Norman Lowell

Posted by Guessedworker on January 31, 2007, 03:09 PM | #

First of all, I want to say that Soren did a really fine job in every respect, and established just the right blend of friendly interlocution and intellectualism, including familiarity with source material.  If that’s a sample of the direction he is travelling with this project, then let’s have a lot more.

Lowell himself is an engaging and interesting man.  Is he a dreamer?  Yes, but that is where we must begin.  Yesterday I happened to write these lines in conversation with Troy Southgate on his New Right Forum:-

Liberalism has two decades of sickness left to it. One can quite legitimately infer in Cameron’s Nu-Conservative a reading of its last rites. Something over-arching, connective to and, especially, productive of all the things that interest you ... something complete and functioning, based on our EGI, must take the place of liberalism.  Further, it must come to being with a genuine and dedicated elite, capable either of driving its tennets down through the social system or seeding the ground to let them radiate out among the population.

Either way, the need is for a thorough-going revolution - not an alternative lifestyle.

... and here’s Lowell with his IDEA, as he presents the word on his somewhat noisy Imperium Europa website.

Well, I don’t know.  I am an Englishman so, also, naturally innured by scepticism of all big ideas, against most of which my forebears have taken up arms.  The one big idea we slept through is the one that has us in its thrall now.  So the time has come to look at every viable alternative.

I remain of the conviction that democracy is so complicit in the power settlement that is modern liberalism, we have to work with that grain.  We have to progress via the ballot box - which, to be sure, Lowell is attempting.  But Imperium Europa is such a strong medicine it would require a correspondingly drastic economic disease to make it palatable.  That places the prospects for change wholly in the domain of serendipity (which, I think, cannot be relied upon to deliver itself of a helpful circumstance in 2012).

Still, I rather liked Lowell and, of course, wish him well.

Posted by sheep brute on January 31, 2007, 04:11 PM | #

I agree that the interview was sound and seem to be getting better with each new installment.  Well done.

A few points.  I believe Norman Lowell’s interpretation of Nietzsche is a bit off, but that’s a minor point (and FN was a man of the mid-late 19tth century, not “200 years ago.”).

I would say that Soren misrepresented my advice to Lowell; I certainly am not suggesting he adopt a sheeplike approach (impossible in any case given his personality).

Howewer, some realism may be in order.  Lowell has a grand vision and I agree with much of it.  He, however, is following an electoral route.  Whatever modern Malta is, it is not Periclean Greece.  If he starts talking about terraforming Mars or cloning Leonidas, the average slack-jawed drooling idiot will stare at him with glazed eyes, uncomprehending.

And “international rodents” is an unnecessary inflammatory rhetoric.

Before we can get to Mars or reincarnate Julius Caeser, first we’ll need to get Lowell in the EU Parliment and see if the non-white immigration can be stopped.

Nothing wrong with bold visions for the elite.  But can he be elected by a handful of the elite?

Posted by James Bowery on January 31, 2007, 07:10 PM | #

While I think the idea of an “Imperium Europa” is supremacist and therefore misguided if not worthy of contempt, there is another sense in which what I call “the principle of least supremacy”  is European and hence could be the galvanizing idea for an “Imperium Europa” of least supremacy:

Organizing land distribution according to agricultural ability of freely associating groups. 

I’ve been developing this idea for some time and believe it naturally leads to something like Imperium Europa but without a white supremacist foundation, simply because Europeans will prove superior to others during such fair competition for control of land when individuals can just leave and join another group thereby expanding the land for that group and contracting the territory of the former group.  This belief is founded on the history European agricultural superiority.

The missing keystone of this idea is how to trade-off human mass against natural biodiversity.  If that keystone is put into place properly I believe the natural result will be low biodiversity frontiers populated by the folks Lowell sees as supreme—while the rest of the biosphere survives without human dominion.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 31, 2007, 07:33 PM | #

It is, of course, all too human to seek dominion.  Something to do with reproductive fitness, no doubt.

The bottom line for any new settlement is disengagement of the races.  If a system does not set out to guarantee the genetic integrity of European Man then it is a non-starter with me.  Your suggestion, James, appears to forecast an appropriate outcome.  Forecasting is not guaranteeing.

