Why I'm Not a National Socialist

A response to Joel Davis' thesis:

https://joeldavis.substack.com/p/why-nationalism-needs-national-socialism.

BECOMING A NATIONALIST

I will preface this by saying I don't disavow metapolitical Nazism, whether social media replies, comical memes or street protest, to illuminate the catastrophe of our age: White erasure. Historical revision and the role Jews have played subverting nations have been publicised by a new spirit of youth rebellion. The Gen Z White men whose futures were stolen are voicing their anger with millions of social media posts each week. Outrage is the currency of the internet, and I don’t intend to stand in front of the wave, even if it’s becoming more libellous and more cringe in the hands of less intelligent influencers.

"Jews will be resented because of our leading role" Barbara Lerner Spectre

I respect Joel and his Australian comrades "National Socialist Network" as men of action and heroic quality, and commend Joel's erudite analysis of liberalism in his essay. Their leader, Thomas Sewell, declared that he wanted to hold the most radical position and gain the most attention possible, leaving a vacuum for the metapolitical discussion to evolve rightward. I can’t claim this was unsuccessful or counterproductive and, in fact, elected politicians have racialised their rhetoric directly in response. This essay refers only to political theory and where we need to end up, not the messy road of sacrifice to get there.

My critique of National Socialism and my proposed alternative are based on my evaluation of history, anthropology, political theory, human psychology, DNA studies, and experience of living among and speaking with people of the Indo-European nations, of which I have visited the overwhelming majority. It is the culmination of eight years of knowledge acquired with the sole aim of gifting a homeland to my grandchildren.

When I became conscious of Jewish anti-White animus in 2016 via Twitter and particularly Dr Andrew Joyce, I couldn't sleep for several weeks and instinctively sympathised with the Third Reich. As a personality that cannot abide deception and with no doubt in my mind, I set about telling everyone I knew that the Jews, as a well-funded, organised and powerful activist community, were attempting to liquidate the White race. I believed Hitler was a man trying to save his great people from destruction at the hands of the Jewish Weimar Republic and the looming spectre of Judeo-Bolshevism rising to the East and within Germany itself.

I discovered that Roosevelt, Churchill and wealthy Jews surrounding them had provoked Britain's entry into World War 2 and essentially transferred the power of the British Empire directly to the United States, while Europe paid in blood, culminating in the White race being occupied by American Jewish-liberalism and Soviet Jewish-Bolshevism. I refused to compromise with British activists that demanded I temper my optics and set out a program of relentless exposure of the Jewish war against the White race; one that has since been amplified by large swathes of internet personas and the most famous rapper in popular culture.

WHITENESS AND IDEOLOGY

To cut a long story of personal awakening short, I did a lot of reading and listening before dedicating the rest of my life to the protection and flourishing of our great people who have given so much to the world: the Indo-European nations made up of Western Hunter-Gatherers, Western Steppe Herders and Anatolian Neolithic Farmers who are historically tied by blood, martial ethics and the Pagan and Christian religions on the continent of Europe.

It feels strange having to define White. We feel the call to blood when we're attacked, whether it's Negroes cast as Greek goddesses and Queens in big-budget productions or when we’re being derided as "privileged White males" and replaced in the labour market by the coalition of the oppressed. Yet we're divided by language and usually believe our particular ethnicity to be the most virtuous or the least understood. We imbibe political ideologies defending that particular ethnicity or generic "Whiteness", sometimes composed of lazy theory, subconscious aesthetic and sexual preferences, usually fuelled by internet dopamine feedback and nearly always led by influencers with Dark Triad personalities. These ideologies often lack integration with the polis they're targeting, clear moral foundations, economic planning, or a workable plan to attain power and remain confined to corners of the internet operating solely in the metapolitical arena, rife with delusion and contradiction, never intended for wielding power.

Some White Nationalists claim to be Pan-Europeanists yet exclude Albanians from "the White race" because of their astounding rates of diaspora criminality. Atheists might exclude Albanians because they're "conquered Muslims" and Serbs exclude them because they're the whore of Anglo-Jewish imperialism in the Balkans and are responsible for ethnically cleansing Kosovo. These sorts of contradictions become even more pronounced when dealing with the question of Palestine and the right of conquest. I've witnessed many base their ideologies on personal biases; attempting to align these with their flawed understanding of history, economics, science and politics, plastering over the cracks with misrepresentations and denouncing their critics as cowards or paid actors.

