The democratic credentials of the current Western regimes are, no doubt, greatly exaggerated and indeed completely false concerning any explicit (and often even cryptic) defense of ethnic European interests.
Nonetheless, one must admit that genuine democratic debate is currently being allowed on two major issues in Europe today:
- Membership in the European Union is being debated and decided in a referendum in Great Britain, with major conservative politicians such as Boris Johnson campaigning in favor of “Brexit.”
- The so-called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) — a proposed EU-U.S. free trade agreement, also known as TAFTA — is facing considerable opposition from mainstream leftists in both politics and the media (mainly on grounds that it would strengthen corporate elites).
A question then arises: What attitude should European patriots and White advocates take on these issues? Most no doubt oppose the EU and TAFTA, if only to stick it to our globalist elites. But not all do. Richard Spencer has ridiculed Brexit advocates for campaigning on a distraction. Roman Bernard has tentatively defended TAFTA on the grounds that this could be the first moves towards a Transatlantic government uniting the Western world. These issues are complex and both sides have valid points.
The point I would like to make however is the following: These issues are secondary to demographic realities. On this I would cite the venerable French patriot Jean-Marie Le Pen as an authority, who said of France’s political, educational, and economic problems: “All of this is repairable, is modifiable. There is only one thing which seems to me to have an exceptional weight, heaviness, and viscosity: It’s mass immigration.”
We need to bear in mind that whatever the pros and cons of the EU or TAFTA or really everything other than migration policies, these things are ultimately reversible, often easily so. For example, tomorrow, a patriotic French government could, with only a little will, begin printing French francs, legally withdraw from the EU (as is provided for in the treaties), or abrogate any TAFTA agreement.
In contrast, reversing the Afro-Islamization of France, restoring her ethnic unity and genetic quality, is infinitely more difficult. We can certainly talk abstractly of “remigration” — but both problems of scale (millions of people) and sentimentality (consider what the words “discrimination” or “sterilization” evoke in the average person) make demographic issues intractable in the extreme.
These demographic problems, once allowed to emerge, paralyze a nation like a man getting bogged down in mud. The foreigners still have powerful tribal feelings and inevitably begin to organize to defend their ethnic interests. Our people in contrast become paralyzed by sentimentality. Any appeal to ethnic European feeling becomes intensely controversial for being “exclusionary” and indeed becomes blamed for the inevitable failures of non-Europeans and of the new multiethnic society.
In the medium or long term, I have no doubt that a willful, patriotic, and scientific government could in fact solve all demographic problems. In the meantime however, we need to absolutely subordinate issues like the EU or TAFTA to the demographic imperative of reversing migration flows.
European patriots can differ in good faith on the impact of the EU or TAFTA on ethnic European interests. EU membership certainly means Great Britain cannot limit European immigration. However, contrary to what Brexit advocates such as the UK Independence Party suggests, the EU in no way forces non-European immigration upon Britain. Britain is actually Whiter today thanks to immigration from EU such as Poland. (Of course, there are also other arguments in favor of Brexit: e.g. to protect the indigenous Anglo-Celtic types from Continental immigration, to discredit the morally and intellectually bankrupt European establishments, or more generally to stoke political change.)
Today, the EU’s cosmopolitan elites are (rather ineffectually) pressuring patriotic Central European countries to shatter their ethnic unity by importing Afro-Islamic migrants. But if patriots were to come to power in the leading European countries such as Germany and France, we would hope that an organization like the EU would exist to foster European cooperation (e.g. to build a wall guarding our common borders) and pressure still liberal-minded countries to change their ways.
Similarly, under the current American administration, further rapprochement between the United States and Europe can only be further damaging to the European peoples. European governments already have a rather pathetic position of subordination to the U.S. government. The hostile elites which rule America are also culturally hegemonic in Western Europe. From this perspective, weakening of American influence in Europe is good and the proposed “economic NATO” of TAFTA is bad.
