Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: European Union

Empire or Nationalism?

We have become used to living under pax Americana that our analysis of almost all situations presupposes its continued existence, ironically even when such analysis calls for a new world…

We have become used to living under pax Americana that our analysis of almost all situations presupposes its continued existence, ironically even when such analysis calls for a new world order. Take as an example the proponents of ethnonationalism, in its most universalistic form, they demand that all peoples who aspire to a state of their own should be given one. Ethnonationalists argue this will prevent conflict by removing internal divisions over race and even ethnicity, to as large of a degree as possible. Furthermore, neighbouring countries will have fewer reasons to enter into conflicts, with their respective countrymen all being contained within a single state. We will have our little Flanders, little Scotland, and little Catalonia peacefully trading for their natural resources, following a global non-aggression principle. In their view there is no need for a united European state. These little statelets will form a defensive alliance that some ethnonationalists believe will be strong enough to prevent invasions from extra-European powers. But, anyone examining the historical record should find this ideology suspect. The entente powers split apart their opponents into relatively close approximations of ethnostates, compared to what came before. The fact that the greatest war in history came after this does not seem to bide well with the petty nationalist vision, perhaps real ethnonationalism has never been tried. They would reiterate that Germany started WW2 as a response to the dismemberment of their country, they would not be completely wrong. But, petty nationalists have no solution for the multiple other causes of conflict between states: to create defensible borders, to secure resources, secure captive export markets, build foreign military bases that can be used to project power, and in general to enlarge their spheres of influence. They handwave these aspects of foreign policy away, in the European context, with rather utopian sentiments of our common European brotherhood felt by today’s European nationalists, as if the feelings of people outside the halls of power will stay the same if they enter them. According to them trade will proceed as it does now, with or without the American empire; to say otherwise is to admit to chinks in their petty nationalist armour. Empire is unnecessary, “look today you can buy bananas in Moscow all the way from Central America”; what they forget is that the American post-WW2 system makes most of this unprotected global trade possible. The world that the petty nationalist desires, in fact, requires the existence of the American Empire.

Before we start discussing the faults with petty nationalism, it is important to discuss the unprecedented effect the American Empire has had on global trade. The importance of American naval supremacy cannot be overestimated. Prior to 1945 most trade was conducted within an imperial trading block or with immediate neighbours. As ocean going trade required a large navy to convoy ships to their ports of call, this was the primary role of the Royal Navy throughout most of its history. Since European powers might be involved in conflicts with each other, trade outside of your sphere of influence was quite risky since these imports would cease during war. Trading overseas was even more risky. The American system forced states within their Atlanticist sphere to decolonize, replacing the imperial trading block, where colonial powers extracted primary resources from colonies and used them as captive export markets, with the system of global and relatively free trade. Colonies once restricted to trading with their overlord now could trade with any nation and importantly, they were now open to American corporations.

There was a pax Britannica preceding the American order and global trade under this order grew to a degree, but this growth pales in comparison to the huge increases in trade post-1945. The growth of globalization has been a manifestation of the politics of the American order, rather than an emergent trend resulting from economics and technological progress. The United States created their order as a way of securing alliances against the threat of the Soviet Union. The huge American market was opened to their European and East Asian allies, allowing those states to trade their way back to prosperity. The United States cracked open the colonial world allowing both the victors and defeated powers of WW2 access to any natural resources they required, without military expansion or colonial holdings. The United States navy, virtually unchallenged globally, was committed to the freedom of the navigation, preventing any disruption of global sea trade. Subsequently, the price of shipping decreased drastically allowing supply chains that once were dispersed throughout a single country now to be dispersed throughout the world creating the global economy we have today.

Pax Americana

After the fall of the USSR, the United States opened this global system to practically the entire world. This brought on the biggest artificial boom in history; states that have never been wealthy in their existence can now use trade to offset serious geographic weaknesses. This has allowed global populations in agriculturally poor states, such as those in Africa and the Middle East, to explode. China and to a lesser extent India have seen a massive growth in GDP. China has progressively climbed the value-added ladder, making their economy more and more advanced all in thanks to trade with the United States. But, the underlying reason the United States created this system was not to promote order and prosperity in the 3rd world but to contain and defeat the Soviet Union. American cold war policy sought to prevent the formation of a Eurasian hegemon, which would have controlled most of the world’s oil, resources, and population. The fall of the Soviet Union undermines the American order’s reason for its own existence and has become a serious conundrum to the global order, one that has been only exacerbated by President Trump. Namely this order was created primarily for political reasons not economic ones, the economic growth was only a by-product. The reality of the demise of the USSR has finally caught up with the United States, they are asking themselves the questions of why they should support trade deals designed to buy alliances. Deals that usually were at the expense of American industry for a war that is over, why should they underwrite the defence of the NATO? This trend of shirking away from their position as leaders of the global order is only being accelerated by the shale revolution, which has now made the United States a net exporter of oil. The United States has few economic incentives to continue the global order; those who argue the United States should pay for global stability seem to be losing the debate. In fact, the American economy is the least dependent on foreign trade amongst all the major powers; this is even more apparent when you consider the largest sources of American trade is to its neighbors: Mexico and Canada. Therefore, little by little, the American order will retreat to North America, and likely continue to support a few key partners such as Britain and Australia.

Eventually, some crisis will force a state’s hand to attack a rival’s shipping, perhaps to interdict oil shipments back home. If the United States doesn’t respond this will trigger a slow return to the old norm of naval power determining the reach of a countries merchant marine. As an aside, this could be triggered by an East-Asian tanker war over diminished gulf oil exports due to a direct Saudi Arabian-Iran military conflict disrupting production. The future order the petty nationalists require may cease to exist in the coming decade. The small states of Europe will find themselves in a very different world where your next shipment of oil is no longer guaranteed, and your exports could have no buyer. Let us then return to analyzing the claims of the petty nationalists in regard to the future of Europe.

The internal cohesion of Europe is waved aside as a non-issue since most of today’s nationalists are united by the common crisis that is affecting every European ethnicity. Is that the proper basis from which a European order can be created? Greg Johnson outlines the petty nationalist position on minimizing intra-European crisis:

As for white fratricide: the best way to defuse white ethnic conflicts is not to combat “petty” nationalism but to take it to its logical conclusion. If different ethnic groups yoked to the same system are growing restive, then they should be allowed to go their own ways. Through moving borders and moving peoples, homogeneous ethnostates can be created, in which each self-conscious people can speak its own language and practice its own customs free from outside interference. Such a process could be mediated by a European treaty organization, which could insure that the process is peaceful, orderly, humane, and as fair as possible to all parties. (Johnson, 2015)

Geopolitical decisions in the petty-nationalist world are decided by morale principles rather than by cold calculations. They do not seem to consider the effects of these various decisions on the relative standing of the state in question to its competitors. Taking Quebec as a test case for these beliefs, under the petty nationalist world order Quebec would have long ago separated from the Canadian state. The Canadian state would surely be weakened by the loss of the vast natural resources of Quebec, its industrial base, and control over the St. Lawrence seaway which connects the Canadian core, Ontario, with the wider world. The fact that Quebec separatism was indulged on two separate occasions with a popular vote, and close ones at that, is indicative of the power of the American system. Losing such a large piece of territory would deprive that state of manpower, industry, resources, and provide an opportunity for rival powers to take this new state into their sphere of influence. This would only be compounded in the example of Quebec, where suddenly Canada would be cut off from its best ports in the East and from its most important trade route, the St. Lawrence. In the era preceding pax Americana, a successful separatist movement would have jeopardized the continued existence of a state by weakening its ability to defend itself. If Quebec were to have separated in the 19th or 20th century, Canada would likely have been absorbed by the United States. Today Canada could survive such an event because we are subjects of the American Empire. Today access to global resources markets and very likely the passage of goods through Quebec would be guaranteed, the United States not desiring economic chaos in its biggest trading partner. It is of no coincidence that separatism in states under the aegis of the American Empire is no longer considered a treasonous activity, unless that separatism is opposed to the American order of course. As well, it makes sense how in states outside of the American orbit, separatist regions and movements are not tolerated; examples can be seen in the Russian Federation and mainland China. The survival of these states as independent geopolitical entities means they do not have the luxury of supporting liberal moralism when it comes to the supposed right of self-determination.

Quebec Separatist protest during the 1960 Quiet Revolution

The existence of global American power and the European Union gives the illusion that small European states can adequately function as independent entities. States with indefensible borders, tiny populations, little resources, and even without any access to the sea can thrive today. There is a common line of thinking that the horrors of the two world wars have made conflict between European nations unthinkable. But, this is not due to some fundamental pacifistic enlightenment spread after the destruction of WW1 and WW2, where we eschew violence and competition with our neighbours. It is because of the once bipolar and now unipolar nature of the current era, that we exist in an imperial paradigm. In his article “Grandiose Nationalism”, Greg Johnson lauds this as the vindication of ethnonationalism, as smaller states once subject to the Soviet Empire free themselves from tyranny:

Since the fall of the Soviet Empire, the tendency in Europe has been toward  ethnonationalism, either by the Czech and Slovak road of peaceful partition or Yugoslav road of war and ethnic cleansing. What is a more realistic path to peace: putting Yugoslavia back together, then Czechoslovakia back together, then unifying them both in a single state, with all the rest of Europe — or allowing peoples with long historical grudges to completely disentangle their affairs and lead their own lives? What is more likely to produce European amity: a shotgun wedding or an equitable divorce? (Johnson, 2015)

But, these new states have not become truly independent entities. They quickly joined both NATO and the European Union for access to protection and the American global trading network. The use of military force as a means of furthering foreign policy aims has become unthinkable outside of Africa and the Middle East. To even consider that European states may enter into conflicts in the future, especially in the Northern European core, seems ludicrous. Geopolitical analysis is seen as something rather funny. It’s almost provincial to be concerned about the control of resources when any input the state needs can be purchased from almost anywhere on the planet. Not only can they be purchased, but they will arrive and arrive on time. Add to these conditions the overwhelming military superiority of America, where any aggressive action that destabilizes its order is dealt with punitively, and you can begin to see where our naive thinking on geopolitics comes from.

This is why Czechoslovakia can be split in two and it has little knock-on effects for the prosperity of the two nations as a whole. The Czech state need not be concerned with access to import and export markets, or even its own security. It does not even have to negotiate trade deals with its neighbours thanks to the European Union. The benefits of Slovak industry, manpower, and resources were useful to pre-war Czechoslovakia, but today the ability to defend your borders against aggressive neighbors is unnecessary. The emergent nation states that petty-nationalists laud are products of the very system they, generally speaking, oppose. If you take away this American pre-eminence and their control of the sea, which underwrites the existence of global trade, we land in a very different world. The Utopian thinking of the petty nationalist will be fundamentally challenged by the realities that states previously had to contend with in the pre-1945 world.

There is also a general pacifism in the views of the petty nationalists. This passage by Greg Johnson displays the naivete on the topic of foreign policy that is present in the petty-nationalist sphere:

The threat of non-white blocs should not be exaggerated. France, the UK, or Russia alone are militarily strong enough to prevail against anything that Africa, India, or the Muslim world can throw at us — provided, of course, that whites are again morally strong enough to take their own side in a fight. A simple alliance of European states would be able to deter any Chinese aggression. Thus a defensive alliance between European states would be sufficient to preserve Europe from all outside forces, whether they be armed powers or stateless masses of refugees and immigrants. (Johnson, 2015)

What is most interesting about this passage is what is missing; everything is about deterrence and defensive alliances, but what about the projection of power? This is where the uni-polar world of the American Empire rubs off on us the most. It is here that there remains a large degree of liberalism in the dissident right. Europe needs only to defends its own borders; it does not to contend for the domination of Eurasia. But, that leaves Europe in a very tight spot. Europe is practically at the mercy of Russia to supply almost all of its oil and natural gas. If Europe is to be united together even in a simple defensive alliance this fact becomes very problematic. In a world where the United States has evacuated from Europe, Russia can use its near monopoly over much of Europe’s supply of oil to bring nations along its border back into its orbit. Europe as a loose alliance would practically be defenseless since its enemy controls such an important commodity, like Damocles sword handing over Europe’s head. If the tiny states of the petty-nationalist dream are to remain sovereign, they will have to at least form some alliance for the mutual extraction of resources, most importantly oil. This means they must project power into the Middle-East, North Africa, and/or West Africa to gain control over the distribution of oil, as well as protecting the convoy routes bringing it back to Europe. That fundamentally means engaging with China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, etc in a great power conflict. That brings us back to the flaws in petty-nationalist thinking, how can this assortment of sovereign states with uncoordinated militaries project power to compete with these powerful rivals?

