Tonight (June 13, 2020) on Unconscious Cinema, Mark Brahmin, Richard Spencer and Tyler Hamilton undergo David Lynch’s 2001 surreal neo-noir masterpiece “Mulholland Drive”. Tune onto the NPI/Radix channel at 7…
Nostalgia is the great opium den of Nationalist circles where many bright and energetic minds in dissident politics go to escape modernity and embark on a quest of contemplation and…
Nostalgia is the great opium den of Nationalist circles where many bright and energetic minds in dissident politics go to escape modernity and embark on a quest of contemplation and yearning for what “could have been”. Is this something that can be fully separated from radicals in our movement? Maybe not completely, however, just like the addict in the opium den, so too, are nationalists being consumed in reverie over any time period that they never lived in, and in place of progression is a great wheat field image induced stagnation that breeds depression and resentment.
Third position ideas do require reflection on our past, which can justifiably create immense admiration, but if only for the purpose of moving forward. Jewish Filmmaker Woody Allen, seems to understand the negative effects of nostalgia and seemingly gifts us with his 2011 film, Midnight In Paris. A film that displays how this trance-like state of yearning for the past can seriously complicate your present. The only problem is Allen, I feel, is speaking to a very specific audience and that audience is us. Thus, he is careful to not encourage us too much and, as you will read below, I believe he has a more nefarious purpose for this messaging.
OVERVIEW OF MIDNIGHT IN PARIS
Midnight in Paris, written and directed by Woody Allen, is a quirky tale of a screenwriter seemingly at an impasse. Gil Pender (Owen Wilson), is vacationing in Paris with his fiancee, Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents John and Helen. As we can see right off the bat, Gil and Inez couldn’t be more different than one another. Gil is very lackadaisical while Inez is explicitly high maintenance and intense. Inez’s parents have nothing but disdain for Gil and his ostensibly aloof and unserious personality. Gil is almost finished with his first novel about a man working in a nostalgia shop. Inez is not impressed or encouraging with this novel and wishes he would stick to screenwriting due to to his success in Hollywood. Inez is also annoyed at Gils’ insistence that they should live in Paris indefinitely due to his nostalgic euphoria over the Paris of the 1920’s.
Paul, who is a friend of Inez, and his wife happen to be in Paris at the same time as them. She admits to Gil she had a “crush” on Paul in college to which a clearly jealous Gil describes him as “Pedantic” and “Pseudo-intellectual”. Inez is clearly infatuated with Paul while Gil cannot stand him. Paul is a very dapper man who speaks with confidence and with every chance he gets, he tries to be the smartest man in the room. Even when he is contradicted by a tour guide about the artist Rodin and his tryst with his wife and mistress, Paul will not relent and keeps insisting he is right (and as the viewer can find out if they look into the life of Rodin, the tour guide was correct).
Gil and Inez have a night of drinking with Paul and his wife until Gil opts for a walk around the city of Paris alone to take the city it all in while Inez leaves with Paul and his wife in a taxi. Gil stops on his walk to figure out where he is exactly and as soon as the clock strikes midnight, a 1920’s vehicle pulls up in front of Gil. The passengers, also dressed from the 20’s, invite him to join them. It is at this point Gil is transported back in time to what he sees as the Golden Age of Paris. The 1920’s. This allows for an entertaining list of famous characters from the time to enter the plot such as Ernest Hemingway, Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel, Cole Porter, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and more.
Every night Gil transports himself back in time to meet all these artistic giants of the 20th century while his wife spends her time with Paul and, supposedly, his wife. After Hemingway brings Gil to Gertrude Stein’s flat so that he may have his novel analyzed, he meets Adriana (Marianne Cotillard). They have an instant connection and Gil becomes conflicted with this new flame that he has in the past and his current fiancee.
After visiting an Antique vendor in the present day, he finds Adriana’s diary where she has written a passage about her love for Gil. This encourages him to go back in time once more so that they may communicate their feelings for one another. They do so,and as they kiss at midnight, a horse drawn carriage pulls up in front of them and a well dressed couple invites them in. They are then transported to the 1890’s which is the true Golden Age, according to Adriana. After she is offered a job to make costumes for the theater, she decides to stay but Gil cannot. He realizes that everybody is bored with the age in which they live and they won’t find their meaning by going back. He decides the present is where he should remain and they choose to part.
Once in the present, Gil realizes Inez may be cheating on him with Paul (a discovery made by Hemingway after he reads Gil’s novel; Gertrude Stein then relates to Gil that Hemingway could not believe the protagonist did not see his fiancee was having an affair right before his eyes with “the pedantic one”) and when he confronts her, she admits to doing so but that he needs to just “get over it”. Gil seems rather pleased and takes this moment to tell her he will stay in Paris and they are not right for one another. In the end, we see Gil walking, yet again, through the city of Paris and at midnight he bumps into a young beautiful antique vendor he met earlier in the film. They walk off together through the streets, in the rain, which is where Gil always felt happiest.
WOODY ALLEN & THE ARYAN
What does this film mean, and more importantly, what does it mean for nationalists? In a way, Allen is giving an honest critique of reactionary thought. Not living in the now and spending ones time only in the past can produce untold unhappiness in the present. Gil is frustrated with how he is presently living. He dreams of a before time when to him everything was great. We see this many a time in politics. For a typical Republican, perhaps it’s America in the 50’s. To some 1930s Europe. To others medieval times and there are even those that believe that in the days of cavemen things were far more ideal. Which ever time one finds themselves pining for, Allen is telling the viewer that it is the present we should be focused in but how exactly is he portraying the present?
The film opens with a series of static shots that appear almost like paintings to display the very best of Paris. Throughout the film, the city is always ever present as another character in the story. While indeed very inspiring and breathtaking, it is obvious Woody Allen has only picked very select parts of the city. What we know of Paris today is that it is a shell of its former self. Even in 2011, during the films release, migrant hell holes burrowed their way into the city along with the trash that covers the streets. Culture in Paris is waning and the very best parts of the city are only preserved for the sake of tourism and not for the French soul. I doubt Allen is ignorant to any this. Quite the opposite. I believe this was a calculated decision on his part to ensure that we don’t spend much time in the past but to also accept our present as being more than sufficient, therefore we have no need to look to our future. As Nationalists, we are inspired by our past which Allen is more than aware, and as I’ve stated before we take elements from our Golden Age (whenever that may be) so that we may apply it to our lives in order to create a different future than the one that has been currently decided for us. Allen is careful to not encourage us too much. He wants you to stay forever in the present and to imprison your passion within the confines of a “this is good enough” type of attitude.
How do we know Allen is speaking to us? Some subtle clues in his body of work, as well as Midnight in Paris specifically, give us an indication of who he is speaking to. One of the ways we can find these clues is through name recognition which you can learn through the work of Mark Brahmin and his work in Jewish Esoteric Moralization also known as JEM. Many Jewish filmmakers pick very specific names in order to indicate who is an “Aryan” and who is a “Jew”. Gil can be translated to a few different meanings. Foolish, simpleton, and happy (which can hint at a happiness out of ignorance) are among those meanings which makes sense when you view this blonde and blue eyed character in the film. JEM often portrays the Aryan figure as gullible and generally oblivious.
It’s not that Gil is an ignorant man by any means it is more that he is a bit unaware of his surroundings and can be easily manipulated. Two women in his life that are Jewish signifiers, Inez (Who’s father is a Jewish figure named John who is also a neocon) and Adriana (meaning black, which is a Jewish signifier), merely have Gil around for their temporary entertainment. Adriana, for example, writes in her diary that her reasons for loving Gil are that he is “naive and unassuming”. Paul Bates, being short for Bartholomew which is a Jewish signifier, even cuckolds Gil. The Jewish figure steals the Aryans woman away from him.
