Well, kinda. The World Cup of Hockey is going on right now in Toronto, and after finishing second in group A (ahead of The US and The Czech Republic), and then defeating Sweden in the semi-finals, “Team Europe” has advanced to the Finals (against Canada).

As you can see, “Team Europe” does not include all of Europe. Team Europe is made up of the best European players who come from countries that are not quite good enough to form their own national teams. But why even have a Team Europe?

Apparently, the World Cup organizers wanted to have eight teams, but there are only six countries capable of fielding competitive teams.

The top Ice Hockey countries in order:1.) Canada. Nos. 2-4.) The US, Sweden, and Russia (probably in that order, but these three are all pretty even) 5.) Finland—the Finns are competitive because they are especially strong at goaltender. 6.) The Czech Republic—the Czechs are in relative decline. A decade ago they would have been ahead of the Finns. After that, the well gets pretty dry. (Ten-fifteen years ago, Slovakia was good enough to compete independently, but they have declined severely.) So in addition to these six, the World Cup includes Team Europe and Team North America (Americans and Canadians under the age of 24).

Against all expectations (my expectations anyhow), Team Europe has done quite well. In case you were wondering, “Team European Imperium” is composed of players from the following countries:

France-1
Denmark-3 (I don’t follow these things as closely as I did as a kid, but I think Denmark is an up-and-comer.)
Germany-6
Slovakia-6 (Five of these six are over the age of 30; as I said, they are a declining power.)
Slovenia-1
Switzerland-3
Austria-1
Norway-1
Italy-1

Once again, Pew has found that religious identification is down among Americans, continuing a decades-long secular trend. The same pattern holds for identification with a political party. In both cases, millennials stand at the vanguard. As Richard Spencer recently noted here, millennials are even less likely to believe in American Exceptionalism. It is not just that people are too lazy to get up for church on Sunday (though this probably does apply, at some level, to many of those who claim to “spiritual,” but not “religious”), or that they are too cheap to donate to a political party; these findings come from opinion polls, and it does not cost anymore to check one box instead of another. Surveying this situation, ethnonationalists often conclude that this offers us an opportunity; millennials are withdrawing their loyalties from the system. And it may be an opportunity for us, but it is also a problem.

Millennials are not simply leaving the existing perennial institutions, they seem to be abandoning the idea of belonging to perennial institutions altogether. It is not as if there is any great wave of Americans transferring their loyalties to new religions and new political parties. They are dissatisfied with the traditional options, but it is not because there has been a radical divergence between the opinions of the general public and the platforms of the dominant political parties; Americans’ loyalties have simply become more personal and immediate. (Religion’s losses, on the other hand, are, to a significant degree, the result of a deep ideological divide.)

Much has been made of the fragmentation of the media landscape—the personalized news feeds we receive on social media, the hundreds of available television channels that allow for ever more individualized programing for ever more narrow audiences, but this has been accompanied by what we could call a personalization of loyalties, and, for us, that may be just as consequential. Naturally, people still have ideals to which they are loyal, but for an ever greater share of the population, the only profound institutional loyalty they feel is to their family and friends—and again, this loyalty is felt in the most immediate sense, essentially reserved for those they know, knew, or will know personally. Even among those who retain a nominal loyalty to some institution broader than their immediate experience, less emphasis is put on this point, as they focus more and more of their hopes on themselves and their social network.

Ethnonationalism assumes a population capable of loyalty to a perennial institution. The ethny is a perennial institution. I do not mean to frighten the reader (or arouse him, as the case may be), but the ethnonationalist state must be the equivalent of a hardcore confessional state. The state must have an official ethnicity, and ideally, this ethnicity would be the dominant majority whose position as such would be preserved as a matter of official policy. It should go without saying that this does not mean that ethnonationalism has to be the only, or even the dominant, civic confession; for good or bad, the English nation is many things other than Anglican, and the Greek nation is many things other than Greek Orthodox, but the ethnonationalist state must be official, or it does not exist. In other words, the ethnonationalist state depends on exactly the kind of impersonal institutional loyalty that millennials appear unwilling to give.

