Category: Europe

European Ingroup

Answering anti-White trolls.

I note that certain concern trolls are starting their usual song-and-dance on certain blogs. In response, I’d like to make a few comments.
One can say this about a European ingroup: Europeans form a broad continental population group with respect to genetics/biology andthey share a core civilizational history/High Culture.
That “and” is crucial; it is not one or the other in isolation, but both aspects of Identity in combination.
Let us consider the history of the EU. Let us put aside the fact that the EU as it exists today is a viciously destructive anti-White tool of Right and Left Globalists. Instead, let us consider the idea of a European Union, and how EU membership is viewed by the masses.
As regards the various diverse nations of Western Europe (e.g., UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc. – all the nations Yockey considered “the West”) there was never any racial or cultural concerns about including any of these nations. The only concerns were economic (e.g., underperforming “PIGS” countries) and political (grumbling about sovereignty and “diktats from Brussels”). 
With respect to expansion into Eastern Europe, apart from concerns about Roma and Muslim groups, there also were no racial or cultural concerns – the problems were economic (the idea that large numbers of Eastern European migrants would flood Western European countries and take jobs) and political (corruption, etc.). Concerns about Slavs, Hungarians, and Romanians were never essentially (or existentially) racial or cultural, and the legitimate concerns about economic migrants could be dealt with by ending the idea that EU citizens can freely travel between nations (a stupid idea to begin with).
In contrast, when potential expansion moved outside of Europe – Turkey being a major example (but even North Africans and other NECs have been mentioned) – then even mainstream politicians and the general population began strongly objecting, with racial and cultural undertones to arguments about “the death of Europe” and “the end of European civilization” and “they’re Asian (or African) and not European.”  Even the general population implicitly understands the line dividing Europe and non-Europe.  Even the mainstream implicitly understands the foundation of a European ingroup.  

Advertisements

And So What Are They Going to Do About it?

Leucosa watch: top concern, no action.

That’s great. And what are these Europeans going to do about their top concern? Answer: nothing. They won’t support and vote for “far-right” parties; after all, that would be “racist” and “extremist” and they “don’t want to throw their votes away for the unelectable.”  So, they’ll vote for cuckservatives like Cameron and Sarkozy, or be seduced by do-nothing “mainstreamers” like Le Pen and Orban. They’ll refuse to support and vote for the only parties dedicated to stopping the invasion.
After all, who is to blame? At one time, these nations were all White. At some point, their leaders decided to allow and facilitate the invasion. Who put these leaders into power?  Who voted for them? Who steadfastly refused to support the anti-immigration “far-right?”  The same leucosa sissy pansy weaklings now wringing their hands over “the immigration problem.”  You reap what you sow, weaklings, and since you sowed evil for decades, now you will reap a whirlwind of disaster and destruction. Enjoy the Black-Brown-Yellow-Muslim “Europe” of tomorrow, you pansy White pathetic filth.

Last Stand of the Weird

Important insights.
I strongly recommend reading this analysis of the European racio-cultural situation (which also delves into topics as the victory of Cultural Marxism throughout the “West,” especially America) written by someone more “mainstream” and not a racialist in any way.
There isn’t much I can disagree with, re: description and prediction here.  When the “ball drops,” so to speak, and befuddled Whites look for leadership, who will step up?  Can we, by that time, purge the “movement” of the Nutzis and morons, and be ready with intelligent, rational, and strategic-thinking individuals?

A Free Speech Primer

Against speech restrictions.