The economies of scale required to maintain an adequate defense has been continuously increasing throughout history. Take for example the Dutch republic, which successfully defended itself against the much more powerful states of Spain and neighboring France throughout its early years. Denmark resisted various German states attempts at expansion northwards for centuries. Compare the success of these states in defending themselves a few centuries later against the Wehrmacht. What were once defensible and relatively powerful states were now defeated in a matter of days. As warfare has industrialized, larger industrial bases are required for the production of more advanced weaponry. The R&D can be spread across different states, think the Eurofighter, as we see in Europe; but still small states cannot adequately adopt the full range of technologies required for a fully functional offensive military. This goes out the window if cooperation amongst European states were to break down. Designing cutting edge military hardware has become so very expensive, especially in terms of new aircraft, the per unit cost would be unaffordable for most states if the research was done alone. To utilize the full strength of combined arms in the 21st century requires a nation on the scale of the United States, Russia, or China. The cost of employing progressively more advanced weaponry prohibits small states from having capable defensive and especially offensive forces precluding substantial support from outside sources.

Military band of the Chinese people’s Liberation Army in Jiujiang.

A European military would be able to project power outside of Europe, securing valuable resources the continent does not have. In a world with America as an absent superpower, the ability to trade globally will be determined by the strength of one’s navy and their ability to defend crucial seagoing trade routes. Major European powers such as England, France, and Germany could, after rearmament, still be able take control of West African oil reserves; but to compete with China or Russia, especially in the Middle East, will be far easier with most of Europe, especially the north, united. Furthermore, united they would be able to control far more resources and to regain control over lost territories. The vacuum created by America could allow the Chinese, Russians, or some other power to gain control over a large percentage of the Eurasian oil and strategic resources. This would force Europe to enter into a subservient relationship even without a military defeat, threatening the future prosperity of the continent. Or in another scenario where oil output dramatically decreases as various actors within the Middle East and Asia engage in conflicts prevented by American largess; for example, an Iran-Saudi war over Iraq or the Saudi Oil fields themselves.

Petty-nationalists claim that uniting much of Europe into a single state will create the intra-European conflicts that unity was meant to prevent. Deeply rooted ethnic animosities would bring this pan-European state down in its infancy. But, as of 2020 constant predictions about the imminent collapse of the European Union have not precipitated. The European Union remains a broadly popular institution across the continent. The European Union has moved to increase its power progressively over time without much resistance. At least in the present order, if the EU moved to centralize powers much further, I cannot foresee any conflicts arising from this, as long as France and Germany were cooperating. Like all states touched by the destructive effects of liberalism, the European Union has very major flaws; but these are matched and superseded by most of the member state’s national governments such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The talking point describing the EU as the key instrument of some Kalergi plan is ludicrous as foreign immigration has clearly been spearheaded by the member states. As was mentioned previously, a Europe of sovereign states will be likely be dependent on foreign powers for its resources. Europe could be a location of proxy battles between extra-European great powers as they compete with each other for control of the Eurasian world island. A united Europe would be far less susceptible to interference by foreign states peeling off European nations into their spheres of influence.

Surely there will be conflict within a pan-European system and there will be a core population(s) which dominates the state. But, there has never existed these free and “sovereign” nations of petty nationalist dreams. Strong nations whether or not they are within a political union will come to exert large degrees of control over their weaker neighbours. In the case of pan-Europeanism, this relationship has been formalized allowing the greater integration of European militaries and economies into a global power more capable of projecting power. Poorer nations to the east and South will obviously have less of influence in the direction of such an empire compared to the wealthier Northern European states, but since the beginning of the industrial era this has clearly been the norm. The choice is not over a Europe of sovereign nation states proudly independent, but still respectful of each other, or Empire. It is between larger European nations, as they have always done, dominating the weaker states or an Empire that formalize this conflict inside its imperial system. Obviously, such a state will not be unitary but will be federal in nature; this could actually allow the partial autonomy of smaller nations like Catalonia that the petty- nationalists desire. The economy, military, science, and foreign policy would be controlled at the European wide level.

In fact, the European Union as an institution could be the fertile ground where Europe reforms itself as American power recedes. In this post-American scenario, no one state can partially monopolize the use of force to further its foreign policy objectives. In this world, the scope of useful state policies will decrease dramatically. The liberal dogmas concerning immigration and race will become impediments to national cohesiveness. The feminized society is not a society conducive to struggle. The attack on every western states core population will necessarily be stopped. The end of the prosperity and peace of the American era would likely act like Darwinism in the realm of politics. Due to the selection factors of the American order, states could follow liberalism to its ultimate logical conclusion. Prior to this order, decadent nations could not persist without reforming or falling to more virile external forces. The destructive effects of liberalism while still acting were at least held back by the necessity of national defense, that all changed in 1945 and radically accelerated after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

This Darwinism at the level of the state can be clearly viewed by comparing the early years of the Soviet Union with the Stalinist era. The Soviet Union attempted radical anti-hierarchical and feminist experiments during its inception. Many of the progressive policies of the Soviet Union were subsequently put on hold and reversed as the Soviet Union was threatened by outside powers, especially at the start of WW2. Stalin eliminated abortion as a means of increasing population growth during the great patriotic war. Many ideological leftist dogmas that threatened the state’s ability to make war were thrown aside while many of those previously associated with reaction were brought back. Russian nationalism and a subservient church were far more useful for the expansion and war making ability of the Soviet State than internationalism and radical experiments in family organization. This occurred out of necessity, either a state reforms and abandons degenerative policies or eventually it would be defeated by its rivals.

There is likely not much we can do prior to the challenging of American power by some exterior force. When that day comes the political sphere will open as some elites will search for useful ideas as to how to strengthen the ailing American state. We must be there with a coherent set of ideas that will be useful for the searching elite in the coming post-liberal era. The same will occur in Europe; there are already some stirrings in the water from President Macron about the need for a European army in a post NATO future. Macron has signaled a slight change in tack on the immigration question, perhaps it is a cynical ploy to steal attention from National Rally. Or it could be the beginnings of a European reorientation responding to the absenteeism of the American superpower. If our ideas are correct, the stop-gap benefit of mass immigration which is aimed at combating the very real problem of our aging demographics will quickly become a liability for various states survival in a more chaotic world. A distinctly possible scenario where the EU fractures as a response to the withdrawal of American support, and likely Russian interference, would lead to a far worse conflict than tensions between different constituent EU member states, which are constrained within the bureaucratic framework of the EU. Europe’s declining population is already requiring extra-European export markets for a growing percentage of industrial and luxury goods. Without the ability to sell these items abroad at competitive rates; Europe faces severe economic problems as a norm, especially combined with the ever-growing public spending associated with an aging population. This could lead more powerful states within the EU, out of economic necessity, to force neighbors into subservient relationships to create some market for their goods, acquire natural resources, and to use military technology created with the excess production. A state encompassing most of the Europe could apply these energies outside of Europe, particularly towards securing oil reserves and export markets in the Middle East and West Africa as well as containing an aggressive Russia, moving west in search of more defensible borders.

Ernst Junger, 1920

Now that we have questioned whether the world desired by universalist ethnonationalists is possible, let us ask the question, is it even desirable? If you could supply all of Europe with the resources it needs to function, ensure its defense, and prevent conflict: would it be good to carve Europe into many independent states? If your only goal was the survival of individual European ethnic groups and some sort of traditionalist cultural rejuvenation, then this position would be sufficient. Given the history of the European civilization, this does not seem to be a sufficiently lofty goal for the Faustian man. To be cocooned in our respective countries untroubled by the outer world but also not exerting our will to power upon it, is an unsatisfying future. The true universalistic ethnonationalist position resembles only a slightly altered version of Francis Fukuyama’s own prediction. A world of ethnostates, stable due to homogeneity, frozen in place due to a lack of conflict. If you followed the logic of the proponents of ethnonationalism you would find history over, completed. It is easy to choose interesting times over stability from the comfort of your own home. But, who on the right can look through history and wish there will be no more empires to rival Rome, no grand conquests, no new mythic battles like Trafalgar and Agincourt? To make sure the surely unpleasant and violent, but oftentimes heroic, side of human nature stays in the history books. We would create no men in our own times to rival Ernst Junger, a true aristocratic of the soul. We would be left with a civilization stuck in the Spenglerian “culture” phase; either reproducing the same styles of art, architecture, and music that has come before or following the rabbit hole of deconstructionism further into the abyss. Perhaps the advanced technics of such a civilization could stop external enemies from defeating it, even for centuries. Such nations would be like enclaves depicted in the film Zardoz, highly civilized but ultimately stagnant.

That is why we must support Empire over our continued obsessions with little nation states. Even if these states could survive and even thrive after the decline of the American Empire, it would only lead to our own spiritual deaths. Faustian man needs to finally embrace the Spenglerian “civilization” phase of our existence. To unite the different European peoples under one flag, giving us the power to step away from the precipice we are inching towards. Then to spread our flag to the different corners of the globe, to create an Empire worthy of those that came before. We must think on a grand scale, first to ensure our premier place on this planet, to protect its environmental viability, and to provide enough resources so we can look towards the stars. It might never be possible to economically mine distant asteroids or to create self-sufficient colonies on Mars. But, this to me seems like a much more inspiring future than to aspire to a return to the small states and the small scale thinking of a bygone era. We should strive for a future where the full range of human existence is possible, both comfort and security but also the self-actualization through combat, which Junger and others have described. Perhaps the dream of a united Europe is also not possible without American military support; that the European nations will fall into conflict as the demographic replacement leads to our civilizational eclipse. But, let us aim for a future that is grander and far more interesting with new cultures, new empires, and new horizons than mere existence, as prescribed by the petty nationalists.


REFERENCES

  1. Johnson, Greg. “Grandiose Nationalism”. Counter Currents. February 6, 2015. https://www.countercurrents.com/2015/02/grandiose-nationalism/.
No Comments on Empire or Nationalism?

The Absolute Essence

What lies buried shall be unearthed, and who has been rendered oblivious shall be invited to remember. Working towards this is the main task imposed on us.

What lies buried shall be unearthed, and who has been rendered oblivious shall be invited to remember. Working towards this is the main task imposed on us.

1 Comment on The Absolute Essence

Brexit: Quake or Squib

The victory of Leave against Remain on June 23, 2016, which not even the bookies had expected (52% with a record over 70% turnout) was a blow to the intelligentsia. That said, the British referendum is ambiguous. It can be an Excalibur or a heavy blow to Great Britain and the European Union. Already a financial crisis is looming…here is an early analysis of this complicated event.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on Guillaume Faye’s blog “J’ai Tout Compris” here.

The victory of Leave against Remain on June 23, 2016, which not even the bookies had expected (52% with a record over 70% turnout) was a blow to the intelligentsia. That said, the British referendum is ambiguous. It can be an Excalibur or a heavy blow to Great Britain and the European Union. Already a financial crisis is looming…here is an early analysis of this complicated event.

