation, composites of different types speaking the same language.

      For most Americans, these are not representative situations, and you are right that a new identity has to be found somehow.

      1. I feel Italian, and would love to move there. It’s something that is decades in the future if ever though.

        As for others, perhaps their best chance of creating a traditional society would require a restoration of the republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers, only inverting the steady trend America went through of becoming more egalitarian and centralized with every passing year. The end result being a confederation of sovereign states with a ruling elite of White land-owning males. Protestantism would have to go as well. Replaced ideally with Catholicism.

        1. Although much of Protestantism is of a degenerate nature, I don’t see any reason why North American Christians should submit to the authority of the Pope, who is based in another continent. If you consider yourself spiritually Catholic, and genuinely wish to connect more with Catholicism, you should move to a Catholic country, rather than hoping that the Catholic Church will somehow overtake Protestantism in North America. Ideally, more theologically sound, principled, and hierarchal forms of Protestantism, manifesting a distinctively White North American character, will emerge.

          1. >I don’t see any reason why North American Christians should submit to the authority of the Pope, who is based in another continent.

            You mean the continent White Americans originate from? The continent that the bases of all our philosophy comes from? Honestly I fail to see an increase of spiritual ties to Europe as an negative. It’s not that I desire to convert Americans to Roman Catholicism so much that I realize, pragmatically speaking, the only traditional faith vapid materialistic Americans can possibly hope to understand is Roman Catholicism.

            >Ideally, more theologically sound, principled, and hierarchal forms of Protestantism, manifesting a distinctively White North American character, will emerge.

            How can this be, when Protestantism was antithetical to any form tradition from the start? How would this manifest itself on a large scale? Mormonism? Quakerism? Southern Baptist fire and brimstone preachers? The sad fact is if that was going to happen, it would have when conditions were far more favorable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s