Why is Europe Rejecting Nationalism?

Zachary Sessions

Based on the outcome of the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, many began to hope that a wave of right wing populism would sweep across the West.  This, unfortunately, has not been the case.  Instead, 2016 and 2017 have showed, for now at least, that Europe will consider but ultimately reject nationalism.  I’d have to reluctantly agree with a Washington Post article, “A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of nationalism.  For now, though, it’s mostly just that: a specter. It hasn’t been able to move beyond its phantasmological form and actually take power outside of Hungary and Poland.”

It is all too true that nationalism in Europe remains only an apparition which tantalizes us with every election only to dissipate with the victory of yet another internationalist shill for global special interests.  Nationalism was rejected in Austria, the Netherlands, and of course in France.  In the UK, nationalism was “accepted” in the form of the Brexit referendum, but Theresa May’s government is certainly not an authentic British nationalism.

Across the European continent, nationalist candidates have been routinely losing national elections.  Austria’s Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party failed to win the Austrian Presidency in a painfully close election, The Netherlands’s Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom styled himself as the European Donald Trump and had an equally dazzling coif of hair, but got only 13% in the Dutch election, and France’s fiery Marine Le Pen of the National Front ultimately lost in a landslide to an ex-Goldman Sachs executive.

The true specter haunting Europe is multiculturalism and it has gone far beyond phantasmagoria.  Multiculturalism and the power structures supporting it can be considered the leading reasons why nationalism routinely fails in Europe.  But this doesn’t really get at why nationalism routinely fails to gain serious traction in Europe.  What really needs explaining is why so many native European White voters vote for internationalist candidates who openly campaign for the interests of non-Europeans at the expense of their own future.

I think the biggest problem is that European voters do not yet think of immigration, multiculturalism, and ethnic replacement as the supreme and only important issues. The fact is that clear majorities favor discontinuing immigration from Muslim countries and believe France has too many immigrants, but this has not translated itself into a victory by the only party that would pursue policies congruent with these opinions.

One problem is that inevitably, nationalist candidates like Le Pen must take positions on other issues, and these stances may cause them to lose support. For example, nationalist candidates are often also populist which carries with it a bevy of other positions separate from immigration or racial matters.  The economic positions of a populist can and do cause traditional conservatives to stray away from these candidates.  For example, in France many more traditionally conservative and pro-capitalist voters were repelled from Le Pen due to her advocating leaving the EU and her stance on potentially switching the French currency away from the euro. A poll taken in March showed that overwhelmingly, French voters oppose returning to the franc, and only 37% think the EU has more disadvantages than advantages. They were therefore drawn more to the center-right candidate François Fillon in the first round of voting, and many ended up voting for Macron in the second round.

Another problem facing nationalists is that nationalism is less appealing to people with higher education and incomes. In the second round of voting, Le Pen performed  very well among voters with low income, a working-class background, and low levels of education, whereas Emmanuel Macron performed well among voters with the opposite profile: higher incomes, high levels of education, and more elite occupations. These educated classes, with their higher incomes enabling them to shield themselves from the effects of diversity and globalist trade policies, are more likely to worry about the effects of leaving the EU and the euro. Even if they have doubts about the wisdom of utterly transforming France — as many of them do, it’s not their most important issue. These more educated voters are also presumably more likely to resonate with the elite media and its endless moral panics about diversity — as is certainly the case in the U.S. As usual with nationalist candidates throughout the West, the media painted Le Pen as not just advocating poor policies, but as evil.

Additionally, it must be said that Le Pen was not the ideal candidate, providing another excuse for not voting for her. She performed poorly in the debate with Macron.  “Snap polling by Elabe for BFM television just after Le Pen had left the TV studios, accusing Macron of ‘lies and aggression.’ found that a clear majority felt the centrist candidate had been the most convincing. Viewing figures said 16.5 million people watched the debate. French media on Thursday declared Macron the winner of a ‘dirty debate.’ Le Pen was criticized for her ‘permanent aggression,’ and even normally sympathetic publications found her ‘unconvincing’” (here).

As noted, the media has firmly opposed all nationalist parties in Europe and was doubtlessly influential in forming the public image of Le Pen and other nationalist candidates. The interests promoted by the media are typically in line with the corporate, globalist elites advocating cheap labor and an expanding consumer population. And, of course, in the case of the substantial Jewish-owned media in France, the UK (here and here), and elsewhere in Europe, the politics of demographic displacement conforms to their perceived ethnic interests.