The People Who Vote Wrong

Journalists, intellectuals, and politicians have criticized this anti-EU vote in derogatory terms: A victory for “populism” of the “uneducated”, “little whites”, even “racist”. This argument is openly undemocratic of course, the “real” democracy, that is to say, its simulacrum, the oligarchy (from the Greek “Government of a minority”). The people have no voice. Regarded as populist insolence from the rural areas and small towns against London and other cosmopolitan and urban sores, Brexit was seen with contempt and horror.

Ivan Rioufol, who is indignant at “this detestable EU, that is destroying Europe”(Le Figaro, 07/01/2016), quotes reactions from three icons of the hegemonic ideology, symbols of the cosmopolitan “superclass”. First Bernard Henri-Levy: “Brexit is not the victory of people, but of populism. Demagoguery not democracy”. In other words, true democracy is not the will of the citizens, but that of its politically correct leaders. Then Jacques Attali: “This is the dictatorship of populism and the selfishness of nations”. The Nation, that is the enemy. The EU must be a machine to crush common European ethnic identity.

Finally Alain Minc, the more explicit-and absurdly scornful: “The referendum is not the victory of the people of the elites, but of the uneducated”. Except that these “educated people”, devoid of common sense, ivory tower intellectuals, are, to use a word of deep French slang “idiots”. Where the common man is intelligent precisely because his mind is not polluted by brilliant, but stupid abstractions and because he has contact with every day experience-like with immigration.

The reactions of these three characters reflect both a total disregard for European peoples(rooted plebs in their minds) and class hatred by a cosmopolitan bourgeoisie disconnected from reality. Add to that Luc Ferry (Le Figaro, 07/07/2016) who refers to Montesquieu, apparently having never read him, added his two cents to anti-populism(anti-democracy), explaining that the referendum was always a bad thing because the people, who never graduated from anywhere, do not understand anything. What intelligence from Luc Ferry, a freelancer….

An Emotional Vote on Identity, not Economics

The English working class voted against the cosmopolitanism of the European Union, and in their minds, for national sovereignty. For François d’Orcival (Valeurs actuelles, 30/06 –06/07 2016) voting in favor of Brexit was all about immigration, with the invasive wave of 2016, fostered by a delusional Angela Merkel and European Commission decreeing admission quotes, organizing the invasion! Not to mention the workers from Eastern Europe.

Brexit won against serious economic arguments (the risk of a major recession) for reasons of ethnic and national identity. The electorate has been more sensitive to issues of identity , than materialistic considerations, economic and financial, even at the risk of a crisis. This is an important point for political scientists…in contrast to the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie, rooted people don’t think “money first”, but “identity first”. However, the vote in favor of Brexit comes with many ambiguities and unpredictable consequences. It’s a passport to the unknown, welcome aboard the phantom train!

Brexit Makes Sense: Britain Has Been Euro-Incompatible

Initially, the six founding nations (West Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) were “Carolingian”-more or less consciously reconstituting the empire of Charlemagne, and therefore was incompatible with the British thalassocracy. In a January 14, 1963, press conference, General de Gaulle explained the veto of Britain into the European community as due to the antagonism between continental Europe and an anti-European merchant thalassocratic U.K. dominated as a geopolitical vassal by its former colony the United States.

De Gaulle predicted that Britain would never sincerely play the European game, but that of America. Obama fighting Brexit was quite normal, as it was for the U.K. to stay in the E.U. as a Trojan Horse.

Britain though has never really been a part of the E.U. It’s always had one foot in, and one foot out. It has not adopted the Euro or the Schengen agreement, or even 60% of the financial agreements. The British-mainly the English- schizophrenics never knew if they were European or not. The tragedy is that they show a supercilious devotion to sovereignty vis-à-vis the E.U. (and rightly so) but they abandoned their strategic sovereignty to America! Go figure…

The European Union Has Betrayed the European Idea

The idea of the European Union was initially well thought out. It is the governments of European countries, the authors of institutional abuse, political and ideological who are responsible for the failures, not “Brussels”.

Initially, with a common agricultural policy and a philosophy of continental protectionism, the European Community was going in the right direction. This has now been completely abandoned: The commission adopted unbridled free trade at the expense of European nations. (Fully opaque) negotiations to a transatlantic free trade agreement (TAFTA) is evidence of submission to the U.S.A. from a European Commission where corruption and lobbying from the U.S. are rampant. Mr. Junker, the president of the commission being the very model of transparency…

The totally absurd, European institutions (with too many “commissioners”, useless to appeal to all countries) have nothing but ineffective and undemocratic management. They are not built according to the needs of the peoples and nations of Europe, but to serve the interests of a privileged caste of eurocrats(technocratic and parliamentary) which paradoxically contains many Europhobes who abuse the system.

From the 50s, there were two visions of Europe: First, the founders Max Schumman, Alcide De Gasperi, and Konrad Adenauer: a Carolingian Europe reduced to six, with external protectionism and the maintenance of internal borders. This Europe was phased out in favor of the model of Jean Monnet(a proven Washington agent) which unfortunately prevailed over the vision of the fathers in favor of a purely mercantile and technocratic E.U. widened to nearly thirty states and led by an undemocratic Commission with grotesque regulations. So, the big jellyfish stung itself.

Do not confuse the initial draft of the European Community of Nations and the current European Union, which is really the anti-European fruit of many governments and their politicians.

The Possibility of a Neutered Brexit

Several European referendums against the E.U., notably in France and the Netherlands, have been invalidated, which is totally undemocratic. The Lisbon Treaty, ratified in 2007 by the parliament, violated the 2005 French referendum which rejected the European Constitution. It is quite possible that Brexit will suffer the same fate. It is entirely possible that the release of Britain from the E.U. will be entirely formal(legal) but not real.

It is conceivable that this British referendum if not followed by action, especially if a financial crisis arises, will not happen. Already David Cameron refused to use Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which initiates the divorce of a member country from the E.U. If his successor does, then it will be two years of negotiations before the actual departure of the United Kingdom.

The future British government will negotiate the divorce will cynically try to keep all the benefits (the financial center of the City of London may process throughout the EU, customs without access to the single market, etc.) by getting rid of disadvantages including its contribution to the EU budget. Brexit can, therefore, vanish as if it was a hologram.

Obituary For the U.K.

Great Britain(the United Kingdom), it is said, may be dismantled due to the possible secession of Scotland and Northern Ireland (Ulster), which would join the Republic of Ireland, and E.U. member. Both nations wish to remain in the E.U., not to mention Gibraltar which voted 98% remain. A new Scottish referendum on leaving the U.K. is being considered. The problem with this is that an independent Scotland applying for membership in the E.U. would face a potential veto by the Spanish State, due to the possible contagion of secession spreading to Catalonia. Not to mention Scotland phasing into the Euro.

The situation may be insoluble.

In short, the referendum for Brexit may result in the end of the UK. The Queen (or the future King) would reign only over England and Wales. This amputation of Britain would be a major geopolitical and historical impact for Europe. Think of the implications for NATO …

The European Union is No Longer Credible and Can Disappear

The European Union looks like a rather political or non-political monster. Why can it disappear? Because, like the USSR, it is a utopia; a technocratic-liberal utopia where the USSR was a technocratic-socialist utopia (or “communist”,same thing). To say this is not at all to show “anti-European” or paleo-nationalist(petty-nationalist) sentiment. A united Europe is a profound dream (Kant himself desired it) but the way it was built on the ideological project of Jean Monnet proved disastrous and, in fact, perfectly anti-European. And anti-democratic.

Further increasing the number of EU members, and integrating four new small ungovernable Balkan countries when it is already at 28 shows it is no longer seriously serious. Admitting Turkey, ruled by Islamic semi-dictator Erdogan for which negotiations continue would only be the nail in the coffin.

Technocratic bureaucracy and hyper-regulations to impose a competitive liberalism, which is a total contradiction. It makes our American competitors laugh. Not only there is no protection of borders (free trade dogma) but the EU encourages and organizes the migration invasion – with the complicity of Chancellor Merkel, it is true! A non-elected, perfectly anti-democratic body, the Commission, is assigned the kingly authority of the Council. The Parliament in Strasbourg, the blurred skills and undefined and inconsistent government, is useless except to provide exorbitant privileges to its members and their families.

Jacques Delors, former president of the European Commission, confessed to being the cynical architect of a “soft despotism.” For the European Commission, the proof of the undemocratic, and despotic, was given 4 May 2016 by the proposal to distribute authoritatively without consulting the indigenous peoples the “refugees” and “migrants” (invaders to speak clearly) on pain of a fine of € 250,000 if denied or repressed! Amazing.

Invent Another Europe!

The idea of European integration was ruined by anti-European forces in reality. The refusal to admit the “Christian roots” of Europe, is symbolic. Europe is desired without roots, open to all migratory invasions and without economic protection. The European Union or the European Colander was seen as a voluntary and objective way to destroy the historical and ethnic nations of Europe. All under the benevolent eye of Washington…
The National Front and other sovereigntists wish the demise of this current European Union, this charnel house of nations, but they have no clear alternative. The Europe of Nations, that is to say, a new European Union, is never seriously considered.

If not changed significantly, the European Union faces certain death. For its balance book is increasingly showing up in the red. The European Union has nevertheless improved economies in the East and the South through avalanche grants. But this is just a minor byproduct. In the medium and the long term, the idea of the European Union is decaying. It is very likely the European Union will break up. We need to invent something else.
It is repeated throughout the E.U. that we need it to avoid the World Wars of old. This is a bad argument because even without the E.U. this would not be possible because the next war has already begun. The war between Europeans and Muslims.

Now, after Brexit, they want to “refound the E.U.” on new foundations. But they are just drunkards swearing off a drink in the morning. For the rest of us, we must start dreaming of alternatives.

No Comments on Brexit: Quake or Squib

The Global Favela

Reality has a well-known racist bias. And the White minstrel and courtier Stephen Colbert veered a little too close to what leftists used to call the reality-based community when describing…

Reality has a well-known racist bias. And the White minstrel and courtier Stephen Colbert veered a little too close to what leftists used to call the reality-based community when describing the chaos of the upcoming Rio Olympics.

To the laughter of his SWPL audience, Colbert hammed it up and made silly faces as he recounted the violence, corruption, and incompetence as Brazil scrambles to put together the infrastructure needed to host the Summer Games. He noted billions of dollars were sent to companies which are currently being investigated for price fixing and kickbacks. He smirked about Brazil having one of the “highest violent crime rates in the world” and, making sure to trill his r’s for comedic effect, quoted the soccer player Rivaldo telling foreigners to “stay in their country of origin” because “here you will be running the risk of your life.” The meme-ready warning from police to arriving tourists “Welcome to Hell” was also featured. And though Colbert didn’t mention this, body parts recently washed ashore next to one of the key venues for the games.

Brazil, as de Gaulle said, is the country of the future and always will be. It will never be the First World nation its boosters fondly imagine. For racially aware American whites, this ironic prophecy has always held a more ominous connotation. Brazil was always the nightmare racially aware American Whites were seeking to avoid, a frenzied völker-chaos of crime and social dysfunction where the poor slaughter each other in the streets and the rich hide behind gated communities and militarized police.

As Colbert’s snark indicates, even the most deeply insulated shitlib shares this premise at some level. Leftists might find something like City of God romantic, but they don’t want to live there anymore than they want to spend time in the Baltimore neighborhoods they fetishize in The Wire.

Yet Brazil might actually be a best-case scenario. At least in the highly Germanized south of the country, there are areas which are wealthy and relatively free of crime and corruption. Not coincidentally, there is also a simmering secessionist movement. And in the recent controversy over impeaching leftist Dilma Rousseff, most of her opponents came from the whiter south.