Long time readers know that I am very interested in issues of free speech, and strongly oppose “speech laws” such as exist in Europe, and particularly abhor the hypocrisy of the high priests of democracy pontificating about “freedom” as they restrict the most basic freedoms to support regimes of totalitarian multiculturalism and multiracialism.  I recently read where Jews are pushing for yet MORE speech restriction in Europe, which is remarkable, since free speech there is already outlawed and I’m not quite sure what more can be done, unless they want to make it illegal for a European to refuse to grovel in the dirt when a Jew walks by. Regardless, I want to summarize some arguments against speech restriction; I see this as important, and I hope that champions of free expression, particularly in Europe, read this and utilize whatever arguments here that they find useful.
General statement of principle: You cannot criminalize dissident opinions and call that tolerance; you cannot restrict the right to expression and call that freedom. It’s very easy to make clichéd statements such as “there can be no tolerance for intolerance,” but who is it who decides what “intolerance” is?  Those in power can very easily eliminate their opposition by labeling opposing viewpoints as “intolerance” and “hate;” thus, legitimate expressions of sociopolitical opinion and of genuine interest become outlawed.  That is not democratic, it is not tolerant, and it is not freedom, it is a blueprint for totalitarianism. In a fully functioning democracy, you cannot draw a line around topics that constitute some of the most crucial issues that face a nation (e.g., the future demographic and cultural makeup of that nation) and declare that certain viewpoints on these fundamental issues are beyond the pale.  You cannot expect members of the national community to accept the legitimacy of decisions about these issues when those members have been excluded from the discussion. Any decisions made without open debate and consideration of the full spectrum of viewpoints are completely illegitimate from the standpoint of any honestly democratic state. And this goes beyond politics; one cannot have open and honest scholarship when it is actually illegal to question details about particular historical events.  This is madness, it is a turn to the dark ages; it is a total and complete disgrace, it is the modern equivalent of burning witches and heretics at the stake.
Some specific issues:
The “fire” argument. An over-used argument is that restriction on speech has always existed, and the analogy of “you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater” is usually invoked.  I agree that is morally objectionable to maliciously yell “fire” when you know that such a fire does not exist. However, it is even more morally objectionable to NOT yell fire when there is evidence that a fire really exists, when you see the flames and smell the smoke. Most objectionable of all would be laws that prevent people from warning others about the existence of fires, laws that prefer to see the innocent burn rather than have them properly warned.  Given that there are legitimate reasons (whether you agree or not) for people to view immigration, multiracialism, diversity, etc. as dire threats to the native population, equivalent to a “fire,” it is therefore morally objectionable to prevent these people from bringing these threats to the attention of their fellow citizens.
The “fighting words” argument.  We are told that “fighting words,” speech that could incite violence, have always been prohibited; thus, the analogy is made to whatever opinions those in power want to suppress.  Besides the danger of having those in power having the authority to outlaw speech that threatens their own power and authority, there are three basic problems with the “fighting words” argument. First, who decides?  What should be the definition of “fighting words?”  After all, what one person believes is a mild and rational statement could be viewed by someone else as outrageous and justification for violence.  In Europe today, adherents of a particular non-European religion have been killing cartoonists because they view satire against their beliefs as “fighting words.”  Yet, most Europeans, including those on the Left, find nothing objectionable about the satire. Who’s right?  Who’s wrong?  Why?  Truth be told, virtually any statement could be found objectionable and offensive by someone; therefore the “fighting words” argument potentially holds any opinion, any comment, any belief hostage to the objections of anyone in the community. Second, we have hypocrisy.  It is mysterious indeed that the System seems to only find Rightist memes to be “fighting words, and never those of the Left.  Indeed, when the Left heaps the most vile abuse on the West and its traditions, that is simply “protected free expression,” but when the Right defends those traditions, then those are “fighting words.”  Thus, the problem of hypocrisy and that of definition go hand-in-hand. Third, there is the problem of self-contradiction.  Indeed, there are many who would label the very idea of speech restriction itself as “fighting words.”  Therefore, support for speech restriction should itself be….restricted?
Then we have the mindless chants of “racism is not an opinion, it is a crime.”  Very well.  Can we extend that theme to other memes?  Anti-religiousness is not an opinion, it is a crime. Support for abortion is not an opinion, it is a crime. Criticism of Europe and the West is not an opinion, it is a crime.  Marxism is not an opinion, it is a crime. Mass immigration is not a policy, it is a crime. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is a crime.  Oh dear, it seems like we do have a problem now, don’t we?
Getting back to “racism” – racism is at its most basic simply freedom of association writ large. It is a perfectly normal human reaction to racial differences. Criminalizing racism is criminalizing human nature.  It is the equivalent of the government telling you who you should have as friends, who you should marry, this is the most overt totalitarianism, it is outright madness for any state claiming to represent “democracy.”  This is thought control at its most Orwellian.
Legitimacy:getting back to a theme noted in the general statement of principle: decisions made in the name of the people have legitimacy only so far as that the people – ALL of them – are allowed to express their opinions on the subject, freely debate it, and be allowed to protest what they object to about that subject.  If the multiculturalists want “bigots” to accept the verdict of elections that impose multiracialism, then those “bigots” must be allowed to freely contest that election, speak their minds, and have their opinion included in the mix.  Individuals disenfranchised from the process will not accept the legitimacy of the outcome of the process.  Given the growing support for the “far-Right” in Europe, the numbers of people so disenfranchised will become an increasingly large fraction of the population, making democracy untenable.  You end up with ludicrous scenarios such as a political party in Greece being the third largest political force, while its leadership languishes in jail for expressing the same opinions that are winning them votes. We have the bizarre scenario throughout Europe of popular political parties being banned, and the mainstream right and left joining forces to exclude from power nationalists who are supported by a sizable fraction of the nation’s population.

