Tags
absolutist sovereignty, alcoholism, avid Icke, Britain, British Mixed-Racial State, British Nationalism, British Nationalism versus White Nationalism, British politicians, British politics, British Treason State, Britishers, Conservative Party, critical Nationalism, drug dependency, Edwardian era, EEC, EU, Europe, European Union, Eurosceptics, Fate, inequality, Judeo-capitalism, Karl Popper, kosher nationalism, Member States, mixed-racialism, multi-culturalism, neo-communism, neo-Nazism, Neo-Tribalism, New Europeans, patriotism, Pioneer Little Europe, PLE, pornography, pseudo-communism, Racial Intentional Community, relativist sovereignty, Schumanisme, sovereignty, Tories, UK Parliament, UKIP, Uncritical nationalism, Welfare State, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, White Neo-Tribalism, WIN
A World of Meaning: Nationalism and New Europeans
What vexes about Europe is not the notion of geopolitical unity itself – a goal most can support and subscribe to, if only in a vague sense – but rather why any Nationalist should oppose such a goal and instead maintain, against all evidence, adherence to the treasonous mixed-race nation-states that now govern the West.
I do not refer here, of course, to the more considered view expressed by some Nationalists that the European Union, as presently-constituted, is a detriment to our racial interest. While there are probative issues with this line of thinking and I doubt any serious discussion about cause and effect would bring clarity to the matter, the concern is entirely legitimate and understandable nonetheless. In blunt terms, it is said that the European Union is stripping the British nation of its long-held traditions of common law, liberty and popular sovereignty; that while the EU’s Four Freedoms have their benefits, the increasing migration of European peoples into Britain in revolutionary numbers is socially- and culturally detrimental and undermines the economic interest of the indigenous population; and, that the erosion of legal and political nationhood reflects a broader, sinister, agenda to undermine human indigenous identities in the interests of Judeo-capitalism.
Let me join that chorus and make it clear that I, too, disapprove of the European institutions, and though my views on the European Union are not unequivocal because I see some positive aspects to it as well, I do not like the negative aspects any more than other Nationalists. The matter, however, is one of seeing things for what they really are. The E.U.’s modus, in its predicators, was a process of evolution, successively, from a collection of independent ethnic nation-states to a closely-integrated political and economic confederation, and that remains its goal and mode of action today. The line put about by British politicians in the 1960s and 1970s that the then-EEC was merely an international trade association was a simple, straight-forward lie, but simply to acknowledge that it was a lie does not promote any understanding and is not in itself an argument. The E.U. must be confronted for what it is. As a social and political experiment, it has demonstrated that a realistic consequence of serious, intensive co-operation at all governmental levels among closely-aligned nation-states is the incremental ceding of sovereignty, both informally through ad hoc social, cultural and economic relations, and formally and legalistically through legislative integration. This was to be expected, and could have been predicted, whatever the deceptions of the politicians. Sovereignty as an abstract may seem absolute, and it may manifest in absolute notions of state identity, but in reality sovereignty is necessarily relativistic in practice. The E.U. itself, and some of its apologist commentators, employ euphemisms such as ‘sharing’ or ‘pooling’ sovereignty, or words such as ‘integration’ and ‘co-operation’. These words all mean taking away powers from national institutions. They give the impression of an absolute attitude to sovereignty. In other words, they are used in such a way as to imply that a reserve of sovereignty remains with the Member State-donor, which graciously grants lumps of sovereignty to the foreign or alien body but can withdraw co-operation – and thus reclaim all its sovereignty – at any time. That notion has some validity, of course. It is true that, formally and practically, the relevant powers do remain with the national institutions and Member States can withdraw co-operation, and sometimes do. This absolute conceptualisation of sovereignty has been adopted implicitly by both supporters and opponents of the E.U., however it is represents a highly-misleading picture. A true understanding of the E.U. and its legal relationship to its Member States can only be gained if we see sovereignty as a fundamentally pragmatic concept, conceived-of relativistically.
We have already touched on the E.U.’s modus, which is a gradual accumulation of powers and supervisory competence to the European institutions. This represents a creeping movement towards the E.U. having legal integrity, a form of nationhood, in its own right. This, the E.U.’s true project, could not be successful without a pragmatic understanding of sovereignty among Europe’s various stato-nationalist leaders. The single currency project is the most overt and blatant example of this creeping statehood and ‘pragmatic sovereignty’ in action. More auspiciously, the E.U. has been successful in evolving distinctive competences in foreign policy, commercial policy, customs matters and fisheries, all of which transcend national boundaries to some degree of other: in the case of fisheries, radically so. This is the reality behind the idealistic pleadings of ‘sovereignty’, in both directions, from the E.U.’s technocrats, political personalities, supporters, enemies and opponents. Looked at historically, the E.U.’s modus is not innovative. In fact, it is entirely consistent with philosophic concepts of international law and stato-nationhood going back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. The reality is that the E.U. is consistent in development with established traditions of European legal, political and constitutional thought. This raises a number of questions and points that, at first sight, may seem perplexing in the mind of the ethno-motivated stato-nationalist dissident, and which have formed the backcloth of much political debate in Britain over the last few decades. Why would these ancient, ethnic nation-states permit an evolutionary process to enter into train that would involve the practical bleeding of sovereignty from their own institutions? How could such a project be carried out so harmoniously and contentedly, without significant resistance from stato-national political or economic elites and without rioting in the streets?
