European Nationalism

Björn Söder, Swedish Jews, and Multiculturalism

/37 Comments/in , /by

Of all the accusations commonly leveled against a Jews as a group, perhaps the one they find most frightening is the accusation that they are disloyal, or aren’t ‘quite’ like the rest of us. Arguably, a large part of the Jewish evolutionary strategy consists of maintaining a pose, or pretence, to be fully in and of the nation and its people. In this context, accusations of disloyalty, or even gentle reminders that Jews have an unassimilated separate ‘identity,’ disturb the strategy in such a fundamental manner that the entire Jewish ‘game’ seems to be in jeopardy. Since the era of Jewish ‘emancipation,’ the pursuance and success of the strategy has been highly dependent on the rest of society granting Jews citizenship on equal terms, and failing to note that Jews have a different agenda and aren’t playing by the same rules. Jews therefore jealously censor discussion of their loyalty, citizenship, identity, and place within the nation.

Given these realities, I wasn’t surprised this week when Jewish leaders in Sweden got a little hot under the collar after Björn Söder, secretary of the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats (SD) and deputy speaker in Parliament, went on record with some fairly innocuous comments about citizenship and identity which, disturbingly for the Hebrews, happened to mention Jews.

In an interesting and frank newspaper interview published on Sunday, Söder is reported to have said:

I think that most people with Jewish origin who have become Swedes leave their Jewish identity behind. But if they don’t, it doesn’t have to be an issue. One must distinguish between citizenship and nationhood. They can still be Swedish citizens and live in Sweden. Sami and Jews have lived in Sweden for a long time.

Read more

Learning from the EU Experiment (III): The Taboo of Intra-European Conflict

/32 Comments/in , /by

Identitare

I recently spoke with a staffer working for a mainstream Member of the European Parliament (MEP). We were discussing her boss’ hiring practices and I found that the young politician was willing to employ someone of just about any political background except someone who had worked with nationalist parties like the French National Front. I was indignant at first. What intellectual intolerance! What closed-mindedness! Harming someone’s career prospects purely out of political prejudice!

But after some reflection, I thought better of it: All societies have taboos which lead to social ostracism and censorship of wrongthinkers, as White Nationalists and European Identitarians in particular know too well. A good taboo achieves this through the spontaneous action and revulsion of society itself, not through official government persecution and censorship. My problem with the MEP wasn’t with his adherence to a taboo; indeed it showed he had some moral or ideological principle even though I might disagree with it, but rather that this particular taboo is undermining the future of European peoples. We’ve seen this taboo at work in the massive media reaction against Jean-Marie Le Pen when he reached the second round of the presidential elections in 2002 and in the European and international pressure against Austria when Jörg Haider joined the government in 2000. As a rule I strongly favor effective free speech, but perhaps we rather need to perform the inverse rather than try to eliminate this phenomenon of social ostracism (which is as old as human nature): That in all European and European-derived societies, any attacks on ethnic Europeans should be taboo leading to social ostracism.

Joseph Stalin once dismissed the head of the Catholic Church saying: “The Pope! How many divisions has he got?” The European Union and its institutions are in much the same position: Their authority and influence are primarily moral and institutional, the force of norms and of habit. Unlike the United States Federal Government, Eurocrats have no soldiers to enforce their authority at gunpoint upon recalcitrant states. Even the eurozone, where the European Central Bank’s (ECB) power to blackmail and even topple national governments is real, the EU’s power is premised on the refusal of national governments to print their own money. But the ECB, and anyone else for that matter, would be powerless to stop a government if it wished to do so. Read more

Beginning of an Italian Civil War against Immigration

/26 Comments/in , /by

For once we have riots that are not by anti-white black protesters — to whose violence Ferguson, among others, has accustomed us — but by indigenous Europeans defending their land against invaders.

In Rome, on the night of 10–11 November, a group of residents of the Tor Sapienza suburb living in public housing attempted to assault the local centre for refugees and asylum seekers incongruously named “Il sorriso” (The Smile), throwing stones and bottles and setting dumpsters on fire, amidst broken glass and screams of “We want to burn you”.

The reception centre houses over 40 youths — Gambians, Congolese, Ethiopians and other Africans, plus Afghans and Syrians — rescued from their boats crossing the Mediterranean.

The local residents have long been concerned about health and crime issues associated with Il sorriso and, after their complaints to the authorities went unheeded, they took matters into their own hands.

“The tension” said Tommaso Ippoliti, president of the Tor Sapienza Committee, “is skyrocketing. For years this neighbourhood has been abandoned, you cannot go out at night, and lately assaults and thefts have increased. A few days ago a girl walking her dog was molested in the park in mid-afternoon. As a committee we distance ourselves from the violence of last night, but people are rightly exasperated. We demand more security.”

“Police are scarce and the city has not responded to requests for more security and better controls of the migrant centres,” he added. Read more

Learning from the EU Experiment (II): Intra-European Diversity Is Also a Challenge

/14 Comments/in , /by

There is a tendency, particularly but not only, among North American White advocates to downplay the ethno-national, linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe. Richard Spencer has argued that “the Herman Van Rompuys of the world can become our useful idiots in building the infrastructure for a racial and civilizational Superstate on the European continent.” Some European nationalists, such as French New Right writer Guillaume Faye, have argued the same point.