And this goes beyond politics. Why is the Left so afraid of having their ideas debated?  Why are they afraid of a free marketplace of ideas?  If they are confident they are right, and the Right is wrong, why are they so intent on making sure the Right is muzzled and far-Right ideas never see the light of day?  The basic ideas and memes of a society, as well as the products of academic scholarship, have merit and legitimacy only to the extent that they are freely discussed, debated, refuted or defended, and proofed for logical rigor and consistency with known facts.  Speech restrictions dispense with the Western idea of free thought and bring us to the dark ages of rigid dogma.  Intellectuals today sneer at the “close-mindedness of the past” – Socrates and the hemlock, the martyrdom of Bruno, the persecution of Galileo, and the Salem witch trials, but they behave exactly the same.  They are unable to see that they have become in the present that which they mock from the past.

Against Mainstreaming

An opposing argument.

Some in the “movement” – including some “movement intellectuals” – are championing the concept of “mainstreaming” and cite France’s Front National (FN) as a sterling example of this paradigm.  After all, as these “movement” think tankers report, the FN, it seems, is these days saying it doesn’t matter if the French become a minority of the population of France.  Doesn’t matter!  What does matter then?  Constitutional patriotism?  Culture?  Citizenism?  “French values?”  Haven’t we heard all of this before?  Isn’t sacrificing principles on the altar of “electability” one of the main reasons that “conservatism” in the USA has become completely useless, why the GOP betrays White interests over and over and over again?  But, the intellectuals tell us, this mainstreaming allows the reborn nationalists to influence policy, and to legitimize discussion of important issues.  A Le Pen victory in 2017 would lead to more “free speech” on issues of race and immigration (has the FN campaigned to overturn France’s speech laws?). There’s the usual hopeful “movement” assumptions here, the usual “mind-reading” and assertions that public pronouncements should not be taken at face value, and, instead, we need to value hypotheses, beliefs, assumptions, hopes, and fantasies over ice-cold realistic facts.  You see!  Just wait!  By mainstreaming their message and dumping the old core ideology, the FN will become electable (By golly, they are even attracting French Jews!  How wonderful!), and they will be elected, and then the “kid gloves” will come off, and we will at that time deal with the race problem!  You just wait! 

