Tuesday, August 9, 2022

Thiriart’s European Empire

Book review - Europe: An Empire of 400 Million.

Some thoughts on this book.  

Note that one of the negatives of the book is its extremely disjointed and disorganized structure; thus, even though my view itself seems disjointed it actually is organized in a more coherent manner than the book it evaluates, a book that could have benefitted for extreme editing.  In any case, let us proceed.

About the author.  (Spain was never “Fascist,” stop the lies).

I’m no fan of “National Bolshevism” (a pseudo-ideology for those afraid to call themselves National Socialists) of the Dugin connection.  But, anyway, let us consider the book.

There is stupidity in the Introduction about “Indo-European heritage” in India.  I for one am tired of hearing about “Aryan” nonsense, re: India and other Asian areas.  It doesn’t matter what ancient ancestral sources were present, what matters for today’s biopolitics is how closely extant populations are related.  South Asians and other such peoples are genetically distant from Europeans and are a distinct race. But then, this is the author of the Introduction. 

Now, the anti-Americanism of Thiriart is understandable from a Yockeyian political perspective, but hostility to the White American people and particularly to the American racialist Far Right is stupid and destructive, and the Introduction indeed promotes such hostility, e.g., footnote #5. And what’s this insanity of advising the USA to integrate with Latin America?  Forget Jacob; I expect nothing there, but was Thiriart crazy or was it just anti-American hatred percolating through? Obviously, I’m no fan of the idea, expressed in the book, of Europe leveraging China or Africa or Latin America against the USA and/or the USSR; I consider that race treason. Madness, madness.

I’ll agree that a “European Party” needs to be composed of cool-headed elites, not reckless hot-heads, and Thiriart makes clear in his book that a real revolutionary cadre (that needs to be carefully recruited during the calm before the storm) needs to absolutely eschew defectives (a point that I have been making for years); this will be a problem for Der Movement because despite all of the lip service the Quota Queens give to this, their “movement” is primarily composed of defective freaks. He also asserts that infiltration of the System is important, as is having some sort of protective force to defend the elite from attack.  

Thiriart had an attitude that was entirely consistent with what I have been saying for years – that you need to decide on an ideology and then move and get to work, instead of endlessly debating issues, the favorite being “Who is White?” (if you cannot even decide who is in your group, then how does your group exist?).  Thiriart had this attitude for many good reasons, one of which is to avoid wasting time in endless ideological debates and to prevent challenges to leadership that are really based on personal ambition to use the pretext of “ideological disagreements.” Thiriart wrote:

In political organisations that are disciplined and destined to action, there is no place for endless debates, for petty bourgeois scruples, for personal moral torment, for aesthetic hesitation. Either one accepts the menu or one does not eat. There is no choice of dishes…In our age, which is lacking everywhere, and that to which the true youth, from which the combatants will emerge, aspire is a clear, simple, monolithic faith.

It is interesting that things that I say and get accused of being an ethnically-interested advocate for was also said by the self-described Nordic Thiriart decades earlier – and not only about this; a large amount of Thiriart’s work (e.g., attacks on Nordicism) was foreseeing Sallisisan ideas.

One gives credit to Thiriart for his strident pan-Europeanism that includes Eastern Europeans (how far this goes seems to change from page to page – Bucharest or Vladivostok?).  He was an integrative “Europe as nation” person, more than I (or even Yockey perhaps), but within this I still see scope for maintenance of particularities and national uniqueness, so this is not any sort of deal-breaker, far from it. Indeed, Thiriart’s “take” here is a refreshing contrast to the petty nationalism espoused by many of today’s ethnonationalist hypocrites (who have no problem living in other people’s nations for the sake of convenience and/or to have access to their women).

