Europa Terra Nostra recently held a conference in Wismar, Germany titled “Freedom Conference, with a message of hope.” The conference was sponsored by the EU (!) because the EU sponsors groups associated with parties that are represented in the European Parliament. This includes Germany’s NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands; National Democratic Party
of Germany) which has several representatives in the European Parliament, including Udo Voigt, former party leader of the NPD, who gave a photo presentation on the disaster in Syria, Israeli complicity, etc. The program featured speakers who will be familiar to TOO readers, Nick Griffin (whose talk focused on the dire consequences of massive non-White immigration combined with a disastrously low White birthrate) and Tom Sunic (whose talk focused on differing European identities and the limits of petty European nationalisms). Daniel Friberg, founder of Arktos Media, gave a very upbeat talk on the prospects for the European nationalist right.
The contingent from Kotleba (People’s Party — Our Slovakia) were also very optimistic about the future. Dr. Milan Uhrik, MEP and vice-chairman of the party talked about the success of the party in obtaining 14 of the 150 seats in the National Council, the Slovak Parliament, noting that the ongoing disaster in Western Europe is making nationalist ideas more attractive. William Johnson, Chair of the American Freedom Party, gave a brief presentation on the AFP’s activities in the current election.
Frank Rennicke, a well-known nationalist folk singer and composer, provided entertainment. Nothing like a crowd of around 100 singing enthusiastically and in unison to get the blood flowing — even if you can’t understand the words. This video, featuring Rennicke in a duet with a backdrop of Hamburg, 1945, gives a flavor of his singing and world view.
My talk was a pastiche of some of my previous ideas, with some additions for the predominantly German audience. I present it here in its entirety.
European identity and the populist revolt in the USA and Europe: Bringing down the hostile elites
We are nearing the climax of a watershed election in the United States. The Ruling Class understands that Donald Trump represents a counter-revolution to all they have built up over the last 50 years.
America is advertised as a democracy, but it’s really an oligarchy that is unanimously opposed to the interests of the traditional White majority. We have a system in which major party candidates are vetted by the media and the donor class before being put up for election. It’s a top-down system that more resembles an oligarchy than a democracy. Donald Trump has not been vetted by this system and represents a challenge to the current elites. Hence these elites, from left to right, unanimously oppose him.
These elites have succeeded in destroying republican, constitutional government in the U.S., with potentially explosive consequences. Angelo Codevilla, professor at Boston University recently wrote an important article. He notes,
Because Republicans largely agree with Democrats that they need not take seriously the founders’ Constitution, today’s American regime is now what Max Weber had called the Tsarist regime on the eve of the Revolution: “fake constitutionalism.” Because such fakery is self-discrediting and removes anyone’s obligation to restrain his passions, it is a harbinger of revolution and of imperial power.
This is why we see repeated comparisons of Trump to Hitler—most recently, “This New York Times ‘Hitler’ review sure reads like a thinly disguised Trump comparison.” Despite absolutely no statements from Trump suggesting that he would suspend the Constitution and assume dictatorial powers, the concern is lurking that, like Hitler, he would do just that.
Despite appearances to the contrary, there is a unified oligarchic establishment that straddles both the Republican and Democrat parties. This has not been so obvious in previous elections when Republicans and Democrats would seem to be quite different on some issues. However, the rise of Donald Trump has shown that the establishment is entirely united against him. For example, billionaires are opposing Donald Trump 20–1, whereas in previous elections, they were much more split between the two parties.
The U.S. now better resembles an oligarchy than a democracy. In fact, a recent paper by two Princeton political scientists shows that an oligarchic model fits U.S. politics better than a democratic one, as demonstrated by policy issues, where elites in business, politics, the media, and academia hold starkly different attitudes than the majority of Americans on issues like immigration. The attitudes of these elites on immigration are not even remotely connected to the attitudes of the Republican voters. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 90 percent of GOP voters oppose an increase in immigration, yet a restrictionist policy has never been supported by elites in the Republican Party and has been stridently opposed by the entire Democratic Party.