Interestingly, The Hive leaped into action to defend Rousseff during the impeachment crisis, with the Huffington Post, Salon and other sources of Cat Lady morality warning against the “right-wing” coup. As the subtleties of Brazilian politics are poorly understood by American reporters and even less by American audiences, the situation was explained using the same Narrative applied to politics in every other nation. Rousseff’s defeat, warned one leftist, would mean a “roll back [of] affirmative action and efforts to redress discrimination against peoples of indigenous and African descent.” In other words, the pro-impeachment forces were Bad Guys because they wouldn’t steal enough of White people’s stuff. And Rousseff’s opponents were mostly males with light skin, ipso facto proof of malicious intent, racism, and sexism.

In a way, this Narrative captures something essential. Race creates the underlying conditions of all politics. The great deception of race relations in the West, the lie which justifies the entire political apparatus, is that people of European descent somehow benefit from the presence of “black bodies” and people of color to exploit. In reality, the most consistent pattern we see from Latin America to Europe is the desire of whites to escape multiculturalism, all while they continue to praise it in the abstract. Even in Sweden, the natives move away from “diverse” neighborhoods after only a small number of non-European immigrants enter. And this what really drives contemporary policy disputes, even if it is framed in terms of “limited government,” “local control,” “property values,” or “good schools.”

We flee, they follow, and then they complain we’ve oppressed them. From communist cult leaders to deformed actresses, the response we get is as to why these people are running to join us racists is the same – it’s Our Fault their society is the way it is.

But the truth is their societies are undesirable because they live there. If enough of them come here, our societies will be indistinguishable from theirs. Even if they were given a structural or environmental advantage, the outcome will be the same.

They need us. We don’t need them. We never did.

On those occasions in history when Europeans sought to integrate nonwhites into our system either as equals, slave labor, or something in between, we’ve always paid for it collectively. Whatever wealth was generated by slavery or colonization is nothing compared to the wealth and lives lost in the fratricidal conflicts and rebellions ultimately engendered.

Perhaps more than any other society in human history, status in the modern West is shown by loudly preaching egalitarian principles while isolating yourself from their effects. It’s not just right-wing snark to point out how Mark Zuckerburg is shilling for more immigration while buying property and building walls so as to protect himself from the rabble. This is the governing principle of our world.

The Open Society is a lie. It always was. The only question is where the borders will be drawn. We can have larger barriers outside the neighborhoods, countries and civilization we want to preserve, or we can have innumerable barriers around each home, shop, and gated community as we try to carve out a little space where we can watch our screens and live our virtual life as everything crumbles around us. And even if you’ve managed to find a decent community to raise a family, the American government has already made it quite clear it is coming for you.

In response to Brexit, we’ve seen a few “mainstream” columnists get excited about the idea that “nationalism vs globalism” will define the coming century. The “National Question” is certainly what Trump is staking his campaign on. In the aftermath of the EU Referendum, it was especially amusing to see the far Left shriek about the result on the grounds it would endanger the profits of stock jobbers. The mutual dependence of global finance and Cultural Marxism has never been more apparent.

But the conflict goes deeper than simply a dispute over sovereignty. While Brexit was certainly a sign of hope, the overwhelming support by young voters for remaining within the European Union is ominous. As the rapid progression of concepts like gay marriage and transsexuals in the military through the Overton Window has shown, most Millennials are quite comfortable with accepting the given Narrative. If “nationalism” is to triumph, there’s a time limit to recapture the state and the commanding heights of the culture to push new values.

Whether this is the beginning of some new age or the last gasp of the old Western order is wholly dependent on the electoral fate of figures like Donald Trump (who also relies heavily on elderly voters) and Marie Le Pen. If they win, they may set something in motion. If they don’t, things are going to get much worse before they get better.

If there are not victories in the short term, we’re going to see something far more existential and dangerous. Technology and transportation allow the elite to travel from global city to global city, unmooring them from traditional loyalties and reducing any stake they have in their native countries.

We have a ruling class with “no skin in the game” and to them, our entire society is expendable. The gamble most are making is they will remain invulnerable from the chaos of multiculturalism and global economic and technological progress, broadly defined, will continue. And if a self-conscious elite can beat back their own peoples, as Foreign Policy recently argued, they believe they will able to change the demographic situation such that their position will be invulnerable.

But as global society becomes more integrated and complex, it also becomes less stable. And now, the Western core countries are beginning to rot away, subsumed beneath a never ending and heavily subsidized tide of Third World humanity. The German government will spend over $100 billion to support “refugees” over the next five years, most of whom are worthless in terms of their ability to economically contribute. Sweden is already buckling under the weight of what they have admitted. And this is only the beginning of what is coming next, as Western subsidies have ensured an African population boom.

Assuming a nationalist or populist backlash can be beaten down by the System and Muammar Gaddafi’s prophecy of a “black” Europe is realized, what future does the West have, even for the wealthy? The global utilitarianism pursued through open borders is becoming a worldwide scheme of dysgenics, creating a deracinated, mediocre, and helpless human race.

If you were a wealthy South African businessman who didn’t care about his people, the end of apartheid was good for you. No sanctions, more opportunities for trade, and no social penalties. What do you care about the white trash leaving in squatter parks or gross Boers being butchered on their ancestral farmlands in front of their wives and children? You can watch the Springboks from your hotel in London.

But even these options are going to be cut off when bastions like Germany, the United Kingdom, and America itself buckle under the weight of demographic transformation. And can the “elite,” especially Jews, be as confident they will be able to penetrate East Asian markets as they did the West?

The events in Rio are simply a harbinger. A nation like Brazil can’t host something like the Olympics. As the West turns Brazilian (or worse), there will be fewer countries who can.

And as even though the Olympics themselves are just a variation of corporate degeneracy, it means something when a global fête backed by billions of dollars can’t guarantee the basic safety of its athletes, let alone guests. Even when the Soviet Union couldn’t supply supermarkets, it could accomplish great things if it bent every effort. Now, the “country of the future” can’t accomplish one big project.

When White America was about to fly to the moon, a group of blacks showed up in a mule wagon at the launch site, demanding welfare. As the entire world is converted into a giant favela, we’re going to see this on a mass scale. The astonishing advances in technology and health care which appear so close will never be realized. Instead, we’ll use the astonishing resources at our command to subsidize populations who hate us and make our lives worse by their sheer presence.

And as the walls close in, at least some SWPL’s are going to start to get it. Even Boulder, CO suddenly finds itself in the crosshairs for being insufficiently diverse. More broadly, we can only hope some of those who do have the ability to escape this dystopian future realize, some class traitors from the “elite,” realize what is coming is not worth living in and take action to build a different world.

The Alt Right is not just about grand dreams or some glorious destiny for our people. It’s the sole movement that can even consider real solutions to the problems destroying the lives of millions. Every father looking for a safe place to raise his family, every mother who worries about what will happen to her children, and every red-pilled Millennial who is beginning to understand he has no future has to look to us because no other movement offers him anything but annihilation.

We have a system that actively punishes virtue, destroys families, abolishes communities, and imports foreigners precisely because they have nothing to offer except votes for the leftist political party. It’s a conglomeration of monstrous evil. It has to be entirely destroyed not just so we can pursue the highest aspirations of our race but so a decent life is possible for ordinary people.

It’s not just a battle between nationalism and globalism. It’s about what kind of people we want to be. We can carve out a future for ourselves. Or we can acquiesce to being part of a global slum. But if nothing changes, we can see the “country of the future” and what it always will be.

It’s corpses washing up on a polluted beach. It’s hostile mobs using their dependence as a weapon. It’s a cultureless wasteland choking on its own filth. And unlike every other time in history, there will be nowhere to escape

No Comments on The Global Favela

An Uncertain Idea of Europe

The historic “Brexit” vote marks, by my count, the first derailing of a major globalist project. For many years we were promised/threatened: “Jean-Marie Le Pen in the Second Round!,” “Financial Meltdown (Unless Some Elite Jews Save Us)!,” “Greece to Leave the Eurozone!,” “Nationalist to Win Austrian Presidency!” etc.

Now, finally, a Happening has happened!

Actually, Brexit is clearly the second Happening of this year, after Donald Trump’s successful hostile take-over of the Republican Party from the Goldman Sachs/Neocon mafia. For this alone, Trump’s name will resound throughout the ages.

Of course, neither Brexit nor Trump, in themselves, will save Great Britain or European-America. What is so exciting is rather the method: for the first time in living memory, power is being wrested from corrupt ethno-plutocratic nation-wrecking elites through semi-cryptic ethnic appeals to the White masses.

The historic “Brexit” vote marks, by my count, the first derailing of a major globalist project. For many years we were promised/threatened: “Jean-Marie Le Pen in the Second Round!,” “Financial Meltdown (Unless Some Elite Jews Save Us)!,” “Greece to Leave the Eurozone!,” “Nationalist to Win Austrian Presidency!” etc.

Now, finally, a Happening has happened!

Actually, Brexit is clearly the second Happening of this year, after Donald Trump’s successful hostile take-over of the Republican Party from the Goldman Sachs/Neocon mafia. For this alone, Trump’s name will resound throughout the ages.

Of course, neither Brexit nor Trump, in themselves, will save Great Britain or European-America. What is so exciting is rather the method: for the first time in living memory, power is being wrested from corrupt ethno-plutocratic nation-wrecking elites through semi-cryptic ethnic appeals to the White masses.

There is no telling what this will lead to, which is why the elites are so scared, but there is no doubt the chances of freedom and survival for European humanity increases everywhere.

Why now? Peak Diversity + The Internet, I guess.

Ethnocentrism is an emotion, always politically exploited, often by those hostile to our people, a weapon, rather than an end in itself. Some of the Brexiteers (for example, the eternal shill and selective Churchill-quoting1 Daniel Hannan) are already agitating for more immigration. They’re not interested so much in an actual Great British Nation as the “sovereignty” of a non-nation/administrative unit known as the “You-Kay.”

Ethnocentrism alone is blind. Emotion must be combined with reason. What is our reason? We believe in Darwin and evolutionary science. Man is, at bottom, a biological entity and, in particular, his potentialities are circumscribed by his genetic heritage. This must be recognized so life may continue its upward evolution, towards the stars, rather than back into the muck. Genetic similarity and quality are fundamental to forming a higher nation, rather than a Third World.

The liberal argues, simultaneously:

“Those Intelligent Design Christians are so dumb! Haha, everyone knows Darwinian evolution and genetics are real!”

“Oh my, anyone who suggests Darwinian science may have public policy implications should be hounded from polite society!”

These people are criminals: A lack of intellectual curiosity, combined with self-righteous incoherence and moral cowardice.

We refuse nihilism and preach a spiritual awakening in service of a great cause.

Given the quality of the official Brexiteers, it’s no surprise that Richard Spencer was not entirely enthused by the prospect of Faragistan. The nations are real. The nation-state—the harmony of ethnos and polis—is “the political masterpiece.” But, the fact of the matter is, our blood does not stop at mere linguistic or political boundaries. No individual nation-state can claim to be more important than the whole that is the greater European bio-culture, our magnificent family of nations.

The Identitarians have been guilty of small-mindedness, too. To paraphrase Roman Bernard: WE ARE NOT HOBBITS!

Thus, the online masses of disenchanted Anglo NEETs are rallied across the world to an epic Kulturweltkampf in the name of an awesome Sorelian myth—Empire Europa.

The universal European ethno-state! Whitemanistan!

The cultural foot soldiers of the Anglo-American Alt-Right are already being felt in the motherland: The French fachosphère is beginning to identify (((anti-Gentiles))) in the comment sections and even the Germans (what with all their “freedom & democracy” are liable to be shipped to Merkel’s gulags) are making videos about it.