Thiriart, who self-identified as a Nordic, is quite adamant in being radically pan-European and critiquing Nordicism, Germanocentrism, and other manifestations of “internal racism” in Europe. The fact that he repeatedly mentions Sicilians in this regard (and Poles, etc.) suggests that he was very much aware of the specific nature of Nordicist sweaty obsessions and also suggests that not much has changed in Der Movement over the last 60 years or so. I do note that he also avers that he would in theory have no problem with Nordic Germanics dominating Europe, but notes that it is not realistic and that Europe needs all Europeans (including those dastardly Afrowops) in the struggles ahead. Very well, but I’d prefer an ideological pan-Europeanism as opposed to what appears to be a utilitarian one (Latins are Slavs are needed, so….).  Although, at one point he seems to imply that Turkey is part of Europe; this is not the case and must never be so, for biological, cultural/civilizational, and historical reasons (never mind that the vast majority of Turkey is in Asia, where it is people belong bioculturally). And then at one point he seems think that the French should have assimilated North African Berbers - in Thirart's words "...of whom it was tolerably easy to make authentic Frenchmen."  Things like that tend to delegitimize Thiriart's pan-Europeanism and anti-Nordicism and gives credence to Nordicist critiques that a more inclusive attitude toward Europe inevitably (sic) leads to acceptance of real aliens, which is not the case.

The Nordic Belgian Jean Thiriart critiqued Nordicism in his Europe an Empire book, including:

...German racists of the extreme right who frown at the mention of Andalusians but swoon before the Arabs...

Racial Proximity Theory, anyone?  Sallis right again – MacDonald and his TOO supporters wrong, Racial Proximity Theory is a historical reality; but then Thiriart himself has to answer for his own (mild) swooning before the Turks and the Berbers.  


A racism of the North, under the hypocritical mask of a certain 'Europeanism' has already been mortal once for Europe from 39 to 45. It cannot at any cost arise again. Its reactivation would only cause all of Slavic Europe to be thrown to Moscow and would, as a reaction, render all of Mediterranean Europe distrustful.

If I wrote that, the hysteria would be deafening. But thank you to Thiriart for stating common sense. He also stated that mating between different parts of Europe is not "race mixing." Indeed, the Nordic Thiriart was more open to intra-European mixing than I am.  The author believes that all Europeans – Germanics, Latins, and Slavs – have value, a view that contrasts to the typical “movement” Germanocentric view. Thiriart condemned "the anti-Neapolitan racism of certain Englishmen," and mocked "young Germans who think that they are combatants for Europe but tremble at the idea that a Sicilian could marry their sister."

The author promotes a strongly integrated “Unitarian” Europe as Nation scenario that is opposed to federalism (except as a temporary stop-gap on the road to full unity) as he is to petty nationalism. Although I have championed the federalism approach, I have to agree that most of his arguments are sound. The basic problem with s approach is how to preserve ethnic and cultural uniqueness within Europe. The author seems not to care about this and seems to accept a panmixia on both the biological and cultural level in Europe.  I’m essentially conservative on this issue, since a unique bioculture, once lost, cannot really ever be recovered or reconstituted (at least not exactly as it was originally) and I do not want to see any European characteristics forever lost (which would affect EGI at the ethnic-national level as well).  Such a scenario would no doubt provoke a negative reaction from enemies of the pan-European approach.  There needs to be a balance – like Lowell’s Imperium-Dominion duality – that would allow sufficient local control as to preserve important particularities.

A Unitarian Europe can work – and would have the advantages that Thiriart indicated – but it needs to solve the problems of preserving the biological and cultural uniqueness of the various European peoples.  In addition, it is understandable that people want to be led by people in the locality and not be micro-managed from some Imperial capital; some degree of local sovereignty needs to be incorporated in the government structure. More on this below.

As part of this, Thiriart condemned petty nationalism in all of its aspects.  One could only image what he would think of an outlet like Counter-Currents, which proudly defends the concept.

Thus, he rejects the idea of a confederation of nationalist groups or parties working together or one powerful nation serving as a nucleus to build an integrated Europe, as these are inimical to his integrated Europe ideal and would provoke petty nationalist reaction also inimical to his ideal. He also states that the creation of the European nation will be a top-down elite project; one should not depend on the masses for anything – they’ll go along with a fait accompli as long as they believe that their selfish material desires will be met.  He wrote:

The utilisation of ‘existing nationalisms’ to create the European nationalism is a myth cherished by the timid, the backward-looking, or opportunists, who look for an easy clientele.  European nationalism will arise only after having dissolved or crushed the old nationalisms. Within the integrated European Party it will be easier to make a young socialist militant a good European nationalist than to transform a French petty nationalist into a European nationalist…Within this party, no more question of feeling oneself French or Portuguese, other than in one’s origin or language…Every militant, no matter where he comes from or who he might be, participates in all of Europe, and not only in one ‘party’ of this Europe…A European militant will owe fidelity, loyalty and dedication to Europe, and not to his country of origin.

