European Nationalism

Patriots, Identitarians, Nationalists and Sovereignists: They must all be positive

What follows is the text of my speech given at the Generation Identity conference in London, UK, July 27, 2019.

Words such as “sovereignty” and “identity,” both belonging to the family of patriotism, have become trendy words among European nationalists of different stripes. They are even used as synonyms along with their new derivatives “sovereignists” and “identitarians” respectively. Many of these verbal derivatives did not even exist in the English language until recently. In the German language these words, which are of Latin origin, have also come into use recently—words such as der Patriot, der Identitäre and der Souveränist, although they often sound odd and un-German to traditional German ears. These replacement words for the old word “nationalist” owe their birth to two political and historical factors: 1) The German language, shortly after World War II, was subjected to a profound cleansing process carried out by the occupying Allied forces and their re-educational apparatchiks, the latter mostly recruited among academics of the newly re-established, Jewish-dominated Marxist Frankfurt school. Their task was to impose on the German people a new political vocabulary, a new way of communication — and a new identity. 2) The old German words associated with the notion of patriotism such as the German adjective “völkisch” or the compound noun “Volksgenosse,” which stands for a fellow patriot, or the unique German word “artfremd,” which means an alien of different biological stock, or the word “gleichrassig,” meaning someone of the same racial stock, vanished overnight in 1945. Ever since they have become crimethink words banned from public discourse. Henceforth many modern German and other European nationalists, burdened by the stigma of the National-Socialist past, prefer to use imported words such as “patriots” or “identitarians” instead, well aware that these new words can provide them with a modicum of political legitimacy in the mainstream media.

The new word “identitiarian” sounds quite romantic and is often used by patriots today all over Europe and America although it is not specific enough. Our identity cannot be unitary; it can have multiple facets. How should we define our identity? In singular or in plural? For example, in my case, which identity comes first and which one comes second? Am I first a Croat or an American? Or a hyphenated Croat-American? Or a European-White-American? On the professional level I can also display triple or quadruple identities; I can first define myself as a writer, as a professor, a translator, or as a political activist. On the religious level, my identity may first be Catholic or agnostic. And finally, there is also my racial identity, which is being dismissed as a social construct today by the majority of System-friendly scholars and the mainstream media. There are, fortunately, a few prominent scholars today who consider race the first marker of man’s identity. Even a half-blind man when stepping out of this London hotel can notice swarms of individuals of different races milling around.

So which identity should I pick first in my case? Should it be based on my racial, national, political, religious, sexual, or professional preferences? Read more

The Global Nation


The modern era, beginning with Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the Americas, has been characterized by more and more interconnection and blurring between the world’s societies. This phenomenon has only grown in intensity over time with the rise of technologies such as mass transport and telecommunications, but also intellectual developments such as the rise of internationalist and anti-national ideologies. We may define globalism as the tendency, both conscious and unconscious, towards the destruction of distinct and autonomous nations and states in favor, allegedly, of a harmonious global society and polity. Globalism ignores the reality of racial differences and powerful nature of ethnic identity, two factors which are at the root of the inevitable tensions and conflicts to be found in all multiracial and multiethnic societies.

There are powerful material factors favoring the breakdown of national borders. There are efficiency gains in people being able to work and trade across borders. There is furthermore an understandable push by the billions of humans living in the miserable conditions of the Third World to enter our countries so as to enjoy a more comfortable and secure life. A nostalgic conservatism or reflexive inertia is then not enough to stop these pressures. Even Japan, still largely homogeneous, is starting to see significant numbers of phenotypically-distinct immigrants (especially Indians and Filipinos). An Indian man even recently won a local election in Tokyo. Rather, immigration must be opposed with a conscious and principled counter-force in the name of the economic and social well-being of the native— the preservation of their cultural and genetic identity and their sovereignty.