For example, former UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader and the leading voice of British Euroskepticism, Nigel Farage, who was successful in rallying the British people into choosing to leave the EU had his fair share of problems with the Eurocratic media in Britain.  According to an article in the Express, “[Nigel Farage] accused the press of highlighting some members of the party with controversial views to try to discredit UKIP as a whole,” and demonizing Farage in the process. “And you’re surprised three years on, when I have to live like a virtual prisoner, that I’m not happy about it? Will I ever forgive the British media for what they’ve done to me? No.”  The British media effectively controlled the narrative on UKIP and cherry-picked certain members to detract from the broader cause of British nationalism and Euroskepticism.

Obviously, the same thing happened in the U.S. re Trump. According to a study from Harvard,

Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity. Of news reports with a clear tone, negative reports outpaced positive ones by 4 to 1. Trump’s coverage was unsparing. In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak. The best period for Trump was week 12 of his presidency, when he ordered a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase in retaliation for the Assad regime’s use of nerve gas on civilians. That week, his coverage went from 70 percent negative to 30 percent positive. Trump’s worst periods were weeks 3 and 4 (a combined 87 percent negative) when federal judges struck down his first executive order banning Muslim immigrants, and weeks 9 and 10 (a combined 88 percent negative) when the House of Representatives was struggling without success to muster the votes to pass a ‘repeal and replace’ health care bill.

Here, one can see how the media clearly and intentionally skews the tone of their coverage to further their corporate and political interests.  When Trump launched the airstrike on Syria (which was applauded by neoconservatives, Zionists, and global elites), the media was more positive.  But when Trump attempted to fulfill the campaign promise of the travel ban, the corporate media was outraged.  Such a travel ban would be a slight to the dogma of multiculturalism, and the same power structures which support multiculturalism are those which determine media coverage.

Europe is largely in the same situation regarding their media.  Coverage of nationalist candidates such as Le Pen, Hofer, Wilders, and Farage, has been overwhelmingly negative.

Wallerand de Saint-Just (a National Front member) was right on when he said, “So it’s us against them. Many politicians do not side with Monsieur Macron but they are against Madame Le Pen. And for the most part, that goes for journalists too, who you can see are against us, against the Front National, because very often they work for media owned by the supporters of Monsieur Macron.”  When the media outlets deemed to be credible by the global elites are owned by those very same elites, many of whom have political ties, how can one expect their coverage to be fair and just?

In France, the media’s harsh treatment of the National Front was affirmed by French voters.  According to a British news report, “A survey by the French Think Tank Fondapol, which was conducted in March, said 55 percent of French people think that the media treats Ms. Le Pen in a negative light. This compares to just 19 percent of people who think that the media treats Ms. Le Pen’s main rival the leader of En Marche!, Emmanuel Macron, negatively. The survey has revealed that only 15 percent of people believe that the media treats the FN leader positively, which compares to 46 percent of people who think that Mr. Macron is treated favorably.”

Nationalism continues to tantalize but ultimately the results have been disappointing, mainly because international power structures will simply not allow nationalism to manifest itself in a significant way.  Indeed, after the French election it was revealed that there was a secret plan to neutralize Le Pen if she had won. ‘freezing’ the political situation by convening parliament in emergency session and keeping the outgoing prime minister in office. Le Pen would have had to ‘cohabit’ with a government and prime minister from a different party, which she could have changed only in the unlikely event of winning a parliamentary majority.”

We should not lose hope though.  As more and more Whites wake up to the multicultural specter which haunts their continent, they will turn to nationalism to defend their right to exist and rule over the lands of their ancestors.  I am hopeful that, eventually, Europeans will rise up and reclaim their right to determine the fate of their continent by throwing off the shackles placed upon them by the global elites and internationalist financial entities.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

42 Comments to "Why is Europe Rejecting Nationalism?"

  1. R. Smith's Gravatar R. Smith
    June 1, 2017 - 10:00 am | Permalink

    Nationalism in Europe fails because it is the very essence of cowardice and dishonest cuckery, philosemitism and it is civic. Le Pen and the rest are weaklings who will not entice the bourgeois to part with the comfort of knowing their bank accounts are safe in the hands of the globalist, Zionist cabal. Understanding that the bourgeois do not matter and never have mattered because they will always run with the strongest horse and will never fight or resist anything is the key to success as is strict, radical ethno nationalism preaching the inevitability of a coming civil and race war across the continent and a confident determination to win it
    Democracy, a total scam which NEVER served the people is dead and the policy of the ethno-nationalists has to be a clear and unambiguous policy of kicking out cowards and pacifists from our ranks and embracing and cherishing a burning longing for a degree of terrifying and brutal violence never seen on the European continent to drive out the Jews and their 3rd world imports and take back our sacred lands for our indigenous people who have been here since before the ice age. “Europe is ours, the rest must go!”

    • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
      June 1, 2017 - 11:15 pm | Permalink

      …take back our sacred lands for our indigenous people who have been here since before the ice age. “Europe is ours, the rest must go!”

      American version: “We cleared this land; it’s ours! [not the Indians’]” (from River of No Return w/Robert Mitchum)

    • Ben Balmer's Gravatar Ben Balmer
      June 2, 2017 - 2:23 am | Permalink

      I agree that it’s hard to water down a racialist politics to make it pass the censors. However I don’t see how there could be a ‘race war’ since Jews and Muslims would not be on the same side for long. Surely Jews do not support sharia and are trying to use the Muslim immigration in some fashion – not sure what. Also, isn’t the middle class still the largest class and aren’t most middle-class EU whites liberals? Possibly, with the help of a vigorous internet presence, a populist position with nationalist elements could be sold to EU whites by exposing the corruption of the EU and the harmful plans of bankers. When establishment liberals rally behind the bankers and bureaucrats they could lose their “hipness factor.” Meanwhile, anti-banker but pro-immigration progressives could suffer from their apologia for immigration. In a three-way struggle, as opposed to a two-way, a populist faction might have a chance.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        June 2, 2017 - 9:15 am | Permalink

        … I don’t see how there could be a ‘race war’ since Jews and Muslims would not be on the same side for long.

        History disagrees with you. Jews and Muslims were on the same side for seven hundred years or so in pre-Isabellan Spain. The mutual admiration society ceased only when the Muslims were given the boot off the peninsula.

        Seven hundred years may be a drop in the bucket in geological time, but for present purposes, it’s bloody long enough.

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          June 11, 2017 - 7:05 am | Permalink

          @ Pierre de Craon

          But take into account the anti-Jewish passages in the Quran and Hadith, revived by Islamists – and not only Arabs – because of Zionism in the USA, and the historical studies of Musliim “antisemitism” detailed notably by Andrew Bostom.

          Judaism and Islam share a hostility to the New Testament and the doctrine of the Trinity, but in our secularized age the conflicts and alliances become more basically ethno-political and socio-cultural. Europeans are faced with problems from different directions, and they are not all directed by “the Jews”.

  2. Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
    June 1, 2017 - 10:03 am | Permalink

    With all of the LePen only damaged ballots, does anyone really believe the election result being a “landslide”.
    Similarly, in Austria, the first contested result was obviously a fix in favour of the (un)Green candidate. The delay in running the second was to ensure the fix could not be caught again.

  3. June 1, 2017 - 10:39 am | Permalink

    Zachary Sessions, thank you for the detailed article. I tell some thoughts.
    The subject is the survival of the white folks, the white countries, the white race. That is the basic subject. It is the “condition sine qua non”. Every deed of us, everything that we do, must be done in order not to damage this basic subject: Life! Our life!
    In other words: Do not kill yourself and do not kill your own kinship and do not kill your own race!

    It is very simple and it is very true. Telling the truth is a very good tool that we have: If I get in contact with a “Gutmensch” (good-doer, liberal, social justice warrior), I just tell him the above said sentence (“Do not kill…”) and then I go away. In case that he gives an answer, I repeat my sentence (“Do not kill…”). Also I add: “You are a murderer, a mass-murderer, a folk-murderer.” And then I go away.

    I do not want to convince him at this very moment. I want to make him ridiculous in front of the by-standers. Because deep inside everyone knows that I tell the truth. That is enough for the moment. It gives a good feeling for me-self, too. That gives additional strength to me, too.

    Another method: Some months ago I had the opportunity to come into a meeting of a “refugee-supporting group” of our German Evangelischen Church (supporting moslems and negroes in Germany). I stood up and asked some critical questions. The female leader answered them pro-forma (superficial, lying) and tried to go to the next person which had a question. At this moment I had an ideda, it came like lightning. I stood and raised my voice to loud but not shouting level. And I said: “Just because I am christian I have the duty to say loud and clear that this is false and that it is dangerous to those who do it”. Than I did sit down. This deeed was good for me-self. But as far as I could watch, it did not have an effect on the other thirty people. Nonetheless, it was a very good training in free speech.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      June 1, 2017 - 5:32 pm | Permalink

      @ Karlfried:
      Great use of the sound bite, yours with the Evangelists. Excellent work!

  4. dante Marotta's Gravatar dante Marotta
    June 1, 2017 - 11:51 am | Permalink

    I too am convinced Europeans and people outside of Europe of European descent are waking up and are slowly but surely moving towards Nationalist or Nationalist inspired parties that will bring about the change we all want, It may take some time but it will occur. Momentum is on our side and the msm is losing its control of discourse and old propaganda slurs like Racism etc are losing their power to silence an stifle debate. We are still the vast majority in all our lands and more and more of us are waking up every day, So keep up the good work.