That the E.U. has been a harmonious alignment is because its various stato-national leaders – in both politics and business – have willed it, as this was their project. They would not have willed it to fail or fall apart. That the E.U. has, generally, achieved its intermediate objectives and remains on course for “ever closer union” among its Member States is a testament to its consistent success in attracting public assent or support throughout the various Member States. It is the people-at-large who wanted, or at least were willing to accept, integration (and thus, the ceding of sovereignty). This may be because they were misinformed – were “lied-to” – or it could be that they lacked other political choices, but they wanted or accepted these changes nonetheless. The point illustrates a reality that few stato-nationalists wish to recognise or acknowledge. Their usual response is to complain about the E.U.’s true agenda as if it is some conspiratorial secret, but it isn’t a secret. The true agenda has been out in the open from the beginning. Even so, the stato-nationalist diagnosis and the prognosis are correct and the complaint has an accurate basis; it is, in fact, the treatment prescribed that is harmful, if not dangerous, to our racial prospects. If sovereignty is pragmatic and relativist, and if the world is evolving in a way that reflects this, then the correct response is not to fight the rest of the world because of the way it is or the forces of history because of what they have led to and will likely lead to. That is a war that would surely prove futile. Flogging the poor old tired horse may be emotionally-satisfying, but it is hardly useful. What we need is a new horse.
Debates about the ‘evils’ of the E.U. in Britain are, then, a distraction. The fault – in so far as there is fault – for ‘problems’ with ‘Europe’ is with the institutions of Britain itself, specifically the UK Parliament. These are not European problems, caused by some distant, out-of-touch cartoon bureaucrats in Brussels or wherever, so much as British problems caused by people in London. This is true even on the terms of the ‘anti-E.U.’ politicians and agitators themselves. If we accept UKIP propaganda, then it is in the UK Parliament, for the time being, that reserve sovereignty is still vested. It is there that the necessary resolution would see us removed from the E.U., de facto and de jure, should that be considered desirable. When this point is made, the ‘Eurosceptics’ and anti-E.U. politicians reply that the ‘problem’ (whatever they define that to be) is not some foreign committee, but in fact that the political class in this country is out-of-touch with the population. There is, indeed, a political class in Britain, and they are out-of-touch, but even a remote elite must broadly reflect its population representatively. If there were a genuine desire to withdraw from the E.U. among the population, then by now we would have at least entered into serious negotiations to withdraw. The reason we have not done so is that there is no such desire. Not a serious desire at any rate, not in the country, not in Parliament and not in UKIP itself. Those who believe otherwise are deluding themselves on two fronts: first, they are deluded that the E.U. actually matters in racial terms, when in fact it is a side-issue and, at best, a distraction; and second, quite apart from the relative significance of the E.U., what is not grasped is that we have the type of society that disregards national and racial identity because the majority of people have either affirmed or acquiesced in the changes that brought about its existence, and UKIP – a globalist, right-wing, materialist faction of the Tory party – is a product of this general attitudinal climate. Do not mistake my logic for an affirmation of this country’s democratic credentials. I do not believe in democracy in the first place, nor do I accept this country is a democracy in anything but the most limited sense. However, even the most beligerent dictator cannot survive without either the tacit acceptance or acquiescence of his people – consent, in other words – and if we are sufficiently clear-headed to acknowledge this, then these difficult issues become easier to grapple with.
We are the foreigners in Britain: those of us who are racially-conscious that is. Those among us who wish to preserve Britain politically must ask themselves what it is they are seeking to preserve. A mixed-racial, alien-infested hellhole perhaps? Or maybe the most unequal British society since the Edwardian era? Or perhaps what matters is preserving mass drug dependency, pornography and alcoholism? The reality is that Britain is not Britain. It is somewhere else, a sick, depraved, dysgenic society that cannot be saved, and those who, on any terms, call for its preservation are (consciously or otherwise) joining a different chorus, the fractured, dissonant clatter of our enemies who welcome all-sorts to their shebang. That is not to say that an idealised racial ‘Europe’ is the answer. We cannot instantly re-create the society that we want, and any concrete attempts to do so via remote country retreats and other sundry discursions will lead to nothing. What we must recognise is that though geo-demographics are crucial politically, what we are engaged in is not so much a territorial battle as a war for the human mind and spirit. Our destination must be ‘Nowhere’ in the truest sense. We are fighting for a future we will not see, but our contribution is critical – and the European identity of that future is inescapable.