But building an ethno-state is hard. Do we have precedents in our history? To an extent:

Sparta & the Delian League: Eternally glorious Sparta was a real ethno-state; the Athenian-led Delian League united Greek city-states in the common struggle against Persia. Small.

Frankish/Catholic Europe: Charles Martel halted the Arabs at Poitiers; Charlemagne founded a short-lived empire, but this established a common religion (Christianity) and elite language (Latin) for most Europeans, among much else, it was a basis for the unity of the Crusades. De facto racial boundaries with Arabs and Jews (limpieza de sangre). Accidental.

The American Republic: The Founding Fathers knew a nation could only be built from related stock of high quality (“free White men of good character”), Lincoln agreed (Monrovia, etc.), intensified in the 1920s through action of culture-warriors like Madison Grant and Lathrop Stoddard (eugenics, immigration restriction). Unsystematic, vulnerable to parasitism (and, with comfort, sentimentalism).

The Third Reich: The big tamale. Don’t say anything good about this. SYSTEMATICALLY & FOR FIRST TIME CONSCIOUSLY REORGANIZED CULTURE AND SOCIETY AROUND THE GENETIC WELL-BEING OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE. Eugenics. Baby boom. Jewry removed. Waffen-SS! A bit too systematic (i.e., German). (Muh northwest European gene pool.)

I don’t know enough about the Roman Empire. Unbelievably grand, stoic, manly. Impression: Glorious power, no purpose. Much like America. Unwise.

The European Union is dying. But we need some kind of European union, don’t we?

The European national cultures are a strange thing: each nation has its own state of discourse, its own norms of reference, and things get lost in translation. Ethnocentrism tears us apart.

But the cultural differences are increasingly superficial. Some ethno-genetic differences remain. We’re watching the same Anglo-American culture and producing the same Judeo-Americanized garbage. At most, we just dub it in French or German. So we get this hostile, foreign culture in our own tongue. A small consolation! (The French state is working hard to subsidize cinema so we can also watch Judeo-French garbage, but even the French can’t bear to watch it.) When I see a bunch of SUVs (not tourists), etc., parked outside a French church, I think: “The Americans have invaded.”

As Rammstein intoned: “We’re all living in Amerika!”

European nations are, increasingly, mere linguistic-statal artifacts. Sad to say, but true.

But this is a reality to grapple with: cultural struggle and political action will then, mostly, remain national. And that’s fine. When they’re not deporting Richard Spencer, Orbán & co. in Central Europe are doing a fine job. (Pray hope Putin is taking notes.)

The European Union was/is not a superstate in the making. It’s far gayer than that. Hitler/De Gaulle explained you don’t found an Empire by signing bits of paper. (But, America! I hear you say. No, the American Empire dates from Sherman’s torching of Atlanta, not 1776 and all that.)

Perhaps there should be an Empire. But how to build it? Napoleon and Hitler tried. Third time’s the charm, eh?

You can say: “We should have a European foreign policy!” But then you would need a European Army. And who would pay for that? Then you need European taxes, etc.

It’s a very messy business.

Today the great European nation is, still, America. The European Union is an epiphenomenon of the American phenomenon: The EU will still speak English after the Brits self-deport themselves. Anglo-Americanization will continue. The EU stems from globalist ideology, bourgeois borderless-ness, postwar effeteness, Last Manhood, Anglo-Americanization/American hegemony, not European Wille zur Macht.

Julien Rochedy asks: “How many divisions has the EU got?”

So proclaiming European brotherhood is one thing, building an Empire is another. But how many even proclaim our brotherhood? Dominique Venner was a bon Européen. Jean-Yves Le Gallou defines Frenchmen as “Europeans of French expression.” But most are not so wise, certainly not the official Brexiteers or the Front National. And too many, a Russian, a Frenchman, will identify with an empire or a language rather than the blood that made them possible and gave them their quality.

France should be declared a “European Republic,” you know, by and for European people. So should Germany, Argentina, Russia (if I may be so bold), Australia, at least one of the post-American splinter states, the future Boer city-state (contradiction?) in South Africa, etc.

Some Jews tearfully discuss the Alt Right. To paraphrase:

*“Judea for the Jews! Anything else is anti-Semitic.”

*“Oh yes! And oy vey, all this European nationalist sentiment on Twitter rising. Shut it down!”

“By the way, mental illness among the goyim is the only reason we ever got pogromed.”

Etc., etc., times infinity.

Television is a big part of the answer: Countries in which kids are watching English-language subtitled TV, e.g. Greece, Romania, Netherlands, Flanders, and Scandinavia, are full of “right-wing shitlords.” The Germans aren’t far off. (Frauke Petry in English. Oh my!) If you put this English-language TV systematically throughout the entire White world, you could probably have a Boreal Federation. (Which would be English-speaking, but who cares? We used to speak French, Latin, Greek, and could have spoken German.)

The Identitaires mostly get it.

Diaspora Blacks revel in Pan-Africanism. Even the Muslims have their Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arabs, their League. The Diaspora Jews have their goddam ethno-state (financed by your blood & treasure, filthy goyim).

Where’s the “Pan-European League”? Who are the undermen again?

We need, at minimum, a League: The United States, Canada, Carolingian Europe, the British Isles, Scandinavia, Mediterranean Europe, Visegrád, Dinarics, Orthodox Slavs, Aussies, Kiwis, etc. Don’t be shy! Even the Argies, maybe.

Then, the stars!

I have to admit when I see the average European goyim I do not think “MASTER RACE!” No, we are damaged, too much Bolshevism, and perhaps, dysgenics.

Europeans are a creative breed. No doubt about it. But the White race did not evolve in the current environment of mass transportation and softening comfort. Modernity is proving to be an extinction-level for event for our breed of humanity. We were not designed for close-up competition with more tribal peoples, not when our ethnocentric reflexes have been so overtaken by our maudlin niceness due to easy living and miseducation.

All of humanity is being “hamsterized,” by their ability: School, mom’s basement, (welfare) office, home, retirement. It doesn’t feel real. One is given money from the Government or (bureaucratic?) BS jobs. Then one trades this for food. Our non-existent life experiences are replaced with imaginary ones concocted by Hollywood & co. Total disconnect from reality. We are totally free to indulge in our pet fantasies, both inborn and injected. (See: Schopenhauer, Tocqueville, and Pierce.) The Matrix in other words.

The average honorless, faithless, feckless goyim, especially the pseudo-educated type, measures political morality and success by the yardstick: “To what extent is the straw in my cage kept consistently fresh?” (Provided by the cage/hamster-owner, of course.)

We are supposed to vote for Hillary Clinton. Plutocratic pseudo-egalitarianism. Rule by Marxist banksters [sic]. Funded by Spielberg, Soros, Abrams, & co. Voted in by Blacks, Mestizos, and feminists. How can anyone not see the discrepancy!?

Reality: It’s the Matrix, in the name of Star Trek.

Lies, lies, lies.

Our people are not evolved for this environment. Thus, we are going extinct, or rather, a culling is occurring. Only the best will survive. But even if only 10 percent of us survive, we will be better for it.

We’ll build the ethno-state in Antarctica if we have to. (Circa 2100: Climate change turned out not a hoax, America RIP, welcome to Eurafrica.)

Our people are currently showing their boundless creativity and idealism in service of an evil cause. Hence, a German woman invites a migrant into her home via the “Refugees Welcome” website, is promptly raped in her sleep. Hence the (male) [sic] Norwegian politician is raped by migrant and feels guilty when the savage is deported to Hackedvaginastan.

Oh yes, they were miseducated, but frankly, we don’t need these kind of people in our gene pool. We should be immune to it. Darwin Awards for all!

But you think we’re bad? Look at the Sub-Saharans, the Indios, the Indians (sorry), etc. The East Asians are impressive in their way, but a bit monolithic, no? I can understand why the Jews come to think they are the real Herrenvolk—but only by latching on to another’s civilization. They can’t even found a nation without massive subsidies from the American and German goyim, acquired through systematic bribery and blackmail by the ever-loyal Diaspora. They have no cohesion. Israelis are too busy scamming each other. (Someone predicted this.) (In my experience, the Sephardim can be as dense and slow-witted as any goyim. The Ashkenazim, to be sure, run rings around us, and they incidentally consider the Mizrahim little better than niggers. (I exaggerate not: The Mizrahim, inspired by American Blacks, founded the “Israeli Black Panthers” to fight the vicious racism of the Ashkenazim. “We wuz Schwartzes!”)

Now look again at our people: without us, “humanity” will surely consume this Earth like a swarm of locusts. (See: Haiti.) And the best of our people, they are something. Especially when they are inspired by the right Ideal. And they need a great Ideal to be truly roused. One as great as the deceit of Equality is evil.

A great man once said: “Europe is a racial entity.” And: “We must think in terms of centuries.” Don’t be modest now!



    Hannan conspicuously avoids discussing Churchill’s postwar immigration policy↩︎
No Comments on An Uncertain Idea of Europe

Fallen from the Sky

Novorossiya has suffered significantly in regards to the destruction of Malaysian Air Flight 17 over Eastern Ukraine.  It appears that in the sense of this tragedy being taken advantage of by the US-EU governing class, it is and will be done in order to justify the strangulation at birth of the new country of Новороссия (Novorossiya). 

 

Novorossiya has suffered significantly in regards to the destruction of Malaysian Air Flight 17 over Eastern Ukraine. It appears that in the sense of this tragedy being taken advantage of by the US-EU governing class, it is and will be done in order to justify the strangulation at birth of the new country of Новороссия (Novorossiya).

The driving force behind the formation of Novorossiya is that a substantial majority of the people in the southern and eastern part of Ukraine do not recognize the new government which came to power in Kiev as the result of the violent overthrow of the previously elected government. The approach of the new Kievian government is not to allow those who disagree with their coup to go their own way, but is instead based on military means to force the capitulation of those who disagree.

It should be recognized that the two sides in this conflict are quite unevenly matched. In particular, the Kievian government has access to much better military equipment and financial resources than the rebels do. Of particular relevance is that the Kievian government possesses complete air-superiority. Furthermore, military action is taking place in the form of assaults by the Kiev government on the homelands of the rebels. Rebel warplanes are not making bombing runs over the Ukrainian capital or Lviv. Their artillery is not surrounding and opening fire on cities and villages in the parts of the Ukraine that support the Kievian government. On the contrary, the rebels are defending their own cities and villages from the assaults of the Kiev and are not advancing into territory inhabited primarily by supporters of the current regime.

Occam’s razor would suggest that the cause of the downed airliner was due to the rebels, who in their attempts to protect their cities, villages, and military units from aerial bombardments, mistook the airliner for a Ukrainian warplane. That such mistakes are not infrequent during the course of military action is evident from even a cursory glance through history.

Currently heard from public figures in the US-EU are statements of the form “if the rebels did this or the Russians are involved through their provision of the antiaircraft system used, then the rebels and/or the Russians should have hell to pay.” That such opinions are based on an antipathy to the rebel/Russian side can be derived from such individuals’ reactions to similar events. Probably the most appropriate one is the shooting down of a Russian passenger airline (Siberia Airlines Flight 1812) in 2001 by the Ukrainian military with an antiaircraft rocket. The repercussions of this downing, which resulted in the deaths of 78 people, were limited to payments by the Ukrainian government to victims’ families and the sacking of a handful of officers and officials. There were no sanctions applied to Ukraine by other countries and no criminal proceedings begun. Assuming that the treatment of the Ukrainians in this matter was appropriate, a neutral observer would likely conclude that the rebels should be treated in a similar manner. Indeed the culpability of the Ukrainian military in shooting down Flight 1812 would appear to be greater, as it occurred during peacetime, as opposed to the rebels who are operating under conditions of daily bombardments of their cities and villages made possible by the complete air-superiority of the Kievian government. In this regard, an appropriate means of preventing such further accidents would be imposition of a no-fly zone over the Ukraine. Other means could involve the provision of more advanced antiaircraft systems, along with appropriate training for the rebels with the aim of avoiding further cases of mistaken identity. It should be reiterated that the reason the rebels are concerning themselves at all with antiaircraft systems is due to the (otherwise unimpeded) aerial bombardment of eastern Ukraine by the Kievian government.