I do not believe that mass mobilization, ideological fervor, activist support, memetic understanding, and political fundamentals – in essence, a party’s or movement’s entire worldview –  can be turned on and off like flipping a switch, or can be turned around like switching a gear.  If the FN spends years convincing supporters that it is not about race, that French nationalism is independent of French ethnicity, if they preach the constitutional patriotism argument that France can remain French without ethnic French being the majority, then how realistic is it for them to suddenly turn around one day and say: “Surprise! We were just fooling you!  It really is about race, and now…”  I can’t see it; worse, they poison the well for everyone else, they redirect the righteous anger of the displaced French people to a culturalist dead end of anti-White “citizenism.”  Aracial nationalism – the “pop culture far-Right” or “far-Right Light” – can serve as a safety valve for majoritarian discontent, much the same way implicitly White “conservative Republicans” do in the USA.  All the potential power is dissipated, frittered away, expended into maladaptive directions.  And how do we know what the FN leadership’s true feelings and beliefs are?  Do we need to guess?  Maybe they really believe that ethnicity is irrelevant to “Frenchness.”  WNs love to make assumptions that “X” is “really one of us” (e.g., the current breathless schoolgirl infatuation with Putin), and WNs get burned every time.  I apply Occam’s razor and instead assume that public pronouncements match private beliefs, until such time I have definitive evidence otherwise. 

Hardline activists – the support that’s a mile deep but an inch wide – become disillusioned and disenfranchised by mainstreaming, to be replaced by fickle and ephemeral “support” that’s a mile wide but an inch deep. This latter support, weaned on a diet of citizenist pap, may vanish overnight if race is ever re-introduced into the French political equation.  And if we decide to ignore Occam and assume that the citizenist pose of the FN is really a ruse, the problem then becomes that “popular support” and “electability” may become ends in themselves; in other words, means become ends and the original ends vanish.  The “apparent” belief system becomes the “real” belief system, and the endgame is all about attaining and maintaining power, not actually doing anything constructive while in power.  The FN may come to believe that the ruse is reality and that the trickery should become the new, real, permanent ideology.  Thus, this is similar to the GOP supporters in America, who talk of “electability” without ever asking “what do we want our candidate to be elected for?”  You see, being elected is the end in itself, there is no other underlying ultimate objective.  That’s the end result of “mainstreaming.”  To what end a FN victory if France becomes part of Eurabia anyway? Why should we care?  Because it “feels good to win?”  “Win” what?  And it is strange that people who should know better believe that “French Jews flocking to the FN” is somehow a good thing.  Why, yes, it may improve mainstreaming electability, but it is also a danger sign – like the canary in the coal mine – that something has gone drastically wrong with the FN.  On the basic premise that “what’s good for the Jews is not good for Whites, and vice versa,” the growing enthusiasm of French Jews for the “new FN” should really alarm folks who want to see the peoples of Europe saved from the rising tide of color.

Of course, mainstreaming has its place within the activist toolkit.  As long as the core ideology is maintained, enhancing electability through mainstreaming of the message can work, when it is required.  The problem is when mainstreaming completely alters the core ideology, when ethnonationalism becomes replaced by constitutional patriotism, culturalism, and citizenism. Then the means become ends and all is lost. 

I may of course be wrong here and the FN mainstreamers may lead European nationalists to victories and then proceed to enact a preservationist and ethnoracial nationalist agenda. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.  But someone needs to sound a warning alarm about mainstreaming, at least point out the potential dangers.  Why isn’t that happening, re: the FN?  Is something deeper going on here?  Just like the omega males of the “movement” become blushing schoolgirls over “macho man” Eurasianist Putin, I wonder if the beta males of the “movement” are becoming blushing schoolboys over the “attractive” and “charming” Marine Le Pen.  A similar pathetic display took place in 2008, when Buchanan, Sailer, and other “America First” Paleocons started gushing over “hot” man-jawed Neocon interventionist “Sister Sarah” Palin.  It is unfortunately a part of superficial human nature – Nietzsche’s “human, all too human” – to value the messenger over the message. I can’t help believe that if the current head of the FN was some sort of stuffy, pudgy, frog-eating Frenchman, that there would be a bit less enthusiasm in the “movement” for the mainstreaming going on there.