“I don’t want a future in which politics is primarily a battle between cosmopolitan finance capitalism and ethno-nationalist backlash.” — Chris Hayes, MSNBC
Well, too bad. The underdog victory of the Brexit campaign in the British referendum on membership in the European Union (EU) against the forces of international finance, anti-nationalism, and the psychological terrorism wielded by neoliberal elites raises a number of questions for the alt-right and for White nationalists. The implications go well beyond the simple question of whether Britain should Leave or Remain—they matter for the global European population.
Most movement people, myself included, are elated by Britain’s rejection of the EU. But almost universally, our opponents are mortified by the uncucked reaction currently railing against their world order. The British are an ignorant and bigoted people who refuse to submit to the supremacy of cost-benefit analysis and have embraced xenophobia, hate, and nationalism, or so the narrative goes. Brexiters are on The Wrong Side of History™—yes, even though Remain lost they are on The Right Side of History™—and are jeopardizing the peace and stability of Europe in order to go back to the kind of politics and petty nationalism that led to the World Wars of last century. The failure of imagination that dominates our enemies is unsurprising, and it is no coincidence that their entire worldview revolves around a neurotic fear of any expression of European ethnocentrism or nationalism. Tying it to WWII is of course a reference to the holocaust.
In this article I want to lay out a number of issues: First, why the British people have made the right decision in rejecting the EU. Second, why the EU is an improper institution for European survival. Third, why the alternative to the EU is not inherently a chaotic Europe of fratricidal wars. And fourth, what I think the ideal future state ought to be.
Brexit is the best option available and sets Britain on a path to reclaim its national sovereignty and control over immigration policy.
The simple fact of the matter is that British membership in the EU meant the second largest economy in Europe had open borders with 27 ethnically, culturally, and economically disparate countries. In addition to Britain’s existing “Commonwealth” immigration problem, i.e. colonization by non-whites, there was an unmanageable annual influx of predominantly Eastern Europeans into a country already struggling to cope with de-industrialization and declining labor force participation. Could Britain have tried to Anglicize some of these European immigrants American-style over several generations while keeping down the protectionist attitudes of its languishing indigenous working class? Maybe, but given the proximity to and freedom of movement with their ethnic homelands, EU migrants would never need to assimilate anyway since they could essentially live as bi-nationals or dual citizens.
That of course is asking too much of the British state. Like its counterpart on the other side of the Atlantic, the United States, the United Kingdom does not believe in assimilating immigrants. Compounded with the existing anti-white multiculturalism policies which promote the political collectivism of non-whites, encouraging the assimilation of EU migrants while allowing other imported ethnic and religious colonies to germinate would be bizarrely contradictory aims. There was never any notion that Poles or Latvians should be made into Englishmen or British people, only that they should have freedom of movement in Britain.
In the long-run, the result of an endless influx of foreigners is a foreign country. Which is why Britain is now in the awkward situation of having most non-whites residing there identify themselves as British first, while most English people, i.e. most British people, identify themselves as English first and British second. More EU immigration is certainly not going to alleviate this problem.
But suppose there was an assimilation model in Britain which rather than celebrating diversity encouraged standardization towards an identity. Would it be worth giving up the existing British identity—derived from its history and Britain’s subnational identities—to become euromutt mystery meat à l’Américaine? Could there be a Britain where say a plurality of people are of mostly English descent while the combined majority are of some English descent with a grab-bag mixture of Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Polish, Lithuanian, Italian, Latvian and French ancestry? What would become of Britain?
In the United States, the heterogeneous but still European stock of the majority population is the source of an ongoing—no, a perpetual—identity crisis. The “nation of immigrants” narrative is routinely weaponized against even the most moderate nativists as a psychological cudgel—how can you be against immigration if your ancestors were immigrants? Once a state makes it official policy to rely on immigration for economic and demographic growth, the native population will find it increasingly difficult to politically resist. It is a death sentence in the long-run, and in a moment of rare clarity, the people of Cuck Island have blinked. They wish to maintain their distinctive character as a nation (or properly speaking, national union), and have taken the only democratic opportunity made available.
Informed readers will correctly observe that leaving the EU will not end mass immigration to Britain, and furthermore that all the mainstream Brexit campaigners have championed either Commonwealth immigration or “controlled” immigration as an alternative source of growth to EU immigration. The gut reaction for White nationalists is that this must be worse, because it means immigration to Britain will be even more vibrant than before in terms of proportion, maybe even in raw numbers should the hostile of elite of Britain seek to make up for EU losses by increasing non-EU immigration. But this reflects an American sensibility toward migration, as the United States was founded through migration and relied heavily on both internal migration and external European immigration to settle a whole continent.