While there are several symbols and other names that we can delve into, the point is that Allen is giving, in my opinion, a direct message to the “goy”. Jews are very fearful of an inspired Aryan people which may lead to uprisings as we have seen in the past. Since film is possibly the most versatile art form in history, it would behoove one such as Woody Allen to not only entertain his audience but to also influence them in a way that he feels benefits him through subversive means.
Nostalgia, while being quite natural, can be a trap. Gil experienced this well enough. While its aroma can be alluring, it has been the great motivator of inaction among Nationalists currently. I cannot emphasize enough that we can, and should, look to days gone by to find inspiration and ideas that we can use or even update to create a future. But A movement must have vision. Vision requires forward thinking. There is no return to tradition and Nostalgia is by no means meant to be our end goal.
Midnight in Paris interested me because on one hand Woody Allen is acting as if he is giving us good advice on this matter. On the other hand, making sure we are stopped in our tracks. This is one of many ways our opposition tries to control us. The film is well done, entertaining, and quite funny. With that being said, Allen wishes to make you feel like you are progressing while in reality keeping you in a perpetual hamster wheel. It is all too Caducean. We need to spot this effect in every aspect of our lives. We need to break free of not only the prison our opposition has created for us but the one that we, as nationalists, construct for ourselves. Move forward. Not backward.
On February 27, 2020, the investigative journalist Kevin Coogan was pronounced deceased. While one may assume his clandestine existence would merit equally subdued documentation, his death was met with an…
On February 27, 2020, the investigative journalist Kevin Coogan was pronounced deceased. While one may assume his clandestine existence would merit equally subdued documentation, his death was met with an outpour within the marxist community, providing competing levels of intrigue against his early work on the ‘post-war fascist international’. Prior to 2020, he was known near exclusively by a sole biography on Francis Parker Yockey, Dreamer of the Day, and any conspiracy of the following sort would have been considered gauche. Almost immediately after his passing The New York Times released a laudatory obituary of the man. Their hosting memoirs from figures like Uma Zykofsky – a Deputy Director for the State of California – shows that we can only imagine the journalist’s shadow activities.
Of course the rabbit hole goes further than high-ranking civil servants; ‘The Unrepentant Marxist’, a communist blog presenting itself as an obscure underdog yet somehow racking up six million views, exploded with activity following the death. The blog’s author Louis Proyect has dedicated an article to the Irishman’s activism, crediting his friendship with Noel Ignatiev and Kevin to his time in the neo-trotskyite movement, likening the trio to red ‘vanguard’ soldiers (yes – the department head of Harvard University, Ignatiev). It would be a claudicate task to have fabricated such articles, in short order, and following a death which most of his readership are still completely unaware of. Likewise, there has been a simultaneous outpouring of data on other websites within the span of several days with their own regales of Kevin. Could it be that these surface level outré blogs are merely a cover for a ring of neo-marxists? Color me shocked.
It appears that before writing his 2019 hit-piece on Arktos media ‘Lost Imperium’, the self-avowed journalist had been racking up quite the portfolio of work. Although Dreamer of The Day includes passing mention of Coogan’s work with journals such as Mother Jones (surprisingly, a co-author of perhaps their most infamous issue on white-nationalism, see ‘Europe’s New Fascists’), it was not until a month ago that a complete list of his works was released. Just as suspicious as the geocities websites and underground blogs one must navigate in order to make sense of this prolific author’s work, there is far more than initially meets the eye. ‘Beyond The Fringe Politics’ lists 34 works that were either independently pursued or co-authored in his free time, most of which are anti-rightist and suggestively intelligence based. Much how the UK magazine titled Lobster, which hosted Coogan’s work twenty years prior to his latest attack, is under a buried geocities style webpage described as a ‘journal of parapolitics, intelligence and state research’.
So what are we to make of Coogan’s recently veiled attack (if we are to borrow a phrase of his) on Bolton? It appears that just as much camouflage was employed in the Irishman’s personal life as in his faux objective reporting; Dreamer of the Day being popularized within the communities he investigated for the ADL and SPLC. Irrespective to whether or not this was intentional, it would come as no surprise that such documentary and commercial hype was an asset for like organizations. As we will come to expose, Coogan continued affiliation with multiple left-hand-path groups which he attempted to dissociate himself with for professional reasons – on the surface, ostensibly ‘journalism’, which was a cover for perhaps his own homebrewed espionage. Without a doubt, he had made himself familiar with Fascist Odyssey and had been following Bolton and Arktos for years in the shadows.
In fact, it was about twenty years prior when he published his initial attack on the Kiwi; the final Appendix of Yockey’s initial biography titled, ‘Francis Parker Yockey and the Devil’, attempts to associate itself with pop-occult figures such as Varg Vikernes and Michael Moynihan, in what appears to be a smoke screen for its greater vitriol toward Kerry Bolton. Such attempts to sway the reader’s attention to Moynihan’s affiliation with the Church of Satan, tandem the near farcical threat of ‘Black Nazi Metal’ rock bands, are suspect; Coogan himself had maintained contact with many off-color groups during his work with the ADL, including the rings of satanism. With his passing it is now widely available that the Irishman claimed to have been abused as a youth in the cult of Lyndon LaRouche, head of the NCLC (National Caucus of Labor Committees), of which The New York Times obituary attests Coogan’s membership of. Proyect’s memorial of the biographer also claims that by happenstance he was an abuse victim of the cult as well, and that they managed to stumble upon one another via blog comments.
An awfully convenient circumstance., given that Proyect claims his work of LaRouche was intended to be performed marxist qua marxist until Coogan contacted him anonymously to suggest otherwise. Irrespective to his appearance as capable viz. an association with Noel Ignatiev, said testimony gives an appearance of the tail wagging the dog. According to Proyect, Coogan had pseudonymously nudged him with a hundred plus comments on his cult articles until revealing his true name – claiming that he had been using a handle to protect himself from LaRouche’s goons. Begging the question as to why, if such a group was a reckoned power decades past, that the Irishman used his real name in 1999 only to change so in 2017?
Given that both men set out to publish joint works on LaRouche following their acquaintance, now claiming the cult leader should be rebranded as an ‘American fascist’, we can substantiate that ‘The Unrepentant Marxist’ is not simply a cut-out job to discredit Coogan. Of course, The New York Times obituary asserts that the journalist was interested in far-left causes during his youth, and it appears that in circles outside of ‘The Unrepentant Marxist’ he maintained the alibi as being coaxed into abuse. However, he admits on Proyect’s website that he infiltrated the LaRouche cult intentionally under the auspice of holding marxian views. Stating, “I told them that I was in Columbia SDS in the sixties and used to go to his lectures – a total lie. I also told them that I read ‘Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy’, which was only a [an additional] white lie…” More than several articles compiling an analysis of the cult were under his pseudonymous authorship, and only revealed until after his death according to the trotskyite editor (now running cover for his online buddy).
Appearing on the surface as a kind of self-aggrandizing attempt to imitate the espionage of his fascist competitors, though, this brings a whole new light to the journalist’s life. Following the distribution of Bolton’s work as a counter to the anti-fascist, a slew of critical insider reviews surfaced. Two of those critical on Dreamer authored by self-proclaimed [unwitting] informants to Coogan (one now redacted). If it were not for the SPLC and ADL substantiating claims that the Irishman had cooperated with them, and a simultaneous leak of correspondence proving his connection with Adam Parfrey, I would have not included mention of the following (now redacted) Amazon review: it appears that one of the sources for his biography had accused the journalist of working with David Horowitz, the ADL, and plagiarizing much of Parfrey’s work on researching Yockey (which was allegedly compiled over a lengthy period of time by the anarcho-satanist crowd after Yockey’s death in 1960).