  5. JRM's Gravatar JRM
    June 1, 2017 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Nice recap, but I’d like to add a couple of points. Regarding the blanket terms such as “rejecting”, we might be enlightened further by dissecting the vote by class and gender. Particularly in the latter case, White women are usually represented by greater numbers of votes for Left-wing, or pro-immigration parties, for reasons too numerous to go into here. Some good articles have been written on this gender divide, which is crucial for understanding the dynamics of White “rejection” of Nationalism.

    A factor which is worth contemplating as well when comparing the American election of Trump to the European political scene, is the healthy history of anti-intellectualism in the US. Not to denigrate Trump voters, (I was one), but in the US a candidate can actually turn elite distaste for his candidacy to his advantage; there are many Americans who are very skeptical about their putative “betters” such as Hollywood stars and Yankee high-brows. I always felt that the more the elite warned of how disastrous Trump would be, the more a certain faction of the voting public dug their heels in and refused to budge. I believe the elite multicultural orthodoxy still commands more respect in Europe. Short of a severe economic downturn, comfortable Europeans probably see little reason to upset the situation, though some may be casting a wary eye towards the occasional terrorist attack. I suspect Europe has pretty much charted its course, failing a major change in the social and economic stability they have grown used to. It will probably collapse at some point- but when?

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      June 8, 2017 - 3:08 am | Permalink

      ” Short of a severe economic downturn, ”
      Eventually this has to happen as the left make the West more and more third world. Then people will think differently. For now the people are still very rich and pampered, and no-one is short of food. In fact we are suffering from overfeeding.

      When it happens, the people will think differently. In practical terms this means voting for those who will stop and then reverse the nonsense. This can all be done relatively peacefully without proper war. All it takes is for the people to vote for proper leaders and not traitors who hate them and want to make them third world.

  6. Peter's Gravatar Peter
    June 1, 2017 - 12:49 pm | Permalink

    “What really needs explaining is why so many native European White voters vote for internationalist candidates who openly campaign for the interests of non-Europeans at the expense of their own future.” I think the answer is given at the end of the article. The mainstream media is overwhelmingly against nationalist candidates, People don’t want to be “bad” and even when they might agree with some things a nationalist says, the mainstream media constantly tells them these people are “bad”, immoral, uncaring, etc.

    They are not told murdering Arabs with bombs is bad, so no one complains about that. The excuse is always supposedly some evil leader like Assad, Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi has to be “stopped”. The truth is western leaders (particularly American leaders) are evil murderers that kill Arabs for Jews. Some people are aware of this, but here too, the Lugenpresse delivers the constant message of innocent, powerless Jews that do no wrong,

    I believe their weak area and our strong area is eastern Europe, which is unfortunately the poorest part of Europe. But I suspect their is still latent so called “anti-semitsim” there that has been handed down from grandparents and parents. Thank God for whatever amount there is. Eastern Europe experienced Jewish hatred in the form of communism and some have not forgotten this.

    I suspect the Jews also have say in the media in eastern Europe, but I think people are more aware of the Jews negative role. Whether it’s nationalist Ukrainains that welcomed the German army in western Ukraine in WW II or Latvians and Estonians whose WW II Waffen SS soldiers march to commemorate the defense of their countries, these people are more conscious of their history and Jews role in it. They are more conscious of the nationality they belong to.

    I suspect these countries universities and other venues would welcome speakers like Kevin MacDonald, Greg Johnson, David Irving, Mark Weber and the fascinating knowledge they and others have, which has largely been covered up since WW II. I believe this applies to virtually every eastern European country. And many young people have some knowledge of English. I believe contact should be made with universities in eastern Europe to find sympathetic people their that would invite our people to speak. I think many speakers might enjoy eastern Europe too, including the cheaper prices of hotels, etc.

    • Alicia's Gravatar Alicia
      June 2, 2017 - 6:17 am | Permalink

      Dear Peter. What you said about jew-awareness in Eastern Europe might be correct when it comes to other countries than Poland. As I was born and bred in Poland (1950)- and visit my relatives several times a year, after having retired in 2011 – I can assure you that not many ordinary Poles younger than 50 are aware of the Jewish question otherwise than with regard to the world wide known “Polish antisemitism”. Under my stays in Poland I have asked many younger people about their outlook on Jews, and have seldom received other answers than total ignorant such, even when it comes to the main meaning of the word Jew (Pol. zyd). Most younger Poles have no idea that Jews are on top positions in Poland, simply because most of the in Poland officially non-existent Jews have changed (slavicized) their names. But even the ones who have kept their Yiddish names are not easy to recognize, as Poles under fifty years of age are not able to distinguish such names from the German ones. Not quite surprisingly, you hardly can avoid running into information on the German domination in the Polish newspapers, if you visit Polish alternative sites on the Internet.