Britain is not a whole continent, It doesn’t need to import more genetically and culturally similar people in order to hold territory against a hostile indigenous population and establish itself in sparsely populated areas which are abundant in resources but not being worked. There is nowhere in Europe, let alone Britain, that needs this kind of colonization mindset. Britain is not a settler-colonial society, and it does not need to import anyone.
So yes, the immediate logical conclusion of Brexit is that immigration to Britain will now be a heavily non-white affair. But the alternative was continuing to undergo ethnic Americanization and racial minoritization at the same time, which is a recipe for disaster. One of the two valves has now theoretically been shut off. The left is entirely correct in pointing out that Brexit has unleashed a wave, or perhaps ridden a wave, of right-wing populism, nativism, nationalism, skepticism towards elite opinions, and opposition to globalism. And those are all very good things for ethnonationalism and the building of a folk state, and for the prospects of further immigration restrictions, deportations, and repatriations in Britain. This momentum is the kind of accelerationism sorely needed—motion towards the future state we want, not away from it. The alternative to Leave, Remain, would mean business as usual, a complete victory for the neoliberal kosher establishment of Britain. Leave is the right move and sets more right moves in motion.
The EU undermines the survival of European peoples through its commitment to anti-nationalism and encouraging mass migration from the global south.
The EU is an improper institution for the survival of Europeans, plain and simple. It’s so-called “four freedoms” are “the movement of people, of goods, of services, and of capital.” It is a neoliberal creed, which like all neoliberalism, serves markets and not nations. We can see this very clearly in the anti-identitarian ideology propagandized by Brussels and its decades-running ambition to integrate Turkey into Europe. Turkey, an Islamic country with ethnic roots in Central Asia, made war upon Western civilization from the 11th century at Manzikert until the 20th at Gallipoli, and continues to occupy the European lands of Thrace and Cyprus—and according to Greek ultra-nationalists, Anatolia as well. Almost 80 million people live in Turkey, which has grown 1% a year since 2011 not counting the enormous influx of millions Arabs from war-torn Syria and Iraq over the last couple of years. And Turkey is over 95% Muslim. The country is both an enemy of Europe and an enlargement goal of the European Union, even though no one expects it to ascend to membership any time soon. Ascension talks should not be on the table at all, not merely delayed. When British politicians said Turkey wouldn’t join the EU in their lifetimes, they were both correct and embodying the suicidal naivete of short-term caretaker government, the only politics available with a degenerated mass democracy.
Some argue Brexit could actually end the EU in the long-run anyway and render the issue moot. But suppose Britain had voted Remain, and Turkey became eligible in the future—let’s say by 2050, when disgraced PM David Cameron is deceased. The Turkish government expects the population to be over 93 million by then. The ascension of Turkey would be happening at the same time as the graying of Europe and the reproduction of the existing non-white population, plus whatever new arrivals came over that 40-year interval. So if Turkey did join the EU in this scenario, as eurocrats want it to, it would jump the needle further towards Europe becoming a non-white continent. Freedom of movement for almost a hundred million Turks in an already degenerated EU—steroids for our enemies.
This is the ideology of both the EU and its cucked client governments outside the Visegrád Group (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia)—import as much vibrancy as possible because of muh economy and because Diversity is Our Greatest Strength™. This directive takes whatever form the occupation governments can find, whether it’s refugees, Gastarbeiter programs, or economic migrants. The German government has called for all of these in one form or another since the 1950s, having invited millions of Muslim Turkish laborers a couple of generations ago who cannot assimilate, and last year called for all of Syria to invade it. The French Republic, where nearly a third of all births in hospitals are non-white, has a similar dissonance in supporting its own ethnic disintegration while having historically supported ethnonationalism for its former colonies. The EU is not the origin of degeneracy or anti-nationalism in Europe, but it serves an institutional weight behind those forces, lending legal, logistical, and financial support to programs aimed to speed them up and suppress dissidents. What I said earlier about Britain applies to the collective EU as well, which has no real ideological disagreements with the British state beyond economics and regulatory compliance:
Once a state makes it official policy to rely on immigration for economic and demographic growth, the native population will find it increasingly hard to politically resist. It is a death sentence in the long-run.