This would explain the immense citations by Coogan which have long been the source of twisted faces attempting to reason how one man could be so voluminous. Many of which would have required travel to exotic countries, tracking down personal contacts of Yockey which are either impossible to find or dead. As asserted in the article ‘Lost Imperium’, the journalist continues to credit himself as the originator. Of course, his later mention of meeting Huxley-Blythe after the work was published begs questions as to how he would pull off meeting a fascist after exposing himself as an ADL crony who manipulated Willis Carto and H. Keith Thompson’s inner circle, likewise, maintaining friendships with conflicting occult groups worldwide seen as international terrorists. Something smells awry.
A light bulb went off in my head when reading the now redacted testimony – Dreamer mentions Adam Parfrey in passing, after attempting to affiliate him with the Church of Satan and fascist movements as a snide dismissal. In anachronistic fashion, the work’s extensive name-dropping which limited the author from listing all discussed figures in its index just so happens to relegate a space for Parfrey. Out of the hundreds of names which may have drawn attention, Coogan allows a modest corner in the glossary of his text. It is interesting, then, that a significant portion of his breath was spent claiming throughout the biography that movements like American anarchy and satanism began archiving Yockey’s work – at one point suggesting a connection between Keith Stimely and Feral House. Of course, these anonymous parties were never given joint credit in researching the text.
Counter-Currents Publishing (which has come to the defense of Bolton’s works) hosted a memorial to Adam Parfrey following his death. The vigil’s author Margot (same as the unwitting informant) asserts that Adam was, in fact, a satanist. But my concern is more than throwing about quips on one’s risqué faith; we can now uncover a nexus between the anarcho-satanist publisher Feral House (Parfrey’s), Autonomedia (anarcho-marxist publisher of Dreamer), Coogan’s attempts to dissociate from the occult vis-à-vis LaRouche, and the many red-herrings of his text claiming a vanilla lifestyle. Much how his surface level anti-bolshevism in Dreamer and ‘Lost Imperium’ are exposed as phony upon Proyect’s testimony, the same goes for his attempts to slash and burn affiliations with prior circles he investigated.
It appears that the pseudonymous informant of ‘Margot’ – whose review has not yet been redacted – is also behind the blog ‘Margot Metroland’ documenting Adam Parfrey’s life (mirrored by Counter-Currents). Through ‘Remembering Adam Parfrey’, we finally get a written testimony mirrored on two sites by an author under the same handle, stating that Coogan was given the information to compile Yockey’s biography. We can confidently assume this is the same figure: the East Coast flagship partner of Counter-Currents which Antifa went through many gyrations to find. Meaning that, if the Celt had been surveilling her in the nineties, long before the journal’s existence, he was in deep.
The informant’s redacted testimony on Coogan also claims that he maintained contact with the Horowitz family. Specifically David Horowitz, the Jewish radio show host who has waffled between pro and anti-Israeli conspiracy theories over the years in similar fashion to the froth drummed up by Turning Point USA. Which is fascinating for that following the death of Adam Parfrey, an anarcho-satanist figure ‘Mitch Horowitz’, performed an interview celebrating the life of his satanist peer. See, ‘Mitch Horowitz on the Power of Positive (and Satanic) Thinking’. As we display in a later source, private emails between a head author of Feral House to Coogan prove that Dave Horowitz had taken a liking to the Celt. In fact, Dave Emory appears to have spoken on radio shows within the same circle as Horowitz to puff up Coogan’s theory about red-Nazis. Specifically a show going by the name ‘Something’s Happening’, in which Parfrey’s research was overlooked to discuss more derisory theories about the Bush family as Marxian red-fascists.
As if center-politic did not already dismiss Jewish fealty as a contrived rouse! Let me guess – the secret is they are actually alien-lizard fascists pretending to be Jews in order to run cover for ‘Q’? Ah, that makes much more sense than financial elite! In all seriousness, there is an eerie similarity between Emory’s Bush shenanigans and those of Coogan on LaRouche; in another ‘Unrepentant Marxist’ publication, ‘Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019): a political assessment’, he attempts to implicate Roger Stone and Trump in the occult. Although there may be a relation between Occidental Dissent’s recent expose on Stone’s ties to Weev (suspected quadruple-agent-double-0-Yid, Alan Auernheimer), this is a far cry from such parallelomania. Even hosting a website, ‘LaRouche Planet’, where it is argued that the man was weaving layered false dilemma conspiracies about 9/11 as cover for the Saudi’s (the legitimate attackers he purports the Frenchman is aligned with). Is your head spinning yet?
We may also substantiate leaked emails documented on Wiki’s ‘Talk:Feral House’ and Mail-Archive, that there had been a dispute between Kevin and Adam. The journalist now using a non-sequitur to accuse Feral House of being pro-Nazi for its satanic bent. If anything, this appears to be a flailing attempt by Coogan to cut ties with a former asset. Is he schizophrenic, manipulative, or a self-aggrandizing journalist? At this point God only knows but we can infer that Uma Zykofsky’s (State Deputy Director) glowing words on his amicable nature overlook a much darker side. By way of combing through the email chain of Feral House author Alex Constantine (attacked by a Coogan supporter and Wiki contributor looking to antagonize his defensive position), we see that Coogan and Parfrey had collaborated on other works in partnership: specifically, Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism, as well as Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity. In Black Sun, Goodricke (who wrote the forward to Coogan’s Dreamer) cites Moynihan’s response to the Irishman’s inflammatory attacks. It is tremendously important to note, then, that the sole message which Wikipedia chose to redact was the one they acknowledge as unequivocally noting Coogan’s thievery. We have been able to retrieve the email transcript from Mail-Archive, signed ‘AC’ [Alex Constantine]. Constantine verbatim accuses Kevin Coogan of plagiarism in a ‘cc’ message to Dave Emory.
Likewise, Emory, the journalist partially responsible for the promotion of Dreamer (implicated in the argument between Constantine and the anonymous Wiki author, Proyect’s documentation of obscure ties between Coogan and anarchist publications viz. Emory’s introducing him through additional puff-jobs in the Anarchist Maximum Rock magazine) leaves his condolences for The New York Times obituary among other international names. “It was my privilege and pleasure to have interviewed Kevin on many occasions…” Again – could it be that many superficial activist and outré circles are merely cut-outs for intelligence research? I rest my case.
His appendix is just as dismissive as his latter essay ‘Lost Imperium? Yockey: 20 Years Later’. “A small trove of writings by Yockey recently surfaced halfway around the world… in a pamphlet entitled Varange… by Kerry Bolton, a New Zealand-based rightist and self-proclaimed Satanist.” Later writing that the Kiwi’s focus on James Madole – a mainstay whipping boy of Coogan’s biography – is deserving of condemnation. It may appear intentioned on the surface, but given the Irishman’s approach to besmirching a competing biography, often on the basis of its sheer presence interrupting his own limelight, such claims must be questioned. Of course, given the leaked information on Coogan’s affiliation with Noel Ignatiev, and his choosing the self-titled ‘anarchist post-structuralist’ publishing house dawning a Marxist red star to distribute his work, methinks this ‘investigative journalist’ was more ideologue than literary servant.
Shortly before Kevin’s death, ‘Lost Imperium’ brought much more evidence to the fore of his suspect activities. It seems that the major purpose of the article was to be a hit-piece, but why in Lobster Magazine? One can only imagine that if it were his intention to bring such inflammatory disputes public, he would have performed such beyond the confines of a buried geocities website dedicated to ‘parapolitical intelligence research’. Though, it is not my intention here to claim we wholly know the motives behind its chief editor, Robin Ramsay, who is the figure responsible for deeming the journal’s purpose as ‘state research’. We can say, however, that there is a consistent thread to their interests; much of his earlier work has been on promoting the UK’s now far-left Labour Party, under the auspice of warning against their swing to extremism as a bad PR move. See The Rise of New Labour and Smear! Wilson and the Secret State. It makes sense, then, that they would have endorsed Dreamer of the Day’s mission to paint the red-scare as an American-fascist operation (see the ‘red swastika’ on the cover, which is a chapter title within and also a favorite saying of the author).