      Jews influence on the Polish society is rarely performed in the open. The established way is painting Slavic Poles as backwards antisemites. Adam Michnik aka Aaron Szechter makes an exception as he since the “round table agreement” – among Poland’s communists anno 1989 in Magdalenka – often spews anti-Polish propaganda openly. He performs this “patriotic duty” of his in the “eminent” paper of Gazeta Wyborcza. As I alluded before, younger Poles believe that the foreign influence in Poland is German, if not Russian. The latter a result of the massive anti-Russian propaganda, not only in the MSM.

      Having said all this, I want you to know that I appreciate all your comments, Peter.

      • Peter's Gravatar Peter
        June 2, 2017 - 6:34 pm | Permalink

        Thank you Alicia and thank you for your comment. I have heard basically the same thing you said from a Romanian friend regarding Romania (born shortly after the war ended) and I coincidentally met a young Romanian that fits the description you gave. I might have been overly optimistic in my comment, but I wonder if a more receptive crowd might be found in some other countries.

        Interestingly, Poland and Germany might have the same problem in relation to the Jews. Although my mother was German and raised in what is now Poland (thus some hard feelings) I don’t think she, nor anyone with a sense of fairness would have blamed Poles for what supposedly happened to Jews during the war. Whatever actually did happen, that would be on us.

        On a similar note, I’ll admit to being baffled by the widely used term “collaborator” in regards to the French. When you lose and you’re occupied, you either collaborate or you become a partisan and fight. And partisans are shot on sight. Other than the bombing by the British and Americans, the French did not suffer much under German occupation. Serious partisan activity would have made France look like Russia, Poland or Germany at the end of the war, with many more dead Frenchmen. Paris might have looked like Dresden or Warsaw. And maybe the French thought the Germans didn’t even declare war on them.

        • June 3, 2017 - 7:59 am | Permalink

          ? What a confused array of factoids. The French declared war on the Germans, in fact. ‘Other than the bombing by the British and Americans…’ well, France was bombed more than most countries, in fact. “Collaborator” is a Jewish media term: Vichy was Jew-realist (or something like that), which means in jewspeak that they ‘collaborated’ – also Norway, Sweden, etc ‘collaborated’.
          After Jews won WW2, there was intense propaganda everywhere – USA, USSR, UK, all European countries etc etc. With radio and the new TV, cinema, cheap printing in colour — it’s not surprising there’s a huge momentum to be reversed.

          • Peter's Gravatar Peter
            June 4, 2017 - 6:40 pm | Permalink

            (Mod Note … to BOTH “hotheads”: C’mon guys, let’s keep TOO as “civil” as possible.)

            Did you even read what I wrote hothead? Judging by your writing style your head was about to blow up when you wrote your blurb. “The French declared war on the Germans, in fact.” Yes, that was the exact point I made in the last sentence of my post hothead.

            I agree with most of what you wrote and you basically rephrased what I wrote. But France was not bombed as much as Germany and it wasn’t the Germans that did most of the bombing, which again supports my point that the Germans were not brutal occupiers in France and things could have been much worse. The Germans could have done what the British and Americans did and they could have leveled Paris the way Berlin and Dresden were.

            I can’t wait to see what he writes this time.

        • Peter's Gravatar Peter
          June 4, 2017 - 10:18 am | Permalink
  7. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    June 1, 2017 - 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Europe has been subject to decades of political, military and cultural hegemony by the USA and the author asks why Europe’s sense of itself has collapsed? Is there something in the Anglo Saxon’s DNA which prevents him from seeing that subjugation might succeed? Western Europe is a monster created by the American Frankenstein.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      June 1, 2017 - 7:57 pm | Permalink

      . . .and Frankenstein is on the jewish surname list. . .



    • Theodora's Gravatar Theodora
      June 2, 2017 - 5:18 am | Permalink


      I agree 100%. It was the British that promised a ‘new world order’ to the jews. And this was in 1940 !!! WWII had hardly begun! There was no sign of any concentration camps, and still the British promised to put an end to all this ‘suffering’ and ‘persecution’ of jews.


      The jews were given the right to steer the world in a new direction after WWII was over.

      And indeed, after the war they started an atrocity propaganda offensive. http://heretical.com/walendy/sdelmer.html

      They started a ‘re-education regime’. Christian Civilization was made responsible for all the horrors in the world and needed to be eradicated. The pillars of Christian Civilization: Nation, Family, Religion came under attack. The Cultural Marxism Program came in full swing.