Take that, petty nationalism!  Greg Johnson weeps.

One crucial point of Thiriart’s book is his point, repeated several times, that revolutionary action such as nation-creating is the work of a pre-existing leader and revolutionary cadre who will this new reality into being, typically against the consent of the masses. Thus, revolutionary change is imposed from top-down; it does not percolate up from the masses (and we note how our society’s leftward drift is essentially being imposed from above).  From our perspective, the prescriptive approach of radical pan-Europeanism should not depend on descriptive current realities or “the consent of the people,” nor achieved by “hat-in-hand” negotiation with petty nationalist culture retarders. If Nation Europa is to be it has to be created by an act of revolutionary will that is not dependent on ephemeral “public opinion” of the moment, the short-term electoral needs to petty nationalist political parties, or the huffing and puffing of navel-gazing ethnonationalists who achieve nothing but division.

Thiriart denounces those who mimic the Fascist and National Socialists of yesterday; in a telling comment he writes:

It is remarkable to note that, at all times, the people who are nostalgic have not preserved of the past any of its qualities, they have only conserved its RITES.

That describes Der Movement and rightist “traditionalists” as well as specifically those who “LARP" as Fascists and Nazis – and I believe it clear that Thiriart is condemning the “LARPING” rather than the basic principles of fascism and national socialism that seem to me to underlie his own basic ideology. Thiriart also condemns the decadents who always find an excuse to do nothing – that sounds much like contemporary “movement” hobbyists who can’t even be motivated to exercise the slightest and safest amount of effort to (legally and non-violently) combat what they claim is “White genocide.”  Even writing a blog or a post is too much for them. Thiriart’s ideas mesh with mine with his opposition to “big tent” coalitions that are fragile and that collapse under pressure (see the Alt Right and Alt Lite); he favored smaller homogeneous entities with a fixed ideology and avant-garde leaders with their “valiant” followers. He also, like me, promoted the idea of infiltration of the System (“termites”) rather than the Turner Diaries Der Tag fantasies of Type I “runes and boots” “twigs and branches” morons.

Thiriart distinguishes a society, with its moral codes, and a state, with its laws.  A strong society can be stable in prosperity and exhibit resiliency in crisis and can survive even in the absence of a strong state; in contrast, a weak society requires a strong, often tyrannical state, for survival. Look at the decaying America of today, with a weak society and degenerate morals, dependent upon an anarcho-tyranny repressive system to manage the decline. Further, Thiriart, like the Romanian Legionaries before him, realized that the values and structures of a society are directly related to the quality of men, particularly leadership.  High quality men lead to high quality values and to an effective societal structure.

The strength of a nation state is related to its size. Thiriart points out, quite rightly, that the smaller a nation is the more likely it is to be a satellite.  And that underscores another weakness of the “we can just have (temporary) alliances” paradigm of the petty nationalists. What does a small nation really have to offer in an alliance with a larger, more powerful one, other than being a satellite, a de facto colony, of the larger, stronger power, a nation-sized military base for the “ally?”  What “sovereignty” then?  And if the smaller nation wants to leave the “temporary” alliance and the larger nation refuses, what then?  Bring in a third power for an intra-European war?  Ethnonationalist madness.

Thiriart suggests Europe needs it sown nuclear deterrent (Europe-wide, not only national as with the UK or France) and that even if America was to become a true friend and ally to Europe, a sovereign Europe could not depend on America’s “nuclear umbrella” particularly since America’ is going to be focused on its own issues (like the “insoluble” Black problem) and so would eventually need to leave Europe, voluntarily or not.

The author advocates a “society of solidarity” that avoids the pitfalls of a naïve collectivism and destructive selfishness. Like me, Thiriart values the efficiencies of competition and the free market but without the abuses of capitalism; the proper balance is required.