Give Lowell his due.  When it came to it he was very clear: repatriate.  No messing!

Posted by Neverwinter on January 31, 2007, 09:26 PM | #

I have been an adherent for a few years now.  I did not know what to make of Norman upon finding his Imperium Europa website.  I decided to give him and his IDEA a chance…to explore in depth.  After a little research and upon joining the then discussion forum called AveMelita I found myself in agreement more and more with Norman.  I read ‘Credo:  A Book for the Very Few’.  I realized the genius of the IDEA. 

Much has happened since then and we now use Vivamalta as our forum.  I did a good thing in giving Norman a chance.  He is a visionary…an artist…a soldier.  A global menace…a global problem (international manipulators) can only be confronted by a united Europe.  Hail Norman!  Til IE comes.

Posted by James Bowery on January 31, 2007, 09:32 PM | #

First, when I said “without human dominion” I didn’t mean no single group dominating the other group but rather no human presence _at all_ in said high biodiversity territories.

Second, “repatriate” is not so clear as you would suggest:  Who are these “elite” precisely, how do they achieve their status and how do they decide the details of assortive migration to be called “repatriation” within Imperium Europa?

All of those questions are easily answered within my principle of least supremacy since all that is required is a consensus among people—regardless of race or religion—that two things are paramount:

1) Fairness in distribution of carrying capacity—meaning rewarding those who create carrying capacity rather than merely those whose females churn out the most babies.

2) Preservation of the pre-human biodiversity for the vast future .

Perhaps there is a mathematical extension to Salter beyond the correlation structure to include the equivalent of genetic insurance.  It is the business of actuaries to think the unthinkable.  So let’s do so.  Briefly stated, it is possible to be wrong about the best way of advancing one’s genetic interests.  What if “whites” prove to be a mistake?  What if “humanity” prove to be a mistake.

PS: Why is the tag no longer working for me?

Posted by Guessedworker on February 01, 2007, 03:34 AM | #

James, you are missing out the “” around the URL.  I’ve corrected it again.

OK, I think you have a good point about the elite.  The emergence of revolutionary elites is not a well-practised art.  I imagine that Lowell’s idea is that the leading serious nationalists fighting politically in their respective European countries and beyond should agree to the core principles of the idea, and would be expected to campaign on it.

The immediate problem is that Norman requires the break-up of the nation state.  This isn’t likely or possible everywhere in the way it is, say, in Belgium.  Perhaps the libertarian principle is to apply here.

Repatriation is clear.  The basis of citizenship must be jus sanguinis.  I don’t think that’s supremacist.  I think it’s normal.

The point is that one has to be as clear as possible with the electorate, and speak in terms they will understand and to which they can respond.

I see this issue as unmixed with the ecology question.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 01, 2007, 04:05 AM | #

I should add TODAY to that last remark.  Politics is not anticipation.  It is adaption.

Posted by James Bowery on February 01, 2007, 08:27 AM | #

Repatriation is clear.  The basis of citizenship must be jus sanguinis.  I don’t think that’s supremacist.  I think it’s normal.

He proposes to keep control over lands outside of Europe.  But that alone doesn’t make him supremacist.

It isn’t supremacist to keep the food one has produced for one’s self if one’s territory has been acquired through an increase in carrying capacity so as not to diminish the prior population.  This is, of course, assuming one defines “supremacy” in terms of ethnic genetic interests.  Salter does go into the ethics of migration in terms of changes in carrying capacity for this reason.

Lowell is supremacist in his stated goal to dominate geopolitics with control of agricultural lands regardless of the EGI of others.

Now I will admit that the fact that he wishes to do so by controlling the food supplied by Euroman allows him an out but he needs to be careful to provide the fact that Euroman’s dominance of the world’s food supply is explicable in terms of his increasing the carrying capacity of the world commensurate with the lands he has occupied.

Politics is not anticipation.  It is adaption.

In the present instance, I think it is clear that the mass immigration to Euro-occupied lands did not result in a commensurate increase in the carrying capacity.  Hence if Euroman did occupy those lands through increased carrying capacity, it is the new migrants who should be repatriated—not Euroman.