Personally, I think that if any idea can bring millennials around to our way of thinking, it is my Particularist ideal. The millennial, in composite, has universalist ideals, but to the extent that he is loyal to his group over everyone else, he imagines his group in very narrow terms. A European Imperium ideal goes against the grain of both of these inclinations; it makes small what the millennial would have big, and makes big what he would have small. Particularism is much more in line with millennial sensibilities: Particularism posits that the ethos of the state should more closely resemble the ethos of the citizen. Therefore we should have more states governed by much more diverse ideologies than we can even imagine. And there is no reason why Particularism’s prescriptions should have any less universal applicability than those of liberalism.

Every ideology starts with the individual, and attempts to satisfy his desire to perpetuate himself. There is no such thing as a group will, except as a collection of individual wills. Millennials demonstrate this point as well as any group could. Yet, the individual’s will can only be realized if he is part of a group. Particularism has the potential to meet millennials halfway, and channel their legendary self-absorption into something that transcends itself. To quote Matthew McConaughey, “You just gotta find that balance. By taking care of yourself, it takes care of more than…just yourself.”

Ryan Andrews is the author of The Birth of Prudence, which was published by VDare last year.

The enlightened guardians of public order will usually tell you that the criminals are not to be punished as vengeance, but in order to rehabilitate and/or prevent future crime, by removing the offenders from the public and deterring others from taking similar action. These categories are by no means mutually exclusive, and some can be molded into stepping-stones to others. German writer Anna Sauerbrey, ever mindful of the enormity of her people, seems to have combined all three. In an op-ed column for today’s New York Times, “Why Old Nazis Are Still Useful,” she proudly and frankly mourns the passing of the Nazi generation. Her reasoning is that Germany must always have a deep sense of shame in her past, and the spectacle of a real-life Nazi, even a 93-year-old one, is the best blunt instrument for accomplishing this.

I am not sure whether she is working under the premise that the ends justify the means—perhaps she does not see anything particularly distasteful about her methods, but, to me, everything about the essay’s approach is strikingly ugly. Sauerbrey writes:

Survivors of the Holocaust still regularly speak in classrooms in Germany. Everyone reads the “Diary of Anne Frank,” over and over. I have read it knowing that my grandparents had at least tolerated the regime that murdered her — and that both my grandfathers served in the war. We have all grown up with the vague feeling of inherited guilt.

But while reading Frank’s diary or hearing Ms. Pusztai-Fahidi (a plaintiff in the trail against the aforementioned 93-year-old ex-Nazi) speak is moving, it is the perpetrators that really make you dizzy. In a way they are even more important to the German narrative than the victims.

Sure, it makes sense that German guilt is more important to Germany’s historical narrative than is the sufferings of Germany’s victims, but the writer’s purpose here is to appeal to a very extreme example of “the politics of fear.” In this especially odious case, the aim is for the Germans to be afraid of themselves. Because after all:

It is not enough to teach good liberal values. All that Humboldt and Kant failed to inoculate Germany from the virus of Nazism. Why should it now? Nor is history sufficient, by itself. The numbers of those killed in Auschwitz-Birkenau are horrifying, but abstract.

For many Medieval Christians, all Jews were forever guilty for the murder of Christ; for Sauerbrey, all Germans are forever guilty of the Nazi Holocaust. And they can never be trusted again. The strong implication is that the German problem requires a final solution, and perhaps partially with this in mind, Sauerbrey recommends that Germans dedicate themselves to welcoming refugees to their land. She is German, so absolute spirit and all that, I guess.

Now this is a revolting sentiment to me, but it has become such old-hat that it alone did not really surprise me. What I really found jarring about this article was how confident and straight-forward she is in her self-hatred, and in her desire for the rest of Germany to feel the same. Nowhere does she express any regret that it has come to this, nowhere does she qualify her position at all. Her tone is not polemical, or at all angry. Why should it be? To her, the idea that Germans are uniquely and forever guilty is not at all controversial. She takes it for granted, and assumes that everyone else does too.

