European Nationalism

Orbán: EU Leaders are “Slowly But Surely Turning Indigenous Europeans Into a Minority”

The Hungarians recently celebrated the sixty-second anniversary of their 1956 Revolution against communism, which was cruelly put down by the Soviet Union, to which the West responded with purely verbal opposition. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán took the opportunity not only to commemorate the Hungarian struggle for freedom but to explicitly warn his fellow Europeans about the single most important issue facing our civilization and family of nations this century: the reduction of our people to vulnerable minorities in their own historic homelands. As far as I am aware, this is the first time a European head government has explicitly spoken out to defend the interests of “indigenous Europeans”: this ground-breaking and historic event which was under-covered by the mainstream media.

Orbán’s speech makes for inspiring reading and listening. In his opening, he noted that:

According to one of the laws of mathematics, if we multiply two negative numbers, the product is always a positive number. This is a truth which is difficult to comprehend. If we translate this strange truth into the language of history, the main lines of Hungary’s past are suddenly revealed to us. Almost all our revolutions and freedom fights have ended with a negative result: defeat, victims, reprisals. But somehow from all this a positive result has eventually emerged: survival, nation and freedom. 

We should recognize this truth whenever we feel downcast or discouraged at the course of events. I personally am confident that our people can only learn from their mistakes: the greater the suffering, the greater will be our self-correction and our renewal. Read more

Victory, Italian-Style

The Italian Government: left to right, Di Maio, Salvini, Conte.

It’s no secret that European politics has been steadily shifting to the right in recent years. The Social-Democratic and Socialist center-left has been collapsing across Europe. There has been a concurrent rise of the hard left and of the nationalist right, although power is mostly now held by the (useless) center-right.

There have been breakthroughs by populist, anti-immigration Right-wing parties across Europe. The Danish government, which rules with the backing of the nationalist Danish People’s Party (DF), has announced that it will take zero (0) U.N. refugees in 2018, citing the fact that too few of the refugees already in Denmark have found work or integrated. In short, they are an economic and social liability. Denmark has also recently passed forced assimilation” legislation to end the parallel societies existing in the country’s Muslim ghettos—(e.g., “mandatory day care for a minimum of 30 hours a week for children up to six years old living in one of the 25 residential areas, which includes courses in Danish values ‘​​such as gender equality, community, participation and co-responsibility’). As race-realists, we would say that such legislation misses the point insofar as Denmark’s unique indigenous genetic heritage is still being destroyed.

In Austria, the nationalist Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) currently rules in Austria as a junior partner in a coalition led the by the young, savvy conservative leader Sebastian Kurz. The previous time the FPÖ was in government, in 2000, the European Union voted sanctions to punish the Austrians for the audacity of having allowed Right-wing populist party in power, democracy be damned. This is one metric of how far we have come: with populists in power in several European countries, there is no longer a consensus among the 28 member states to punish the Austrians for “voting wrong.”

In Hungary, we have for years had a patriotic government under Viktor Orbán, who has regularly and explicitly denounced the threat posed by replacement-level Afro-Islamic immigration and multiculturalism. In Poland, a somewhat less interesting national-populist regime has also come to power. The EU institutions regularly denounce these governments as “violating the rule of law.” For the most part, as in the United States, liberals in Europe seem to consider that “violating the rule of law” in practice means “doing what liberals dislike,” no matter what the people want or what the law actually says. In both Hungary and Poland, the populist governments have maintained their popularity and have pledged to protect each other by vetoing any EU sanctions from Brussels. Read more

Petliura and the Pogroms in Interwar Ukraine, Part 2

Go to Part 1

Petliura had to lie when he claimed nationhood for Ukraine was widely supported by the Jewish community. He constantly tried to get Ukrainians to care as deeply for Jewish issues as he did. Jewish parties were willing to work with the Ukrainians, but they abstained from coming out for or against independence. Or, if they did have a firm stance on the matter, it was decidedly against independence.[i] Yet, throughout his time in power, Petilura would again and again make public statements in favour of Jews. Take for example, the following statement to what remained of his army in August of 1919,