      The Germans needed to be so much intimidated and indoctrinated that their own children would be ashamed for being German.

      Imagine, you are a survivor of Dresden and have to see your grandchildren chanting ‘Bomber Harris, do it again’ because you try to defend your culture and way of living against the refugee invasion.

      The protestant Anglo-American world (the allies) is responsible for the engineered self hate so many Europeans experience because they facilitated the enemy of Christian Civilization.

      And now it’s up to the Brits and the Americans to turn things around for all the Western World.

  8. David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
    June 1, 2017 - 2:54 pm | Permalink

    Unfortunately Europe no longer has politicians of the stature and competence of Oswald Mosley or even Charles de Gaulle. But there is some hope in the more intelligent and educated members of Generation Identity, but unity on essentials is a paramount necessity and the Gallic mind has a weakness for disputation whereas the Saxon mind has a weakness for group-think. Getting the balance is an art, but nil desperandum.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      June 1, 2017 - 11:04 pm | Permalink

      Nil desperandum, yes. But even more to the point might be the faux Latin expression formerly picked up by every boy who studied Latin in US high schools: non illegitimis carborundum—don’t let the bastards grind you down.

      In common with other humorously meant expressions, the phrase has appeared in at least a dozen different forms, each making less grammatical and conjugative sense than the one preceding it.

      • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
        June 2, 2017 - 10:55 am | Permalink

        @Pierre! Gratias tibi ago. This might be more correct (I had to look it up at the Latin discussion group where I hang out):

        Ne siris a scelestis te opprimi.

        “Bastard” as an insult didn’t exist in the olden days as far as I know.

        I guess I am not the sharpest knife the drawer – I simply don’t know if these phrases were deliberately made silly in the first place (a dumb joke) or if someone who flunked Beginners Latin honestly thought that is the way to translate these English mottos. Threw schit and it stuck.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          June 6, 2017 - 9:55 pm | Permalink

          I think that some of my contemporaries were trying to figure the very same thing out 55 years ago, Barkingmad.

          One of my classmates in either my sophomore or junior year in high school (i.e., ca. 1960) scribbled it on the blackboard moments before our Latin teacher, a severe but quite lovable old gent then already past seventy, arrived for class one morning. I recall that he looked at it, shook his head in quiet dismay, and erased it. Then he turned to us and intoned, “The boy who wrote that probably thinks he’s clever. But I can assure you that silly fools were writing the very same thing on blackboards in 1930!”

  9. Fenria's Gravatar Fenria
    June 1, 2017 - 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Honestly, I think there is a critical mass that’s going to be able and willing to understand and accept nationalism, and that critical mass is made up of an ethnic vanguard. You’re not going to get many people outside that vanguard to understand the far reaching and big picture meme of nationalism and preservation of the ethnic state.

    Unfortunately, the dull and witless masses always seem to far outnumber the vanguard, and thus we end up ruled by them and their puppet masters. At some point we just have to realize that our nations are no longer ours, and probably never will be again. We need to come together as this pro white vanguard and carve out new nations within the dead husks of our old ones.

    These new nations will necessarily be smaller than the old ones, and they may have to go back to human scale technologies for a period of time, but if we’re going to ride the tiger through the impending onslaught of extreme upheaval that is advancing our way in this century, we have to come together, physically, and create planned communities.

    We’re not going to win at the ballot box. Even if we were somehow able to get an equivalent of a Trump in every managerial position throughout Europe, Trump is STILL not the real answer. He’s not an actual pro white activist by any stretch. And the thought of a Europe ruled by a legion of Trump equivalents is so far fetched as to be laughable.

    We need to cut our losses, and that includes about half the white race. They are effectively dead to us. They have become the enemy within. They are a cancer that needs to be excised off the body proper. Forget about them. Even when they’re raped and murdered en masse, they STILL don’t wake up. There is no common sense or logic that can pierce their mental fog. Don’t waste your energy.

    Instead, invest your energy making connections with fellow whites where possible and attempting to bring about real world, physical situations where we live face to face on land that we own, where we can actually set about making the 14 words a reality and not just something we talk about online.