US-EU public officials, more often than not, are heard giving statements to the effect that the means to achieve peace is to cut off all aid to the rebels. However, if peace (as opposed to peace obtained by destruction of Novorossiya by the Kievian government) is indeed the highest priority, then the party that must be pressured is the attacking side, i.e., the Kievian government. Of course, this is the quickest possible means of obtaining peace and will result in victory for Novorossiya, as its goals of independence will be achieved, and hence, would logically be advanced by those whose primary goal is independence for Novorossiya.

The suggestions and insinuations that the only way to bring peace would be for the Russian people and government to stop supplying any aid to the rebels indicate that the sources for such suggestions support the Kievian government. This follows from the near certainty that cessation of all support to the rebels and the cessation of any more chances for future support will result in victory by the Kievian government.

The fact of the matter is that Russian support of the rebels is quite minimal. The author’s first hand experience is that such support is provided primarily on the grass-roots level. In the city that the author lives in, various individuals have formed groups that collect food, medical supplies, clothing, uniforms, boots and other items send it to the eastern parts of the Ukraine. Volunteers have also set out to aid the rebels primarily in the form of joining the armed resistance to the Kievian government. Somewhat surprisingly, there is no support from the city or federal government in this matter in the form of advertising such aid collection centers and/or encouraging people to participate in such aid. At a minimum, the Russian government would be expected to provide humanitarian aid on an official level but this is not observed. The clear evidence that the rebels possess some heavy military equipment (tanks, artillery etc.) is often taken as evidence that such equipment is from Russia. However, it should be kept in mind that the conflict is a civil war—in the course of which significant numbers of the Ukrainian military have defected to the rebels. This issue was particularly acute at the start of the conflict where it was not infrequent that military units sent to suppress the rebels in a particular village/city instead raised the rebel flag and wholeheartedly joined the rebels. The Kievian government has responded to this issue by raising paramilitary formations, such as the National Guard, which are staffed by people loyal to the Kievian government who have joined with the specific purpose of suppressing the rebellion and hence, contain very few individuals from the eastern parts of the Ukraine. Other paramilitary units exist which are funded and controlled by various oligarchs.

Returning to the issue of the downed airline, a glance at the positioning and treatment of the issue in the US-EU media clearly shows usage of the tragedy as a weapon against the rebels. Headlines such as “Armed men restrict access to crash site” or “Standoff with militiamen at crash site” (BBC) are used. Aside from the fact that the crash occurred in a war-zone, the fact of the matter is that any such crash site is typically cordoned off and guarded by armed men in almost any country. In other statements “Local residents have been allowed to wander around the wreckage of the plane” (BBC), however, the lack of a guarded perimeter is used as evidence of deliberate carelessness of the local authorities. Considering the issue, and recognizing the fact that the crash area is in a very rural area subject to military engagements, none of the above necessarily indicates any malign intent on the part of the local authorities. Such issues would be found at a similar crash site in almost any country.

Of some interest is a report from the BBC in which a man guarding the crash scene, after being described as “squat and barrel-chested with poor teeth“ is reported to have stated: “You are only here because foreigners are dead.” For the people of eastern Ukraine, this man’s question has some relevance. In the course of the Kievian government’s military operations, hundreds of people have been killed by artillery and air-strikes carried out against cities and villages. For example, the day after Flight 17 was destroyed, it was reported that 20 civilians died in the course of artillery and/or aerial attacks on the city of Lugansk. These deaths and many others like them have not resulted in visits from OSCE observers and journalists from the US-EU. The fact that their deaths are not widely denounced or mentioned in the US-EU media contains within itself the implication that these deaths, as opposed to those of Malaysian Air Flight 17, are the somewhat unavoidable and deserved result of opposition to the Ukrainian government and its sponsors.

No Comments on Fallen from the Sky

UKIP and the Sailer Strategy

The UK Independence Party has stolen the show, and the polls leading up to the upcoming May 22nd European Elections in their country – much to the shock and dismay of the rest of the rainy isle’s political establishment.

There’s anarchy in the UK and you can’t blame street-class punks for the ruckus. Instead, it’s a bunch of older guys decked out in the unintimidating colors of purple and yellow wrecking havoc in Great Britain.

The UK Independence Party has stolen the show, and the polls leading up to the upcoming May 22nd European Elections – much to the shock and dismay of the rest of the rainy isle’s political establishment.

But what about this party is attracting so many disaffected voters and angering so many of their political colleagues? The answer is that they are for restricting immigration – which is an item much desired by the British people but is repulsive to British elites.

This phenomenon is not limited to the UK as right-wing parties all over Europe have made significant strides in recent years and are set to make even larger gains in the upcoming EU elections. But UKIP being situated in our paternal land of the British Isles is a case that calls for further analysis and a comparison with the political climate in America. In particular, what does UKIP have to say about the much vaunted Sailer Strategy and is their operation an item for us to emulate?

UKIP was created in the early 90s as a single-issue organization dedicated to opposing the EU. Unlike the British National Party, they weren’t ethno-nationalists cleaning up their image to appeal to voters—they were solely concerned with the apparent threat of European integration for libertarian reasons.

They’ve remained a marginal party for the majority of their twenty years of existence, until the recent collapse of the BNP and the emergence of Nigel Farage as the face of UKIP in recent years.

Farage, as a documentary produced by the BBC reveals, is UKIP in human form. Hailing from a middle-class background and with work experience in the London financial trade market, Farage does not cut the figure of the average nationalist politician. And he isn’t. He’s a libertarian who’s political philosophy was formed by John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and is mainly concerned with restoring the UK to the status it enjoyed under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher.

If you watch this documentary, you would take Farage to be the British version of Rand Paul, add in more charisma and a perennial pint in his hand. He never talks about the declining culture in Europe or how it its native people are threatened by modernism and rapidly shifting demographics. The documentary primarily covers him discussing the “tyrannical” regulations and bureaucracy that has been created by the EU and how it hurts entrepreneurship and the free exchange of goods.

All of these items are the same topics that are continually rattled on by the Republican Party in the United States to the avoidance of issues that actually matter for the long-term survival of the White race. The difference between Farage and the average GOP politician is that he is strongly in favor of restricting immigration and understands that it has had an enormously negative effect on his native land.

This is where the BBC documentary veers from its cheery coverage of Farage and takes a derisive tone towards this particular stance. Every journalist that was previously singing the praises of Farage denounce his stance on immigration and claim it makes no sense if you believe in libertarian principles such as the free exchange of goods. While the documentary depicts this as an unavoidable blemish on UKIP’s platform, it is actually one of the primary causes for their success and why the party has managed to steal blue collar votes away from the Labour Party.

The commentators interviewed for the documentary and the producers behind it have no problem giving preferential treatment to Farage’s libertarian side, but they have zero tolerance for any attitudes that might be critical of the United Kingdom becoming an island of forced multiculturalism. That’s because libertarianism is not a threat to the System, while playing with White interest politics is.

It is clear that UKIP is in no way run or even composed of serious ethno-nationalists and this documentary concedes that.
Rather, the system is concerned that too much of UKIP’s success is derived from the same troth that every party of the right (whether center-right or far-right) has to appeal to in order to do well in elections. That is white angst, and the concern is that UKIP might actually try to implement the demands of this frustration rather than misdirect it towards ends that matter little to the actual interests of White people.

White angst is the dirty secret to conservative politics in the Anglosphere. Politicians and strategists understand that Whites are feeling the crunch of rapidly changing demographics and diminishing economic prospects and exploit it as much as possible for political gain. The Republican Party certainly exploits it, and so do the Tories. The problem is that they don’t actually try to solve the problems that are causing White angst. They just target it at frivolous issues like the capital gains tax and the all-encompassing power of teachers’ unions.

Which makes UKIP somewhat of an insurrection against the political establishment and has drawn comparisons between it and America’s Tea Party phenomenon. Both groups share several similarities and appeal to similar demographics. They’re both dependent on older, middle-class voters who are worried by mass immigration and feel that they have lost their respective countries. They spout off about the political status quo and continually use language that renders the impression that both movements want to take back their countries from powers that have wrestled control away from the proverbial people. For UKIP, that power is the EU. For the Tea Party, it’s the democratically-elected Obama administration (which will be out of office in two years, but don’t get hung up on facts like that).

UKIP also shares the unfortunate tendency to respond to accusations of racism by digging up every non-White supporter they have and giving them a press conference. This tactic, like in the States, doesn’t work in the British Isles.

But there is one substantial difference that makes the two groups different beasts—UKIP actually wants to resolve some of the causes of White angst. The Tea Party, as Richard Spencer has noted and like the party it has become linked to, turns white angst into fights about defunding Obamacare and eliminating Common Core standards in education. Immigration is a secondary issue and when it comes to debating the topic, the only opposition tolerated is towards illegal immigration–not immigration in general.

UKIP on the other hand has made anti-immigration a primary part of their political platform and seems intent on implementing some impediments to the flow of mass migration. The Tea Party seems content to remain a massive scam operation that sucks money out of retired citizens who think their donations go towards winning back America.

This is why UKIP has become the darling in the eyes of many who dream that one day the GOP will wake up and actually begin to fight for White interests. VDARE and others see the success of UKIP and Front National and say “This is what we need to do in America.” They see their gains as the Sailer Strategy in motion and double down on their belief that this is all that takes for America to become a White country again.

But this is a hopeful delusion as UKIP is not a phenomenon that we can emulate in America, nor does their platform fully restore Whites to their rightful place as the masters of their own destiny.

For those who don’t know what the Sailer Strategy is, here’s an outline of the idea that is promoted by Steve Sailer and others on the paleo-right. Essentially, it argues for the GOP to solely pander to Whites and correlates with his ideology of “citizenism.” Citizenism is a not explicitly racial political alignment that merely calls for the GOP to focus on the interests of the citizens who already live here rather than those outside of the country. Sailer engaged in a debate with Jared Taylor on the topic of his ideology versus White Nationalism and it forms the bedrock for the form of American nationalism preached by Peter Brimelow and VDARE.

While it is notable that UKIP is actually keen on implementing policies that would temporarily halt the flow of non-Whites to their country (and this is a good thing), it is not enough to reverse the tide of degeneration that’s sweeping through Europe. Besides, their political focus is not of an ethno-nationalist bent and they would be content if the UK simply returned to the Thatcher-era. All they want is an efficient economy where they can attain more comfort and live their lives without so many immigrants.

Even if they eliminated immigration entirely, the UK would still retain the same values that ruined it in the first place and the cult of profit would not be diminished in the slightest. Thus, the UK would very likely end up in the same predicament that it is in now.

That’s not to say their efforts to reduce immigration aren’t beneficial and if you are a British citizen, you shouldn’t withhold your vote from the party because they aren’t doing enough metapolitical activity. But we should be realistic about what a UKIP victory would accomplish and not pedestal their organization as the one we should all replicate.

Their method of using the political process to further their goals can also not be replicated in the US for the time being. VDARE seems eager for America to have its own USIP and how this third party or outside pressure group on the GOP would finally restore the historic American nation.
The only way you can believe this is if you have a naive view of the American political process. There are some major differences between America’s electoral process and Britain’s. For one, Britain restricts the amount of fundraising a party can amass and publicly funds opposition parties like UKIP to pay off their administrative costs. Meanwhile, America allows for unlimited campaign fundraising and any limits to campaign financing keep getting knocked down by the Supreme Court. This has led to the Republican Party (and the Democractic Party as well) to become a handmaiden of a small donor class that dominates its policy decisions and controls the party’s structures.