It is time to know that the Jews have, like the greater part of our Ukrainian population, suffered from the horrors of the Bolshevist-communist invasion and now know where the truth lies. The best Jewish groups such as the Bund the Faraynigte [United Socialist Jewish Workers’ Party], the PoaleiTsion [Workers of Zion], and the Folkspartey [People’s Party] have come out decidedly in favor of an independent Ukrainian state and cooperate together with us. The time has come to realise that the peaceable Jewish population — their women and children — like ours have been imprisoned and deprived of their national liberty. They are not going anywhere but are remaining with us, as they have for centuries, sharing in both our happiness and our grief. The chivalrous troops who bring equality and liberty to all the nationalities of Ukraine must not listen to those invaders and provocateurs who hunger for human blood. Yet at the same time they cannot remain indifferent in the face of the tragic fate of the Jews. He who becomes an accomplice to such crimes is a traitor and an enemy of our country and must be placed beyond the pale of human society. … I expressly order you to drive away with your forces all who incite you to pogroms and to bring the perpetrators before the courts as enemies of the fatherland. Let the courts judge them for their acts and not excuse those found guilty from the most severe penalties of the law.[ii]

If Peltiura was guilty of anything, it was that he had almost no control over many of his generals, who essentially did as they pleased. He actually tried to set up Jewish militias in response to the growing number of accounts of pogroms. These militias would be tasked to defend Jewish communities from anyone, including those supposedly under Petliura’s command. However, they were never created because, interestingly enough, the Jewish parties were against any such units being created.[iii] He passed laws which were meant to stop pogroms: reformation of the army, extraordinary courts to deal with pogromists and funds to be used to assist victims of pogroms.[iv] Read more

Petliura and the Pogroms in Interwar Ukraine, Part 1

The fall of the Romanov dynasty saw Russia descend into chaos and even as the First World War was raging, yet more conflicts would spring up. In Ukraine, the violent confusion that came with the end of the Romanov’s empire has become particularly controversial because of the impact it had upon Jewry living there. One figure in particular is contentious, Symon Petliura, who for much of the last century has been vilified as a murderer of Jews. His death and its aftermath have had an impact not only in Ukraine but elsewhere in Europe, particularly France, where the trial of his Jewish assassin would have effects still felt to this day.

Symon Petliura

After the first Russian revolution ended the monarchy, leading members of the Ukrainian intelligentsia came together to form the Central Rada. The Rada was not initially in favour of independence, but began acting almost immediately as if they were an independent government. With the rise of the Bolsheviks, however, they would proclaim an independent Ukrainian People’s Republic. The leader of this new entity was the historian and socialist Mykhailo Hrushevsky. Indeed, all the members of the Rada were socialist to some degree or another, including Symon Petliura. The first incarnation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic would prove short-lived thanks to the Bolsheviks, who, in January of 1918 successfully captured Kiev. With the help of the German and Austro-Hungarian armies, the Bolsheviks were driven out shortly thereafter. However, instead of the Rada the new Ukrainian government was that of the conservative Pavlo Skoropadskyi. He was proclaimed Hetman, but his Hetmanate did not last the year. His government was overthrown by the Directory, which was led by Volodymyr Vynnychenko, Fedir Shvets, Andrii Makarenko and Symon Petliura. The Directory was in many ways a continuation of the Central Rada as both were socialist, both claimed leadership of a People’s Republic and many of the leading figures in the Directory, like Petliura, had been part of the Central Rada in 1917.

Even after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the end of the Great War in Eastern Europe, conflict raged on. The Bolsheviks saw their chance to once again strike at Ukraine, but they were not the only rivals the Directory had to face. So-called White armies  — conservative forces loyal to an autocratic Russia of some description, often monarchist but not exclusively — and even an army of   led by the Ukrainian Nestor Makhno were also vying for control of Ukraine. Read more