This new elite is egregiously corrupt. Codevilla notes that “In today’s America, a network of executive, judicial, bureaucratic, and social kinship channels bypasses the sovereignty of citizens. If you are on the right side of that network, you can make up the rules as you go along, ignore or violate any number of laws, obfuscate or commit perjury about what you are doing (in the unlikely case they put you under oath), and be certain of your peers’ support. …Because disdain for ordinary Americans is this ruling class’s chief feature, its members can be equally certain that all will join in celebrating each, and in demonizing their respective opponents. [My emphasis]
While the traditional America aspired to be and substantially attained a society based on individual merit, the new elite is not a meritocracy (the poster child for this is Elena Kagan), and not just in terms of Affirmative Action and ethnic favoritism in university admissions. The Clintons may be seen as representative of the corruption of this new ruling elite, able to flout laws with impunity. At this writing, Hillary Clinton remains ahead in most national polls and has the support of the entire Establishment, left to right, despite:
- highly credible charges of unprecedented corruption involving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation from donors, many of them foreign entities, while she was Secretary of State, as well as outrageous speaking fees for Bill Clinton from these same donors (importantly, his speaking fees skyrocketed after Hillary became Secretary of State);
- violation of an agreement between Clinton and the Obama Administration not to accept foreign donations during her tenure as Secretary of State;
- the destruction via BleachBit (a program designed to make the information non-retrievable) of likely incriminating emails after a subpoena,
- being cleared of criminal conduct by the FBI that would have sent ordinary people to prison;
This is only a small part of their corruption. There have been new details every day from Wikileaks and other sources.
None of this has been enough to derail wall-to-wall Ruling Class support for Hillary Clinton. We have indeed come to the end of America as a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law.
The media is an important pillar of this oligarchic establishment. The media, academia, and the bureaucracy have been engaged in a top-down revolution, in which the moral and intellectual high ground has been seized by people hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the West. This has created a ruling class that is completely out of touch with the interests of a large majority of its citizens. This has occurred despite the appearance of democracy.
The top-down nature of this revolution cannot be overemphasized. There was never a demand by a majority, or even close to a majority, from any Western country for a complete transformation, to the point that White people will soon be minorities in societies they had dominated for hundreds and, in the case of Europe, many thousands of years.
I want to stress that media messages in favor of massive immigration and the displacement of traditional populations have typically been couched in moral terms. If you oppose these things, you are a bad person. It’s not just that you are mistaken about policy, you are morally evil. This is certainly the case in Germany. A recent article in The New Yorker quoted Frauke Petry, leader of Alternative for Deutschland:
Petry thought that German politics was more weighed down by liberal pieties couched in moral terms.
“Big German media are always careful about what they report. Our political opponents absolutely avoid acknowledging the factors of illegal migration and open borders in these attacks [i.e., sexual attacks and other forms of violence against Germans].” …
“It’s so moral to allow these attacks to happen,” she said sarcastically. “It’s so moral to promise to people around the world that they can come to Germany and find paradise.”
Petry found this outlook anti-democratic, disdainful of the views of ordinary Germans. Reducing the entire Enlightenment and all of the successes of European history down to this need to be morally good: I find that extremely dangerous. There’s this saying of Nietzsche”…“In ‘Zarathustra’: ‘The good have always been the beginning of the end.’ ”
The mainstream media environment has condemned as immoral the idea that Germans or Whites in general have interests, just like everybody else; that identifying as a White person or a German who wants to advance these interests is normal and natural; that race is real; that there are real racial differences in traits important for success in a modern society and that there is no magic wand to change these traits; and finally and most importantly, that immigration and multiculturalism carry huge costs in terms of social cohesion, social conflict, trust, and willingness to contribute to public goods, like healthcare, welfare, and public infrastructure.
Although terrorism and the sexual assaults in Germany certainly focus the public’s attention on the costs of massive unselected immigration, the far greater moral travesty is the loss of a traditional sense of national identity as bound up with a particular people and culture. Citizenship becomes a hollowed-out legalism—what is often termed the “proposition nation” concept of citizenship, dedicated only to abstractions like freedom, democracy and limited government, rather than the identity and interests of a particular people. The origins of the “proposition nation” concept are discussed extensively in my book The Culture of Critique. This ideology is now well-established among political and intellectual elites throughout the West. A belief in America as a White, European civilization was strong in the 1920s; it was on the defensive in the 1930s; and it disappeared, more or less, completely after World War II. Obviously, since World War II a strong ethnic sense of German identity has been completely forbidden as a reaction to the defeat of National Socialism. In the U.S., this was not a natural death but the result of a prolonged assault by the intellectual Left in academic culture and the media. It is now maintained, not by the free flow of ideas, but by imposing costs on dissenters, such as job loss, ostracism, and lack of access to the mainstream media.