Coogan’s main gripe, which Lobster endorses in Issue 78, is that Bolton disrupted his own monolithic presence as the sole biographer on Yockey. See, “Bolton’s need to cast Yockey in the best possible light makes his Yockey needlessly dull at times… it is first worth noting that there are no breathtaking surprises in Bolton’s study for readers of Dreamer.” Often sinking to the level of trite quips to discredit the Kiwi – in response to his competitor retrieving further documentation on the fascist spy from Willis Carto he writes, “It is possible that Carto’s archive might hold a historical nugget or two. However when I interviewed Carto – and in the two decades that followed Dreamer – he had every opportunity to contribute new revelations about Yockey but failed to do so.” Further, “Large sections of Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey can even be read as a series of extended footnotes to my Dreamer of the Day.”
The Irishman’s accusation of a failed competitor are reflective of his own inability. If he truly were the man who compiled decades’ worth of research, would he not be content with Bolton’s surfacing of new data on Yockey? This is downplayed in his analysis of the text; “Bolton also remains as mystified as I… Nor can Bolton make sense…” Perhaps there still exist hard boiled mysteries to Yockey’s life. As in the case of ‘Alexander Scharf’ – the ostensibly Jewish double-agent whose intentions for the lawyer are still unclear. But Coogan’s remarks are unwarranted, so much as Bolton clarifies spots where his haphazardness falls short. I.e., Dreamer’s claims that there was no way of substantiating where William Wernecke’s conflict with the Coyne family (tandem Alice Yockey) originated were recently clarified by the Ernie Lazar FBI files. Equally, Coogan’s attempts to substantiate claims of his subject being born of a different father (and a crypto Jew at that!) were refuted by Margot.
Another strange coincidence worth noting is the attempt to associate Keith Stimely with Feral House. By way of Alex Constantine’s private conversation, we can see that Coogan discredited his peer via Emory’s appearance on ‘Something’s Happening’. Why would he do this? Dreamer seems to emphasize the parallel researcher’s existence on the opposite coast of the country (perhaps as alibi), but alas, there is a catch. Feral House was on the West Coast with Coogan during his biographical work, likewise, Autonomedia operates out of Brooklyn, and Coogan had claimed to have traveled all over Europe tracing down political war criminals in hiding. So he was the true itinerant.
Their simultaneous discovery of watershed FBI files is portrayed simply as a miracle. Of course, he dismisses any work the peer may have accomplished, “As far as I can determine, he [Keith] never wrote a single page of his proposed Yockey biography.” One thing is for certain: speaking for the dead is far easier than the living. Alex Constantine put up a fight for his publisher’s reputation given that his party was still breathing. It appears that the attempt to play off any affiliation with Stimely was executed when Parfrey’s crew was hot on Coogan’s tail. Given Stimely’s affiliation with Yockey’s closest friends, many of whom were the same international figures cited in Dreamer, and the off-handedness with which the Celt includes Thompson and sundry in the Feral House patois to avoid peer-credits, perhaps there was at least ‘a single page’. If Coogan allegedly accessed the FBI files at the same time as Keith in the eighties, with Margot being surveilled in the mid-nineties, we find a much different picture than an ad hoc researcher whipping 700 pages out of thin air.
If anything, the manic flailing of this ‘journalist’ should not be interpreted as a series of disjunctive breakdowns. Why the connection to California’s State Department, grooming of Proyect’s Trotskyite circle, clandestine research propping up Anarchist journals, friendships with Harvard department heads, ‘intelligence research’, and the astroturfing of mania around Nazi-Satanist shock-jock? Narcissism driving authors into loose cannon profligacy is nothing new, but Coogan was no amateur. His work remains well documented on the SPLC website, and his cooperation with the ADL and FBI on Dreamer is telling. Even more so are his attempts to inveigle Bolton – one minute claiming that his competitor’s writing hosts a foul ‘stench’, the next attempting to flatter by way of supporting the religious theories of Yockey’s past, then claiming that Yockey’s legacy was tarnished by Bolton’s unnecessary affiliating of the spy with anti-Semitism. These are merely slash and burn tactics; Coogan’s closing of ‘Lost Imperium’, claiming that Bolton is a Russian-Commie apologist while simultaneously propping up crypto-Marxist groups via Ignatiev, are perfectly mirrored to his circular accusations of LaRouche and Parfrey.
Irrespective to whether Coogan was mistreated by LaRouche, he infiltrated the organization by way of lying; Parfrey and Sundry appear to have been charmed by the man early on, only later to be discarded; ‘Margot’ attests to the fact that Coogan presented himself dishonestly when courting Yockey’s remaining contacts, only later to create a far-Left interpretation of the lawyer; Proyect found himself in cahoots with the alleged Bolshevist author, then later having his work directed into a patchwork theory wherein LaRouche was deemed a fascist; finally, the consummate work of the journalist’s latter years intended to follow up to Dreamer (a multi-volume tome on Marx) has been left in the hands of Proyect as the Irishman’s final wish to paint Marx as a quasi-fascist. If I may paraphrase a man of greater poetic ability, the use of artifice inevitably leads to one’s downfall… “It almost always happens that he who uses it to cover one spot uncovers himself in another.”
 Uma Zykofsky et al., ‘Kevin J. Coogan Condolences’, (The New York Times, 2020), https://www.legacy.com/guestbooks/nytimes/kevin-j-coogan-condolences/195708582?cid=full
 ‘Uma K. Zykofsky’, (WAW, 2017), https://waw2017.sched.com/speaker/umak.zykofsky.
 Louis Proyect, ‘Homage to Kevin Coogan’, (The Unrepentant Marxist, 2020), https://louisproyect.org/2020/03/17/homage-to-kevin-coogan/.
 See cover of Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of the Day, (Autonomedia, 1999).
 Martin A. Lee and Kevin Coogan, ‘Killers on the Right’, (Mother Jones Magazine, May 1987), p. 40.
 ‘Kevin Coogan: A Bibliography’, (Beyond the Fringe Politics, 2020). https://beyondthefringepolitics.com/2020/03/08/kevin-coogan-a-bibliography/.
 See Issues 39 and 78 of Lobster. Issue 78 is available in pdf format, but other which are archived can only be retrieved by way of an account.
 Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of the Day, (Autonomedia, 1999), p. 67. He refers to Yockey as carrying out a ‘veiled attack on Georgetown University’ by defending Haushofer.
 Coogan, op. cit., pp. 619-620.
 The New York Times, op. cit.
 Proyect, op cit.
 Kevin Coogan, ‘Chatting up the LaRouchites’, (The Unrepentant Marxist, 2019), https://louisproyect.org/category/larouche/.
 Margot, ‘Impressive and fascinating, with only a handful of flaws’, (Amazon, 2017), https://www.amazon.com/Dreamer-Day-Francis-Postwar-International/dp/1570270392.
 Kevin Coogan, ‘Lost Imperium? Yockey: 20 Years Later’, (Lobster, 2019), p. 2, 7.
 Dreamer, op cit., p. 526.
 Ibid., p. 524. He attempts to claim it had more to do with characters like Madole and the fervor around the National Youth Alliance.
 Ibid., p. 526.
 Margot Metroland, ‘Zine Master Adam: Remembering Adam Parfrey’, (Counter-Currents, 2018).
 Margot Metroland, ‘Zine Master Adam: Remembering Adam Parfrey’, (MMetroland, 2018), https://mmetroland.wordpress.com/2018/05/11/zine-master-adam/.
 Jason Luv, ‘Mitch Horowitz on the Power of Positive (and Satanic) Thinking’, (UltraCulture, ca. 2018), https://ultraculture.org/blog/2018/05/14/mitch-horowitz/.
 Jim DiEugenio and Dave Emory, ‘Contextual Foundation of the Jim DiEugenio Interviews’, (Spitfire, 2019), spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-1058-ftr-1059-and-ftr-1060-the-christian-west-parts-1-2-and-3-contextual-foundation-of-the-jim-dieugenio-interviews/.