The idea of nationalists hijacking the European Union is an interesting one. But one lesson of the EU experience is that intra-European diversity often poses many of the same problems as inter-continental diversity. Pan-European activists, so quick to see the problems of multiracial and Muslim/Christian diversity, should not forget intra-European diversity — whether linguistic, religious, regional or of any cultural or ethnic type — typically poses similar problems within a given polity.

The EU, with 500 million citizens from 28 countries speaking 24 languages, provides many examples of how this diversity, a wonderful thing and a major source of European civilization’s historic greatness, can become a problem when you try to jam different peoples into the same regime. Many of the Union’s problems today stem from its multiethnic character: Germans, French, Britons, Greeks, etc., do not identify with one another, have different levels of performance (thus increasing inequality), are not willing to share economic burdens (thus reducing the means to fight inequality), are not willing to submit to the laws of a “foreign” European majority. Cultural-linguistic differences mean mutual comprehension is often lacking, and decision-making and even aesthetics are ruined by the need to cater to each ethnic group’s particular tribal sensitivities. The result is that the EU, like other multiethnic regimes, is dysfunctional, sclerotic and culturally barren.

The solution, as Raymond Aron argued, is the ethnically-cohesive Nation-State, in which the brutality of the State and factionalism within the Nation are softened or even sublimated through spontaneous identification, solidarity and cohesion both within the people and between the people and the ruling elite. Read more

Diseased Defectors: UKIP, Islam and the Hand of the Board of Deputies

/31 Comments/in , /by

UKIP has won a landslide victory in the south of England. It also came within just over 600 votes of winning a formerly safe Labour seat in the north. Both the Tories and Labour are running scared. They’re paying the price for ignoring public anger about immigration. The old accusation of “Racism!” isn’t working any more. And both parties may see MPs defecting to UKIP, frightened that they’ll lose their seats if they stay where they are.

After all, UKIP’s election victor, Douglas Carswell, is a defector from the Tories. But that’s what worries me. Carswell is a plague-bearer from a diseased party. He’s said this: “I have no difficulty with Britain as Britain is today.” Rape-gangs, riots, FGM, electoral fraud — Carswell is fine with all that.

He’s also declined to endorse what the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, said about banning people with HIV from entry to Britain. This is an eminently sensible proposal with majority support, which is why it has been greeted with outrage by the liberal elite. Don’t White tax-payers realize how privileged they are to fund vibrant enrichers with hugely expensive diseases?

Apparently not. But Carswell won’t side with the White majority against the liberal elite.

Nor is he opposed to further immigration:

On the subject of immigration, let me make it absolutely clear; I’m not against immigration  … We should welcome those that want to come here to contribute. We need those with skills and drive. There’s hardly a hospital, GP surgery or supermarket in the country that could run without that skill and drive.

Apparently the native British are incompetent to run a modern society. The UK simply must have ever more immigrants or the whole society will fall apart. Read more

Satan Lives in Moscow

/8 Comments/in , , , , , /by

The Ukrainian crisis has instigated an effort by the West to get into Putin’s mind, and this has inevitably led to his advisor, Prof Alexander Dugin, a leading Eurasianist and the architect of Putin’s geopolitics.

Inevitably, Dugin’s anti-liberalism has been a source of grave concern for American commentators. His book, The Fourth Political Theory, has been read with interest by a minority of them, who, though not necessarily in concert with Dugin’s geopolitical aims, do share his negative conclusions regarding liberalism and do recognise the need for something better. Needless to say, these commentators are outside the American mainstream.

Those inside the mainstream, being liberals to a man, have felt very threatened. For them, liberalism and Americanism are one and the same, and Dugin must therefore be a mad philosopher calling for the end of the world.

Among those most threatened, apparently, are the folk at the National Review. They have not only felt the need to publish multiple hit pieces about Dugin, but they have also enlisted a rocket scientist to write them. Enter Robert Zubrin. Read more

The Ukrainian Conflict: A Ukrainian Nationalist View, Part 6: Svoboda, the Right Sector, and the Future of Ukrainian Nationalism

/31 Comments/in , /by

svoboda2

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Many Western nationalists ask: why are Ukrainian nationalists fighting only the mercenaries in eastern Ukraine, and not the current liberal Ukrainian government?

In general, there are two Ukrainian nationalist movements or organizations that exist at the moment: the Svoboda party and the Right Sector movement. Unfortunately, at the moment a huge amount of friction and mutual hate exists between them. However, thankfully, at the lowest levels people from both organizations work together very closely.

The Svoboda party has existed in different forms since around 1991. In 2012, it won around 10% of votes to the Ukrainian parliament. At the end of 2012, it won the “honor” of having two of its leaders listed by the Simon Wiesenthal center among the ten biggest “anti-Semites©”in the world. The program of the party is by far the most radical, anti-capitalist, anti-liberal program of any major organization that exists in Europe. It contains ideas such as banning usury, creating a Ukrainian computer operating system to be used on the territory of Ukraine instead of Microsoft Windows, essentially severely restricting any foreign news and information in Ukraine, banning homosexual propaganda, banning the advertisement of alcohol and cigarettes (with later attempts to ban them all together), forbidding anyone who is not Ukrainian by ethnicity to obtain Ukrainian citizenship, having the state promoting Christianity. There are also many points regarding nationalization of industry and business, returning Ukraine’s nuclear status, banning “Ukrainophobic” parties and many other great initiatives.

Svoboda’s program is a mix of every positive element of classical Strasserism and modern nationalism. During the 2012 elections, many voted for Svoboda hoping the party would fight the oligarchs — indeed, many old Communists even voted for the party due to the anti-capitalist economic program of the party. Read more