National Action, Islam, and Britain’s Lamentable Terrorism Priorities

The failed improvised explosive device claimed by ISIS


The irony couldn’t have been stronger, nor the despair it engendered more stinging. For ten days the British government, the media, and hostile anti-White social elements had binged on feigned panic and self-satisfaction following the arrest and charging of seven young ethno-nationalists for ‘terrorism’ and ‘race hate’ offences (see here and here). During the course of this Orwellian ‘Ten Day Hate,’ few paused to consider the fact that none of the alleged activities of these individuals met any dictionary definition of terrorism. They were allegedly members of the non-violent, and dubiously proscribed organization ‘National Action.’ They had allegedly engaged in ‘racist’ online conversations. It was claimed they had placed ‘offensive’ stickers around a university campus. But were they terrorists according to the Oxford Dictionary, and most legal understandings of the term? Had they engaged in “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”? No such charges had ever been made by the British criminal justice system against National Action, and they have not been made against the recently arrested men.

But you wouldn’t have guessed that from the hyperbolic government statements that poured forth in the hours and days after the arrests. We were told that jailing these young men was a matter of grave national security. The Guardian enthusiastically waded into the fray, reporting that, because some of those arrested were soldiers, the nation should beware a mass ‘neo-nazi’ infiltration of the British armed forces. Interested parties began agitating for yet more non-violent White advocacy groups to be banned. The nebulous threat of ‘racist extremists’ was everywhere and yet nowhere.

And then, just we were reaching peak hysteria about the ‘terrorism threat’ from the ‘Far Right,’ reality reasserted itself, and the stickers and pranks were forgotten. A Muslim terrorist, later claimed by ISIS, left an improvised explosive device on a busy London train at Parsons Green with the intention of causing mass death and destruction. A further rebuke to the delusions of the masses, and the manipulations of the elite arrived in the form of the growing realisation that the bomber may have been working with a former ‘child refugee’ from Syria, a man who had been taken into the home of an elderly and cartoonishly altruistic British couple.

In the final act of this Islamic plot, the device failed to activate as its designers had intended. But in the chaos which followed the burst of flame and rancid smoke, Britons received a perfectly-timed reminder of what terrorism really is, and from which quarters it truly emanates. Read more

The Freedom Party and Austria’s Jewish Community

The Freedom Party (FP) has for a long time been the pariah of Austrian politics, but that time is over. In the last presidential election their candidate Norbert Hofer almost won with 49.7 percent of the vote, which was the best result that the party had ever had in its history. Due to “possible” fraud, the election had to be repeated, and with 46.2 percent the result was almost the same.

In the next parliamentary election in October there is a lot at stake. The Freedom Party could become the strongest faction. But maybe the stupid normies will believe the lying cuckservatives, who are at the moment are announcing they will do everything the FP demanded for years (but won’t actually do it). Even the socialists are trying to establish their Minister of Defence as a “strong man,” who actually wants to defend the borders. The big question, of course, is what is stopping the government from doing this right now?

However, the important difference at this election is that both the Socialists and the cuckservative Austrian People’s Party are openly discussing the forming of a coalition with the FP. This is a transformative metapolitical change! The cordon sanitaire has been broken.

A while ago the FP announced that it considers itself now to be “the new center.” A big part of this strategy is to do everything to become more “respectable,” i.e., to tone down its rhetoric to the tamest way possible level and to get rid of representatives considered too provocative. This politically correct charm offensive also includes grovelling before Jewish institutions in an almost embarrassing manner. The obligatory pilgrimage to Israel is now a standard procedure for party bigwigs. The FP eagerly professes that it is “not anti-Semitic” at every opportunity and even has Jewish officials within its ranks.

The result of these efforts is not exactly exhilarating. The “Vienna Israelite Community” (Israelitische Kultusgemeinde Wien, IKG) is the largest Jewish organisation in Austria, and has around 7,000 members. Austria has a population of 8.7M, so the IKG represents about 0.08% of Austrian citizens. The usually wide media coverage of the IKG’s opinions is highly disproportionate with this figure. The chairman of the IKG, Oskar Deutsch, appears often on the news and comments regularly on domestic political issues. It’s no surprise that the IKG always stands on the far left and sees the FP as its enemy. It does not look like the FP’s charm offensive is going to change that anytime soon. Read more

Why is Europe Rejecting Nationalism?

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. Read more