Some point to the Tea Party’s development as a sign that the power of this donor class is not as all powerful as it has been portrayed, but those same people overlook the fact that the Tea Party is largely an “Astroturf” movement and is never directed against issues relating to long-term White interests. Furthermore, the donor class that supports the Tea Party and “insurgent” conservative politics are only marginally different from the establishment GOP and the majority of them support open borders and recoil from the thought that America should be kept White.

These donors have immense power since money drives the political process in the United States. To run a competitive Congressional race, a candidate would have to amass at least a million dollars, if not more, to have a chance of winning. Our movement unfortunately does not have the money to spend on a campaign like that and we cannot afford to waste our precious time, resources, and the few people willing to involve themselves in our cause in efforts such as campaign politics.

Even the watered-down rhetoric we would employ in a “citizenist” campaign is not tolerable to the Republican Party and the figures that VDARE has latched onto as potential saviors of the republic (such as Jeff Sessions) argue against immigration for exclusively economic reasons—not because it threatens the so-called historic American nation. Even if you ran a campaign that only used code words such as the historic American nation, “Treason Lobby,” and “minority-occupation government” (MOG) the GOP’s donors would hurriedly rush to whatever district you were running in, pour millions of dollars to defeat your campaign, and pressure every single figure in the party to denounce you.

It is also disingenuous to lie to ourselves into believing that we can take America back. No, we can’t take America back nor should we attempt it. America is dying and trends such as rampant illegal immigration further balkanize Americans along racial lines (which is a good thing). In a citizenist campaign, we would be forced to denounce any type of racialized thinking and give lip service to Christian fundamentalism if we would have any hope of fending off the attacks of the donor class and attracting the base. Those are items that are a bridge too far for us and it would only alienate a significant portion of the people who are interested in our cause for the right reasons.

The formula for UKIP’s success is they actually believe the bullshit they preach about wanting a normal liberal democracy with less immigrants living off welfare. That is not what we want and is incredibly foolish to demand that Identitarians stop promoting our own ideology and instead, advocate a non-racial political agenda that none of us actually believe in. It is one thing for the Freedom Party in Austria and Front National to moderate their nationalism, actually attain power, and see results of their dediabolization, which also doesn’t call for them to act like idiotic, bible-thumping patriotards. It is quite another for us to do the same, achieve little success, and end up acting like and being labeled idiotic, bible-thumping patriotards. I’d rather be smeared as a Neo-Nazi.

The success of UKIP and other right-wing populist parties in Western Europe is a positive sign for our people and the policies they want to implement would alleviate the non-White swamping of our ancestral lands. But if we want to preserve White identity, we have to do more than win elections—we have to offer a metapolitical view of the world that counteracts the liberal mindset that dominates our people and guides our philosophy once we grasp power.

And in America, it is pointless for us to see their success and try to emulate their tactics over here. America is a different place with a completely different set of circumstances. We should not waste our money and resources on fruitless electoral politics. We should focus our energies on developing ideas, culture, and groups that present an alternative view of the world and create a sense of community for those who share our beliefs. With that strategy, we can create the root for our renewal and develop the resources and manpower to take on larger projects, such as electoral politics, when the time is right.

Until that time, we can only cheer on the developments in Europe and carry on with our metapolitical endeavors.

No Comments on UKIP and the Sailer Strategy

The Other Eurovision Story

But inspiring might not be quite the word to use for the song “My Slowianie”(English translation: We Slavs). It’s a Polish rap song with all of the potential meaning that conjures up.

While this year’s Eurovision gave rise to the new face of European Decline, Conchita Wurst, the story of Poland’s entry that might be just as interesting—and far more inspiring.

But inspiring might not be quite the word to use for the song “My Slowianie” (English translation: We Slavs). It’s a Polish rap song with all of the potential meaning that conjures up. The song itself is an ode to the beauty and rapacity of Slavic women and the English version bears the title “Slavic Girls.”

The music video is quite the piece of media. It begins with the producer of the song, Donatan, awaking with four Polish girls dressed in urban garb in a traditional, rural house. They are then taken in by two elderly farmers who then get an unexplained and unnamed Polish farm goddess (not literally, she looks like one though) to dress them in a traditional Slavic outfits, them to churn butter, and adopt a typical rural lifestyle.

Ok, there’s also an incredible amount of cleavage in the video and at one point the female butter churners gobble down a thick, white substance. It could be called soft-core porn if it wasn’t so over-the-top and hilariously goofy.

There’s also the singer of the song, with the stage name of Cleo, who portrays herself as a feisty Slavic female with a blackish singing voice and dance moves you rarely see dressed in a Eastern Europe folk costume.

Which is what comes to the intriguing part of the song: is this the Kali-Yuga appropriating traditional European culture or traditional European culture appropriating the Kali-Yuga?

This is a (slightly) serious question. Sure, the song can be seen just as pure entertainment and a sign that Poland has a remarkable sense of humor for what chooses to represent itself.

But the fact that the creator of the song (the rap producer Donaten) is an advocate of pan-Slavism and has expressed interest in paganism gives this composition more weight than just a boob fest wrapped in Polka gear.

While it would be preferable if the artist did not resort to Negro cultural forms to express European identity, it still does not overcome the fact that this song makes traditional white femininity cool and sexy. Yes, the butter churning is cheesy and there might just be a little too much tit action for good taste, but those don’t hold back the overall gist of the work.

Even Cleo’s aggressive, black inspired dancing and singing does not offend and rather makes whiteness edgy and unapologetic. White identity is too often construed as the definition of uncool and unhip. Here the hot, Slavic girls turn that notion on its head and express their own sense of cultural identity in a context that made them the fan favorites during this year’s Eurovision.

We have to start expressing White identity in a fashion that is cool and appealing to a broad spectrum of people. I’m not saying that “My Slowianie” should be the example for future projects, but it does point towards a future where it may be possible.

And here’s the music video in all of its busty, butter churning, Polka-infused madness:

No Comments on The Other Eurovision Story

Jobbik Makes Gains In 2014 Hungarian Election

Yesterday (Sunday, April 6), the national parliamentary elections, which are held every four years, took place in Hungary.

Yesterday (Sunday, April 6), the national parliamentary elections, which are held every four years, took place in Hungary. This election was particularly notable in that it was the first time that those of Hungarian ethnicity who reside in other countries were allowed to participate – a significant change considering how many Hungarians live outside of Hungary’s borders at the present time, most especially in those territories which it lost following its defeat in the First World War.

The Hungarian parliamentary elections work in a somewhat unorthodox manner, with voters having to choose both from a list of candidates from each particular party on the national level, as well as for deputies from those parties for their own specific county or district.

No one seriously expected that the popular Center-Right party Fidesz, which has governed Hungary continuously since 1998, would not be victorious again, and sure enough, Fidesz, in a coalition with the Christian Democratic People’s Party, won over 44% of the vote, giving it 133 out of 199 seats in parliament, and securing a two-thirds supermajority in representatives, which means it can continue to make changes to the national constitution without the consent of the opposition.

Nevertheless, Jobbik, the more radical contender on the Right in Hungary whose success has been inspirational to nationalist movements across Europe, made significant gains. Having been founded just over a decade ago in 2003, Jobbik polled at less than 2% of the total vote when it fought its first election in 2006. It surprised the world by placing third among Hungary’s parties and garnering over 16% of the vote in 2010. Yesterday, Jobbik won over 20% of the vote and 23 parliamentary seats, again placing third, and making gains even in the highly liberal capital city, Budapest. This was quite an extraordinary feat for a party that has been branded as “extremist” and “fascist” both at home and abroad, and whose message reflects an uncompromising commitment to a genuinely Right-wing perspective and traditionalist values. Jobbik is known for its defense of the Hungarian people, both within and outside Hungary, and particularly as against Hungary’s Roma population; opposition to liberalism and globalization; opposition to Zionism; and opposition to the European Union, the United States and NATO (part of its party program is to take Hungary out of the EU), which it says treats smaller countries like Hungary as nothing more than a cheap labor force to be exploited.

I was fortunate enough to watch the election returns as a guest of Jobbik at their campaign headquarters yesterday evening, and I had the opportunity to speak with Márton Gyöngyösi, Jobbik’s International Secretary, about what the party’s hopes had been going into the election and their reaction to the results. He told me that Jobbik’s primary goals in this year’s election were to displace Unity, the Leftist coalition, for the number two spot among the parties; to prevent Fidesz from securing another supermajority; to capture the deputy positions in as many counties and districts as possible; and to increase their general numbers among the national electorate. It was only in the last point that Jobbik was ultimately successful.

Unity is not itself a party, but rather a coalition of five socialist/Leftist parties who joined together simply for the purposes of fighting in the election, given the severe loss in support suffered in the 2010 elections by the previous number-two party in Hungary, the Hungarian Socialist Party (which regards itself as the successor to the Communist party which ruled Hungary between 1956 and 1989). Jobbik does not see Unity as serious political rivals, however, since the parties involved have little history of working together outside of the election campaign. Nevertheless, Unity was successful in securing nearly 26% of the vote and 38 seats in parliament, and won the deputy races in two counties, as well as in the deputy races in many districts of Budapest.

It should be noted that the fourth-place party after Jobbik was the Lehet Más a Politika (“Politics Can Be Different”), a Green party, which garnered less than 6% of the vote, and only 5 parliamentary seats. This was just barely sufficient to enable the party to enter parliament at all (5% being the minimum required). This is a clear indication that Jobbik has handily established itself as one of the only serious contenders for national leadership.

During the early phases of the election returns, it seemed as if Jobbik would win the deputy slot in Miskolc, the fourth-largest city in Hungary and a long-time stronghold of Fidesz, but once all the returns were in Fidesz managed to maintain a razor-thin majority. As a result, Jobbik did not win in any of Hungary’s deputy races.

Despite these setbacks, the fact that Jobbik is an actual party, as opposed to Unity, which is merely an alliance of many parties that are unlikely to work together in parliament, means that Jobbik stands as the second-most powerful political party in the Hungarian parliament today.

Márton Gyöngyösi noted that the balance of power between Hungary’s parties was largely unchanged from the 2010 election, which was disappointing for Jobbik. Nevertheless, he was pleased to see the increase in the number of voters who supported them, indicating that their message is beginning to resonate more and more with Hungarian voters.

When asked what Jobbik needed to do to position itself as a serious challenger to Fidesz’s domination, Gyöngyösi said that the party needs to find a way to appeal to voters in historically liberal Budapest. A look at the numbers shows that Jobbik is already the second-most popular party in many of the rural regions of the country, which are traditionally, and unsurprisingly, the most Right-leaning sector of the nation. While Jobbik increased its numbers in Budapest as well, it still received only slightly more than 10% of the votes there. With a population of two million out of a nation of nearly ten million people, a party’s success in the capital city is crucial to achieving victory. But as of now, Jobbik hasn’t succeeded in finding a way to attract significant support there, which Gyöngyösi said would be a top priority for the party moving forward.

Several Jobbik members also suggested to me that Fidesz’s popularity largely hinges upon that of its charismatic leader, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and that his eventual departure from the party could greatly reduce their appeal. Several Hungarians I have spoken with have also indicated that many voters who once supported Fidesz unconditionally have grown more skeptical about it, and their support for Fidesz was more reserved and hesitant this time around given Hungary’s persistent economic troubles. This is supported by the numbers, as Fidesz, while it remained dominant, saw its numbers drop significantly from what they were in 2010.