The sad reality is that the suicide of the West has become a moral imperative in elite circles, a testimony to the enduring and unique appeal of moral principle that has been so characteristic of the West, at least since the 19th century—apparent, for example, in the anti-slavery movement in the U.S. and England where anti-slavery activists were successful by highlighting the suffering of Africans, and in the recent outpouring of empathy in response to the photos of the migrant child washed up on the beach in Turkey, whereas the French child killed by the Muslim terrorist in Cannes, France lying on the street with her teddy bear got almost no coverage.
One of the psychological mechanisms used in this assault on Europeans and their identities is guilt over supposed past transgressions. In the US, every war, at least since the Civil War, has been justified on moral grounds. I know of no other culture that is so susceptible to these moral arguments and willing to go to war for moral reasons, most recently the assaults on Iraq, Libya and Syria in the name of removing immoral dictators that have unleashed nothing but chaos and instability throughout the region, including a massive refugee problem that is victimizing Germany most of all.
Arguments couched in moral terms often work by producing guilt. These arguments are very effective. Many Europeans feel unending guilt for colonialism and the conquest of North America and other lands by their ancestors — guilt that is zealously encouraged by the media and the educational system. And of course, in Germany there is the never-ending guilt over the Holocaust—a guilt that apparently mandates completely eradicating Germany as an ethnic entity. Different White countries get different guilt messages—slavery and conquest in the U.S., colonialism in Britain and France, the Holocaust everywhere, but of course, especially in Germany.
But this is entirely one-sided. Will Israel apologize out of guilt for what they are doing to the Palestinians? Will Muslims apologize for their expansion in Asia, North Africa, and parts of Europe? Will they apologize for their long history of slavery and slave trading? Of course not.
Some moral crusades are justified, but no human group is devoid of past sins and in any case, nothing in the past justifies the complete suicidal guilt on the part of any group. But in so many cases, such as the Iraq war, which was promoted by neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby, and the migration onslaught, moral sentiments are manipulated cynically by elites who pursue very real and very immoral interests. Both the Iraq war and the resulting migrations are complete disasters. Right now, these moral sentiments and proneness to empathy are being cynically manipulated in the service of displacing White America and destroying any ethnic basis of European nations. That certainly includes Germany.
The outcome of present policies is an utterly predictable decline in social cohesion, with far-ranging costs in terms of increased conflict and crime, and a lessened willingness and ability to contribute to public goods. Each of the national healthcare programs in Europe was enacted when these societies were homogeneously White and citizens had a sense of being part of a common culture reaching back far into the pre-historic past. It is well known that people in ethnically diverse societies invest less in social capital; they cooperate less; they are less prone to engage in volunteer work; and there is less trust among citizens. We should keep in mind that evolution occurred in small ethnically homogeneous groups. The hunter-gatherer mentality, which is a critical strand of European culture, evolved in small, face-to-face groups, where trust and moral reputation were absolutely critical. Being seen as an immoral person was evolutionary death because, at the very least, you would be ostracized and thrown out of the group.
The problem is that now Europeans are being asked to participate in their own suicide in order to maintain their reputation as moral, upstanding citizens and avoid being called “racist.” So many of us shudder at the thought of being ostracized and humiliated as moral pariahs simply for expressing a sense of White or European, or German identity. This is testimony to the ability of the Left, with its power in the media and educational system, to create morally defined in-groups, which are ultimately suicidal for the peoples and culture of the West. Our task is to create a counter culture—one that is based on science and truth, to be sure, but one that is also deeply moral and emphasizes the righteousness of protecting our people and culture.
In Europe, police-state controls on thought and behavior intended to buttress the multicultural revolution, which is really an anti-White revolution, are firmly in place. In the UK, Germany, and elsewhere, people have been investigated and in some cases arrested for Facebook and Twitter posts simply opposing migration and the transformation of their societies. Recently the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance blamed the rise in anti-Islamic attitudes and actions on media coverage of crime by Muslims, and they urged the media not to report the Muslim background of terrorists.
