THE FOLLY OF ALLIANCES

by James Lawrence

I have no intention of wading into the recent doxxing scandal on the Alt-Right, which is an embarrassment to our movement. However, it has not escaped my notice that one of the catalysts for this appears to have been a longstanding toxic issue in European nationalism, namely the question of “alliances” with other races. What I say here should not be interpreted as an attempt to take sides in the ongoing dispute; I have merely wanted to lay the alliance issue in its coffin for some time, and circumstances have provided me with a useful context in which to do so.

I do not oppose alliances on the grounds of “purity spiralling”. Self-identified Europeans are everywhere in weak and tenuous political positions, and we will need a great deal of pragmatism to secure ourselves in the battle of ethnic politics. Future possibilities may contain the potential for alliances between ourselves and others that would make the purity-spirallers choke on their edgy gas chamber memes.

The point I wish to make is this: such possible alliances can only lie, at the very least, ten years or more in the future (assuming an optimistic prediction of our continued growth and success). This is because we do not, at present, possess even the basic prerequisites for making alliances. Thus, for now, all empty talk about alliances with other ethnic groups represents a vain distraction from building a solid cultural and political base among our own people (or, to be more precise, at best it is a distraction; in the present case it has turned out to be something much worse).

It is easy to grasp the reasons why this is so. The prerequisite for making an alliance with someone else is that you should have something to bring to the table. This in turn means commanding some sort of power, which should be clearly visible and quantifiable for your potential alliance partner, which means that it must exist in real life and not in the shadow world of cyberspace. We must command power over the hearts and minds of our group, white Europeans, and this group must in turn command power in the arena of ethnic politics.

"Nice idea for an alliance, we'll talk about it when we're done here"

It should go without saying that, despite possessing formidable potential power, white Europeans are presently almost powerless in the ethnopolitical realm. Our ruling elites have mostly seceded to anti-white Cosmopolitanism; most of our ordinary people are still wedded to the decadent, incapacitating idiocy of “individualism” and “colour-blindness”; and among those who explicitly identify as ethnonationalists, we have a great many purity-spirallers and other useless holier-than-thous, who cannot work as a group in the real world and are in truth just more atomised narcissists. This is why all other ethnic groups (including supposed “natural allies”) feel free to pile upon whites and openly scheme against us to their heart’s content: they would be fools not to do so, for at present no unpleasant consequences are possible, “whitey-bashing” being an activity less likely to meet serious resistance than taking a morning dump.

Were our movement to correct its internal problems, and grow into a powerful bloc of racially-aware, righteously furious white Europeans, then we would be capable of exerting power and imposing real consequences on those who attack us. In this scenario, we might see one or more splits in the anti-white Leftist coalition, and then we would be in a position to make such pragmatic and temporary alliances as are advantageous to us. But to even reach this point, which seems so near and yet so far, we shall have to devote all of our present energies towards drastically reforming the mentality of a significant number of our own people.

This will involve, among other things, a ferocious critique of replacement migration and a passionate call to our own self-defence, which must be made without the slightest regard for the feelings of this or that non-European group who may or may not be amenable to an “alliance”. This is the main reason why all talk of alliances with other racial groups, at least for the next ten years or so, represents a vain distraction at best and a danger to our movement at worst.

With this in mind, let us briefly debunk the alliance proposals most often floated on the Alt-Right. These are (1) the East Asian alliance and (2) the Zionist alliance.

We can begin with the East Asian alliance, or “Arctic alliance” in the grandiose parlance of John Derbyshire and Gilbert Cavanaugh. The underlying idea here is that East Asians share similar economic interests with whites; that they are just as discriminated-against as whites by “positive discrimination” and “affirmative action”; that they are often the victims of violent racial bullying by other members of the anti-white coalition; and therefore that they share certain common interests with Europeans, which ought to make them good potential allies. In addition, East Asians are popularly believed to harbour relatively little ill-will towards the European race and civilisation.

As a student of East Asian languages and culture, I would certainly prefer all of this to be the case, but the interests of the cause of Europe stand far above such personal concerns. In terms of similar economic interests and a relative lack of anti-white hatred, the best candidates for such an alliance would be the Japanese; but any pact of friendship with them can be happily observed at a distance, due to their lack of interest in immigrating to the West. Having spent time in mainland China before, I can say with some authority that the anti-Western rhetoric in vogue there scarcely rises above the conspiracy theorising and race-baiting found elsewhere in the “developing world”, and that this ressentiment does not dissipate when Chinese immigrants cross the West's magic borders.

