*The site creator doesn’t necessarily share the viewpoints of the author of this article – it’s only here to serve as an example of another iduvidual’s own experience(s) with Jack Sen.*
The following is an article that was hosted at the Renegade Tribune:
“There are five things that must be held in common by the population in order for a nation to exist – race, language, heritage, culture, religion.”
A while back I had the opportunity to speak with Giacomo Vallone – the head of the European Knights project. I had contacted the EKP site, asking them to disseminate some information regarding an Anti-Semitism bill in the USA. He had later contacted me and asked if I would like to help out the EKP site with a blog – so we then set up a Skype chat. During our first instant messaging, we had touched on some topics, the EKP site, and what he was about. When he brought up some of his ideologies during the chat, I was struck with a strange, suspicious feeling. Many of his ideologies that he put forth seemed contradictory and sometimes quite destructive for White people – the most worrisome being Civic Nationalism. However, allowing for the possibility of written mistakes and the fact I didn’t know much about Giacomo or the EKP – I didn’t want to make any hasty conclusions before I knew more about what he was actually promoting.
So, not knowing anything about Mr. Vallone, I decided to find out more about him. I listened to a broadcast featuring him on the American Nationalist Network, where he brought up some good points, but it was nothing really more substantial than what you expect a libertarian politician to bring up.
Next I read his “about” section of the EKP site, which was agreeable up to a point, but took a dive into the disagreeable. Then I found a couple articles on different sites (Algremeiner, Occidental Dissent) where Giacomo was posting in the comment section – along with some other suspicious commenters that behaved and wrote in the same style as Giacomo. Then there was an open letter which he wrote condemning White Nationalists, which has disappeared and now leads to the homepage of the EKP, but still posts this rhetoric through Facebook pages connected to the EKP Network which he has access to. After this, I had found an interview on Renegade Broadcasting’s “Imperium Europa” featuring Mr. Vallone. Again, he was agreeable up to a point, but then took a dive into ideology that was quite dangerous to White people. The comment section was similar to what I had seen before, but he had been caught posting comments with multiple accounts – all using the same IP address.
All of this started to paint a not so flattering picture of what kind of person Giacomo Vallone may actually be, but the real revelation was when I had found a little-known interview of him. Here Giacomo supposedly quotes Mussolini, saying the “nation is in the mind of the individual more than it is the blood” where during the Imperium Europa show, he said “the nation is in the mind of the individual as much as it is in the blood”. Although these two quotes are similar in wording – they’re expressing two completely separate meanings. And while I was unable to find the supposed quote(s) by Mussolini that Giacomo referenced during either show (not to say a variation of it doesn’t exist) – the only similar Mussolini quote I could find was:
“Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race.”
It would be easy to take this and apply a universal context to this quote, if one did not understand the concept of race at that point in time. The Linnaeus taxonomic system would have still been in use at this point in time, and the term “race” would have suggested a variation within of the species Homo europaeus (White Europeans). In other words, Mussolini’s reference to “biologically pure races” was in the context of a mixture of White race sub-sets within the White race species Homo europaeus. Just as other Europeans mentioned the “German race” or the “English race”, so did Mussolini the “Italian race”.
If one needs more on Mussolini’s thoughts on race, then they need only to see where he expressed these feelings within his preface to Richard Korherr’s Regresso delle nascite:morte dei popoli, published in 1928:
“[When the] city dies, the nation — deprived of the young life — blood of new generations — is now made up of people who are old and degenerate and cannot defend itself against a younger people which launches an attack on the now unguarded frontiers[…] This will happen, and not just to cities and nations, but on an infinitely greater scale: the whole White race, the Western race can be submerged by other coloured races which are multiplying at a rate unknown in our race.”