In the wake of the World War II, internationalists quite reasonably sought to limit conflict between states by embedding them in a web of international institutions (such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the European Union) and trade relations, as well as a common hegemonic liberal-democratic ideology. This, it was hoped, would create a community of interests making war between great nations unthinkable. Read more

On Yellow Vests and Monsters

 

 

“Any appeal to the white working class, as in today’s alt-right populism, betrays class struggle.”
Slavoj Žižek, The Philosophical Salon, 2019.

Commenting on the political aspects of Shelley’s life and poetry, Virginia Woolf asserted in 1927 that the poet’s England “has already receded, and his fight, valiant though it is, seems to be with monsters who are a little out of date, and therefore slightly ridiculous.” Woolf was referring to Shelley’s nineteenth-century opposition to a system in which journalists were imprisoned for being disrespectful to the Prince Regent, men were stood in stocks for publishing attacks upon the Scriptures, weavers were executed upon the suspicion of treason, and boys (Shelley included) were expelled from Oxford for avowing their atheism. Dramatic in its own time and context, by the decadent mid-1920s such activism had indeed become a little anachronistic on paper, even if I disagree with Woolf that it had become slightly ridiculous. The exertion of political power, after all, is a monster that may change costume and migrate in certain seasons, but is also a fixed reality of human relations and therefore no more ridiculous, in any guise or era, than the people it rests upon.

The profundity of Woolf’s comment, for me, therefore lies less in its discussion of Shelley’s poetry than in its exposure of Woolf’s own interwar sense of political security. It is this sense of political security that today seems the more out of date, and therefore slightly ridiculous, especially as we live in an age where the monsters of the past, present, and putative future, are perpetually invoked in all areas of life. Today, people are imprisoned for being disrespectful to certain races, men are stood in the postmodern equivalent of stocks for attacking certain ideologies, workers are today arrested more often for patriotism than treason, and children are threatened with expulsion for the new sin of ‘racism.’ Woolf’s smug security, and not Shelley’s poetic demonology of the political, thus seems quaint at a time when everything in the tumultuous present is discussed via reference to monsters that may at any moment return from their slumber or drop their mask, and are certainly not to be laughed at.

How does one fight today’s monsters, and who is fighting them? One of the most interesting aspects of the persistent Yellow Vest protests, about to enter their tenth weekend and once more growing in size, is that they have been claimed by almost everyone on the political spectrum. As such, no-one is yet clear as to what monsters the Yellow Vests fight, or which monsters the movement itself may give birth to. Although coming from an avowedly Marxist/Maoist perspective, Slavoj Žižek is almost certainly correct is his recent assertion that:

The yellow vests movement fits the specific French Left tradition of large public protests targeting the political, more than the business or financial, elites. However, in contrast to the 68’ protests, the yellow vests are much more a movement of France profonde (“deep France”), its revolt against big metropolitan areas, which means that its Leftist orientation is much more blurred. (Both le Pen and Melenchon support the protests.) As expected, commentators are asking which political force will appropriate the energy of the revolt, le Pen or a new Left, with purists demanding that it remain a “pure” protest movement at a distance from established politics. One should be clear here: in all the explosion of demands and expression of dissatisfaction, it is clear the protesters don’t really know what they want. They don’t have a vision of a society they want, just a mix of demands that are impossible to meet within the system, even though they address them at the system.

Attempts to define the protesters in simple terms appear doomed to failure. Not only have factions of French Yellow Vest protesters been filmed fighting each other in Paris, but in almost every attempt to export this protest model there have been similar splits and fights, as competing groups attempt to see themselves, and only themselves, in the Rorschach of riotous assembly. Most recently, in London, pro-Brexit Yellow Vest protesters and anti-Brexit Yellow Vest protesters clashed at Trafalgar Square, with reports of both sides calling each other ‘Nazis.’ Both the collapse into Yellow Vest vs Yellow Vest, and the mutual use of the ‘Nazi’ pejorative, are illustrative of the wider confusion of ideology and childish terror in the face of name-calling in postmodern politics. These phenomena also illustrate the fact that, as Žižek points out, none of these groups have a vision of a society they want (or will admit to wanting). One guide to characters in James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake is titled “Who’s Who When Everybody is Somebody Else?” — a question that could as easily be put to the labyrinthine and evasive nature of a postmodern political activism in which identities are claimed and simultaneously disavowed by all concerned. Read more