Not an argument for our being in the same boat.

On the issue of East Asian diasporas in majority-European countries, we must speak frankly on a topic that polite people usually do not discuss, and which for that reason may escape the notice of uninformed Asiaphiles. It is this: what East Asians populations lack in terms of economic grievances against whites, they often make up for in the form of male sexual resentment against white men, which gives rise to the same end result of anti-whitism.

This brings us nicely to the topic of European-Asian intermarriage, usually between white males and Asian females, the promotion of which is an obvious ulterior motive of “Arctic alliance” theorising. Given the unmarriageable nature of many modern white women, it is not at all surprising that such marriages take place, but no-one should try to obscure the fact that they do not serve the European cause in the slightest; indeed, there is a possibility of real harm being done, principally by Eurasian children reverting to anti-whitism in adulthood. (Anyone considering such a match in terms of family formation owes it to his unborn children to read the Longing for Death blog, whose deranged Eurasian author is apparently far from alone in his views.)

The idea of a Zionist alliance stems from the observation that Muslim immigration to the West is spurring a revival of anti-Semitism, while also providing a political base from which leftist anti-Zionism can make unprecedented gains. In light of this, the typical support of diaspora Jews for mass immigration and multiculturalism seems to be a case of "sawing off the branch on which one is sitting". Surely, the argument goes, Jews will sooner or later come to recognise their real group interests, which lie in a quid pro quo arrangement between European and Jewish nationalists: we support the Jewish state in Israel, they support the closure of our borders to the Third World.

I certainly think that a demand for such a quid pro quo, which is entirely reasonable, should be the “official position” of the Alt-Right (to the extent that such a thing can exist in our movement). I agree to a certain extent with Matt Parrott that we are the true enemies of colonialism, which has not been repudiated in our day but rather refined and extended into the globalist domination of the world, and that we stand to lose in moral terms from supporting Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. However, speaking practically, we should remember that our counter-attack against globalism hinges on a revival of nationalism, and that this naturally leads us to recognise the value of the nationalist Israeli as opposed to the leftist, cosmopolitan diaspora Jew.

But this does not change the fact that any alliance between the Alt-Right and nationalistic pro-Israeli Jews at the present time would be a spectacularly bad deal for our side.

The terrors of absorption

Such an alliance would presumably concern the Alt-Right in the United States, which is the "headquarters" of the Jewish diaspora. However, in America, Zionists can already count on a lavishly-funded neoconservative political class backed by millions of Evangelical Christians, who will support Israel unconditionally without demanding any pesky quid pro quos. It was in order to get away from this “false Right” that Richard Spencer founded the original Alternative Right in 2010; and one does not have to believe in Jewish plots and conspiracies around every corner to understand that Zionists allied to the American Alt-Right would naturally move it in the direction of reabsorption by mainstream conservatism. This reabsorption should be seen as a mortal threat to our movement, one that will only dissipate when we grow strong enough to do the absorbing ourselves.

This, of course, brings us full-circle to my main argument: that we are, at present, in no position to make real alliances with anyone, and that we should put off all discussion of this question for the next decade or so.

We do not have to be uncivil in this. Say that a well-intentioned Jewish person were to contact the Alt-Right with some plan for an alliance of mutual interests. All that we would have to do is politely request that he first convert a significant number of his fellow-Jews to his position, and bring them to the table; then, and only then, would we be willing to open discussion on a pragmatic arrangement of mutual nationalist support. The same would hold true for East Asians, along with anyone else who might happen to appear at the doors of our war-tent.

What could be fairer than this? This way, our energies would remain focused on educating our own people, as they should be; and the energies of our potential allies (assuming they are sincere) would be redirected into converting members of their own groups to a pro-European position, as they should be. Purists could rest in peace, knowing that the alliance question has at least been deferred for the foreseeable future, and those who want alliances would have to first concentrate on advancing the Alt-Right to the point at which it can pursue them from a position of strength.

And situations like the present one, in which “alliances” that exist only in hot air lead to hammer blows against our movement in reality, would be mercifully avoided.