Another huge problem with the EU, in addition to both its constituent countries and diversity-fetish ideology being cucked, is that of its top-level leadership. The fourth reich is dominated by Germans with a Nazi guilt complex who want to project it on to the rest of the EU. The self-flagellating pursuit of multiculturalism and the minoritization of Europeans serves to signal a perverse moral superiority. They can’t be called Nazis because Nazis wouldn’t let themselves become marginalized in their own homeland. That so many think they have to conform to this is the result of decades of psychological abuse, reinforced by the continued existence of the EU, which defines itself in opposition to European nationhood. Hence the calls for every country in the EU to take in x amount of Afro-Islamic colonists as a response to the so-called “migrant crisis,” because It’s The Right Thing To Do™. For Germany to turn away “refugees” because they aren’t German or European would be considered a moral evil on par with being Hitler himself. The national leadership is diseased and the supranational terminally ill. The only healthy response would have been warships, not rescue boats. It is no coincidence that outsiders like (((George Soros))) love the idea of the EU and opening it to “refugees,” while Euroskeptic patriots want to dissolve it. In any debate, always look at who supports what, not merely the arguments made.
Make no mistake, the EU is a threat to Europeans. As a geographic expression, Europe will survive the European Union. But Europeans will not. How long before Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, and Brussels have their first Sadiq Khans and the demographics needed to elect him? And the laws criminalizing “hate speech” necessary to shield them from criticism? How long before that radiates into the second- and third-tier cities? If you think this is an exaggeration, that it won’t spread beyond the major cities, why was that colonization allowed to happen in the first place? The EU will follow the logical conclusion of its own rhetoric; it has no reason not to unless it is forced to stop.
A Post-EU Europe is not Europe on the brink of destruction but Europe of sovereign nations.
The alternative to the EU is not inherently a chaotic Europe of fratricidal wars—this is a false dichotomy created by the Luegenpresse to intimidate people into backing the EU for their safety. That some on our side seem to buy into this is unfortunate. As I have already argued, the end result of the EU is the destruction of European nations and their replacement with Völkerwanderung hordes from the global south. Even if nationalism meant an immediate return to early 20th century-style warfare, someone would win those wars and survive, as opposed to all of Europe being slow-cleansed under an anti-national occupation government.
But nationalism in the 21st century does not mean fratricidal total war. To assume so is an act of context denial, and above all a vicious attempt at shaming nationalists for the actions of the dead. First of all, while nationalism was a major component of the first world war, to reduce the war to nationalism as a blanket term and proximate cause is a gross simplification. Imperialism was the dominant force in the 1910s in a way that it is not in the 2010s: the typical European state involved in WWI was the metropolis of a much larger empire, which gave it an outsize view of its own materiel and military capabilities, and of its place in the world. Britain was not merely Britain but a vast empire covering a fourth of the inhabited world. France was not merely France but huge swaths of Africa. Austria-Hungary was actually Austria-Hungary-Czechia-Slovakia-Slovenia-Croatia-Bosnia, plus parts of Romania, Poland, and Ukraine. Russia was not merely Rus but also Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic countries, Finland, Poland, Georgia, Armenia, Tartary, and Central Asia. This was not a war caused by nation-states, but by the agony of subject nations beneath multinational monarchies, and by the ambitions of their rulers to expand at any cost so long as their rivals lost.
Which is why a Serbian nationalist assassinated the heir apparent of Austria-Hungary, a state correctly perceived as being oppressively anti-Slavic as it elevated the two largest ethnic groups in the empire to leadership but ignored the third. In fact, Austrians and Hungarians were only pluralities in their halves of the empire, not majorities. So did nationalism cause this conflict, or was it ethnic tensions stoked by a dual form of multiculturalism? Not something pro-EU people are going to ask themselves, since it would undermine their own project. One cannot oppress nations and then blame them for revolting. Anti-European leftists would certainly never condemn the violent Algerian, Kenyan, or Vietnamese national liberation movements of recent history, to name a few, since they were non-white, just as they strongly identify with the Palestinians against the white-presenting Israelis. But it is of course true that once war was declared, at the behest of the imperialists, nationalism was leveraged to motivate the soldiers, because in any war the motivation will be to fight for tribe and homeland. So nationalism was a major component of WWI, but to blame the war on it is highly suspect and misleading. Imperialism was blamed for wars outside of Europe and nationalism for colonized nations was touted as the solution, so why is it any different inside of Europe? It is third-worldists who shamelessly promote nationalism for their clients but condemn it for Europe, and who believe European nations must not be sovereign.