 Kevin Coogan, ‘Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019): a political assessment’, (The Unrepentant Marxist, 2019), https://louisproyect.org/category/larouche/.
 Hunter Wallace, ‘Daily Stormer: The Vetting of Weev’, (Occidental Dissent, 2019), www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/09/12/daily-stormer-the-vetting-of-weev/.
 Kevin Coogan, ‘Cult/NineEleven’, (LaRouche Planet, 2010), laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.NineEleven.
 ‘Talk:Feral House’, (Wikipedia), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Feral_House.
 Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity, (NYU Press, 2003), p. 340.
 Kris Millegan, ‘Response to Kevin Coogan and Dave Emory re Adam Parfrey’, (Mail-Archive), https://email@example.com/msg111330.html.
 Kevin Coogan, Dave Emory, et al., Maximum RocknRoll, loc # 47-48, https://ia801902.us.archive.org/17/items/mrr_211/mrr_211_text.pdf.
 The New York Times, op. cit.
 Dreamer, op. cit., p. 618.
 Ibid., p. 621.
 Robin Ramsay, ‘Lobster Mag: Robin Ramsay’, (Lobster, n.d.), https://lobster-magazine.co.uk/robin-ramsay.htm.
 ‘Lost Imperium’, op. cit., p. 4.
 Ibid., p. 1.
 Ibid., p. 2.
 Ibid., p. 4.
 Kerry Bolton and Tomislav Sunic, Yockey: a Fascist Odyssey, (London: Arktos Media, 2018), pp. 15-16. In Counter-Currents Podcast Episode 194, op. cit., Bolton points out that new data was from the Ernie Lazar files.
 Dreamer, op cit., p. 49. Coogan appears to entertain Madole’s early theory that Yockey was part Jewish. Madole later rescinded such vitriol, although the platforming of such an idea mars the biography’s objective standing.
 Amazon, op. cit., see Margot’s documenting census and draft records to prove that Yockey’s father was not born in 1886, but rather 1883.
 Jim DiEugenio, op. cit.
 Dreamer, op cit., chapter ‘Things Fall’.
 Ibid., p. 526.
 See Kevin Coogan, ‘Skinhead Leo Felton Plots Boston Bombing’, (SPLC, 2001), https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2001/skinhead-leo-felton-plots-boston-bombing. Also see Martin A. Lee’s mention of Coogan in, ‘John William King Quotes Francis Parker Yockey in Statement About Hate Crime, (SPLC, 2000), https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2000/john-william-king-quotes-francis-parker-yockey-statement-about-hate-crime.
 ‘Lost Imperium’, op. cit., p. 3.
 Ibid., p. 9.
 ‘Homage to Kevin Coogan’, op. cit.
 François de La Rochefoucauld, Maxims.
When “Karen” asks to speak to your manager, she is really lashing out at the declining standards of decency, respect, and politeness in multicultural society. She is thus expressing anxiety…
When “Karen” asks to speak to your manager, she is really lashing out at the declining standards of decency, respect, and politeness in multicultural society. She is thus expressing anxiety over is her inability to escape from manifestations of liberalism in decline. “Karen moments” ought to be understood as microcosms of psychological White Flight. They represent the petty refusal of the White woman to accept the consequences of a bargain that she consciously made.
As racialists and Third Positionists, we understand that different races are, on aggregate, not adapted nor capable of adapting to living alongside each other and by each other’s cultural standards within a pluralist assimilation. Time and again, we demonstrate that such arrangements are not sustainable and lead to unhappiness and the degeneration of the entire society. A racialist is therefore more—not less—inclined towards true empathy and understanding when non-Whites fail to conform to the cultural standards of White society, just as a racialist understands why a White person may be incapable of conforming to the cultural standards of any non-White society. Consequently, somebody who has fully internalized their racialism is less likely to lash out or experience a “Karen moment” than somebody who has been deracinated and atomized by their own liberal ontology.
What is a Karen then? A Karen is just a female “racist liberal.”
The particular manifestation of liberalism in decline that the Karen takes offense at is the inability of the non-White to live up to what used to be the cultural norm of liberal society back when it was demographically White. The Karen chastises the non-White effectively for their being insufficiently liberal, and in doing so, exposes both her own latent racial anxieties as well as her unwavering loyalty towards the liberal system. In truth, however, it is the Karen herself who is failing to adapt to the ever-changing cultural standards of liberalism. It is the behavior of the non-White that represents the new cultural norm—ascendant, empowered and favored by the current liberal system, much to Karen’s detriment.
Just as the male racist liberal lashes out in desperation for liberal society to revert to its “1950s” iteration when the White man still reigned supreme, the lashing out of the Karen represents her desperation for liberal society to reverse a transformation that she has only just begun to feel. In other words, the emergence of the Karen meme represents liberal society having surpassed peak White woman. Having spent the last 120 years gradually empowering themselves at the expense of social cohesion, sacrificing their most sacred roles as mothers and wives in exchange for a chance to climb the social ladder alone and atomized, White women are now in a state of decline. Just as liberalism betrayed White men, it has now begun to betray White women, just as it will inevitably betray the non-White coalition that it will elevate next, and so on.
White men have already been feeling liberalism’s cold shoulder for a long time, and so among many men, the Karen meme invokes sentiments of Schadenfreude— Karens everywhere are finally getting their just comeuppance! Not exactly an admirable or noble attitude towards our sisters, but understandable, especially given how eager White women were to twist the knife and express those same sentiments towards White men during our decline.
In the end, however, both White men and women made the same bargain with liberalism, trading our own atomization in exchange for material gains that were short-lived and ever fleeting from the get-go. We ought not to resent each other for this decision; however, we also ought not to play the victim, nor indulge each other’s delusions of victimhood. This was the future we chose. Every day of our lives, we made the conscious decision to remain atomized and deracinated and to buy into that system. Our inability to escape from these consequences is something that we must come to terms with, despite how terrifying it may be.
To a certain extent, we are all of us creatures of liberalism. Centuries of its dysgenic influence have changed us deeply. No amount of mollycoddling, wishful thinking, or even direct manipulation of demographics—something we collectively lack the power and will to do, anyway—is going to undo those changes. Only a revolution of our societal structure and institutions reflecting Third Position philosophy will allow us to begin the process of reversing the degeneracy of liberalism.
In strategizing over how to best ensure said revolution, I’ve seen many of my comrades discussing what ought to be our response to the Karen Question. To this I answer the following:
Should we sympathize with the Karens? Not exactly.
Should we reach out to the Karens? Yes, but not unconditionally.
As a movement, we must have standards, and we must enforce those standards universally, both inside our ranks and outside. The purpose of Third Position thinking has never been to cuddle people who remain fundamentally loyal towards liberalism. We are not here to provide people with a “safe space” to vent their racial anxieties and frustrations, while they continue to live their day-to-day lives within an ontologically liberal framework. We must constantly be challenging others to reject liberalism and challenging them to join us, if they dare, just as we must constantly be challenging ourselves to live and die by our own beliefs.
Over and over again, our impulse is to invite the “battered wives” of liberalism into our ranks, while turning a blind eye towards all the glaring signs and red flags that they remain hopeful that their abuser can be reformed and redeemed. We need to stop doing this. We must start thinking of our racial brethren as though they were drug-addicted junkies (their drug of choice: liberalism), and adjust our outreach tactics accordingly. Naturally, this applies to both men and women. We’ve had over four years to observe and reflect upon the consequences of the Alt-Right having “red-pilled” legions of cretinous racist liberals, who remain a burden on us to this day. We’ve still yet to learn from these mistakes.