Whiteness is multifaceted, and the more I travel to European countries, I see how alike we are, yet also how different. To me, this is what makes life beautiful: the triumph of identity. The rich tapestry of clans and cultures that make up this Earth, and the myriad of stories and myths that give meaning to our lives. If nationalist politics is anything, it's a will to retain one’s blood, one’s myths, one’s culture, one’s identity, or simply the human need to belong to a family. Without identity, there is no humour; for all good humour is based in identity. For its greatest pioneers, the British, comedy has been overwritten by the culture of taking offence and harm avoidance has been enforced by the so-called oppressed "communities". In this, we see how liberalism manifests in culture, stripping away all identity with legal and social enforcement, always in the name of love and upholding the rights of the individual.

Most people came to this movement because they saw that the trajectory of "globalism", "liberalism" or "Judeo-Americanism" brought everything we hold dear under threat, and our race would soon face extinction if we should fail to take political power from the existing leaders failing to protect our races, cultures and identities. For most of us, this started at the grassroots of expressing racialist sentiments on the Internet, then networking into friend groups and sometimes joining political organisations.

We have made much progress, thanks largely to a declining censorship regime and the proliferation of the understanding that Jewish rule of liberal states is a genocidal evil. The genocide of Gaza, witnessed by the whole world, has revived the image of the Judaism described in the Torah.

"And to him (mashiach) was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him" Daniel 7 : 14.

"But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. You shall utterly destroy them..." Deuteronomy 20:16–17

I have seen in Polish Catholic MEP Grzegorz Braun the politics of nationalism take its fullest expression in a seat of power in the 21st century. Although my Anglo empiricism prevents me from believing fully in Jesus as the Christ, I have felt myself more Christian than ever during this time and embraced my heritage as a Christian son of Europe. Some of you will see that I'm setting up a Rome vs. Judea dichotomy: one that doesn't require Abrahamic faith, only a loyalty to Europe— its blood, its truest values, and its earth-shattering achievements.

With all that said, I will expound upon why National Socialism is not the correct ideology for saving our people.

ALFRED ROSENBERG

Although he enthusiastically endorses his works, Joel neglected to mention in his defence of national socialism that its chief ideologue, apart from perhaps Hitler himself, was Baltic German Alfred Rosenberg. A million copies of his magnum opus, "The Myth of the Twentieth Century" were sold throughout Germany under Nazi rule. Thoroughly unscientific, Rosenberg proposes that the individualistic, creative, rational, honourable, blonde Nordic man retain his purity and rediscover his conquering spirit by throwing off the yoke of Levantine magic and abstraction. Although somewhat tolerant of Protestantism and what he calls its Germanic character, Rosenberg goes as far as to demand a break from Platonism and an embrace of Meister Eckhart's mystic pantheism, Apollonianism, and Odinism, pouring gushing praise on the Vikings.

I suggest that when people advocate to save "White culture," they're more likely to be thinking of European physiognomic beauty, high-trust social and legal systems, technological innovation, and aristocratic form in statecraft, architecture and culture. They are less likely to think of Celtic polygamy, Anglo-Saxon blood feuds, Viking blood eagle executions, Balkan corruption, Mediterraneans cheating in sports, or Albanian criminality.

In Rosenberg's rejection of Plato and Christianity, he posits amoral materialism as first principle. I'm no theologian, but attempting to cover this break with Eckhart's mysticism seems empty to me, for Eckhart was a Scholastic Neoplatonist. Rosenberg repeatedly titles everything he's fond of "Nordic" and everything he's not, Levantine or Semitic, whether they line up with reality or not. Material race idolatry leads to desperate obsession with blood purity, conquest of other groups and all the trappings of liberalism and nihilism. I cannot fathom how a view of life in which we are nothing more than biological machines competing in nature, will awaken our people from the slumber of modern consumerism. This view of life is well exhibited by the Jewish Zionists, who are globally hated for their greed and bloodthirst. I find myself with Spengler and Evola aligned with the idea of "spirit race" more than pure determinism, the like of which leaves "race" open to infinite deconstruction by liberals that claim authority through scientific rationalism and wish to see the warrior-priest spirit extinguished.