Gyöngyösi sees hope for his party’s future in the fact that Jobbik has attracted a great deal of popularity among Hungary’s youth, and most especially among university students. Opinion polls have indicated that Jobbik is the most popular party among approximately one-third of students. If present trends continue, as these young people grow older and become more active, Jobbik could be well-positioned to surpass its rivals in 2018 or 2022, barring any unforeseen changes to Hungary’s political landscape.

Those of a Rightist inclination should not be disappointed that Fidesz remains in power, however. While I find the policies and general political philosophy of Jobbik to be much more compatible with a “true Right” (to use Evola’s term) perspective, it cannot be questioned that Fidesz has done a great deal of good for the country, and would itself be considered “extremist” by Western European or North American standards. (I have been told that articles by the French “New Right” gurus, Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye, have been published in Fidesz’s party newspaper, for example.) Given that Jobbik and Fidesz combined accounted for 65% of the votes cast, this would seem to indicate that Leftist parties simply lack appeal for the vast majority of Hungarians and are unlikely to reestablish themselves in the immediate future. I suppose this is unsurprising in a country that had Communist rule forced upon it for nearly half a century, something that is still fresh in the memories of many Hungarians.

What is certain is that Jobbik is not a passing phenomenon, nor a force that can be ignored, and it is likely to remain a significant factor in Hungarian, and European, politics for years to come. This poses a serious counterargument against those who hold that the only way that Rightist parties can succeed is by moderating, since Jobbik has little history of watering down its messages, which are quite bold, to assuage the complaints of its critics. Given Jobbik’s highly innovative geopolitical stance (which favors an alliance of Hungary with Russia, Turkey and Germany as a bulwark against the EU and the United States), its critique of capitalism, and its adoption of some of the perspectives of traditionalists such as René Guénon and Julius Evola, this also suggests that many people are looking for new and innovative ideas on the Right as opposed to the recycling and repackaging of the same, tired conservative slogans of the past. The Right of the future, if it is to achieve anything, will be a very different Right (and may scarcely be “Right-wing” at all, in conventional terms).

Given the sudden increase in popularity of “radical” Right-wing parties across Europe in recent years, most notably in France, Jobbik seems to be only a part of a growing trend. Europeans, and young people in particular, have awakened to the fact that liberalism has and is continuing to fail to meet the needs and desires of our people. If we want to see where the vigor and innovation lies in the European political scene today, we must look to the Right. Tomorrow belongs to us.

John Morgan is Editor-in-Chief of Arktos Media. He currently resides in Budapest.

No Comments on Jobbik Makes Gains In 2014 Hungarian Election

A Warning On Nationalism

Today, Ukraine is where methods of exerting influence from either side are put to the test. As propaganda becomes more sophisticated, the ways in which competing powers confront each other evolve as well. This much is certain: the protests on Kiev’s *Maidan* cannot be taken for face value.

Originally published at The Soul of the East

Three years ago I met Oleg Kalugin, the ex-KGB general whose well-known case of defection earned him the ire of the Russian authorities. In an interview, Kalugin once stated his belief that Vladimir Putin was “a temporary twist in history”, and perhaps this belief is why he found so much support among his American associates. I personally spoke with Kalugin on the future of Russia and its people, he told me it would be inevitable that Russia would collapse and break apart. Knowing the consternation that Americans often come to when dealing with the New Russia, is this the implicit goal of the Atlantic powers?

Even with the experience that Mr. Kalugin acquired in his time working for Soviet intelligence, he could not have not predicted Putin’s rise to power, describing the President as “a mere operative, one of the 3,000 who walked along our corridors”. It was twelve years ago that General Kalugin was found guilty in absentia for high treason. A known critic of the Putin administration, he became a naturalized citizen of the US and has remained there since. It seems like US government officials and turncoats alike are betting on the collapse of Russia, and it’s not uncommon to hear about a “crumbling” Russia from media commentary. But why does this mentality remain, and why are so many hopeful for the demise of the Russian state?

At the time of my meeting with Kalugin, before Ukraine and before Syria, I found no credence in spy’s forecast. Today the world has set its sights on Kiev as the cornerstone in determining who will take the lead in defining the century. Lines are being drawn and the terms of the game are being set. Make no mistake, a contest for hegemony is underway, and actions take precedence over ideology. Russia is not surrendering, and it is prepared to challenge the West in a way that perhaps only China has also done.

Today, Ukraine is where methods of exerting influence from either side are put to the test. As propaganda becomes more sophisticated, the ways in which competing powers confront each other evolve as well. This much is certain: the protests on Kiev’s Maidan cannot be taken for face value.

What can be said of the nationalists of Ukraine, whose employment of Nordic symbols and rhetoric runs directly opposed to some of the stated goals of the country’s new leadership? Although the Maidan riots began as the result of many groups participating, the breakthrough of Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) as the face of the Ukrainian uprising has attracted political fanatics of the right from other parts of the continent to join the protests. This was a deliberate move on the part of outside elements to lend them exposure and resources, knowing that European nationalists are usually on the side of Russia against the West. The matter is currently one of the most divisive topics among reactionary and nationalist political circles at the moment, and it has almost succeeded in undermining Putin’s most profound forms of overseas support. For all of the Russian media’s claims that the Ukrainian nationalists are the Wahhabists of Europe, the conclusion has solid premises, as unfortunate as that may sound. How is inviting foreign elements to fight in Kiev different from radical Islamists from the UK and US joining their brothers in Syria?

There is also the testimony of a former activist from Pravy Sektor, who admits the group’s cooperation with American military officials in (allegedly) trading looted documents for money, or the presence of Chechen militants side-by-side with the Pravy Sektor protestors on the Maidan. From a diplomatic perspective, even the Pravy Sektor’s meeting with Israeli officials wouldn’t have seemed so suspiscious if it wasn’t announced with enthusiasm from the group’s leadership. Respectable far-right organizations from other countries, such as Hungary’s Jobbik, have condemned them. But this is a sidenote in a time of soft power. Political extremists are now convenient tools of geopolitical influence, regardless of what they themselves might think.

The amount of attention vested in the situation in Ukraine, especially from the US government itself, suggests that there are more interests at stake than merely allowing Ukraine access to the European Union. In December, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland bragged that America invested five billion dollars over two decades toward a “democratic Ukraine” while urging the government to “listen to its people,” all while standing in front of the logos of Chevron and Exxonmobil. Her flagrant disregard for EU interests in relation to Ukraine, revealed in her now-notorious phone conversation with the US Ambassador in Kiev, confirms Washington’s own less-than-altruistic ambitions for the country.

But the US and its economic assets could never gain leverage in Ukraine simply on their own; even John Kerry’s promise of billions in future investments cannot happen immediately. This is why men like Oleg Kalugin are so highly valued – their use of politics as a tool of subversion is an alternative to outright war. Indeed, the predictions that Russia’s involvement in Crimea would not lead to war are so far correct, but the potential is building. The division of Ukraine shows what political factionalism is capable of: the coordinated efforts of Leftists, gay activists, EU businessmen, ultra-nationalists, Jewish organizations, various churches, Chechens, Tatars, and still others demonstrate how external forces manipulate affairs of state.

None of the aforementioned groups would normally have anything to do with each other, and while some of them may be conscious of their role as pawns in a global game of influence, they can do little about it but fight on. I am reminded about another former Soviet spy I knew of, one based at the University of California, Berkeley during the 1960s, whose efforts to agitate radical college students into social unrest enjoyed some success. He too, eventually defected. Nevertheless, the methodology was effective.

I once stood on the Maidan nearly half a decade before it became what it is today, before outside players were involved to the degree they are now. It’s sufficiently clear that the unrest in Kiev is an engineered uprising, the likes of which have been seen as recently as Syria and as far back as Guatemala. For all of the manufactured regime changes across the world since the Second World War, the US has relied on a single factor to achieve these revolutions – the uncertainty and desperation of a people faced with adjusting to a rapidly-changing market and global environment. But viewing the masses gathered in Odessa, Simferopol, Kharkov, Donetsk, Sevastopol, and elsewhere, we see this is not the case in Ukraine. As some journalists have remarked, it was the people, not the police, who took back government buildings from the Kiev-based opposition. These are not pro-government “titushki,” as the opposition would label them, but the people, and they have spoken. These are the citizens who believe the Russian and Ukrainian people are one, a more genuine assertion of identity as opposed to the arbitrary goals of a political party.

There is, however, an almost unanimous agreement on the corruption of Yanukovych’s presidency, something which is undisputed even by the Russian government. Why would the people of Ukraine ask to join the European Union now, anyway? The East has shown itself to be a formidable player in international politics while the other side faces endless scandals and crises. Furthermore, the relationship between many Ukrainians with Russia goes beyond short-term economic goals; it is cultural. Insult is added when the West supports the ultra-nationalists behind the violence and mends their reputation, considering the emphatic efforts of elites to ‘fight hate’ in their own countries while simultaneously supporting it elsewhere.

A genuine cause for concern must arise when two global superpowers are so closely opposed to each other. Recall that the presence of Russian soldiers securing key infrastructure in Crimea echoes the events of 1999 in Pristina, when Russian paratroopers took control of an airport, resulting in a standoff with NATO. But a war is too costly. Defeated presidential candidates Clinton, McCain, and Kerry (among other politicians) have spoken harshly about the Kremlin’s involvement in Ukraine, at times making stale and hypocritical comparisons to past historical events. Critics, meanwhile, have noted Washington’s relative impotence as a global leader and Obama’s inability to seriously confront Putin’s actions.

Should we be afraid? If my experiences with spies, defectors or otherwise say anything, then yes, we should be. The situation can be described as the Man in Berkeley’s activities on a grand scale. Consider how both the government and media outlets played to the liberal sentiment of the American people during the Sochi Olympics, to the point that any semblance of failure or shortcoming at the events was desperately sought after while violent illiberal political groups have been receiving support and aid from the West in Ukraine and elsewhere. Nothing is as it seems. Action trumps ideology, and in this instance, the critical mass of the Maidan was wielded by the Western powers. Military threats are a last resort for NATO and the US; the true goal of their designs is subversion.

Speaking on the events of the Maidan, Dmitry Dyomushkin, leader of the ethnopolitical movement ‘Russians’ and a noted supporter of Chechen independence, has urged other nationalists in Russia to support the Maidan protestors and encouraged the distancing of Ukraine from Russian affairs. This would seem odd for a man that stands behind the Russian Imperial flag, but his sentiment is shared by other figures in the nationalist sphere. Nationalism is a historic facet of the Russian mind, an inescapable fact, and today’s nationalists want their country to take an even more conservative turn than it already has. Yet this can be exploited, much as ethnic sentiment in Ukraine has been used against Ukrainians.

The nationalists are already willing to come out and stand with Leftists and Communists against Putin, as was the case in 2012. If proper scrutiny is not given to the development of nationalism in Russia, the politics of pride, once used to advance the interests of the state, will be used against it.
Radical Islam has been used against Islamic states, so it cannot be excluded that subversion in Russia will arise with the face of fierce nationalism or religious fanaticism, and in the case of Doku Umarov and Dmitro Yarosh, it already has.

At this point, it is necessary to understand how propaganda has changed over the last century, because many approach the concept with 20th-century conceptions. We should look beyond the flags and shields and try to ascertain the true ideology of the people actually running the uprising.
Mr. Kalugin knows things I do not, and was his prediction of Russian balkanization an informed warning or an angst-ridden reaction to his conviction for treason back in Moscow? The resurgence of Russia is a “temporary twist” perhaps in the eyes of the West, whose drive to exert influence across the entire globe is now impeded by this counterbalance. The example of how Pravy Sektor has been used for harmful ends is an unwelcome warning to many of its would-be supporters, but it is a warning nonetheless.

No Comments on A Warning On Nationalism

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search