European Nationalism

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

The French Election: Adieu, la France

Mainstream media: Macron saving France (depicted as a White woman) by leading her to the glorious future of “openness and diverse modernity”

As anticipated by most observers, liberal globalist Emmanuel Macron and populist nationalist Marine Le Pen were selected by French voters to move on to round two in France’s presidential election, scheduled for May 7th.  For the first time in the 59-year history of the French Fifth Republic neither of the country’s two main parties, the Socialists and the Republicans, made the second round of presidential balloting. Either the socialists or the center right have run France since the 1950s, but with this election the old model has been shattered.

When the two-round system was created, it was expected that the main candidates of right and left would get around 30% in round one, and then rally satellite parties to their side for the run-off. But this time there were four candidates — with four very different versions of what to do next — all split nearly evenly at around 20%, so whoever is elected will be a minority candidate. The latest figures from the French Interior Ministry have Macron at 24%, Le Pen at 21.3%, while conservative François Fillon missed the runoff at 20%, Left-wing Jean-Luc Melenchon at 19.6% and Socialist Benoît Hamon at a paltry 6.4%.

By all accounts Macron, is likely to pick up the most votes in the runoff and will almost certainly become the next president. Marine Le Pen will fight a hard campaign, and her totals will rise, but it is almost inconceivable that she will win, according to the French and International press. Apart from this speculation, what conclusions can be drawn thus far? Read more

While (Western) Europe Slept, Part 2

Part 1.

These same fears were clearly articulated over a decade ago by Bruce Bawer in his prescient book
. Bawer argued then that Europe’s democratic traditions and open society face a growing demographic and cultural threat from Europe’s Muslim immigrant communities who reject Enlightenment values and resist integration.

He blamed this trend primarily on the “self-destructive passivity” among Europeans, whom he regards as “appeasing” essentially incompatible philosophies like radical Islam in the name of religious tolerance.  Unlike the former American ideal of “melting pot” integration of immigrants within the wider society, Europe generally fails to integrate Muslim immigrants and instead tends to marginalize and isolate immigrant communities in the name of multiculturalism.

According to Bawer, Western European governments subscribe to the worst kind of political correctness. From Sweden to France, governments shower immigrants with benefits, install them in ghettos, while turning a blind eye to Muslim attacks on women, Jews and gays.

Writing in 2006, Bawer hinted at a coming cataclysm. “Immigrants to Europe bring with them many tribal customs that are flagrantly inconsistent with a Western understanding of human rights,” he writes. “These customs represent flashpoints of latent or potential conflict between the Muslim immigrant communities and their host societies.” And in a multicultural society, we are expected to simply tolerate them even though they conflict with the most basic values of historical Western societies.

Response to the book was predictably ideological. Bawer characterized the leftwing criticism as symptomatic of one of the very problems he had sought to address in the book:

One of the most disgraceful developments of our time is that many Western authors and intellectuals who pride themselves on being liberals have effectively aligned themselves with an outrageously illiberal movement that rejects equal rights for women, that believes gays and Jews should be executed, that supports the coldblooded murder of one’s own children in the name of honor, etc., etc.

Unintegrated Muslim Communities: The Case of Sweden

Remember all of the recent furor and Swedish denials caused by Trump’s listing of Sweden as one the Europe’s countries negatively impacted by the influx of refugees? It seems that almost daily since then there are reports of riots and conflict in most of the urban areas where refugees have been settled.

The danger is so great to police in the notorious Swedish No-Go Zone of Rinkeby that they will not be allowed to use public transportation to get to work and may have to be driven to the station daily for their personal safety. Rinkeby was the site of a riot which saw looting and car burnings less than 48 hours after Trump mentioned the impact of mass migration on Sweden.

The heavily migrant-populated Stockholm suburb of Rinkeby is just what Bawer predicted 10 years ago. It is a textbook example of a No-Go Zone where police and even the liberal media are constantly under threat of attack from residents. To deal with the danger, the police have planned a new fortified police station, at the cost of 380 million Swedish Krona (£35 million). It will look like and be designed as a fortress with bullet proof windows, steel reinforced walls, and surrounded by security fence. Security is the police’s main concern in the area following attacks against them by residents while out on patrol. Police in Rinkeby now rarely venture on foot into the area without backup.

Christoffer Ersenius, local union president of the police district of Rinkeby, said many officers who police the area are still afraid for their safety.  There are also safety concerns for those contracted to build the new police station.  Earlier this month, it was revealed that the police had put the project on hold as contractors were reluctant to take on the work for fear of their workers’ safety.

But remember, despite all this, diversity is our greatest strength.

The General Pattern

It is not possible in such a brief essay to describe the deplorable conditions in all the European cities where similar problems are evident, but what I will do is provide an overview of the extent of the problem in more general terms.

In recent decades, the Muslim share of the population throughout Europe grew about 1 percentage point a decade, from 4% in 1990 to 6% in 2010.

This pattern is now accelerating because of the refugee crisis and many millions more have entered Europe since the Pew Forum documented the following statistics: the total number of Muslims in Europe in 2010 was about 44 million (6%), excluding Turkey. The total number of Muslims in the European Union in 2010 was about 19 million (3.8%).

Using the 2010 map we can see a stark divide between Western and Eastern Europe. Western European members like the UK, France, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Sweden all now have very significant Muslim populations ranging from 4–8% of the total population. In Southern Europe the percentages can be even higher in Bulgaria (13.7%) and Greece (5.3%). However, in the Eastern EU countries, the percentages are negligible, far less than 1% in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. This is why the EU, dominated by Western Europe, wants to impose quotas on the Eastern EU countries.

The map however does not begin to tell the whole story.

This is because Muslims concentrate within major cities. Many EU cities including Amsterdam, Brussels, Birmingham, Manchester, Cologne, Marseille, Stockholm, etc. have swelled to a 15–20% Muslim population (again 2010 figures).   However many areas within a city are majority to nearly all Muslim. (Similarly, In the US the NYTimes estimates the Muslim population in New York City from 600,000 to one million). So we go from 4–8% in the nation, to 15–20% in the city, to 50–100% in a given neighborhood. This is why police need military strongholds from which to conduct sorties in the no-go-zones that are proliferating throughout Western Europe. Because of the concentration of its population in cities, Muslims can now elect one of their own as mayor of London, and other European cities.

But will Western Europe ever awaken from its comfortable dream state of denial? The next evidence, for or against, will come from France, which has one of Europe’s largest Muslim populations.

Marine Le Pen, the presidential candidate for France’s populist National Front (FN), is now leading the fight. She is calling for the German-dominated euro to be scrapped and France’s membership of the EU to be put to a referendum unless the open-borders Schengen Agreement is abandoned and the EU reconfigured as a much looser association of sovereign nation-states.

“People are waking up,” confirmed FN deputy leader Florian Philippot immediately before one Le Pen’s recent speeches. “They see Brexit, they see Trump and they’re saying to themselves: ‘It’s worth going to vote.’”

This idea of an impending sea-change in world politics is one of Le Pen’s key talking points:

The people are waking — the tide of history has turned. What is at stake in this election is the continuity of France as a free nation, our existence as a people. … The French have been dispossessed of their patriotism. They are suffering in silence from not being allowed to love their country. … The divide is no longer between the Left and the Right, but between the patriots and the globalists.