Alfred Rosenberg with Hitler at Beer Hall Putsch, before he was made party leader

Joel and his associates have, like Rosenberg, openly discussed displacing Slavs and Sicilians from their European homelands and regularly engaged in blonde hair and blue eye chauvinism coded as "Aryan" (including declaring Monica Bellucci non-European). I wonder if this is a fetish. Males exhibit sexual preference for blonde hair and light coloured eyes because they are indicators of youth. Blue-eyed males also have a preference for blue-eyed females to ensure paternal certainty. Females exhibit preference for dark-haired males indicative of maturity, with eye colour preference being less clear, depending on studies. Although I mark as 99.2% North West European by DNA, I have a preference for brunette females (probably because of maternal attachment imprinting in childhood). I'm revealing this to make the point that individual sexual preferences are not foundational and in fact, counterproductive to saving the White race, most of whom are brown-haired.

THE TRUE ORIGINS OF GENIUS

The irony of Rosenberg's ignorance is that the greatness of Nordic achievement was built on Roman law and Catholicism. When Christian Anglo-Saxon King Alfred the Great instituted the ethic of forgiveness to end blood feuds, defeated the Vikings, and laid the groundwork for unification, he ignited a new English culture that would produce the greatest innovation the world would ever see. Before Christianity and its breaking of the clan-based culture of Europe through its individual salvation, parables, and marriage laws, all culture was clan-based. This restricts eugenic selection of IQ and reduces social and legal trust, with the obvious result being stagnation. In their centuries-long history in some of the richest soils on Earth, I don't know of anything the Pagan Vikings innovated aside from the longboat and some basic compasses.

Rosenberg identifies as lower in rank the "brunette Alpinid" (meaning Slav or Mediterranean) as passive, inclined towards collectivism, and lacking the individualism and pioneering spirit of the Nord. Having addressed the individualism emergent from Roman law and Christianity, we can turn to the remarkable dominance of North-West Europeans in scientific discovery. A study of historical scientific breakthroughs and Nobel Prize winners reveals long lists of Anglos, Germans, French, Italians and Swedes (as well as Jews and in more recent history, a few Japanese).

"Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes today, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power." Adolf Hitler

Let's consider how scientific progress occurs: in short, by increases in IQ selective positive assortative mating, education, and economic surplus in a post-feudal society. Positive assortative mating in this context means higher IQ mates reproducing: landlords (nobles, knights, merchants, and clergymen) meeting the daughters of their equivalents. Increasing urbanisation, literacy, education and economic excess creates more landlords, more middle-class social mobility and this eugenic selection multiplies generationally, since IQ is highly heritable. These higher IQ offspring could attend the Catholic university system if they had economic excess i.e. wealthy families.

John Duns Scotus (a theologian first introduced to me by Joel in his Catholic phase) was born into a wealthy Scottish family in 1266, joined the Church, and studied at Oxford. He contributed to theory of individuation, contingency and epistemology, providing a foundation for the empirical methods that would later define modern science. Perhaps his brunette Alpinid equivalent was a wheat farmer worrying about making dues for his feudal lord or the next Teutonic invasion.

Strongly admired by Rosenberg, who identified him as an anti-Church figure of "Nordic spirit", Nicolaus Copernicus was born to wealthy Polish merchant families. After his father's death, he was educated by his uncle, a bishop, before graduating in canon law from the University of Bologna, later becoming one of the most influential polymaths in history.

Isaac Newton was born to a prosperous farmer and his minor gentry wife in 1643, attended Cambridge University, and went on to discover gravity, the laws of motion and lay claim to the most important scientist of all time, almost a century before Russia established its first university (1755). For context, the University of Bologna was founded in 1088, Oxford in 1096 and Cambridge in 1209.

Here I will bring attention to the religious development of the Latin West, namely Scholasticism, which sought to harmonise Christianity with the teachings of the ancient Greeks, particularly Plato and Aristotle. Through figures like Aquinas and Scotus, faith was bridged with reason, fostering a philosophical tradition of logic and dialectic, advancing natural philosophy and then modern science.

By contrast, Orthodoxy concerned itself with mysticism, spirituality and a rigid tradition reluctant to integrate science and philosophy with theology. Orthodox nations didn't found universities until centuries after the Latin West. Russian aristocrats, theologians and philosophers were reluctant to industrialise even late into the 19th century, favouring Russian exceptionalism and its Orthodox and communal agrarian culture. In this regard and rather ironically, their views were practically a mirror of Arthur de Gobineau's, the French aristocrat who pioneered Nordicist race theory.