    • June 2, 2017 - 10:15 am | Permalink

      Fenria, You speak about numbers. Your comment is thoughtful.
      I think: of cause, at all times the silly people in our folks (in my case: the German folk) will be around 80% of any folk. That is normal. That is not negative. That is a fact which nature has made. It is natural. It will change never.
      A folk is like a herd. We shall accept this fact. It is not negative at all, in case we know how to handle it.
      We will never activate 51% of a folk to the point that they use their own god-given brain. Most (=80%) people are to silly or to cowardly or to lazy to see life from the side of self-defense. Like a herd, they will go with the “Zeitgeist”. Always.
      We have three aims or areas for our activities: The 20% of our folk who want to think and who want to fight, the 79% who are inactive or are even slowing down our activities, and the 0,01% who are actively and with a plan destroying our white folks.
      We thinking Germans are less than the inactive masses, but by numbers we are one hundred times larger than the active-evil, planfully-white-folks-destroying group.

      Our fight for survival will be long, but we have accepeted the fact that we must fight. And we turn and twist every thing in such a way, that it will serve our aim: our own survival, the survival of us and our folk.

  10. Fred Bostock's Gravatar Fred Bostock
    June 2, 2017 - 2:17 am | Permalink

    Just chuck in The Holocaust and Nationalism vanishes like Scotch mist at dawn.

  11. William's Gravatar William
    June 2, 2017 - 6:57 am | Permalink

    In part the rejection of nationalism is a desire to maintain a sort of White European Unity. The ability to travel and work throughout the EU. Unfortunately the EU is not about European Unity. It’s about globalism, mass non White immigration and expansion into North Africa. It will destroy its White European core.

    Europe has very serious censorship. There is no freedom of speech because there is no 1st amendment. Criticism of another race, religion or ethnic group is all but impossible. Indoctrination in schools is severe. Facebook was already censorious but it’s reached rediclouse levels under Merkel.

    The European Media is highly globalist and lunar leftist.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      June 2, 2017 - 12:47 pm | Permalink

      See e.g. The European Network Against Racism online.

      Before the Brexit referendum I noticed a report that the EU authorities were considering penal camps to re-educate young people out of their “xenophobia” and “racism”. I don’t think it was an optical illusion (as some readers appear to think was the case with the Manchester murders and some other “Islamist atrocities” elsewhere).

  12. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    June 2, 2017 - 8:43 am | Permalink

    R. Smith,

    European women must realize how they are being used by alien communities (read, Japanese, Jewish and African for starters).

    The European males must stand up for themselves and push hipsters, hennetasters and thralls aside.

    And yes, it’s time for the Abrahamic religions to apologize to the indigenous religions of Europe (read, too many years of rape and child abuse).

    Most importantly, we need a “practicable plan.”

  13. June 2, 2017 - 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Marry a Polish girl and find a way to keep English-speaking people away.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      June 3, 2017 - 10:45 am | Permalink

      Does this cogent comment recall to anyone else the refrain from an old calypso song? Its altered lyrics follow:

      If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life,
      Never make an English speaker your wife.
      So from my personal point of view,
      Get a Polish girl to marry you.

      —with sincere apologies to Harry Belafonte and the Coasters

  14. gjjd's Gravatar gjjd
    June 2, 2017 - 7:10 pm | Permalink

    First off, thanks for the well-researched article. It added to my day. I often give negative feedback, now is time for me to give positive feedback.

    I think it is VERY important for right-wing candidates to not die on pointless hills such as climate change, abortion, gay marriage, or euro-skepticism.

    These things ruin our credibility and image. Who knows how many more elections we could win if we gave the people more of what they want?

  15. Derek's Gravatar Derek
    June 3, 2017 - 12:29 am | Permalink

    Nationalist parties lack coherent economic agendas that can appeal to a wide spectrum of voters. Europe is different from America in that the Nanny State is thoroughly entrenched. The sheeple look to the government unlike do it yourself America with its wide open spaces.

    Just talking immigration is the Achilles Heel of European nationalist parties. This was seen with Le Pen and UKIP whose limited agenda was pulling out of the EU. Even Zionist Theresa May’s austerity policies may lose her votes to Corbynista and Marxists. I have kith and kin who vote Labour because of the Nanny State benefits but hate immigration. The same applies to Ireland. After the financial crisis and hardships plus bailouts they have been conditioned to accept a half Indian faggot as Prime Minister.

    In contrast Donald Trump’s great appeal is his economic agenda and grasp of business. He has already bargained with China and prevailed over firms that wanted to take jobs to Mexico. Even the Wall Street Journal had praised his business style compared to indecisive Obama.

  16. Kartoffelsalat's Gravatar Kartoffelsalat
    June 3, 2017 - 8:04 am | Permalink

    In part the rejection of nationalism is a desire to maintain
    a sort of White European Unity. The ability to travel and
    work throughout the EU. Unfortunately the EU is not about
    European Unity. It’s about globalism, mass non White
    immigration and expansion into North Africa. It will
    destroy its White European core.