To think that today a Europe of sovereign nations would be able to wage another WWI, or even want to, is absurd. But what about WWII, where nationalism was even more overt? Is nationalism to blame for that war as well? As with WWI, the conditions were different, and the causation is purposely misrepresented by enemies of European nationalism. The most proximate cause of the second world war was the first one, which was the result of imperialism. Imperialists in Britain, France, and the United States dismembered Austria-Hungary in accordance with seemingly nationalist principles, but went a step further in attempting to punitively mutilate and cripple the German nation-state as well. Containing German power in Europe was a mutual aim of the victorious imperialist Allied powers, and they did so by punishing German industry and military capability in the Treaty of Versailles and by assigning ethnically German lands to Poland and France. And of course ancillary to this was politically breaking up the German Empire’s major ally, Austria-Hungary. So once again, do you blame an oppressed nation for revolting? Only if it is European . . .
Would a Europe of sovereign nations lead to another WWII? Again, it is hard to see how this is possible from an objective standpoint given the diminished power European states have now relative to a century ago. There is no longer an empire behind perfidious Albion or the French Republic. There are no longer Germans outside of Germany or Austria in Eastern Europe as a result of redrawn borders. Any casus belli from that time period is obsolete today, as are the motivations and capabilities that enabled such warfare to take place.
Saying the EU is what created the current peace and stability—and that to leave it is to return to a “dark past”—is pure whig history. Does the nuclear deterrent practiced by Britain and France have nothing to do with peace? What about the Cold War between the Washington and Warsaw blocs? The EU as we know it only came into existence a couple of decades ago, having been preceded by trade agreements and other forms of economic cooperation that existed in Western Europe without attempting to form a political superstate. So how do we account for the entire 1945-1993 period then if the EU is the sole guarantor of peace in Europe? Was it just a march of progress towards the EU? So why is the EU disintegrating before our very eyes? So much for that.
A Europe of sovereign nations with their own borders and identities is the path to the survival and thriving of European peoples in Europe, certainly more so than the alternative. To give just one example, consider what would have happened during the “migrant crisis” had there been no EU. The cucked German and Swedish governments could have taken all the refugees they wanted, and there would have never been any “agreement” to redistribute them to the countries which neither wanted refugees nor were considered good destinations by refugees. As a result of EU policy, should the EU get its way, every country in Europe will be made less European as a solution to the Afro-Islamic Völkerwanderung, as opposed to just the nation-states which are ruled by hostile elites or incapable of defending themselves.
A Europe of sovereign nations essentially spreads the risk of national destruction; it doesn’t increase it. If all Europeans are bound together into a superstate, they are all going to drown in the same boat should it be hijacked. The EU was hijacked from the start. More boats = more chances to survive.
And to turn anti-nationalist rhetoric on its head, suppose a Europe of sovereign nations was less militarily secure and the threat of war did exist. No government which sought to destroy its own population would have the breathing room to do so; it would have to focus on the struggle for survival or be toppled by outsiders taking advantage of its structural weakness as an occupation government with no vertical loyalty. A lack of vertical loyalty is what doomed communism in Eastern Europe, which had lost the arms race with the encircling West, failed to ideologically deliver prosperity and happiness to its people, and lost the load-bearing wall of the Soviet army as its enforcement arm. Without the EU, cucked governments would undoubtedly suffer a loss of legitimacy among their subjects as their free neighbors succeeded.
Replace the European Union with a Treaty of Evropa.
The EU is bad, but given the challenges facing Europe and the broader White world today, isn’t going it alone foolish? European countries are tiny on a global scale, have aging populations and sub-replacement birthrates, are besieged by a global south bursting at the seams with human biomass, dwarfed by Chinese industry, threatened by Russia, pozzed by America . . . the list goes on and on. States like Britain, France, and Germany could plausibly go it alone as middle-tier powers, but they would be living in a world ruled from the outside instead of being a player themselves.
This is where things get more nuanced. I am not proposing that European unity and collaboration—or the broader issue of White racial solidarity—is a negative or a lost cause, I am arguing that the EU is an anti-white institution that has to go. If I may LARP for a bit, I don’t believe Fortress Poland or Fortress Hungary is really the ideal we should be shooting for—to save bits and pieces of our racial homeland adrift in a global sea of hostile and vengeful non-whites who want our real estate. What we need is a new kind of state system that can serve as a vessel for our race in the variety of forms it has taken. A functional vessel, the only kind of vessel worth having, is capable of holding its contents and keeping out the elements, and that the EU is not.