Nikola Tesla, the genius born in poverty to two lines of Serbian Orthodox clergy, was so impressive that even Croatians claimed him on their Euro coinage. Inspired by Nordicist race theory, the Croatian Ustase (who remain admired today), claimed to be Germanic Goths and went on to slaughter over 250,000 Serbian civilians during World War Two. So it seems that these "Nordic supremacists" can't help claiming Slavic geniuses as their own. Nonetheless, we observe that outlier genius IQ is often born to religious scholars and here we return to the Jews.

Nikola Tesla, Serbian Inventor

DNA studies prove that after their scattering at the hands of Rome, the Ashkenazi Jews took Mediterranean (Anatolian Neolithic Farmer) wives for generations. They then made their way to Northern Europe, (prior to and after the keen approval of Charlemagne), and in the centuries that followed, added Western Steppe Herder and Western Hunter-Gatherer DNA through mixing. Probably peaking in the mid-twentieth century, before the onset of second-wave feminism (of which I believe they were a dysgenic victim), the Ashkenazi Jews, as a mixed and mostly White race, emerged as the most intellectually outperforming group in the world, contributing outstandingly to natural sciences. This is proof that intellectual achievement is contingent on IQ eugenic selection and education, not anything related to the blonde-haired Germanic peoples of North Europe in themselves, and attainable for all groups that pursue eugenics. The pre-historic biomass competition that increased IQ through martial selection and the ethics of those war bands are inheritances of the entire White race, not only the peoples with preferential access to the North Atlantic that benefitted from the plunder of the New World.

ON GERMANS

Now I will address the historical context of Germany and the character of its people, which I believe are partially divergent from the Latin West. Unlike most of Europe, Germany was never fully Romanised. The Roman Empire's reach stopped at the Rhine, meaning that while Gaul and Britain absorbed Roman law and institutions, the Germanic tribes east of the Rhine remained outside this influence. Some Roman culture trickled in through trade and contact, but Germania retained the tribal organisation which shaped its long-term development.

Since Germany lacked Roman governance traditions, it never developed a centralised, enduring political authority like France or Britain. Even the Holy Roman Empire (962-1806), nominally a successor to Rome, was decentralised and weak, consisting of hundreds of semi-independent states. This led to a culture of militarism, localism, and feudal loyalty, where power was maintained through military force rather than centralised law. This preference for might over codified governance was evident in the Teutonic Knights, Prussian militarism, and German Unification, a reality my family felt first hand, when Prussia seized my Danish great-grandfather's state of Schleswig in 1864. In contrast, France was a strong centralised monarchy, while England developed common law and parliamentary traditions, both rooted in Roman legal continuity. Nazi economist Gottfried Feder said in Point 19 of his 25 "We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order."

It was partially because of this absence of the Roman tradition of ordered government and the organic legal evolution seen in Britain or France, Germany developed a preference for absolutist, top-down rule which surely led to the rise of Caesars like Bismarck and Hitler. Germany's obsession with discipline, obedience and organization stemmed from this historical gap, leading to both its military efficiency and political rigidity. This character is strongly evident in Germany today, who along with Austria, were the only states on Earth to come close to legally mandating mRNA vaccinations for all citizens and retain notorious bureaucratic rules, including extremely strict speech laws.

Another consequence of lacking Roman rationalism was that German intellectual traditions leaned toward mysticism, idealism, and totalistic worldviews. As Joel correctly alluded to, the rich German idealist philosophical tradition emphasised a strong state, collective identity, destiny and spiritual struggle. When I visited the resting place of Immanuel Kant in Konigsberg, I became conscious of him as a Prussian. Close by in Saxony lived Fichte, and the Prussian-educated Hegel espoused more statist ideas after the defeat of Prussia by Napoleon, favouring the Latin, highly centralised organisation of France over Prussia's outdated feudal system.

A great irony for Nordicists that endorse East Germany's statist culture and its impact on German philosophy, is that much of the blood in that region was and still is Slavic. Evidenced by the historical record and DNA studies, this region vote more often for the nationalist AfD today. The Germanic race to the South West, more Catholic regions, were and still are more interested in individualism and have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of German breakthroughs in science but also more liberal voting patterns.

Regardless, Germans are fundamentally a tribal, martial people and that militarism, since their occupation by the United States from 1945, has been turned inward into an heroic suicide: destroying its own energy industry, antifascism, mass immigration of violent Afghans, Turks and Arabs, the rape of its daughters and extortion by International Jewry.