Posted by James Bowery on February 01, 2007, 08:34 AM | #

Oh I should add that my prior point about actuarial EGI, considering the possibility that Euroman or even humanity itself is an evolutionary dead-end, is adaptive.  The problem is Salter’s math of EGI doesn’t yet include such actuarial terms just as, on the other side of the ledger, the exiting math doesn’t yet include ethnic correlation structures.  It is this actuarial approach to EGI that ultimately answers the reductio ad absurdum proposed by those who claim EGI is optimized by cloning.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 01, 2007, 08:44 AM | #

He proposes to keep control over lands outside of Europe

That, indeed, does not make him supremacist.  It may make him judicious.

Personally, I would be happy to turn my back on the rest of the world, except for the purposes of trade in all its usual forms.  But geopolitics is a fact that elites must live with.

Posted by James Bowery on February 01, 2007, 09:01 AM | #

Personally, I would be happy to turn my back on the rest of the world, except for the purposes of trade in all its usual forms.

And indeed the rest of the world should be happy for you to do so if they were actuarially rational about their own EGI and you were certainly the best hope for future carrying capacity growth.  Such sacrifices within extended families are routinely recognized as adaptive.  Hell, with sufficient certainty for the future carrying capacity growth they might well clone you to control more of their territory.

Posted by Mark Dawson on February 01, 2007, 10:13 AM | #

Hi all,

First I would like to introduce myself. I am the Web administrator of the ‘daughter’ movement of Imperium Europa called VivaMalta. We exist to carry forward the ‘dominium’ sphere here in Malta. I am also a core member of IE.

I am just going to explain the core concept of the IE idea a little more. I will try to respond to individual posts that need clarifying a little later.

It isnt that difficult and is open enough to leave all sorts of room for debate.

The core concept of the IE idea is the ‘Imperium’ and ‘Dominium’ relationship. It may seem a little scary to hear of the dismantling of the nation state but this does not mean the dismantling of the nation! This idea is born out of the fact that Europeans seem far too keen on killing each other. The first and second world wars heralded our collapse. We must never allow PETTY forms of nationalism override the common good. friendly rivalry is positive though.

The Imperium (masculine) side basically stands for what is common across European civilisation. It is -if you like- ‘The common good’. Questions on how this elite may form are understandable and of course we can not dictate this to present nationalistic forces. This is something that needs to be ironed out at a later date. Imperium power would be limited to these common areas but they are ‘unbreakable’ rules. If you want to be part of the Imperium you must stick to them.

The dominum side (feminine) is what individual IDENTITIES would decide on. Imperium will not interfere in these areas. I use the term identity but you may subsitute it for region, county, city, nation or whatever you can identify yourself with be it Scot, Basque, Bavarian, or a smaller/larger entity. Each ‘region’ would set its own rules. We could expect Dutch to keep a liberal attitude, wheras Maltese may be more conservative. That is for the ‘peoples’ to decide.

I will be back later with more, feel free to reply and ask questions.

Posted by Rusty Mason on February 01, 2007, 10:54 AM | #

I’d like to first see realistic ideas on how to destroy the god of democracy (outside the political realm) and reintroduce reality into society.  Specifically, the reality that some people *are* better than others in some things, due to nature and nurture, temperament and hard work.  I know almost nobody personally that really believes this.  They think they do but when they have to make a tough decision, they fall back on equalitarian dogma every time. 

Change the people’s hearts and minds first and their bodies and actions will follow.  Reasonable solutions that can be implemented now are the order of the day.

Posted by Retew on February 01, 2007, 12:18 PM | #

I’m not so sure you’re right about democracy being a “god,” Rusty. I don’t agree either that equalitarianism equates to democracy, unless you’re referring to the principle of “one man, one vote.”

Most of us who’ve observed it in practice know that it has serious flaws (who said that famous line about 51% of the population in a democracy being able to send 49% to the gas chambers?), but as Winston Churchill is believed to have said, the alternatives are worse.

How else do you ensure that the people’s wishes are represented, unless you allow them the chance to influence the selection of a government by casting a vote?