In the book “Racial Theories in Fascist Italy” by Aaron Gillette, Aaron records Mussolini’s pessimism about the fate of Europe. Mussolini went on to say “The singular, enormous problem is the destiny of the White race. Europe is truly towards the end of its destiny as the leader of civilization.” Mussolini went on, explaining this sad outcome had occurred because “the White race is sickly,” “morally and physically in ruin,” and in opposition to the “progress in numbers and in expansion of the yellow and black races, the civilization of the White man is destined to perish.” According to Mussolini, only through an aggressive program of promoting natality and eugenics was there any hope of reversing this trend.
Benito Mussolini had firmly stated many times the idea and importance of race and the destructiveness of mixing with non-Whites. Giacomo either missed this completely or chose to be ignorant of this fact. It is true, however, that Italy’s doctrine of Fascism was more lenient on race, because many Italians were indeed a mixed people – thanks to past invasions and political stupor. This is why Fascism required the principles and organization of the Fascisti, with each local branch called a Fascio – and all the organizations collectively called Fasci. This allowed parts of Italy to govern itself, yet still pull together for the good of the whole nation. Fascism was Italy’s solution for protecting itself against what the Bolshevik communist Jews did to Russia in 1917, as was National Socialism for Germany.
But moving on…
Now having discovered what I was searching for, it made sense why many of his ideologies that he put forth in our chat seemed contradictory and sometimes quite destructive for White people.
Problems regarding our messaging:
(In the following section, I have listed his stated ideologies in the form of a question, and followed with my own thoughts on the matter)
Civic nationalists on an international level?
The definition of Civic Nationalism states:
Civic nationalism, also known as Liberal nationalism is a modern British politically correct pseudo-nationalism whose concept of national identity resolves around the idea of abstract commonality such as shared values. It sharply contrasts with real nationalism, which has an ethnic, folkish or racial basis of national identity.
If Giacomo is so against ethno-nationalism in nations which are the indigenous homelands of a certain racial group, calling it “White Internationalism” and equating it to international Communism, then why does he advocate for worldwide civic nationalism? While any form of ethno-nationalism is contained within its racial nation-state(s) – civic nationalism is not bound to any racial guidelines, and can indeed be completely global. Civic nationalism is also a Liberal form of nationalism, meaning that it is more akin to international Communism.
Racial realists, against multiculturalism, but still civic nationalists?
Civic nationalism can include all races that are following the laws and serving the country. However, if one is against multiculturalism and claims to be a racial realist, then how could one also believe non-Whites can be Nationalists in White countries? This takes us back to civic nationalism. Civic nationalism in multiracial countries equates to anti White/ethno-nationalism, thus implying that you are pro multiculturalism, pro civic nationalism!
Problems regarding the “EKP – About” section:
“We are an elite intellectual and fighting fascist force dedicated to preserving the uniqueness of the individual countries that constitute our beloved European homeland.”
Fascism opposed Liberal ideology. Civic nationalism is Liberal nationalism. Therefore, civic nationalism is a Liberal ideology. How can one claim to be Fascist, while at the same time support civic nationalism?
“People often ask me why I, an avowed National Socialist, am opposed to White Nationalism. National Socialism & the internationalist ideology of White Nationalism are not only ideologically but spiritually diametrically opposed to one another. White nationalism, calling for an international & cross cultural alliance along racial lines, is more akin to the communist expectation of the worldwide worker revolt the genocidal Bolsheviks had in mind than National Socialism and fascism-ideologies that put the nation and volk first. The notion that some 4th generation white Brazillian[sic] is going to show up in my culturally pure European homeland, address me as brother and expect to sit at my dinner table and break bread simply because we share a bit of R1 DNA and some common ancestor 25,000 years ago, is almost as cringe worthy as a boat load of Somali Mohammedans expecting me to ferry them over from Lampedusa after their boat capsizes. The idea that I’d rather share my town with a Bulgarian or Russian, a culturally incompatible people from savage alien lands ravaged by Bolshevism with a track record of importing criminality and cultural disease into our midst, than let’s say the Sikh Indian that’s owned the restaurant in my community for three generations, simply because they’re white and the Indian isn’t, is preposterous and insulting to my intelligence.”
There’s a whole lot to chew on here – so let’s break it down, shall we?
