There are small peoples in this world and then there are Great peoples.
One of the most archetypical categories of small peoples are mountain peoples. These guys are historically the losers of some war that fled to the mountains for safety. While in the mountains, they developed a raiding culture and a fierce in-group loyalty as well as honor based societies.
They sure are romantic to think about, these rebels in the scenic mountains- scraping a life out through banditry and goat-herding.
Unfortunately for them, these people are all historical losers. They lost access to the fertile plains because they weren’t strong enough, and so they were pushed onto the badlands. Occasionally, these peoples grow in strength enough to mount a resistance to the plains peoples and they emerge out of their hideaways to war on their historic enemies.
More often than not, they lose these wars, and are reduced to retreating to the mountains again to wage their guerrilla wars for all eternity.
Who are history’s losers?
I can think of many such peoples in the world. The entirety of the Caucasus peoples, the Carpathian peoples, the Scottish Highlanders, the Basque rebels, the Pashtun tribes…I could go on.
They are the archetypical example of small peoples that never amount to anything in history (doesn’t just have to be mountain folk). They preserve their cultures well, but they never make empires, and grand cities with monuments to their heroes. The only greatness they can acheive in world history is when they hitch themselves to a larger empire that allows them to share in its greater glory. The British Ghurka’s are a great example.
Fierce fighters, completely fearless and incredibly loyal- these people were a prized British asset that the British used effectively.
I could go on and on with examples- here’s one more. Russia used to use Chechens and other Caucasus people’s as auxillary shock troops. They called them the Savage Division. In fact, they still use them- the conflict in Ukraine saw their snap deployment to the Donbass.
The only problem with these auxillaries is what happens when they start to doubt the Imperial authority. Thats when the rebellions and the disloyalty starts. But as long as a Great peoples stays Great, they can use their imperial subjects to further the project of their state. But when things turn sour, these peoples are terrible thorns in the side of the Imperial State.
Geopolitics will always remain a game of Great peoples- and the small peoples of the world have to accept that. There will never be a Galician empire, a Basque empire, or an Albanian empire. This is the result of both size and mentality.
Now, all Great peoples started out as tribal peoples, but they almost all eventually moved past that stage of development and became civilizations instead. One can be a Georgian prince serving in the Russian Imperial Army against Napoleon at Borodino- and become both a Russian and Georgian hero because of it.
Within a tribal context however, two tribes can ally together, but neither can consider themselves part of the other until a higher concept of civilization emerges.
Now, I’m skipping some steps here, but in general a consolidation of tribes leads to some form of a kingdom, then a consolidation of smaller kingdoms become a national state which can transition into empire. The bigger the State gets, the more power it gets on the world stage- and that is how greatness is measured.
Only a relative handful of peoples have pulled this off in history, and by doing so have become great. English is the language of half the world for a reason- and a testament to the greatness of the British people (who I admit, I’m not fond of).
Lets tie World War 1 in here
Now, the Germans never had an empire, and so they never had these auxillaries to use. World War 1 was a war about empire- Germany wanted one, while France and Britain weren’t too fond of the idea. Having an empire gives the host country access to vast natural and human resources. This helped the French and British in the trenches, and in other theaters of war abroad…
Now, how many empires are left in the world? There are only two. Russia and the United States. Russia is a rump empire that lost the Cold War while the United States is the reigning hegemon. Using its massive wealth, military apparatus, and clout, the United States can fund auxillaries in the service of empire all around the world.
It helps that they stripped their European competitors of their colonies at the end of the wars. Wilsonian self-determination and later anti-Colonial doctrines were RealPolitik that ensured the supremacy of the United States- even if a few gullible fools on both the Right and the Left thought this was about principle.
So Pax Americana remains top dog, enjoying unprecedented access to raw materials, markets for its goods (when they still made them) and capital flows from all the tributaries to the swamp-basin of Washington, DC.