Until they demonstrate commitment to Third Position beliefs, we should allow the system to attack these people with every weapon it has, to psychologically break them. Only then should we offer them our hand, so that we may then rebuild them by our own will, and if they still refuse our hand, then we have only to withdraw it and allow the system to attack further. The Karen meme itself is absolutely an invention of our enemies, it is absolutely anti-White, and it is used by our enemies to attack racist liberals. Good. Let them have at it. Let the racist liberals be broken again and again until they beg for our embrace.
We can have a certain sympathy for Karens and the dilemma they find themselves in . . . but they are not comrades, and they likely never will be. Indeed, they will likely never extract themselves from the spider’s web they’re caught in. They’ll probably never even want to.
We have become used to living under pax Americana that our analysis of almost all situations presupposes its continued existence, ironically even when such analysis calls for a new world…
We have become used to living under pax Americana that our analysis of almost all situations presupposes its continued existence, ironically even when such analysis calls for a new world order. Take as an example the proponents of ethnonationalism, in its most universalistic form, they demand that all peoples who aspire to a state of their own should be given one. Ethnonationalists argue this will prevent conflict by removing internal divisions over race and even ethnicity, to as large of a degree as possible. Furthermore, neighbouring countries will have fewer reasons to enter into conflicts, with their respective countrymen all being contained within a single state. We will have our little Flanders, little Scotland, and little Catalonia peacefully trading for their natural resources, following a global non-aggression principle. In their view there is no need for a united European state. These little statelets will form a defensive alliance that some ethnonationalists believe will be strong enough to prevent invasions from extra-European powers. But, anyone examining the historical record should find this ideology suspect. The entente powers split apart their opponents into relatively close approximations of ethnostates, compared to what came before. The fact that the greatest war in history came after this does not seem to bide well with the petty nationalist vision, perhaps real ethnonationalism has never been tried. They would reiterate that Germany started WW2 as a response to the dismemberment of their country, they would not be completely wrong. But, petty nationalists have no solution for the multiple other causes of conflict between states: to create defensible borders, to secure resources, secure captive export markets, build foreign military bases that can be used to project power, and in general to enlarge their spheres of influence. They handwave these aspects of foreign policy away, in the European context, with rather utopian sentiments of our common European brotherhood felt by today’s European nationalists, as if the feelings of people outside the halls of power will stay the same if they enter them. According to them trade will proceed as it does now, with or without the American empire; to say otherwise is to admit to chinks in their petty nationalist armour. Empire is unnecessary, “look today you can buy bananas in Moscow all the way from Central America”; what they forget is that the American post-WW2 system makes most of this unprotected global trade possible. The world that the petty nationalist desires, in fact, requires the existence of the American Empire.
Before we start discussing the faults with petty nationalism, it is important to discuss the unprecedented effect the American Empire has had on global trade. The importance of American naval supremacy cannot be overestimated. Prior to 1945 most trade was conducted within an imperial trading block or with immediate neighbours. As ocean going trade required a large navy to convoy ships to their ports of call, this was the primary role of the Royal Navy throughout most of its history. Since European powers might be involved in conflicts with each other, trade outside of your sphere of influence was quite risky since these imports would cease during war. Trading overseas was even more risky. The American system forced states within their Atlanticist sphere to decolonize, replacing the imperial trading block, where colonial powers extracted primary resources from colonies and used them as captive export markets, with the system of global and relatively free trade. Colonies once restricted to trading with their overlord now could trade with any nation and importantly, they were now open to American corporations.
There was a pax Britannica preceding the American order and global trade under this order grew to a degree, but this growth pales in comparison to the huge increases in trade post-1945. The growth of globalization has been a manifestation of the politics of the American order, rather than an emergent trend resulting from economics and technological progress. The United States created their order as a way of securing alliances against the threat of the Soviet Union. The huge American market was opened to their European and East Asian allies, allowing those states to trade their way back to prosperity. The United States cracked open the colonial world allowing both the victors and defeated powers of WW2 access to any natural resources they required, without military expansion or colonial holdings. The United States navy, virtually unchallenged globally, was committed to the freedom of the navigation, preventing any disruption of global sea trade. Subsequently, the price of shipping decreased drastically allowing supply chains that once were dispersed throughout a single country now to be dispersed throughout the world creating the global economy we have today.
After the fall of the USSR, the United States opened this global system to practically the entire world. This brought on the biggest artificial boom in history; states that have never been wealthy in their existence can now use trade to offset serious geographic weaknesses. This has allowed global populations in agriculturally poor states, such as those in Africa and the Middle East, to explode. China and to a lesser extent India have seen a massive growth in GDP. China has progressively climbed the value-added ladder, making their economy more and more advanced all in thanks to trade with the United States. But, the underlying reason the United States created this system was not to promote order and prosperity in the 3rd world but to contain and defeat the Soviet Union. American cold war policy sought to prevent the formation of a Eurasian hegemon, which would have controlled most of the world’s oil, resources, and population. The fall of the Soviet Union undermines the American order’s reason for its own existence and has become a serious conundrum to the global order, one that has been only exacerbated by President Trump. Namely this order was created primarily for political reasons not economic ones, the economic growth was only a by-product. The reality of the demise of the USSR has finally caught up with the United States, they are asking themselves the questions of why they should support trade deals designed to buy alliances. Deals that usually were at the expense of American industry for a war that is over, why should they underwrite the defence of the NATO? This trend of shirking away from their position as leaders of the global order is only being accelerated by the shale revolution, which has now made the United States a net exporter of oil. The United States has few economic incentives to continue the global order; those who argue the United States should pay for global stability seem to be losing the debate. In fact, the American economy is the least dependent on foreign trade amongst all the major powers; this is even more apparent when you consider the largest sources of American trade is to its neighbors: Mexico and Canada. Therefore, little by little, the American order will retreat to North America, and likely continue to support a few key partners such as Britain and Australia.
Eventually, some crisis will force a state’s hand to attack a rival’s shipping, perhaps to interdict oil shipments back home. If the United States doesn’t respond this will trigger a slow return to the old norm of naval power determining the reach of a countries merchant marine. As an aside, this could be triggered by an East-Asian tanker war over diminished gulf oil exports due to a direct Saudi Arabian-Iran military conflict disrupting production. The future order the petty nationalists require may cease to exist in the coming decade. The small states of Europe will find themselves in a very different world where your next shipment of oil is no longer guaranteed, and your exports could have no buyer. Let us then return to analyzing the claims of the petty nationalists in regard to the future of Europe.
The internal cohesion of Europe is waved aside as a non-issue since most of today’s nationalists are united by the common crisis that is affecting every European ethnicity. Is that the proper basis from which a European order can be created? Greg Johnson outlines the petty nationalist position on minimizing intra-European crisis:
As for white fratricide: the best way to defuse white ethnic conflicts is not to combat “petty” nationalism but to take it to its logical conclusion. If different ethnic groups yoked to the same system are growing restive, then they should be allowed to go their own ways. Through moving borders and moving peoples, homogeneous ethnostates can be created, in which each self-conscious people can speak its own language and practice its own customs free from outside interference. Such a process could be mediated by a European treaty organization, which could insure that the process is peaceful, orderly, humane, and as fair as possible to all parties. (Johnson, 2015)
Geopolitical decisions in the petty-nationalist world are decided by morale principles rather than by cold calculations. They do not seem to consider the effects of these various decisions on the relative standing of the state in question to its competitors. Taking Quebec as a test case for these beliefs, under the petty nationalist world order Quebec would have long ago separated from the Canadian state. The Canadian state would surely be weakened by the loss of the vast natural resources of Quebec, its industrial base, and control over the St. Lawrence seaway which connects the Canadian core, Ontario, with the wider world. The fact that Quebec separatism was indulged on two separate occasions with a popular vote, and close ones at that, is indicative of the power of the American system. Losing such a large piece of territory would deprive that state of manpower, industry, resources, and provide an opportunity for rival powers to take this new state into their sphere of influence. This would only be compounded in the example of Quebec, where suddenly Canada would be cut off from its best ports in the East and from its most important trade route, the St. Lawrence. In the era preceding pax Americana, a successful separatist movement would have jeopardized the continued existence of a state by weakening its ability to defend itself. If Quebec were to have separated in the 19th or 20th century, Canada would likely have been absorbed by the United States. Today Canada could survive such an event because we are subjects of the American Empire. Today access to global resources markets and very likely the passage of goods through Quebec would be guaranteed, the United States not desiring economic chaos in its biggest trading partner. It is of no coincidence that separatism in states under the aegis of the American Empire is no longer considered a treasonous activity, unless that separatism is opposed to the American order of course. As well, it makes sense how in states outside of the American orbit, separatist regions and movements are not tolerated; examples can be seen in the Russian Federation and mainland China. The survival of these states as independent geopolitical entities means they do not have the luxury of supporting liberal moralism when it comes to the supposed right of self-determination.