Some of the quotes from Thiriart (“France did not exist because people spoke French but people speak French because French was decreed”) and others (e.g., Jose Ortega Y Gasset) as well as the overall text echo the Yockeyite idea that it is the nation-state that forges a people, not necessarily the other way around; thus, a European nation-state can help forge a European people, akin to the ideas expressed in this post on Yockeyian Genetics. This of course does not mean – or have to mean – any sort of European panmixia (even though Thiriart was open and accepting to intra-European mixture), but instead bringing Europeans more tightly coalesced together biologically (and culturally) as distinguished from other groups.

Amusingly, Thiriart was very prescient in the idea that the Negro problem is insoluble for America and that this problem was going to lead to the eventual decline of America as a world power, as the nation becomes obsessed with dealing with internal racial conflicts. His idea that Eastern Europe was a weak link in Soviet communism proved correct as well. His timetable for European independence and victory was “off” of course.  He couldn’t realize that as Europe shed Soviet control in the East and became more independent of America in the West it would degenerate into a “woke” dystopia overseeing White genocide race replacement immigration. But even in his time, there were signs of trouble to come. The author notes examples of pro-Black and anti-White attitudes, news reporting, and double standard law enforcement of the Europe of the 1960s, all of which sound remarkably similar to the SJW hysteria of today’s America. This puts into question anti-American narratives of today’s European petty nationalists who avert that SJWism is an American invention that is currently “infecting Europe.” If Thiriart’s description of 1960s (Western) European behavior is correct, one can genuinely wonder precisely who “infected” who with the virus of lunatic progressivism. Related to this, in his section on the "Anti-Elite," Thiriart foresees the emergence of bioleninism, the alliance of the botched and the defective, who in their resentment against their superiors join every leftist entity in order to overthrow the natural order and revenge themselves against a reality that focuses attention on their manifest deficiencies. In Thiriart's day, such rabble existed and were found in the Communist parties of Western nations; today, they make up the refuse of our SJW progressive-Rising Tide of Color alliance.

One of my favorite parts of the book are the quotes at the start of each section, thought-provoking snippets from (typically) well-known figures; the comments are relevant to the subject of each section.  The rampant and over-the-top anti-Americanism of Thiriart can be off-putting to American readers, particularly those who are Far Right racial nationalists who look askance at the somewhat hysterical negative portrayal of (White) Americans that do nothing that divide the Whites of the New World from that of the Old.  But these are, in reflection, relatively minor points. 

All in all, a good book; it is recommended. After reading this, I am rethinking my previous emphasis on a confederated Europe of nations – as long as the non-negotiable baseline of the preservation of the unique European ethnies (and their EGI) is assured, an integrated European Nation is preferable (although, unlike Thiriart, I see this as including the overseas Diaspora). Why should we continue to cater to the petty nationalists, Nordicists, and other Culture Retarders who themselves never compromise and simply “double down” on their nonsense? Thiriart, in the broad sense, details aside, was essentially correct. Thus, I'm moving toward a more explicit pan-Europeanism.

In a properly integrated European Nation, ethnic integrity, ethnocultural uniqueness, and ethnic genetic interests would be carefully managed and preserved, like the precious “natural resources” that they are.  That would allow the benefits of unity while avoiding some of the more fundamental costs.

But, eventually, with all those caveats duly noted, the European Nation should and must be a reality.


Note to the hobbyists:

One who does not wish to prepare himself because it would interrupt his pleasure will soon see that very pleasure taken from him on account of which he did not wish to prepare himself. – Thucydides

On leadership:

The leader is one who believes when everybody is still sceptical, the one who sees farter and sooner, who dares when nobody dares. The leader is also a creative genius, he is an initiator, a founder of religions, ideologies, or nations. - Thiriart

On freedom:

There only exists the freedom of the strong. One who wishes to be free must want to be powerful. One who wishes to be free must be capable of arresting other freedoms, for freedom is invasive and has a tendency to encroach on that of weak neighbors...Whether as an individual or as a nation, we know the source of freedom and it is power. If we wish to conserve the former, we must cultivate the latter. They are inseparable. - Thiriart. 

On happiness:

One must teach men - or at least those who claim to lead them - that 'happiness' does not exist, that it is an intellectual construct offered to the simple to dupe them. - Thiriart