Typology Nationalism?

A dual track?

Let’s consider the latest ethnonationalist vs. pan-European “dust-up,” triggered by Johnson’s unprovoked attack against pan-Europeanism.  Now, it is my opinion that much of these attacks are motivated by underlying pernicious agendas, and alleged support for an ostensibly authentic and honest ethnonationalism is equally motivated by such unsavory agendas.

But let us for the sake of argument assume sincerity on all sides. Let us further assume that ethnonationalism, albeit regrettable, may be somewhat understandable in Europe itself, with all of the old World historical grudges, feuds, and inter-ethnic animus that exist there, as well as the stronger ties of ethnicity, blood, and soil in the Old World. But why would White Americans be so fervently ethnonationalist?  Again, I aver unsavory motives, but if we put that aside, can we consider the possibility that certain personality and ideological and temperament types – typologies – may predispose activists to be ethnonationalist or pan-European (the “pat” answer of Nordicists that pan-Europeanism is a “Med thing" is not supported by the evidence of well-known Northern European-derived pan-Europeanists).

So…typology.  Note that although we are starting this analysis with White Americans, the same applies for Whites everywhere, including Europe. Just because Europeans may have a somewhat greater excuse to go down the ethnonationalist rabbit (or hobbit, eh?) hole, does not mean that the same psychometric and ideological characteristics are not in play there as well. There are both European ethnonationalists and European pan-Europeanists.

Consider my fascist typology. It has a discussion of the types of “movement” ideologies typically associated with each time.  Of course, it’s not always going to be a perfect match; there will always be exceptions. But if suffices for our purposes. Thus, ethnonationalists and Nordicists are typically Type Is and pan-Europeanists are typically Type IIs. If we make the reasonable assumption that the Type I vs. Type II distinction is inherent in an activist’s character, a more or less fixed trait, then we may well wonder whether trying to convert people between being ethnonationalists or Nordicists on the one hand, and pan-Europeanists on the other hand, is essentially a useless exercise.  And perhaps that is one reason why people defend these ideologies so vehemently – their identity, at least their activist (if not personal) identity – is intimately tied into being one sort of “ist” vs. another. Just as “conservative” vs. “liberal” tends to be innate, so may be certain intra-“movement” distinctions.

So, should we then have a dual track, typology-based nationalism? The Type Is can do their ethnonationalism (or Nordicism or whatever other narrower form of identity politics), while the Type IIs can do their pan-Europeanism. The former can be the “Outer Party” working in their more specific sphere while the latter (“Inner Party”) works at the higher level, moving between these various smaller identities and integrating them in a whole.  So, you have dual tracks, usually working separately, but in the same general direction, with some cooperation between them. This would be analogous to Norman Lowell’s distinction between Dominion (the more narrow level) and Imperium (the broader level, which deals with High Politics).

Some time ago, I wrote:

I would argue that—at least theoretically—a person can be, at the same time, both pan-Europeanist and Nordicist, or pan-Europeanism and pan-Slavist, pan-Germanist, ethnic nationalist, etc., so long as the all the latter “ists” in question are of a “defensive” nature, and that the pan-Europeanism respects and values narrower particularisms. Of course, even if this is true, it is natural to expect that certain levels of ethnic interests would be more important to an activist than others (e.g., a Russian may be a Russian nationalist first, a pan-Slavist second, and a pan-Europeanist third).

More importantly, even if this melding of activist identities does not often occur in the real world, it should, at minimum, be possible for individuals identifying themselves solely as pan-European or Nordicist or pan-Slavic or pan-German or Basque nationalist-separatist or English/British nationalist to productively and respectfully work together to achieve common objectives, even if there are important points of disagreement remaining between them. 

So, what about the basic question – is a dual track, tolerant, typology nationalism possible?The answer: No.  As I’ve previously asserted, I was dead wrong in that Counter-Currents article. The problem is that ethnonationalists (i.e., ethnoimperialists) and Nordicists are themselves too intolerant; they view pan-Europeanism as a threat to their niche space. Therefore, cooperation is not possible.  Note that every time there is one of these “dust-ups,” it is that side - the ethnonationalists, Nordicists, etc. - that is always the aggressor. For example, out of nowhere, Johnson had to mendaciously attack pan-Europeanism. In the various Nordicist vs. pan-European arguments (or even the Nord/Med debates), it’s always the Nordicists who were and are the aggressors. I have personal experience with Nordicists always trying to infiltrate pan-European groups, to divide, to subvert, to cause problems, to wreck pan-European White solidarity and the groups' function. An older example of that is the whole Rockwell-Patler-Pierce fiasco; the relationship between Rockwell and Patler was stable until Pierce entered the scene, pushing the American Nazi Party into a Nordicist direction and undermining Patler (who would have been better off with Madole and the National Renaissance Party). I won’t even mention the Tommasi tragedy.  

So, cooperation is not possible, and Nordicists cannot be allowed into pan-European groups or they’ll wreck them, and infiltrators, once identified, have to be ejected (the same applies to Medicists, but they are a powerless and inconsequential “movement” faction, if they actually exist within Der Movement). Essentially, the same applies to the hardcore ethnonationalists, who are actually ethnoimperialists.  True enough, given the concentric nature of group identities and genetic interests, one cannot take the same very broad hard line with (mild) ethnonationalists as with the Nordicists; there is nothing wrong with a pan-Europeanist also having some allegiance to smaller, more focused areas of identity and interest. But narrower identity has to be secondary; a hardcore ethnonationalist who puts – or pretends to put (for ethnoimperialist reasons) – their narrow group first and foremost is a destabilizing element and does not belong in authentic pan-European politics. It goes without saying that HBDers – who worship Jews and Asians and who favor aracial cognitive elitism – also have no business in any pan-European group.  As HBD is in essence literally defined by opposition to pan-Europeanism, any HBDer would be an infiltrator, a disrupter, an agent provocateur, a mole, in a pan-European group.

So, perhaps unfortunately, the tolerant dual track model of racial nationalism, based upon fitting people into roles best fitted to their innate typologies, won’t work, because most Type Is are inherently hostile to pan-Europeanism (*). There is no compatibility whatsoever; to defend themselves against this raging intolerance, pan-Europeanists must be intolerant themselves. It is justifiable self defense.

However, the association between Fascist Typology and ideology, while strong, is not absolute.  While there are very few Type II ethnonationalists (and perhaps zero Nordicists), there are a (minority) fraction of Type Is who are at least amenable to pan-Europeanism; some may actually openly support it. Others may be completely neutral, or so weakly ethnonationalist that they are in that small group who actually can be changed (that does not conflict what is written above, which deals with the more typical majority of cases).  So, while converting the more hardcore majority - or plurality - of the Type Is may not be possible, making the argument for pan-Europeanism to Type Is can still be useful, as long as we understand that we are targeting only a thoughtful, open-minded minority.  Further, even though we may not be able to convert the others, we possibly can decrease their hostility, so they can promote an ethnonationalism that exemplifies positive ideals rather than just being a knee-jerk rejection of pan-Europeanism (this better attitude would seem more likely with European activists, who would tend to have a more positive ethnic nationalism for reasons explained above).

*That some of the more dishonest of them use Yockey in instrumental fashion is possible only because Yockey himself is not around to denounce them. One can only imagine what FPY would think of individuals who write pieces “in defense of petty nationalism."  The mind boggles.