ADDRESSING THE COPE

There are 10 claims that I'll challenge:

1) National Socialism is the "complete and pure" ideology of Nationalism.

2) National Socialism is replicable for all White nations because Philosophy and Democracy proved replicable despite being of Greek origin.

3) The trichotomy that Europe must necessarily be ruled by the United States, Russia or Germany.

4) Hitler was a Pan-Europeanist and continental unity necessitates German leadership.

5) "Germany was in the case of Poland simply taking back territory that had been taken from it in the treaty of Versailles."

6) "National Socialism has no inherent animosity towards the Polish or the Slavic peoples in general".

7) That even if it did, the "law of nature" gives Germany the right to rule because it sits atop a hierarchy of nations and is responsible for the anti-liberal philosophical tradition.

8) Lebensraum was its right because German hegemony and economic autarky were necessary to topple liberalism.

9) That "the SS was the first Pan-European martial order since the Knights Templar".

10) National Socialism is a Pan-European movement particularly popular in Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic states.

1) 2) National Socialism is perhaps the pure expression of German Weltanschauung: the militarism and will to expansion as described by Spengler, but it is particular to that state in the middle of Europe surrounded by the great powers of France, Russia and Poland. It's will to dominate represents only one nationalism at the expense of its neighbours and their identities. The notion that the ideology of National Socialism is as universally replicable as philosophy or democracy is patently absurd. Folkishness or socialist economics are, but not the essential belief in a hierarchy of European ethnicities and ingrained militarism with designs of conquest. That would end up in something like the Thirty Years War.

3) It's not clear whether Joel claims to be a National Socialist for all time or a theoretical national socialist in 1933 but let's examine this alleged trichotomy, first in the present. Europe is almost completely united politically by the European Union which is currently a conduit of the United States, who militarily occupy several EU/NATO states and hold the cards in providing the security architecture of Europe. The USA also financially and culturally dominates Europe and every Visa/Mastercard payment, Netflix subscription and social media income flows home. They consistently lobby to get more market access for their companies and if allowed to continue, they will hold complete dominion over Europe.

In the age of nuclear weapons and advanced guerrilla warfare, imperial dominance takes more subtle forms. It’s financial, cultural and covert. The USA doesn’t tell its would be subjects that they’re “untermensch”. It spreads the Exodus myth of liberation and tells of the boundless freedoms that can be won through the ballot box. That is exactly why Europe needs to its own values against abstract liberal “freedom”, before establishing its sovereignty. That process seems to be gradually taking place through figures like Viktor Orban regarding racial integrity and Emmanuel Macron regarding military sovereignty.

Leaders such as Mario Draghi have highlighted that Europe is uncompetitive and defenceless. To me, the answer is obvious: more legal integration, more military build-up and a multi-decade plan to control our own means of production, with serious investment in technology. European cooperation, not submission to either the Anglo-Jewish axis or the Eurasian Russian axis. I won't be deterred from this vision of European unity and in the spirit of Christian forgiveness and unity that made England the greatest state on Earth, Europe must put historical grievance behind it and pursue a vision of greatness based in God, blood and tradition. We still have the biological quality and necessary technology to achieve sovereignty and I was pleased by the recent news that the EU is ready to re-arm and allocating funding for this.

I will admit that achieving a European alliance would've been measurably more challenging a century ago (before the softening of liberalism and discovery of nuclear weapons) and I don't want to weasel out of geopolitical realities. However, I will highlight that:

A - The German government brought the Soviet Union into existence by funding and giving passage to Lenin, in the hope of closing a war front they opened.

B - Hitler wrote in a public book that he intended to conquer the Slavic world, so Poland can hardly be blamed for attempting to protect its sovereignty by allying with Anglo-French powers.

The Great War should've been the final lesson Europe heeded to form a lasting pact between its nations via the new, truly replicable creed of fascism. Although there were promising signs in the alliance of Germany and Italy with the Spanish Nationalists and Mosley's British fascist movement drawing close to Hitler, distrust and American meddling saw Europe lose again. Regardless of how difficult it would have been to create a lasting confederation, I believe that was far more likely and preferable to Joel's idea of a German ruled Europe. Not many self respecting men are willing to kneel before a regime that considers their gens sub-human, plunders the art from their galleries, murders their aristocrats and puts their farmers in camps.