However, as Dominique Venner emphasized, history-in-the-making is unpredictable. With the incredible presidential campaign of Donald Trump, I would say there is today a better chance of a patriotic government coming to power in the United States than in any Western European country. If Trump were in power, an economic and regulatory agreement like TAFTA — in bringing together and creating interdependence and a community of interest based on the kinship of European nations — would probably be a good thing.
A standard procedure in our Western democracies is the distraction of the electorate through debates on secondary issues. I believe this is to a certain extent occurring with the Brexit and TAFTA debates. There are no doubt many people in the anti-EU and anti-TAFTA movements who could be brought to ethnic consciousness. But we must not waste resources on side issues. The French philosopher Auguste Comte’s adage is no less true for being often quoted: “Demography is destiny.”
Yet today, open discussion of ethnic European interests remains taboo. The mainstream nationalist parties — such as UKIP, the Front National, and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) — form a kind of “authorized opposition.” They are ostracized by mainstream political parties, but are nonetheless frequently given access to the mass media to criticize Islamization and the EU, and advocate a kind of civic nationalism. But these politicians are still not allowed to do a truly elementary thing: To openly advocate for the interests of indigenous Europeans, or indeed even to point out the obvious merits of ethnic cohesion to a society’s well-being.
And woe to anyone who would bring attention to Jewish privilege and ethnocentrism! Woe to those, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, who would refuse to bow before the civil religion of the Shoah!
We Europeans of the Old World and the New are some ways from being free again. The unstoppable spread of heretical ideas on the Internet has nonetheless begun to have an impact. In particular, there has been astonishing progress in America with the Trump campaign, with the mainstream media finally discovering and giving dangerous (to them) attention to the Alternative Right. We need to keep pushing: Eyes on the prize!
 One is struck at how leftists often oppose multinational corporations and “neoliberal” free trade, but are otherwise utterly incapable of articulating why postnational borderlessness is bad or provide a constructive alternative. Nationalists in contrast have a coherent and constructive vision: Globalism is bad and nationhood is good because the nation is the only large-scale community in which solidarity remains possible (in contrast with both conflict-ridden multiethnic societies and ultra-elitist and oligarch-captured “global governance”).
 Trump is of course not perfect and we cannot predict what his administration would lead to — he is really a wild card — but I can confidently say that his presidency would have an enormous galvanizing impact in Europe. The European establishments, who for decades have been submissive to American power and in thrall to the latest American fashions, would very likely ape America as they always do. The faithless and venal political elites of Europe are filled with Newt Gingrich types, congenitally opportunist girouettes always ready to compromise with the changing winds, wherever they might blow.
 Famously, Republicans in the United States have appealed to the ethnic instincts of their White electorate — through appeals to issues such as abortion or gay marriage — while studiously ignoring those voters’ real interests concerning displacement-level immigration or foreign policy in the Middle East. Conservatives use similar bait-and-switch techniques across the White world. In France, Nicolas Sarkozy was one of the best practitioners of such deceit, wooing patriotic voters with tough slogans and aggressive secularism, while actually doing nothing to address the fundamental underlying problem: displacement-level Afro-Islamic immigration.
 It is moderately interesting to see how democratic debate and the somewhat fluctuating borders of politically correctness function in our Western electoral regimes. The outermost spectrum of authorized opinion — carefully policed by the mainstream media and political elites — is on the Right. In contrast to the days of McCarthyism, for decades there has been virtually no politically-correct taboo on the Left. Far-leftists and Marxists are frequently employed in prestigious universities and hailed by the mainstream media as geniuses (e.g. Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Eric Hobsbawm, Jean-Paul Sartre . . .). In contrast, few if any fascists, reactionaries, nationalists, or even, increasingly, conservatives are allowed to teach in Western universities. In France, the difference in treatment between Left and Right was strikingly evident in the 1980s when the establishment saw no troubles with a ruling government composed of Socialists and unreconstructed Communists, even as communist dictatorships were still oppressing hundreds of millions of Europeans. In contrast, a purely local electoral alliance in the city of Dreux between mainstream conservatives and the Front National caused a national scandal — because of the FN’s supposed (in fact, non-existent) relationship with a National Socialist regime which had been dead for several decades.