We need a sensible European order that acknowledges the differences between its constituent nations and places their collective survival and defense at the center of its purpose, and not anything else. Earlier in this essay, I suggested that a post-EU Europe would allow uncucked states to firewall themselves off from the pozzed ones, but such a scenario should be seen as a transitional phase, not a desired end. That is a short-term means of securing the survival of segments of Europe; it is does not eradicate a problem but merely contains it for the time being. In the short run, it would be great for Poland and Hungary to avoid Germany’s contagion, or for Finland and Denmark to shut their borders with Sweden and its malaise. What happens generations later when you have populous and potentially powerful dhimmi states in the center of Europe run by a coalition of new left apparatchiks and their third-worldist clients with the demographics to match?
There need to be greater organizing principles to a post-EU world than just the creation of folk states and maintenance of ethnonational sovereignty; nationalism alone is insufficient. Let’s go full LARP here—we need a Treaty of Evropa. Potential articles would include:
- The defense of the coasts and borders of the European homeland are the responsibilities of all European states. All signatories must provide a proportionate share of the personnel, materiel, and/or capital necessary to perform routine perimeter defense actions. There shall be no free-riders in this regard; a northern or landlocked state is not exempt from contributing to the protection of the southern shores of Europe against invasion.
- The collective security of the European homeland must be inviolate. Any attack by an outside state must be regarded as an attack on the whole of Europe. By extension, any European state which enters into armed conflict with another European state, should it ally itself with an outside state against a European one, will be considered in breach of this Treaty and a hostile government.
- No state shall make anti-white laws which abridge the survival of its nation and the integrity of Europe, or it shall be deemed a hostile government. What constitutes an anti-white law is subject to interpretation. In all cases, a valid law is one which does not facilitate racial suicide, erode the biological foundation of the nation, or empower a non-white population on the Continent.
- Signatory countries are obligated to engage in collective enforcement of the Treaty against hostile governments. Forms this can take include levying sanctions until the desired result is achieved or providing military assets to a campaign against the hostile government.
- Political parties or organizations which advocate for anti-white policies shall be uniformly criminalized in every signatory country, as the primary purpose of the Treaty is to preserve the White race in Europe.
- Internal migration policies and economic agreements among signatory countries must be bilaterally approved; there is no automatic freedom of movement, citizenship, or permanent residence for citizens of one European country in another.
This kind of governance, so long it is enforced by the collective action of the ethnostates, would prevent the existential crises Europe is failing to grapple with today, such as Afro-Islamic colonization—called the “refugee crisis” by the lying press. It would also prevent any state from adopting or allowing mass non-white immigration as official policy, since it would be considered treason against the collective of Europe and responded to with the force it merits.
A Treaty of Evropa would also defuse many tensions the centralizing EU has created. A Treaty of Evropa would allow ethnostates to control what degree of intra-European movement they want and what economic policies they want. Closer integration between, say Germany and Austria, would be allowed at will, while if Britain wanted to restrict Continental immigration it could. If Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands wanted a common market and free trade zone, they could have it. Agency would be allowed to the degree that it does not undermine the racial hygiene of Europe.
Europe has a long way to go.
So how do we get there by dismantling the EU? By creating a Europe of sovereign nations, a Europe of true ethnostates, we build the potential for collaboration on ethno-nationalist and pan-European lines. I do not believe this can be done from inside the EU, because its tendencies are inherently anti-ethnonationalist and pro-globalist. The longer a nation remains inside such a cauldron, the further it will be corroded. Independence must come first so that each nation can determine what it must do to survive, and then negotiate a new state system on the Continent that respects new conditions. The phoenix must burn in order to rise from the ashes anew. Hence, the work of nationalists must be to propagandize and organize against this infernal institution until there is no longer any solid ground for it to stand upon. Only then will the nations of Europe be free to enter into compact with one another to preserve their patrimonies against a world set against them and pursue foreign and domestic policies conducive to their own survival and not to that of occupying interests. In the EU this is simply not possible, no more than it was possible to unilaterally abolish communism in a single Soviet republic so long as the USSR stood. The entire beast must be brought down for its thralls to be released.
Europe has not yet learned how to be ethnonational. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the dildolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Goyim are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into an ethnonational mode, and Goyim will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.