The existence of global American power and the European Union gives the illusion that small European states can adequately function as independent entities. States with indefensible borders, tiny populations, little resources, and even without any access to the sea can thrive today. There is a common line of thinking that the horrors of the two world wars have made conflict between European nations unthinkable. But, this is not due to some fundamental pacifistic enlightenment spread after the destruction of WW1 and WW2, where we eschew violence and competition with our neighbours. It is because of the once bipolar and now unipolar nature of the current era, that we exist in an imperial paradigm. In his article “Grandiose Nationalism”, Greg Johnson lauds this as the vindication of ethnonationalism, as smaller states once subject to the Soviet Empire free themselves from tyranny:
Since the fall of the Soviet Empire, the tendency in Europe has been toward ethnonationalism, either by the Czech and Slovak road of peaceful partition or Yugoslav road of war and ethnic cleansing. What is a more realistic path to peace: putting Yugoslavia back together, then Czechoslovakia back together, then unifying them both in a single state, with all the rest of Europe — or allowing peoples with long historical grudges to completely disentangle their affairs and lead their own lives? What is more likely to produce European amity: a shotgun wedding or an equitable divorce? (Johnson, 2015)
But, these new states have not become truly independent entities. They quickly joined both NATO and the European Union for access to protection and the American global trading network. The use of military force as a means of furthering foreign policy aims has become unthinkable outside of Africa and the Middle East. To even consider that European states may enter into conflicts in the future, especially in the Northern European core, seems ludicrous. Geopolitical analysis is seen as something rather funny. It’s almost provincial to be concerned about the control of resources when any input the state needs can be purchased from almost anywhere on the planet. Not only can they be purchased, but they will arrive and arrive on time. Add to these conditions the overwhelming military superiority of America, where any aggressive action that destabilizes its order is dealt with punitively, and you can begin to see where our naive thinking on geopolitics comes from.
This is why Czechoslovakia can be split in two and it has little knock-on effects for the prosperity of the two nations as a whole. The Czech state need not be concerned with access to import and export markets, or even its own security. It does not even have to negotiate trade deals with its neighbours thanks to the European Union. The benefits of Slovak industry, manpower, and resources were useful to pre-war Czechoslovakia, but today the ability to defend your borders against aggressive neighbors is unnecessary. The emergent nation states that petty-nationalists laud are products of the very system they, generally speaking, oppose. If you take away this American pre-eminence and their control of the sea, which underwrites the existence of global trade, we land in a very different world. The Utopian thinking of the petty nationalist will be fundamentally challenged by the realities that states previously had to contend with in the pre-1945 world.
There is also a general pacifism in the views of the petty nationalists. This passage by Greg Johnson displays the naivete on the topic of foreign policy that is present in the petty-nationalist sphere:
The threat of non-white blocs should not be exaggerated. France, the UK, or Russia alone are militarily strong enough to prevail against anything that Africa, India, or the Muslim world can throw at us — provided, of course, that whites are again morally strong enough to take their own side in a fight. A simple alliance of European states would be able to deter any Chinese aggression. Thus a defensive alliance between European states would be sufficient to preserve Europe from all outside forces, whether they be armed powers or stateless masses of refugees and immigrants. (Johnson, 2015)
What is most interesting about this passage is what is missing; everything is about deterrence and defensive alliances, but what about the projection of power? This is where the uni-polar world of the American Empire rubs off on us the most. It is here that there remains a large degree of liberalism in the dissident right. Europe needs only to defends its own borders; it does not to contend for the domination of Eurasia. But, that leaves Europe in a very tight spot. Europe is practically at the mercy of Russia to supply almost all of its oil and natural gas. If Europe is to be united together even in a simple defensive alliance this fact becomes very problematic. In a world where the United States has evacuated from Europe, Russia can use its near monopoly over much of Europe’s supply of oil to bring nations along its border back into its orbit. Europe as a loose alliance would practically be defenseless since its enemy controls such an important commodity, like Damocles sword handing over Europe’s head. If the tiny states of the petty-nationalist dream are to remain sovereign, they will have to at least form some alliance for the mutual extraction of resources, most importantly oil. This means they must project power into the Middle-East, North Africa, and/or West Africa to gain control over the distribution of oil, as well as protecting the convoy routes bringing it back to Europe. That fundamentally means engaging with China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, etc in a great power conflict. That brings us back to the flaws in petty-nationalist thinking, how can this assortment of sovereign states with uncoordinated militaries project power to compete with these powerful rivals?
The economies of scale required to maintain an adequate defense has been continuously increasing throughout history. Take for example the Dutch republic, which successfully defended itself against the much more powerful states of Spain and neighboring France throughout its early years. Denmark resisted various German states attempts at expansion northwards for centuries. Compare the success of these states in defending themselves a few centuries later against the Wehrmacht. What were once defensible and relatively powerful states were now defeated in a matter of days. As warfare has industrialized, larger industrial bases are required for the production of more advanced weaponry. The R&D can be spread across different states, think the Eurofighter, as we see in Europe; but still small states cannot adequately adopt the full range of technologies required for a fully functional offensive military. This goes out the window if cooperation amongst European states were to break down. Designing cutting edge military hardware has become so very expensive, especially in terms of new aircraft, the per unit cost would be unaffordable for most states if the research was done alone. To utilize the full strength of combined arms in the 21st century requires a nation on the scale of the United States, Russia, or China. The cost of employing progressively more advanced weaponry prohibits small states from having capable defensive and especially offensive forces precluding substantial support from outside sources.
A European military would be able to project power outside of Europe, securing valuable resources the continent does not have. In a world with America as an absent superpower, the ability to trade globally will be determined by the strength of one’s navy and their ability to defend crucial seagoing trade routes. Major European powers such as England, France, and Germany could, after rearmament, still be able take control of West African oil reserves; but to compete with China or Russia, especially in the Middle East, will be far easier with most of Europe, especially the north, united. Furthermore, united they would be able to control far more resources and to regain control over lost territories. The vacuum created by America could allow the Chinese, Russians, or some other power to gain control over a large percentage of the Eurasian oil and strategic resources. This would force Europe to enter into a subservient relationship even without a military defeat, threatening the future prosperity of the continent. Or in another scenario where oil output dramatically decreases as various actors within the Middle East and Asia engage in conflicts prevented by American largess; for example, an Iran-Saudi war over Iraq or the Saudi Oil fields themselves.
Petty-nationalists claim that uniting much of Europe into a single state will create the intra-European conflicts that unity was meant to prevent. Deeply rooted ethnic animosities would bring this pan-European state down in its infancy. But, as of 2020 constant predictions about the imminent collapse of the European Union have not precipitated. The European Union remains a broadly popular institution across the continent. The European Union has moved to increase its power progressively over time without much resistance. At least in the present order, if the EU moved to centralize powers much further, I cannot foresee any conflicts arising from this, as long as France and Germany were cooperating. Like all states touched by the destructive effects of liberalism, the European Union has very major flaws; but these are matched and superseded by most of the member state’s national governments such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The talking point describing the EU as the key instrument of some Kalergi plan is ludicrous as foreign immigration has clearly been spearheaded by the member states. As was mentioned previously, a Europe of sovereign states will be likely be dependent on foreign powers for its resources. Europe could be a location of proxy battles between extra-European great powers as they compete with each other for control of the Eurasian world island. A united Europe would be far less susceptible to interference by foreign states peeling off European nations into their spheres of influence.