    Europe has very serious censorship. There is no freedom
    of speech because there is no 1st amendment. Criticism
    of another race, religion or ethnic group is all but
    impossible. Indoctrination in schools is severe. Facebook
    was already censorious but it’s reached rediclouse levels
    under Merkel.

    The European Media is highly globalist and lunar leftist.



    Just google the below combination to see how immigrant rape is happening like Cologne and Rotherham in Germany ( in German).

    Arabische Männer or Arabischer Mann or Schwarzafrikaner + vergewaltigen or Vergewaltiger or Kindervergewaltiger +site:de

  17. Gotcha's Gravatar Gotcha
    June 3, 2017 - 11:08 am | Permalink

    The solution is not Polish women who are making money in Britainistan through sham marriages with Indians and Africans.



    Elections are rigged and pointless. The die is cast. Best to prepare.

    https://m.youtube.com/user/ kaimurros

  18. NBF's Gravatar NBF
    June 3, 2017 - 6:12 pm | Permalink

    The “BoBo” money-worshiping race traitors are still too comfortable & safe: the ONLY things that have ever mattered to that kind. They – along with the jewsmedia, corporate CEOs & other “elites” – need to be blown to chunks in the fashionable sidewalk cafes; to have their children’s heads crushed by trucks driven by Muslim morons. And they’ve guaranteed that they will be.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      June 6, 2017 - 3:42 am | Permalink

      NBF ‘crushed heads’ of their relatives etc. This will make no difference to one who is wired to be a lefty. There was a woman whose brother was killed in the recent London Bridge attack and all she could say was things like ‘we must not be hateful’ etc. There is nothing that can shift the sympathy of these types for any group that wishes to bring down their country.

  19. Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
    June 4, 2017 - 5:10 am | Permalink

    I hope my comment will not be disappear by mysterious reasons…

    I think Europeans are expecting a REAL reasonable candidate who accept some policies of both sides or better all ideological spectrum and not versions of Putin or Trump.

  20. celt darnell's Gravatar celt darnell
    June 5, 2017 - 10:19 pm | Permalink

    Change is happening. It’s just coming about too slowly for most of us here.

    Consider: 15 years ago, Marine Le Pen’s old man scraped into the second round of the French presidential election. He was only there because the French left decided to have a cat fight over which of their candidates was the most doctrinaire leftie, split their votes and, as a result, Le Pen got through. He was then crushed 82% to 18% by the utterly venal and corrupt Jacques Chirac.

    15 years later, Marine made the second round under her own steam and won double what her old man did against a cipher (and thus a tougher opponent than a complete criminal like Chirac.)

    Geert Wilders came second and was held to second place because Mark Rutte channeled his inner Donald Trump and picked a fight with Turkey and made anti-immigrant statements on the campaign trail (something even the Jew York Times noted). Given the strenuous attempts the Dutch establishment — including the media — have made to demonize Wilders (including show trials) I’m frankly amazed he’s done as well as he has. Oh, and he’s another relatively recent arrival. As one Dutch commentator put it, no-one had heard of this guy 15 years ago. Of course not — all the attention at the time was directed at Pim Fortuyn (remember him?) who would be assassinated that year (2002).

    Brexit — had you told me, in 2002, that the UK would vote to leave the EU in less than 15 years, I’d have laughed at you — and I’m a Eurosceptic. At that point, we were fighting tooth and nail not to be dragged into the euro. Tony Blair’s, pro-politically correct, pro-mass immigration, pro-multicultural new Labour appeared invincible. All of a sudden, it wasn’t.

    Finally, Donald Tump. Although with the current president of the US, my view is pretty much that old Elvis Presley refrain, “A little less conversation, a little more action, baby” he represents a shift in US politics that can’t be ignored.

    I write as someone who recognised even before the Salman Rushdie nonsense (1989) that non-white immigration into western lands needed to be halted — never mind before September 11, 2001.

    And yes, the change is happening far too slowly. Far too slowly indeed.

    But it is happening. And you’d be surprised how things accelerate.

    Keep you chins up. We are making progress.

    Nationalism in Europe isn’t dead. It just looked that way 20 years ago. Now it’s stirring. It’s waking up.

  21. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    June 6, 2017 - 3:36 am | Permalink

    “whereas Emmanuel Macron performed well among voters with the opposite profile: higher incomes, high levels of education, and more elite occupations”
    Also, those who have higher education have had about five extra years of far-far-left indoctrination in the education system. This must have had an effect on their thinking.

    Voters in the West will think differently when their countries become third world and their pampered lifestyles end.

  22. June 6, 2017 - 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Excellent way of describing, and pleasant paragraph to obtain data concerning my presentation topic, which i am going to convey in school.

Comments are closed.