The problem I see with our democracy is it’s been captured almost entirely by the media, so that the “issue of the day” has been whatever the media chooses to focus on, and no one can be considered for the top jobs in politics unless they come across well on TV. So discussion becomes ever more banal and cynicism becomes the “ordure of the day” (to use Lord Wyatt’s phrase).

I believe in Anna Coote’s dictum that governments should become “honest brokers” between the people and the experts on various issues. At the moment they’re very far from that, and in the process we’ve all become infantilised.

Posted by James Bowery on February 01, 2007, 12:43 PM | #

Democracy can be replaced by replacing the vote franchise with a subsistence land franchise (what the Norse called an allodium) where you leave one identity and join another identity bringing your territory with you thereby voting with your feet.

Very quickly the “elite” will form.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 01, 2007, 12:56 PM | #

Retew is right that democracy is, in principle, many things, and OMOV is the egalitarian stone in our shoe.

The great difficulty is that OMOV democracy is a sinking game, whereby the political temptation is always to defer unpopular but necessary actions to the winning and keeping of power - the latter requiring, of course, every kind of cheap promise and aggression on the tax-payer.  In this way democratic government is not government for the greatest good but for the easiest route to hold power.  It is a charter for a currupt elite, and so of course we have one.

The infantilism that Retew refers to is simply the psychological condition at the bottom of the game - gimme now.  To get away from this one must weight the franchise towards responsibility, which means giving a second vote for being in work, a third for home ownership, a fourth for (heterosexual) marriage and a fifth for business or share ownership.

Posted by ben tillman on February 01, 2007, 01:16 PM | #

“How else do you ensure that the people’s wishes are represented, unless you allow them the chance to influence the selection of a government by casting a vote?”

Voting is an utterly ANTI-democratic procedure because democracy (i.e., self-government) is by definition consensual—as in “consent” and “consensus”.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 01, 2007, 01:41 PM | #

Mark,

You mention “individual identities”, by which I suppose you mean self-identified national groups.  That interpretation, at least, would seem to follow from Norman’s libertarianism.

There is a certain leftism and a lazyness of thought in the issue of identitarianism, national or otherwise.  I blogged on it just recently here.  One of the questions that “brute” intended for Norman, but which did not in the event get asked, was whether he was familiar with Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests and, if so, whether he saw therein something of value.  The specific nature of that value, IMO, is its clear basis for unity and collective action within a given ethny conscious of its interests.  EGI is a non-chosen factor, but one can choose to live by or not.  Thus, I believe it suits both Norman’s libertarian requirements and, for example, my yearning for something more solid than personal romanticism.

All of that is a kind of way of asking whether you or he might take a look at Salter and see what utility he might have for you.

Posted by Ulfur Engil on February 02, 2007, 12:38 AM | #

Setting aside which particularities would suit the European Nations best, it must be fundamentally acknowledged that the European Folk must never again take second place to foreign interests.

The European is what makes Europa.

Posted by Rusty Mason on February 02, 2007, 10:32 AM | #

What I should have said is “liberal democracy,” not just plain ole democracy.  I am not against democracy completely, just against the religious dogma today that all people are equal in all things and therefore deserve to have equal political power over others.  There is a name for today’s popular democratic ideal: mob rule.

I say that (liberal) democracy has been made into a god because it is the supreme goal in politics today.  For example, why will con’s say we are in Iraq?  “To spread democracy, of course.  Everyone wants it.  Even those who don’t deserve a chance to have it.”  Everywhere in the public square I hear that the supreme goal of the early Americans was democracy.  No mention is ever made of a Republic anymore, and few public personages display an understanding of who was allowed to vote at that time and why.  No understanding of natural law, general philosophy, government, or history at all.  Just a bold call for “equality for all peoples” without qualification—which means of course equality in everything: not only politics, but economics, religion, education, you name it.