Ryan Andrews is the author of The Birth of Prudence, which was published by VDare last year.

Of all counter-cultures today, none is more “counter” than Ethno-Nationalism. At root, our ideology (Ethno-Nationalism) is the direct opposite of the ideal that most Westerners accept unquestioningly, and so picking-at-the-scabs of the current arrangement will never be enough to overthrow it. We can howl at this-or-that Multicultural absurdity, and many will concede that we may have a point, but that we are missing the larger point. We need an appealing, idealistic, moral narrative; we need a larger point.

The Birth of Prudence Excerpt: Universalism vs Nationalism
[Ethan] “And you still don’t get it, Logan. You still evoke the northern barbarians and the enfranchising of the proletariats. It is your narrative that because of this, we can go on and on, break barrier after barrier in happy succession, but of course, logically, those have nothing to do with this, like those dark-age thinkers, you extrapolate what something will become based on what something else became from a seemingly similar starting point, your “logic” is basically girlish intuition….The best argument you have is the proles comparison, but of course, races are
instantly identifiable groups, and so freedom is not enough to prove fairness…”

Logan: Now, since the enlightenment, we have been working toward one end: the universality of our universal values. It is the dominant spirit of the modern age, what Christianity was for the middle Ages and what the discovery of man was to the Greeks.

Ethan: My idea is that societies should be ethnic entities because, well, because I wish to see the extended families recognize themselves as such, and to survive and reproduce, which is the sole goal of all life. That is enough for me right there. But I also believe in the idea of a biologically-specific Good….

…So I believe that one’s idea of the Good is bound up in his biology, and that a nation of his ethnics, his biological race, would be most likely to form the society most in sync with his idea, and therefore he will also be better able to know his idea, to participate in his own goodness. It’s funny that the races are identified by color because, in general, the members of each one are different shades of what we might call their form.[Logan] “All you really have are some correlations!”

“But you have nothing! You have false comparisons!”

“Tsss.” Logan looked at Ethan with exasperation. “Should we give up all our noble hopes because there may be some minor physical and mental differences between the races?

“Even if you’re right about racial differences, it may just make you even more wrong. You may think that your idea of the ethnic-specific Good is idealistic and enlightened, but if your basis for that idea is right, how would it actually work? Do you think that Africans without food to eat, suffering horrendous levels of rape and disease, will take comfort in the living an ethnic-specific Good? And what about the tyrant who tortures his people? At what point can a Universal Nationalist step in? But that’s just part of the experience to you, I guess…. Oh, for heaven’s sake, don’t smile at that.”

“No, it’s just that I know exactly how to respond.” Ethan got up and poured himself some soda, then came back and lighted a cigarette. “And some of it probably is part of the experience.

“…I don’t know the answer to either question. I don’t know if the tribesman in the jungle, or even in a violent and ramshackle slum, but in a country dominated by his co-ethnics and their ethic, knows his love better than does Joe Sports Fan sitting on his couch in Ohio. Based on my idea of love, I think he does. I think he has more of what he really wants. But that’s just my idea, impossible to quantify, so I don’t know, but neither do you.

“And while we’re on the subject, sort of, perhaps man, or a man, does not even really want to perpetuate himself. Some claim it’s more accurate to just say that life has the instinct to perpetuate life. With some people, it does seem as if the only relation they have to their object of desire is that they desire it (which is not nothing—it is impossible to love everything and every possibility indiscriminately, therefore you can’t really separate a man’s love from the desire to perpetuate himself, but I admit that this may come-off as relatively weak sauce/salsa/soy sauce). Of course, beyond the very safe assumption that all men have an idea of the Good, the theory of the biologically-specific Good does not at all depend on man desiring to perpetuate himself.

“When might a Universal Nationalist, who has the power to do so, interfere in the affairs of another nation? Well, when might an Egalitarian Universalist? You can offer a few scenarios, but your comprehensive formula can be no more specific than that we should intervene when our involvement would help further Egalitarian Universalism. Substitute the term Universal Nationalism in place of Egalitarian Universalism, and I would agree.”