A Tartan Tyranny: Censorship and Silence in the Virtue-Signalling Scottish Police State

Race isn’t a social construct, but here’s something that is: the so-called United Kingdom. In fact, it’s precisely because race exists that the U.K. is a construct rather than a nation. The native Whites of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales are genetically distinct, which is why those regions are all genuine nations (ultimately from Latin nasci, “to be born”). If I travel from England to Scotland or Wales, I feel as though I’m going to a different country.

Concept vs Reality

That’s because I am going to a different country. And I like the feeling. I fully support the concept of Scottish and Welsh independence. For example, I would be delighted to see an independent Wales where the Welsh language and Welshness were re-born and re-invigorated. An independent Scotland would be more complicated and perhaps there should be two of them, split between the Gaelic-speaking Highlands and the Scots-speaking Lowlands.

But I chose my words carefully: I fully support the concept of Scottish and Welsh independence, but I utterly oppose what would be the modern reality. If Scotland and Wales won independence in the near future, they would be run by traitorous left-wing governments and would open their borders to the Third World. That’s already happened in independent southern Ireland, where the Jewish immigration minister Alan Shatter welcomed in many thousands of Blacks and Muslims. Their low average IQs and high average criminality are now inflicting serious harm on Ireland, as the hate-blogger Irish Savant has often documented.

A Scottish shabbos goy

Alan Shatter will one day, I hope, be put on trial for crimes against the Irish people. But Shatter couldn’t be charged with treason, because he was never Irish in the first place. He was always loyal to his own Jewish race and its interests. However, someone who can be charged with treason is the Scottish shabbos goy Tony Blair, who came to power with Jewish money and diligently served Jewish interests throughout his time as prime minister. Blair’s thuggish and Machiavellian press-secretary Alastair Campbell told the Jewish Chronicle that Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” That “community” is small in numbers but gigantic in power, influence and wealth. In fact, you could define Blair’s New Labour party as an alliance between hostile Jews and renegade Scots against England and English traditions.

One English tradition that Jews like Peter Mandelson and Scots like Tony Blair wanted to destroy was the tradition of free speech. Authoritarianism and collectivism are stronger north of the border, where Christianity took a much sterner and stricter form after the fall of Catholicism. Although the Church of England burnt and beheaded enthusiastically in its early days, it became a mild and tolerant institution known for its fence-sitting and equivocation, not for hell-fire sermons and heresy-hunting. Calvinistic Scottish Protestantism was quite different and it’s unsurprising that Scotland witnessed “the last mass execution for witchcraft in western Europe.”

A curse on the Campbells

Scottish politicians like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Reid brought those authoritarian traditions south to London to meet the authoritarian traditions of Jews like Lord Levy, Peter Mandelson and David Miliband. But the dim and narcissistic Blair was a front-man in New Labour, not a genuine leader. He followed orders from much more intelligent and forceful men like Lord Levy, who funded him, and Alastair Campbell, who oversaw his propaganda and choreographed his acting. Campbell was born in England but is ethnically Scottish and remained true to the clan whose name he bears. Historically, the Campbells are notorious in Scotland for their treachery in the Massacre of Glencoe against the Clan MacDonald. Alastair Campbell became notorious in England for his Machiavellian ways and was central to the lies and deceit that took Britain into the Iraq War.

The Machiavellian Alastair Campbell

Nowadays Campbell is central to the campaign to nullify or reverse Brexit, which Scotland didn’t vote for and which the Scottish “First Minister” Nicola Sturgeon strongly opposes. Sturgeon leads the collectivist and authoritarian Scottish National Party (SNP), but the “independence” planned by the Scots Nats would be a thoroughly Orwellian affair. They want to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom so that it can come more firmly under the rule of the European Union (EU). Read more

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