“White nationalism, calling for an international & cross cultural alliance along racial lines, is more akin to the communist expectation of the worldwide worker revolt the genocidal Bolsheviks had in mind than National Socialism and fascism-ideologies that put the nation and volk first.”
When a nation is thoroughly multicultural/multiracial, then the term “nationalism” doesn’t mean what it would mean in a uniracial nation. The term “White” is then added to “nationalism” to support the idea that it is referring the indigenous population – their race, language, heritage, culture, and religion – as opposed to any alien peoples or ideas. Giacomo is the only one I’ve heard of to “internationalize” the idea of White-nationalism into a form of international Bolshevism. Of course, White-nationalism within individual European nations, coupled with an idea of cooperation in a lasting alliance among the countries, would provide a lasting bond of friendship and peace amongst those Nations. I’ve never heard any part of White-nationalism “calling for an international & cross cultural alliance along racial lines“. What are these so-called cross cultural reformations that would take place? What’s wrong with an alliance simply based on ethnic European Brotherhood?
As an example, during the time of Christendom, all the Nations of Europe had their own identities within the proper definition of Nationhood, i.e., race, language, heritage, culture, religion. Yet these nations were able to form an alliance based on their European brotherhood and common racial bonds. And because of this, Europe was able to fight off alien peoples and ideologies that threatened her very existence. It is thanks to these circumstances that Christian Europe was able to turn back the invading non-White hordes and subsequently rise to its greatness.
“..share a bit of R1 DNA and some common ancestor 25,000 years ago”
All pure White folk are from the same racial stock with racial sub-types all stemming from the same root stock. If you’re White, then they are all your kindred. And due to the fact they are all from the same root stock, they can more easily assimilate into other nations’ cultures without threatening it. But an African, Mongol, Arab, or Indian could never fully assimilate – no matter how well they follow our customs and laws – without damaging/altering our White racial stock.
“White nationalism will open our borders to the culturally INCOMPATIBLE people of Eastern Europe and spell doom for Western civilisation as it did when we permitted another group of wayward Eastern Europeans into our lands; the Ashkenazim.”
The Ashkenazim are not Europeans. They are Asiatics – or to be more specific: Khazars. The Khazars are from the same root stock that the Sephardic Jews are from – being the Edomite/Canaanite racial stock – who migrated to Asia Minor and race-mixed more heavily with the populations there, becoming a Turko-Mongol race of Jews who – after having had been expelled by Genghis Khan – settled in Eastern Europe. They were not of European racial stock! Blaming the ethnically White Russian and Eastern European peoples – who are descendants of Nordic and Germanic peoples – for Bolshevism, is like blaming the school children for how they were abused, forced, and later indoctrinated by the Marxist school teacher.
Mr. Vallone seems to be placing geographical terms in the stead of ethnic terms. According to his reasoning, any person residing in England – no matter their race, religion, or cultural background – can be an “English Nationalist”. And by doing so, if you define anyone who is born/living in England – despite their race, religion, or cultural background – you could then classify a Black, Voodoo practicing, Ethiopian as an “English Nationalist” when the only requirement for being “English” is to reside in England. Of course a real English Nationalist would be a member of the indigenous racial stock that built that Nation, being: White/Anglo-Saxon, Christian, and an embodiment of the common English culture. Because it is the racial stock that creates the nation and its culture, it is therefore the racial stock that defines the nation and its culture.
Some “Civic Nationalists” may be English, but not all “Civic Nationalists” can be English. Only the English can be “English Nationalists” – unless of course you falsely define being “English” as being a citizen belonging to the geographical location known as England, and completely ignore race. Being born in a livery stable doesn’t make you a horse!
So the question remains, Mr. Vallone: do you think a polyracial society would work as long it’s within a unicultural Nation?