As another example, I watched a PBS special yesterday called Dynasty in which the (“arrogant”) Greeks were hailed, not for their many contributions to civilization, but for one thing: “inventing” democracy.  Democracy miraculously ended the “tyranny” that beat down Greece up until then (the film labelled all kings, even the benevolent ones, “tyrants”).  Democracy eliminated the selfish, dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself mentality that had indoctrinated from birth by their MYTHS (the film was were very clear on this!).  To the ahistorical, I’m sure it appeared as though democracy magically brought commerce and happiness to everyone.  There was also a strong implication that democracy could put an end to war.  I don’t know what other lies were in the film, I couldn’t finish it.  I got tired of stopping the DVD every five minutes to fill in the many missing historical notes. 

But I have no doubt that were I to try to point out the wild inaccuracies in this film, few patriotic Americans would understand my objections simply because they hold similar beliefs; they believe in today’s democratic ideal.  That must be changed.  We must reintroduce reality, the fact that some people are better than others and should not be ruled over by their inferiors.

Posted by salty brute on February 02, 2007, 11:07 AM | #

“All of that is a kind of way of asking whether you or he might take a look at Salter and see what utility he might have for you. “

I really hope Mark returns and directly answers this question.

Previous experience suggests that attempts to interest (European) nationalist leaders/groups in the work of Salter usually are met with stony silence.

That reflects more on the nationalists than it does on Salter.

Posted by Retew on February 02, 2007, 03:39 PM | #

Some interesting thoughts above, icluding GuessedWorker’s idea of a multiple vote. 

I was impressed by Robert Pirsig’s example in his novel “Lila” of the Mexican brujo who gained power in his tribe because, alone of all the tribespeople, he saw the necessity of negotiating with the white men who formed their immediate neighbours, could do so effectively and (despite being crippled by torture) convinced the other tribespeople that this was important.

In other words, he had what Winston Churchill called the “all seeing eye.” the gift of foresight. Lloyd George had it, Curzon didn’t which is why George eventually prevailed.

We need more “brujos” and political shamen in my view, and politics is too harried a job these days for therm to appear.

Harold Macmillan was noted for lounging around with a book in the mornings even when he was Prime Minister, and Stanley Baldwin took long holidays in Aix-les-Bains in France. Where are the opportunities for modern politicians to ruminate and reflect on events in the same way, the better to hear the voice of the future?

Posted by Retew on February 02, 2007, 03:43 PM | #

I should have pointed out for those who don’t know that Curzon was an aristocrat (and very highly educated in the classical tradition of his time) and Lloyd George was not, which to me suggests that fitness to rule is not a simple matter of genetics.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 02, 2007, 05:26 PM | #

I have no respect for Pirsig because even after the murder of his son Chris, he failed the recognise the obvious.

In 1979, Pirsig’s son Chris — who had played an important role in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance — was stabbed to death during a mugging outside the San Francisco Zen Center. Pirsig discusses this incident in an afterword to subsequent editions of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, writing that he and his second spouse Kimball decided not to abort the child she conceived in 1980, because he had come to believe that this unborn child was a continuation of the life pattern that Chris had occupied. This child is Pirsig’s daughter Nell.

Chris’ killers were black.

Posted by Lloyd George Brute on February 03, 2007, 08:50 AM | #

“...which to me suggests that fitness to rule is not a simple matter of genetics.”

Has anyone here suggested, or even implied, that so-called “aristocrats” are genetically more “fit to rule” than so-called “commoners?”

Posted by Guessedworker on February 03, 2007, 09:03 AM | #

That’s only because we are so unutterable common.  Any aristo not totally infected by viral modernity will be quick to tell you that a millenia of interbreeding produces a specimen at ease with the responsibilities of dispensation and, indeed, with his serfs’ humble deference.

There is something to be said for this.  The aristocratic interest is oriented towards tradition, stability and inheritance.  A state governed by such men would be more near-Heaven compared to the one er have, governed as it is by a managerial elite of race-traitors.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 03, 2007, 09:05 AM | #

In this regard, incidentally, it would be very useful if Mark or Norman Lowell would retain to the thread to answer not only the issue of Salter but also that of the kind of elite they foresee.  Something essentially upstart and egalitarian, albeit nationalist of mind ... or something altogether more Evolan, conservative and traditional?

Posted by norman lowell on February 03, 2007, 11:01 AM | #

http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/showthread.php?t=89&highlight=revolutionary+conservatism

and

http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/showthread.php?t=730&highlight=Architecture+relevance

Imperium
0702

Mark Dawson will tackle Salter.