Surely there will be conflict within a pan-European system and there will be a core population(s) which dominates the state. But, there has never existed these free and “sovereign” nations of petty nationalist dreams. Strong nations whether or not they are within a political union will come to exert large degrees of control over their weaker neighbours. In the case of pan-Europeanism, this relationship has been formalized allowing the greater integration of European militaries and economies into a global power more capable of projecting power. Poorer nations to the east and South will obviously have less of influence in the direction of such an empire compared to the wealthier Northern European states, but since the beginning of the industrial era this has clearly been the norm. The choice is not over a Europe of sovereign nation states proudly independent, but still respectful of each other, or Empire. It is between larger European nations, as they have always done, dominating the weaker states or an Empire that formalize this conflict inside its imperial system. Obviously, such a state will not be unitary but will be federal in nature; this could actually allow the partial autonomy of smaller nations like Catalonia that the petty- nationalists desire. The economy, military, science, and foreign policy would be controlled at the European wide level.
In fact, the European Union as an institution could be the fertile ground where Europe reforms itself as American power recedes. In this post-American scenario, no one state can partially monopolize the use of force to further its foreign policy objectives. In this world, the scope of useful state policies will decrease dramatically. The liberal dogmas concerning immigration and race will become impediments to national cohesiveness. The feminized society is not a society conducive to struggle. The attack on every western states core population will necessarily be stopped. The end of the prosperity and peace of the American era would likely act like Darwinism in the realm of politics. Due to the selection factors of the American order, states could follow liberalism to its ultimate logical conclusion. Prior to this order, decadent nations could not persist without reforming or falling to more virile external forces. The destructive effects of liberalism while still acting were at least held back by the necessity of national defense, that all changed in 1945 and radically accelerated after the breakup of the Soviet Union.
This Darwinism at the level of the state can be clearly viewed by comparing the early years of the Soviet Union with the Stalinist era. The Soviet Union attempted radical anti-hierarchical and feminist experiments during its inception. Many of the progressive policies of the Soviet Union were subsequently put on hold and reversed as the Soviet Union was threatened by outside powers, especially at the start of WW2. Stalin eliminated abortion as a means of increasing population growth during the great patriotic war. Many ideological leftist dogmas that threatened the state’s ability to make war were thrown aside while many of those previously associated with reaction were brought back. Russian nationalism and a subservient church were far more useful for the expansion and war making ability of the Soviet State than internationalism and radical experiments in family organization. This occurred out of necessity, either a state reforms and abandons degenerative policies or eventually it would be defeated by its rivals.
There is likely not much we can do prior to the challenging of American power by some exterior force. When that day comes the political sphere will open as some elites will search for useful ideas as to how to strengthen the ailing American state. We must be there with a coherent set of ideas that will be useful for the searching elite in the coming post-liberal era. The same will occur in Europe; there are already some stirrings in the water from President Macron about the need for a European army in a post NATO future. Macron has signaled a slight change in tack on the immigration question, perhaps it is a cynical ploy to steal attention from National Rally. Or it could be the beginnings of a European reorientation responding to the absenteeism of the American superpower. If our ideas are correct, the stop-gap benefit of mass immigration which is aimed at combating the very real problem of our aging demographics will quickly become a liability for various states survival in a more chaotic world. A distinctly possible scenario where the EU fractures as a response to the withdrawal of American support, and likely Russian interference, would lead to a far worse conflict than tensions between different constituent EU member states, which are constrained within the bureaucratic framework of the EU. Europe’s declining population is already requiring extra-European export markets for a growing percentage of industrial and luxury goods. Without the ability to sell these items abroad at competitive rates; Europe faces severe economic problems as a norm, especially combined with the ever-growing public spending associated with an aging population. This could lead more powerful states within the EU, out of economic necessity, to force neighbors into subservient relationships to create some market for their goods, acquire natural resources, and to use military technology created with the excess production. A state encompassing most of the Europe could apply these energies outside of Europe, particularly towards securing oil reserves and export markets in the Middle East and West Africa as well as containing an aggressive Russia, moving west in search of more defensible borders.
Now that we have questioned whether the world desired by universalist ethnonationalists is possible, let us ask the question, is it even desirable? If you could supply all of Europe with the resources it needs to function, ensure its defense, and prevent conflict: would it be good to carve Europe into many independent states? If your only goal was the survival of individual European ethnic groups and some sort of traditionalist cultural rejuvenation, then this position would be sufficient. Given the history of the European civilization, this does not seem to be a sufficiently lofty goal for the Faustian man. To be cocooned in our respective countries untroubled by the outer world but also not exerting our will to power upon it, is an unsatisfying future. The true universalistic ethnonationalist position resembles only a slightly altered version of Francis Fukuyama’s own prediction. A world of ethnostates, stable due to homogeneity, frozen in place due to a lack of conflict. If you followed the logic of the proponents of ethnonationalism you would find history over, completed. It is easy to choose interesting times over stability from the comfort of your own home. But, who on the right can look through history and wish there will be no more empires to rival Rome, no grand conquests, no new mythic battles like Trafalgar and Agincourt? To make sure the surely unpleasant and violent, but oftentimes heroic, side of human nature stays in the history books. We would create no men in our own times to rival Ernst Junger, a true aristocratic of the soul. We would be left with a civilization stuck in the Spenglerian “culture” phase; either reproducing the same styles of art, architecture, and music that has come before or following the rabbit hole of deconstructionism further into the abyss. Perhaps the advanced technics of such a civilization could stop external enemies from defeating it, even for centuries. Such nations would be like enclaves depicted in the film Zardoz, highly civilized but ultimately stagnant.
That is why we must support Empire over our continued obsessions with little nation states. Even if these states could survive and even thrive after the decline of the American Empire, it would only lead to our own spiritual deaths. Faustian man needs to finally embrace the Spenglerian “civilization” phase of our existence. To unite the different European peoples under one flag, giving us the power to step away from the precipice we are inching towards. Then to spread our flag to the different corners of the globe, to create an Empire worthy of those that came before. We must think on a grand scale, first to ensure our premier place on this planet, to protect its environmental viability, and to provide enough resources so we can look towards the stars. It might never be possible to economically mine distant asteroids or to create self-sufficient colonies on Mars. But, this to me seems like a much more inspiring future than to aspire to a return to the small states and the small scale thinking of a bygone era. We should strive for a future where the full range of human existence is possible, both comfort and security but also the self-actualization through combat, which Junger and others have described. Perhaps the dream of a united Europe is also not possible without American military support; that the European nations will fall into conflict as the demographic replacement leads to our civilizational eclipse. But, let us aim for a future that is grander and far more interesting with new cultures, new empires, and new horizons than mere existence, as prescribed by the petty nationalists.
In order to become free, we must free ourselves from the nightmare of modernity. We must free ourselves from the myths which are utilized in order to make Europeans feel guilty about a past that they should feel proud of, we should feel proud of both the good and the bad just as other races feel pride for their entire history.
In order to become free, we must free ourselves from the nightmare of modernity. We must free ourselves from the myths which are utilized in order to make Europeans feel guilty about a past that they should feel proud of, we should feel proud of both the good and the bad just as other races feel pride for their entire history.
What lies buried shall be unearthed, and who has been rendered oblivious shall be invited to remember. Working towards this is the main task imposed on us.
What should one do when they feel dead on the inside? When yesterday, today, and tomorrow all bleed into one another and when society ceases to provide any kind of…
Conservatism cannot deliver what is needed, it is opposed to radical changes, it is opposed to radical ideas.