Another hugely misleading aspect of the EKP’s “about” site is that it’s written to make the reader assume the author is White: “While people of European descent have an obligation to theirforefathers[sic] to remain racially aware, our racial bonds should NEVER trump our ethnic, cultural & national allegiances.” However, he goes on to say, “We believe national borders, cultural sovereignty and uniculturalism (uniracialism is logistically impossible at this point in W. Europe) are crucial deterrents to internationalism, while white nationalists believe race, or their warped personally manipulated perception of it, transcends them.”
Now, if the author is White, then it is at the very least a White trying to persuade what may be a White reader into thinking polyracialism should be an acceptable quality of our Nationhood. However, if the author is non-White, then he is falsely trying to come across as White – in order to more easily sympathize with what may be a White reader, or even a White-Nationalist.
(Since the time of writing this, he has now changed the “about” section from the lengthy ramble to a simple “Conservative news for conservative men and women of all ethnicities and backgrounds.” However, I have found the original here.)
Problems regarding our call:
During our call there were many disturbing statements made by Mr. Vallone – and when asked a question, he would either dodge them, or answer them only to contradict himself again later on. Some paraphrased examples being:
- “UKIP is awesome, and UKIP is the way to go”
- “UKIP was the first to raise the Burqa issue, and was the first to say ‘Let’s leave the EU’”
- “I’m more moderate, and don’t approve of the more ‘extreme’ Ethno-Nationalists”
- “We need civic nationalism because getting non-Whites out of our countries is impossible. I do what works and what is feasible.”
- “As long as they’re White enough then they’re White”
- “I talked to Kevin MacDonald and he’s pro UKIP”
- “I use the term ‘Civic nationalism’ to appeal to more people”
- “My wife is Swedish”
- “I advocate civic nationalism because getting non-Whites out of our countries is impossible. I do what works and what is feasible.”
- “Mussolini’s wife was a Jew, and she really helped in creating Fascism”
- “I use the term “Civic nationalism” to appeal to more people”
- “Liberals today praise Margaret Sanger, but she was an anti-black White woman who used birth-control to reduce the black population”
- “Civic nationalism is the only feasible, practical way to go”
Let’s start from the top…
- Let’s begin with UKIP. UKIP is the “pressure-relief valve” for the UK much like Ron Paul was for America. Their anti-immigration policy would only restrict Eastern-Europeans. In fact, in European parliament on 13/12/2013, Nigel Farage stated: “Can I make something clear to you? UKIP is not against immigration. We welcome immigration. We want immigration.” Nigel Farage is quite clear that UKIP wants to change the UK’s immigration system, and adopt one that’s just as genocidal as Australia’s. It’s still open to every colour under the sun as long as they’re either of “quality”, or not a recorded criminal/carrying a deadly disease.
- UKIP was also not the first to raise the burqa and EU issues. Actually, I believe it was the BNP that had been talking about these long before UKIP had. In fact, UKIP blatantly ripped-off of the BNPs anti-EU poster when they decided to use the anti-EU stance!
- As for Kevin MacDonald being “pro-UKIP” – I couldn’t find anything where he stated he was, but, to be fair, I couldn’t find anything saying he wasn’t. All I did find was where he talked about UKIP within an analytical context.
- Regarding the back-and-forth between Civic Nationalism and Ethno-Nationalism, well, I haven’t witnessed this magnitude of tap-dancing between answers since Mitt “Flip-Flop” Romney’s presidential campaign. Anyone who talks out of both sides of their mouth is someone who is not worthy of trust. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
- As for his Swedish wife – I’m not being personal, but am only using the matter to make a point about Mr. Vallone’s ideology. He mentioned she had roots of Eastern-European decent during the Imperium Europa If he detests Eastern-Europeans so much, then how could he marry one? But if she was from Eastern-European background and then moved to Sweden, did that make her Swedish? If on the other hand, if she was a Swede born in Eastern Europe, doesn’t that make her an Eastern-European? Since race is a matter of geography for civic nationalists such as Mr. Vallone, trying to have it both ways must get awfully confusing!
- Mussolini’s wife, from what I’ve researched, was not Jewish. However, Benito Mussolini was also a man of many mistresses, and did have a mistress who was indeed a Jew, but to stretch the matter farther than that is ridiculous.
