Ted Sallis wrote this piece a few years ago as a response to critics of Pan-Europeanism or nationalism on a broad ethnoracial basis, rather than on the basis of one’s closest ethnic kin, or tribe.
Sallis directly mentions some of the specific objections I’ve made in previous blog posts over the past several years, though I doubt he has visited my unfrequented corner of the blogosphere, or read my obscure rants. But obviously others on the ethnonationalist spectrum have expressed the same ideas.
“One meme asserts that pan-Europeanism means that all whites are “fungible/interchangeable.” I do not believe that most responsible pan-Europeanists hold that view. I certainly do not.”
He goes on to give a lengthy and somewhat abstruse explanation of his beliefs.
I believe in a mixture of racial conservationism—making certain that extant ethnoracial stocks are preserved in significant numbers in specific territorial states—and racial palingenesis—which supports eugenics as well as the acceptance of new, stabilized Euro-breeds that may occur in the European Diaspora and that can constitute new ethnies and expand the range of European-specific genetic and phenotypic biological diversity.
When the two ideas are in conflict, racial conservatism trumps racial palingenesis, since the original stocks, once lost, can never be recovered. Hybridization, if it occurs in Diaspora regions, should be carefully monitored so as to create productive new stabilized strains while, at the same time, not resulting in the elimination of parental stocks. This pan-Europeanism, which values and wishes to preserve intra-European differences, can be contrasted to other viewpoints.”
The above is written in terms that might be over the heads of the majority who are not versed in genetics/HBD. But to me, the question is how does theory manifest in the real world? I’ve noticed, in regard to real-world developments, how people with healthy ethnocentrism/ethnopatriotism, if their views conflict with the abstractions about pan-Europeanism, are slapped down on the Internet by those who believe in putting skin color first. A specific instance (actually I’ve witnessed it numerous times) on a forum: a British/English person complains that Poles (or other Eastern Europeans) are displacing English people by setting up enclaves and establishing Polish as the most frequently-heard language in certain areas. This is a legitimate complaint, in my opinion, but all too often one of the ‘WNs’ or pan-European ‘nationalists’ tells him that he should just be grateful that it’s not Pakistanis displacing him, or taking jobs from indigenous English folk. ‘After all Poles are as White as you are; you ought to be glad to have them!”
I’ve seen this play out so many times on certain forums over recent years. Again and again these ‘pan-European’ ideologues shout down English/Irish people who object to their countries being colonized by Eastern Europeans whose presence does disrupt stability and bring unwanted changes.
So to me, it matters not if the people who believe these abstractions about pan-Europeanism have elaborate scholarly justifications for their ideas; in the real world their views work against healthy ethnocentrism: the desire of healthy English/British/Irish folk to preserve their own distinctive customs, institutions, and ways of life, much less their bloodlines, in the face of mass immigration from countries that happen to be White.
In my corner of the world, there are lots of Eastern Europeans; entire small towns nearby are now mostly their turf. And these immigrants, their ‘Whiteness’ notwithstanding, are not very assimilable, or very congenial towards the local people. There are social problems, mainly drug use and high welfare use. I’ve also had occasion to have close contact with them over the years in social and non-social contexts, so I know what I am talking about.
We on the ethnonationalist right often have to repeat the fact that “it’s not about skin color.” We don’t ”hate” or object to anyone “just because of their skin color.” But do we automatically love anyone just because their complexion and appearance roughly resembles ours?
On that last point, maybe it’s just because of my experience with Russians that I can now distinguish Russians or Ukrainians at a glance; I am almost never wrong in my assessment. To me, they are not indistinguishable from Western Europeans. Often I see people who are Russian in appearance and when I hear them speaking Russian I find, most often, that I was right.
Genetically, Eastern Europeans are rather distant from Northwest Europeans.
See the genetic map below:
The Russian personality, ‘style’ of expressing themselves, is quite different and can be very opaque to a Westerner, and ours is not always understandable to them.
And by the way, up until very recent times, it was always a given that Russia and Eastern Europe were not part of the West.
But now there are people asserting that Eastern Europeans are our brothers, and essentially just like us in any way that matters. And to believe this is to deny the distinctions between ethnic groups.
I don’t write this to disparage or put down Eastern Europeans, whether Poles, Russians, or whoever else. I have met some congenial ones, and I’ve been in their homes, taught them (or tried to), eaten with them, learned some of their language. But I have never been able to get close to them; they are very reserved and aloof by our standards. I wish them well, but if they and we are to co-exist in the same countries, one culture will have to ‘give’, because their ways and ours differ.
However most of America is not in danger of becoming a Russian (or Polish) colony — Britain and Ireland, however, are a different story. Being small islands, and already being under siege from mass immigration, their culture and people risk being wiped out by mass immigration. We may think half a million Poles is a drop in the bucket, but on a small island like Britain, that is a lot.
I just do not understand, even after reading several thousand words of apologetics for pan-Europeanism, how anyone thinks that Britain should welcome being colonized by Polish people because they are light-complexioned. To take that stance is to deny the very real diversity that exists within the European spectrum of cultures /peoples.
I believe that each and every distinct people is unique, and that each people/tribe are specialists of a sort; each nation has distinct gifts, things at which they excel. I believe God created and ordained these distinctions, and that each people has, over the millennia, perfected their special talents and abilities. To recommend blending these peoples together, blurring the distinctions, also washes away, as it were the special character of that group. I think we’ve seen some of that in America, sadly. I’ve thought that the somewhat lower average I.Q. of Americans vs. our English cousins is due to the ‘panmixia’ that has taken place here. I also think that we are easier prey for the multicult because we have been remade into a mixed people, deficient in healthy ethnocentrism. If we all follow the path of ‘one Europe, one people’ where will our loyalties be? Can such a large and disparate collection of peoples feel commonality?
Yes, by all means, European-descended people can and should support one another and work together — but preserve their ethnic integrity. Groups with closer genetic ties can work more closely together, but do not ‘unequally yoke’ peoples together, in Biblical terminology.