It is predictable that the response to incidents such as the mass sexual assaults in Cologne will be enhanced police surveillance and the curtailment of civil liberties. We are living in societies that are not only dominated by the ideology of multiculturalism but are budding police states as well. In response, many people, especially women, will be intimidated and choose not to attend public events or public facilities like swimming pools. This is not the culture we want to live in. Principled conservatives should be horrified at this—and therefore reject Muslim immigration. In the U.S., conservatives should be open to Trump’s proposals on Muslim immigration until the problem is brought under control.
In the long run, multiculturalism can’t exist without powerful social controls on speech and behavior. As ethnic conflict continues to escalate throughout the West, increasingly desperate attempts will be made to prop up the ideology of multiculturalism with sophisticated theories that White people who have a sense of White interests are suffering from a psychopathology and are morally defective. We will see ideologies that any and all bad behavior or underachievement by non-Whites is caused by pervasive White racism (including the now fashionable concept of “microaggression”). There will be police state controls on non-conforming thought and behavior.
Thilo Sarrazin has already warned Germans about the deeply immoral consequences of non-European immigration in his book Germany Abolishes Itself. Sarrazin documented the slow pace of integration of Turkish immigrants into German society and economy, their disproportionate reliance on government welfare, and their higher fertility. Most importantly, given the lower IQ and academic achievement of the new immigrants compared to native Germans and other Western societies, there will be ethnic stratification in which ethnicity becomes correlated with social class—a poisonous situation where ethnic conflict is exacerbated by social class differences. Ethnic stratification has always existed in the United Stastes. because of African-Americans, but immigration from Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East simply makes it worse. This results in the racialization of politics, in which people vote along racial/ethnic lines, with the migrants and their descendants much more likely to vote for the parties of the Left, with their generous welfare policies and promotion of immigration and affirmative action. The Left, having abandoned its White working-class base, views immigration as the key to its political success.
It will likely be worse in the second generation. In Europe, large numbers of Muslims have led to self-segregation into parallel societies as new generations come of age and cleave to their own. Further, the children of Muslim immigrants show much higher rates of criminality than their parents. This trend has been documented in Denmark and Sweden. It is evident in France with second and third generation Muslims enforcing no-go areas for police. It is apparent in Britain in comparisons of Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindu immigrants. Muslims are much less competitive economically and educationally and more prone to anti-social behaviour and criminality compared to the latter.
By the second generation, poorer immigrant groups become susceptible to radicalization by ideologies that rationalize their low socioeconomic status and sense of alienation by making them out to be victims of White racism and privilege. These ideologies are acquired from universities, schools, the media, politicians and ethnic leaders.
The racialization of politics is a critical process of our time. Even a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, who seeks to view all social phenomena in terms of the “class struggle,” could not fail to see that the political fault lines are fast becoming based on race. In America, the vast majority of Republican votes are from Whites, and around 60–65 percent of European-descended Whites vote Republican. This is likely not a ceiling and could be much higher in the current election where we already know that the great majority of Whites, especially males, support Trump.
The racialization of politics reflects what I have termed implicit Whiteness. Despite the current cultural programming, White people are gradually coalescing into “implicit White communities” in multicultural America—that is, communities that reflect White identity, but which “dare not speak their name.” I assume this is also occurring in Germany where ethnic Germans continue to socialize with each other, enjoy traditional aspects of German culture, move to neighborhoods to avoid being surrounded by migrants, and make few, if any, friends across ethnic lines.
Research on ethnocentrism has shown that people often have unconscious attitudes that they do not express explicitly. In the U. S., the vast majority of Whites have the usual stereotypes about Blacks, but oftentimes these attitudes are unconscious. They would never express them explicitly, at least partly for fear of the consequences. Parents’ choice of schools and neighborhoods reflect this widespread racial hypocrisy. Parents, including liberal parents, act on their implicit attitudes, and there is a profound gap between their implicit attitudes and behavior (where they show in-group racial preference) and their explicit attitudes (where they piously express the official ideology of egalitarianism). I have noticed that Swedish nationalists often accuse liberal Swedes of completely avoiding areas with migrants, and I assume the same occurs in Germany.