Posted by Mark Dawson on February 03, 2007, 01:31 PM | #

sorry for the delay guys. a very busy week here. what i dont answer now i will answer tomorrow.

Mark,

You mention “individual identities”, by which I suppose you mean self-identified national groups.  That interpretation, at least, would seem to follow from Norman’s libertarianism.

There is a certain leftism and a lazyness of thought in the issue of identitarianism, national or otherwise.  I blogged on it just recently here.  One of the questions that “brute” intended for Norman, but which did not in the event get asked, was whether he was familiar with Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests and, if so, whether he saw therein something of value.  The specific nature of that value, IMO, is its clear basis for unity and collective action within a given ethny conscious of its interests.  EGI is a non-chosen factor, but one can choose to live by or not.  Thus, I believe it suits both Norman’s libertarian requirements and, for example, my yearning for something more solid than personal romanticism.

All of that is a kind of way of asking whether you or he might take a look at Salter and see what utility he might have for you.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 05:41 PM | #

we were told about Frank Salters work a little while back by some chaps from legion europa about 2 years ago. a few months ago a chap named Rienzi who is a friend of a friend sent us more details on him and i will certainly be using him in future propaganda (we have a magazine coming out soon) we have a thread on vm im sure. i will post the URL later.

the issue of identitarianism may be lazy from one perspectiive but the point is that the ‘imperium’ cant really impose pigeon holing on anyone so long as they are ‘european’. the individual or community decides its identity in an organic fashion. i think it would be arrogant to draw lines on a map. here in malta we have town identities as well as island identities (malta and gozo). there would be good and bad in choosing a larger or smaller identity for political representation. these are issues to be ironed out between nationalists/identitarians at a later date.

to talk further on salter we have a similar effect again here in malta. we have a closer cultural affinity with those of a similar stock. the bulk of maltese blood is italian and greek as well as spanish and in more recent times british too. it is no surprise that there are no problems in integrating these people into our society. i am half british/maltese myself and on my maltese side we come from greek stock that came with the knights of st john from rhodes as well as italian and german. there are probably more nations still but maltese are a mixed stock of similar peoples anyway. there were never any real problems as far as i know. seeing maltese reactions to arabs and sub-saharan africans is a different story!

salter is mentioned here on vm: http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/search.php?searchid=253815

i will take a look at salter again as i need to write more articles soon.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 03, 2007, 02:12 PM | #

Mark,

Thanks.  I strongly recommend you to have a look at the articles on Salter here under the button top left labelled Ethnic Genetic Interests, especially those by JW Holliday.  I do assure you, he is as knowledgeable as anyone save Salter on the EGI issue.

If you have any questions at all about EGI please mail me and I will put you in touch with him.

Posted by john fitzgerald on February 04, 2007, 08:51 AM | #

Great interview. Olive trees - I did a painting of maybe the oldest one a year ago in Crete, can be printed out from here:
http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/ancient-tree-forum/atfgallery/galleryartists/jf/jf2.htm

Posted by JB on February 08, 2007, 03:10 PM | #

I don’t like him he’s a bit of a weirdo. Besides, the idea of Resistance and Defense are easier to sell and understand than the idea of Imperium because it can be observed in our daily lives. We are being invaded and our governments and media are filled with traitors, that’s easy to explain to anyone. Hit that nail and the man on the street will end up getting it.

One can dream about ruling the world and all the rest of it but these are anachronistic ideas.

Posted by Mark Dawson on February 27, 2007, 10:26 AM | #

I don’t like him he’s a bit of a weirdo. Besides, the idea of Resistance and Defense are easier to sell and understand than the idea of Imperium because it can be observed in our daily lives. We are being invaded and our governments and media are filled with traitors, that’s easy to explain to anyone. Hit that nail and the man on the street will end up getting it.

One can dream about ruling the world and all the rest of it but these are anachronistic ideas.
Posted by JB on Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 07:10 PM | #

We do push the idea of defence and how we are being betrayed but on a more local level. IE is the idea meant for the whole of our civilisation. It is an alternative to globalism, and a viable one.