“That’s very interesting, Ethan. Yes, it doesn’t seem like we love life indiscriminately, but maybe that misses the deeper truth. The individual is attracted to, and wants to perpetuate, what he thinks is beautiful, but perhaps this is purely a means. His end is simply the perpetuation of life, and so, whether instinctive or deliberate, he makes a calculation on how to achieve this, and so what we each call the Beautiful is no more than a calculation on how to perpetuate life in general.”

“It doesn’t really matter whether we want to perpetuate ourselves, or to perpetuate life in general; either way, we still have to decide on the means. Let’s assume we do only want the perpetuation of life in general. What it means to “perpetuate life” is entirely subjective. So unless, at root, we all have the exact same idea, the Individual Will is still real. Therefore, we do have identities, and the perpetuation of life, in practice, remains the perpetuation of ourselves. If deep-down, we do all have the exact same idea, and lets imagine this idea were revealed to us, the fact that, somewhere within, I “want it,” is not enough to convince me to actively want it. I don’t want it, I won’t want it… good thing it doesn’t exist.

“Over and over again,” Ethan continued, “you keep saying that we have to give our gift to everyone, it has more meaning with more believers, etc., your implication that the whole is obviously of more worth than the separate parts, so it takes priority. It’s a reasonable and commonsensical notion, and I agree with it, just not with your idea of what is their interest. You take prioritizing the whole to mean that as many as possible should have as much material stuff, or at least as much ability to acquire that stuff, as possible. Each is thereby better able to satisfy his love by better surviving. For me it is not just a question of surviving, but surviving as what? I prioritize the whole for its own sake, and want it to survive, as it is the way of the most total love, however that love might be distributed among the individuals, though I think that, on balance, each would have a greater share of it, whether they are completely conscious of this fact or not.

“By now, it should be clear that your original assumption has been turned on its head. When we began, you assumed that you were fighting for the idea of equality, whereas my concern was with preserving bloodlines, a material quality. Yet, I am concerned with the material (obviously in the strict sense we’re both materialists, but you know what I mean) in large part, because it achieves ideas, and you are concerned with ideas only in so far as they achieve something material.”

“I am concerned with the idea of allowing others dignity. Some of that certainly is material, but it’s also a matter of rights and acceptance.”

“Even at its most lofty, your “noble idea” is no more than the belief that what we have is so damn good that no one else can ever think of anything better for themselves, so we offer it to everyone, and everyone becomes us.”

Ryan Andrews is the author of The Birth of Prudence, which was published by VDare earlier this year. 

When I first took to these pages, as part of my argument against the idea and ideal of the
European Imperium, and in favor Ethnonationalism and Particularism, I cautioned against an
overemphasis on practical tactics. At this (hopefully) early stage in our movement, the greatest
part of our energy ought to be devoted to developing an attractive ideology. We need our share of the top ten percent of twenty-somethings; as always, the future will be what these people make it. There are two ways to encourage these people to do your bidding: 1.) Buy them. 2.) Convince them to want what you want. And since we don’t have any money, our choice has already been made for us. Which is just as well; it’s more fun this way anyways. That said, if the nations of Europe are to preserve themselves individually, a heightened sense of pan-White identity will be necessary… for practical reasons.

Specifically, ethnonationalists of Western Europe need to embrace large-scale White immigration (with an emphasis on attracting the young, obviously). Should any given country in Western Europe go ethnonationalist tomorrow, it will still be 5-20% non-White, and even more among the young. Expulsion of illegal immigrants and incentives for others to emigrate may have an effect, but if the goal is to reduce the non-White share of the population to statistical insignificance, this will not be enough, unless it is carried out over multiple generations. And the longer it drags on, the greater the risk of backsliding. White ethnostates ought to be as aggressive as possible about removing non-Whites, but it must be humane, and that means it must not be forced. Brutality—and forced repatriation/removal definitely qualifies as such—would undermine our moral legitimacy. So, to put it bluntly, White immigration is needed to demographically overwhelm the remaining non-Whites.