In effect, they are creating implicit White communities. They do not explicitly state that their choice of friends, neighborhoods, entertainment, and schools derives from racial preference, because that conflicts with their explicit racial attitudes and with official ideology. Instead, they say it’s just because the schools are better or the streets safer.
The problem is, Whites often believe in their rationalizations. I assume many Germans behave in a similar manner. They thus fail to explicitly assert their real, fundamental interest in preventing the demographic transformation of their society.
In America, Whites are gradually coalescing into political and cultural affiliation as Whites, and this trend will continue to strengthen in the future — identities such as being a Republican, a car racing enthusiast, an evangelical Christian, a country music fan, or even many conservatives who pledge allegiance to “limited government.” The vast majority of people doing these things are White and they are associated with the political Right in the United States.
But there are also implicit White communities on the Left. One such group are many affluent, well-educated Whites. They love farmers’ markets, expensive bicycles, and driving electric cars. They idolize Blacks as cultural heroes, and they vote for the parties of the left. They passionately believe in a future world in which everyone will be nice; they passionately believe in a United States or Germany where everyone should be welcome because, after all, people are the same everywhere. These White liberals are highly prone to racial guilt complex.
So imagine the guilt they would feel in voting for Trump or the NPD or similar parties —or explicitly opposing Muslim or non-White immigration to Germany. For such people, their White identity is entirely compatible with the dispossession of Whites via immigration and multiculturalism. Many of them look forward to a non-White America or a non-White Germany, even as they continue to associate with other Whites in White neighborhoods, safely away from the problems of migration. They are collaborating with the elites that are dispossessing Whites and they feel morally righteous in doing so—exactly as they were told in their sociology class in college and in the mainstream media every day.
Of course, these White liberals will rationalize their voting with morally uplifting platitudes that make them feel well-educated, intellectually superior, and in tune with the brightest minds in academia, in the prestige media, such as Der Speigel or Stern. In my view this is a potentially fatal weakness. We look up to people in prestigious institutions like the media and universities that are dominated by the left.
And of course, quite a few of these people live in predominantly White areas. These people are relatively removed from the downsides of immigration and multiculturalism. It’s easy to praise migration on moral grounds, no matter what the costs to the millions of Germans who can’t move away from the invasion. It’s easy to do that when the costs aren’t yet personally apparent, and when you still feel connected to your predominantly White community. But if present trends continue, moving away and insulating yourself from diversity won’t be an option for the great majority of Whites. In South Carolina, Trump was strongest in counties with the highest non-White populations; this is consistent with research showing that diversity results in greater White racial consciousness, and showing that Trump is the implicitly White candidate. The prediction would be that the Germans most opposed to the migrant invasion are the ones who have to live with it every day. The implicit Whiteness of Trump’s campaign is apparent in the results of a recent poll by two academics showing that Whites who support Trump are fearful of becoming a minority — as well they should be given the bloody history of ethnic conflict throughout the ages. I would be interested to know if that’s true in Germany.
For our part, we have to keep on doing what we are doing. There are many signs we are getting stronger and that our message is being heard. Brexit was a very good sign, and parties like the Front National in France and the NPD and others in Germany are continuing to increase their share of the vote. It is very gratifying to see so many young, smart, and educated Whites gravitating to our cause. We must understand that our message is based on science and the realities of human behavior—and, more important, it is morally righteous. We have every reason to look forward to the future. Indeed, we should project the image of confident, optimistic warriors. We know that the transformations that have been imposed on us are evil, and that they were engineered, not out of love for humanity, but out of a narrow self-interest of certain groups, such as capitalists eager for cheap labor, and ethnic groups who do not identify as White or German or European. These groups are possessed by hatred toward the traditional peoples and cultures of the West. And we know that these transformations are supported by so many of our own people, possessed by a misguided, suicidal idealism.
These changes are well advanced, and our enemies remain wealthy, powerful, and determined. But there is a morally righteous anger that is becoming increasingly obvious. Sooner or later this will have cataclysmic consequences.
 Danish Statistical Yearbook, 2015: http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/upload/20195/headword/dk/128.pdf; Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (2005). Crime among people born in Sweden and abroad Swedish). https://www.bra.se/bra/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2005-12-14-brottslighet-bland-personer-fodda-i-sverige-och-i-utlandet.html#