Instability in the world? Risk in the market? Where does the money flood for safe storage? The US dollar of course.
Britain has the City and some high-tech toys I guess, France has barely anything and the German army- while reformed and retrained- remains an American asset in Europe. No other European country boasts any force to speak of (except maybe the Poles) and if Russia wanted to, they could roll tanks into Paris within 48 hours…and then get nuked.
This is the de facto state of the world. Empire was the prize of American victory in World War II.
While I hope for a curbing of American power abroad, it is not because of any anti-Imperial or fundamentalist Nationalistic ideology that I harbor. I just believe the United States has been pursuing a policy of deliberate destabilization around the world and has been a destroyer of Traditional societies all around the world.
Gregory Hood over at Radix has noted before (and i’m paraphrasing here): “America is the mailed fist that enforces the cultural marxist paradigm abroad.”
And so, any sort of “rebellion” or paradigm change in Europe will have to be anti-American in its nature.
Does this fly in the face of “White Solidarity” or something similar?
Yes, sort of. In an ideal world, White Identity would extend past the Hajnal line, the Butter line, and the English Channel.
But it won’t anytime soon.
Continental Europe’s only real hope of becoming independent and Great Again lies in a European Union of one form or another- anything short of that will not be able to stand up to American (or Russkie for you russophobes out there) influence.
And no localized rebellion will be enough to shake off the shackles.
Tribalism will not save Europe.
The retreat into tribalismÂ that I see many in the Alt-RightÂ espousing vis a vis Europe is a defensive reaction and one that I believe is part of a backwards mentality. We’re starting to think in terms of tribes again, and not in terms of sound geo-political strategy.
A bunch of small bickering European countries will not be able to stand up to the American juggernaut.
Simple- the minute France gets fiesty and anti-American, the americans nudge the Germans into cancelling a trade deal, or raising tariffs on French imports.
You can leverage the bickering of the Natives to maintain a weak and scrambled Europe.Â
For example, Bavaria wanting to secede from Germany because of the refugee crisis is a policy of self-defense, but also one of weakness.
What will Bavaria be on its own? What if Germany does not trade with them?
The desire to abandon the European project because of its current subverted state will backfire by weakening Europe. (I can see the Anglos rubbing their hands in glee). And I can’t help but see a plan in all this. There is more than enough justified speculation out there about how the refugee flow wasÂ engineered by the Americans to flow into Germany.
The Pozzed mentality of the Germans surely helped…but is that really all there is to it?Â I don’t think so.
The Alt-Right is right to be worried about the massive third world invasion, but it shouldn’t fear it to the extent that it does. Fear clouds the judgement and makes calls for drastic measures seem reasonable, even if they play right into the hands of the enemy.
If the State had the political will, this crisis could be solved.
If the State had the political will, the migrants could be deported.
If the State had the political will, rule of law would be re-established.
There is no need to pray for a collapse or great Happening. There is no need to slip into monastary/Dark Ages survivalist mode. The Right simply needsto start seriously thinking of how to seize the apparatus of State- something that it has always struggled to do.
Back in America, we’re organizing, we’re getting stronger, there is plenty to be hopeful about…
We’re the Great peoples of this world, we need to stop over-reacting and confusing the micro with the macro.
On a micro-level, its important to find like-minded patriots and work together to foster comraderie, support networks and the like.
But on a macro level? We don’t want to tribalize more than we have to. On the macro level, empire and geo-politics dominate.
Those that don’t understand that, can’t hope to understand the situation that Europe finds itself in.
Those that don’t understand basic geo-politics are condemned to be useful idiots of one Imperial project or another.
Just because you are a nationalist that is convinced in the truth of your ideology, doesnt mean that your ideology can’t be used by your enemies.
Let that sink in.
Put simply, the Red Pill doesn’t end with anti-Feminism, Niggerdeath and the JQ. Keep digging.
But hey, if you like talk of secession and a Brave New Post-First World you might like my book.