Petty nationalists often balk at this ‘rootless American racialism,’ but this compromise is key to
preserving the greatest part of their national vision, and it is not even really a compromise at all.
For the European Ethnonationalist, this is more a change of mindset than a change in the actual
composition of his nation.

Ethnonationalists do not have to abandon ethnicity; Europeans can continue to think of
themselves as French, German, and English, and form or reform their states on this basis, but it
must be recognized that the children of a Frenchman are capable of being German and vice
versa. This attitude is a practical necessity, but more than that, it is the truth. Yes, taken as a
whole, the German nation, like the Czechs or Poles, or any other ethnic nation, has a cultural and biological cohesiveness that marks it off from all others. At the individual level however, the
definition of German has always been much less comprehensive: a German is a White person
who thinks in German.

This does not mean that the White ethnostate should have a nondiscrimination policy towards all potential White immigrants. The White ethnostate may, to a greater or lesser extent, discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnic proximity or whatever. And, clearly, it would be wise to guard against immigrants from a single country becoming too-large-a-share of the population. To encourage assimilation, they could also discriminate on the basis of sex in order to prevent people from marrying within their own nationality i.e. heavily favor women from x country and men from y country. But every Western European country needs White immigrants.

In general, they should take these (White) immigrants from wherever they can (to a point), but priority should be given to attracting those from the New World (to a point). Given the low birthrates in Eastern Europe and the fact that intra-Western-European immigration is a zero-sum game, immigration from the New World is a necessity. And since immigrating to France is a much greater dislocation for someone from Rio than it is to someone from Madrid, New World immigrants and their descendants will probably lose their ties to their old country that much faster. Several generations ago, New World countries used immigration from Europe to whiten their populations; the situation today calls for the reverse.

Ryan Andrews is the author of The Birth of Prudence, which was published by VDare earlier this year. 

I don’t know what the protocol is for authors who feel that their work has been misrepresented by a reviewer, but my sense is that an author anxious for reviews does not help his cause if he jumps down the throat of the first person who reviews his book. So I don’t come here to do that. James O’Meara’s review of my book on Counter-Currents absolutely did strike a nerve with me, but instead of whining about all the ways I’ve been wronged, I only want to use one opening he has provided me to make a more general point about my book, and about literature. Think of this, not as a bitter rebuttal, but as part of a collaborative effort between O’Meara and myself to establish a fine point of literature.

O’Meara objects to the character Mark, because Mark should know better than to do what he does. And while I disagree with most of his recommendations, as well as his judgement of where Mark went wrong, that is beside the point, because Mark is not supposed to be a role model. The hero in tragedy is not a role model.

The hero in tragedy either lacks the will to do what he knows to be right, or he is mistaken about what he believes to be right; I can not imagine that O’Meara would recommend either weakness or ignorance. The hero of tragedy may (and should) have many admirable characteristics, but these do not prevent his failure, and in a good tragedy, they actually work to realize it. The intensity with which the tragic hero feels his failure has intrinsic worth, but of course, this can not be genuinely imitated.

Some would expand the definition of tragedy to include unhappy stories in which the hero is arguably faultless; he is laid low by incomprehensible cosmic injustice, or he goes down fighting for what he knows is a lost cause, or he is one who would rather suffer anything rather than betray his conscience. To me, these things might be tragic (any sufferer capable of great feeling is tragic), but they are not tragedies. These heroes did not fail, and so their stories are not tragedies.

So yes, Mark is flawed. His flaw though, is not that in the end he fails to understand the West, it is that in the beginning he fails to understand himself. And while his failure is worthy of our attention, it should not be the dominant focus. If one character must be identified as the subject, as the tragic hero, that character is Prudence, not Mark.

Given the ideological place from which the book was written, and from which most of the readers come, as well as the framing of the novel’s conflict, I can understand how this might be overlooked. Mark is the white guy. Superficially, he is the actor, while she is acted upon. In the end, the “choice” is in his hands, but she chose him. And the facts on which she based her choice were exactly right, yet she was still somehow wrong.

Ryan Andrews is the author of “The Birth of Prudence“.