Perhaps the greatest German contribution to European peace was Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom sending her many children to be married off around Europe. It is said that the cousins Wilhelm II and Nicholas II (who could pass for twins) tried to avoid the Great War but the defence pact architecture (and perhaps Prussian eagerness for war), was too entrenched to reverse course. Nonetheless a return of real European aristocrats to guard the continent spiritually and politically, according to Evola's vision, would be welcome.

4) What the Third Reich claimed publicly after they had lost the war in Stalingrad is virtually irrelevant. In March 1943, von Ribbentrop proposed a European Confederation that was met with enthusiasm and the offer of territorial concessions by Vichy Prime Minister Pierre Laval. Hitler flatly refused the idea envisioning total German hegemony.

Ernst von Weizsacker, Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, recorded in his diaries Hitler's position on the matter.

On May 5, 1943, he wrote,

"The reason why we are not to be drawn into a conversation about the "New Order" in Europe is indicated confidentially by the Führer: our neighbours are all our enemies; we must get all we can out of them, but cannot and must not promise them anything".

5), 6), 7) Joel repeats the common trope "remember that Germany was in the case of Poland simply taking back territory that had been taken from it in the treaty of Versailles" neglecting to mention that Poland lost its statehood from 1795 until 1918, being split between Prussia, Austria and Russia. During this time, as Joel correctly points out, Germans developed the richest statist philosophical and romantic tradition in history. In my mind, it hardly seems fair to blame the Poles for not equalling these German achievements while they were an occupied and suppressed peasantry. He also neglects to mention that Kant, Fichte and Hegel are well accounted for in classical Roman fascism, without the abject materialism and incorrect theories of Rosenberg.

8) National Socialism didn't topple liberalism and in fact, it made so many enemies in its Nordicism, that it emboldened liberalism and its Jewish power brokers to radically transform European societies and institutions. Even the Catholic church was pushed to abandon its core doctrines and starting with the UK, Europe was set on a course of multiracialism.

9) Virtually all of the volunteers for the SS were either from Nordic nations or were Baltic/Romanian Germans. The Slavs that fought for the Wehrmacht in the largest numbers were captured Ukrainians and some Russians that found a bigger enemy in the Soviet Union or preferred the front to starving in a camp.

Hitler himself was very critical of the whole programme of recruiting foreign volunteers and Himmler forbade any foreigner being referred to as “an SS man”, but rather “foreigner serving in the armed units of the SS”. After being rejected by the SS, Leon DeGrelle had to plead with Berlin that the Walloons were a Germanic tribe.

10) A small subculture isn't evidence of a replicable ideology capable of political power. Most of those Ukrainian Nazis found themselves perishing in the meatgrinder for their Jewish president in 2022.

NATIONALISM FOR ALL PEOPLES

Joel frames politics as a struggle between states for supremacy, until one nation should triumph and exterminate all rivals.

"My basic thesis is that the Jews are a criminal people, and the Jews completely control the United States, and the Jews are using the United States as a vehicle to take over the world." Bobby Fischer

We see ample evidence that the Jews are engaged in a global project of Open Society multiracialism and deploy various tools to achieve their ends: legal, financial, media, military, academic and political, which added together cannot provide scrutiny to Fischer's claim.

Hence, supporting multipolarity and supporting Japanese, Chinese or any other type of true nationalism is an obstacle to this overarching and well advanced nation destroying project. It is the universal right most at odds with Judaism and one all nationalists must defend, bringing us allies in all corners of the Earth. It is the absolute fulfilment of the human desire for family and identity and the most pure and grandiose expression of democracy in human history, being that it is the ultimate triumph of the national will.

Indigenous rights are a wildly popular cause which have gained elite support, frequently appearing in film. Disney’s “Pocahontas” and James Cameron’s “Avatar” enjoyed enormous commercial success while Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon” and the hugely underrated “Silence” portray European encroachment on foreign cultures through greed and evangelism respectively. Demanding the protection of White folk cultures with national authority against liberal machinations follows the exact same principle.

IMPERIUM EUROPA

I didn’t want to discuss questions of scale e.g. land mass, industrial power, food security and other realist geopolitical concerns too deeply but I am certain that a united Europe has everything it needs to survive and flourish.

The continuation of Rome as an Empire of Nations that retain their national and regional character remains on the table for those that embrace our shared Indo-European heritage and a return to aristocratic and religious values.