- Vallone is rather spot on concerning Margaret Sanger. Yes, it’s true she detested blacks, and would later turn her attention towards significantly decreasing the black birth rate. However, he failed to mention that she grew up around Jews, married a Jew, surrounded herself with Jews as an adult, was funded by Jews, and worked tirelessly to please the Jew.
It was the purpose of Sanger’s implementation of birth control to increase the comfort and quality-of-life of the Jew. On page 253 of the book “Gender and Jewish History” by Judith Rosenbaum, she goes on to say, “Sanger had seen the suffering and despair caused by too-frequent childbirth in the immigrant Jewish community.” Indeed, there was much suffering and despair in the Jewish community, as “Sanger had witnessed frequent tragic results of abortion home remedies that including douching with turpentine, inserting knitting needles into their uterus, and deliberately falling down stairs.” We don’t want the self-chosen having to go through that much trauma to kill off their unborn now, do we? It was also the Marxist Margaret Sanger’s work on – and promotion of – birth control that paved the way for and made the era of “sexual freedom” a possibility.
Even though our conversation raised a number of red flags, I thought our chat went rather well, overall. There are many points I could agree on, and the whole conversation was quite comfortable and relaxed. He did react defensively when I asked a few questions, but I made it a point to be [a] respectful and pleasant, and to be that of a passive listener.
Then just days later, I was completely shocked to received an e-mail from Mr. Vallone, where he told me “[I] am quite stunned you had the nerve to question my organisations motives”. He went on to suggest that I am a victim of cultural Marxism, saying “One of the primary results of cultural marxism[sic] is people overvaluing themselves.” and went on to say his site reaches 200,000 people a month while I reach no one, and that I should “Rememeber[sic] that mate next time you have the fortune of speaking to someone that makes an actual difference”.
So, please tell me again who’s overvaluing themselves? It appears you’re already wearing the shoes which you tried fitting me for.
Now, Giacomo Vallone seems like an intelligent man, knows a lot of what’s going on, and has put out a few great articles on his EKP site. So why on Earth doesn’t he call the enemy what they are rather than using every other name under the sun (e.g., Zionists, Marxists, Cultural Marxists). Why would he go around sowing discord between Whites, saying that all these groups of Whites violently hate each other? Why would he write articles which paint White-Nationalism in a poor light, calling it “white trashionalism” and try to showcase us as stupid, angry, beer-swilling, redneck hillbillies? Why would he advocate and endorse ideologies that would allow non-White immigration and destroy his fellow White brothers and sisters?
(Site creator’s note: the image I’ve inserted below is real face of who we know as “Giacomo Vallone”, real name “Jack Sen. Surprise, surprise – still not white.)
Could this, perhaps, be one explanation?
Now, why would someone who is clearly non-White – when talking about Whites – lump himself in with Whites, saying “we” as Whites should stay away from White-nationalism? Instead, he advocates for White nations to embrace a multi-racial, multi-ethnic nation with its only redeeming quality being its cultural autonomy. Civic nationalism, aka Liberal nationalism, would see the creators of that civilization mixed out of existence and destroyed – along with it its culture.
The matter-of-fact is that civic nationalism is a myth. It exists nowhere and could exist nowhere given the very definition of what a nation is – a collection of common race, language, heritage, culture, religion. The exclusivity of a civic nation would be too insignificant to give a nation a sense of identity or a society a sense of nationality. There is always a more significant element – the ethnos. It is the race that creates the nation and its culture, because it is the outward expression of that people. And if the race is altered, then consequently the nation –and its culture – is altered as a result.
Where ethno-nationalism protects the indigenous people in their homeland and seeks to preserve the real diversity in our world, civic nationalism would create a world of homogeneity.
I suppose that the bottom line here is this: do we fight our ceaseless enemy – the Jew – as a White race, or do we fight the Jew as a totally miscegenated, light coffee-colored, fully blended non-White “race”? If we choose the latter, then the Jew has already won.