‘Europe’ is a problematic word for Nationalists due to the association it now has with the discredited, pseudo-Communist excesses of the E.U. Yet a vision of the unity of Europe is entirely compatible, if not a predicate, for white racial survival. In that sense, as I see it, the difference between a British stato-nationalist and a White Nationalist is fundamental, and I do not accept that the two positions are complementary. There is a conflict between the pull of the invented nation and the reality of race, and increasingly as the British Mixed Race State shows itself to be treasonous as to race, that conflict manifests itself in so many ways so as to almost render the two positions opposite. Despite this, for practical purposes, a state of complementarity has continued within Nationalism for many years, so that British nationalists have worked alongside White Nationalists, and some have even adopted the claim of holding both positions at once. This unhappy marriage cannot continue. Those of us who are White Nationalists do not reject our British identity. Far from it, but nor is this merely a cold debate about political structures. It is true that we do not attach any significant weight to the current political construct that is the British State: what I call, the British Mixed Race State, a phraseology I use to emphasise the fact that the British State is mixed-racialist in its nature and purpose, and is thus anti-white. However, the difference goes deeper and can best to summarised by differentiating the terms ‘patriot’ and ‘Nationalist’. A patriot in the stato-nationalist sense is akin (to paraphrase Popper) with the ‘uncritical rationalist’. He accepts, worships in fact, the manifestations of absolute sovereignty. A Nationalist, on the other hand, is Popper’s ‘critical rationalist’. He confronts the brutal truth and dismisses idealistic notions of absolute sovereignty as an empirical nonsense. He accepts that sovereignty in the stato-national sense is pragmatic and relativist. He holds that the only sovereignty that matters is racial sovereignty. Accordingly, he treats the deceptive manifestations of absolute sovereignty with cold expediency. When the nation-state no longer serves its purpose, the Nationalist gathers together his worn tools and builds up a new Nation. That is what we Nationalists must now do.
Some would say that the issue between British stato-nationalists and White Nationalists is insubstantial and semantic, in that it’s all nothing more than how one defines a ‘Nationalist’. I disagree. It is not merely that I am free, if I wish, to define ‘Nation’ in racial terms. It is that the term ‘Nation’ has no meaning unless it is defined racially. The idea of mixed-racial nations, Singaporean administrative units for the management of human populations, is as sinister and nonsensical as it sounds, but I must acknowledge the reality that the choice of the alternative has been taken from me. The British population voted for this Westphalian perversion, this Rainbow international legal order that hides behind idealistic myths of absolute sovereignty. They want this. That we few, the Nationalists, want a quite different world in which human beings have strong indigenous identities, and that we see such a world as a precondition to human dignity and freedom, is a point completely lost on our uneducated fellows. To them, we are: “Nazi!”, “Racist!”, “Misogynist!”, or whatever is the in-term. There comes a point when one must acknowledge that the horse is well-enough flogged, and it so happens that this horse is comatose. The historians of the future will be startled to find that the cause of the horse’s condition was not some tragic accident or sinister plot sprung by malicious crypto-Jews acting in league with David Icke and a council of lizards. The explanation is more prosaic, and less comical. The horse lost its spirit. It laid down to die. This truth must now be confronted, coldly and soberly.
If our nation cannot be Britain, then we must lift our sights higher. Our Nation will be Europe, i.e. a White Nation that is a white European community of whatever geographic location, and that is cohesive in the racial sense. The petty ethnic and linguistic divides within the White National Community that once swayed masses now amount to little, for the majority who were charged with the eternal task of assuring our genetic destiny have set their course, a road to a cosmopolitan Nothing in which ethnoism is a deracinated construct. This cosmpolitian world will be as cold as the pavement outside. It will be a world in which everyone is equal, and therefore everyone is nothing; a world in which everyone is, truly, a citizen of the world, and therefore a citizen of nowhere: alas, not the Nowhere that William Morris had in mind, but instead a Nothing kind of Nowhere in which each person will live a life of softened servitude. I refuse to join that journey into spiritual obsolescence, and as it is Europe that is the ancestral homeland of our race – the greatest people to walk the face of the Earth, the White Race – then those of us who remain of the pre-Modern mind, of the visceral racial consciousness, must set a quite different course, towards a world of meaning, towards a New Europe.
The modus of the New Europeans will not be some crude Schumanisme, an extension of the existing civic Europe. Ours will be a New Order, a New Tribe, but we need a means to get there. What I propose is that Nationalists now turn the greater part of their efforts towards community-building strategies that are explicitly race-conscious. In North America, wonderful efforts are underway to create Pioneer Little Europe communities. In Europe, we must iterate this brilliant movement, but we must do so in a way that is more appropriate to our distinct civic, social and political environment. I therefore propose a new concept, Racial Intentional Community, which honours our debt to PLE and to a large extent simply replicates it, but which also reflects the more communitarian, social and fascistic philosophical basis that we, the Nationalists of Europe, wish to see in our societies, on our Continent, including here in Britain. Let us confront the choice that faces each of us.
Arguments among friends are often the most brutal, as a reading of the history of various white civil wars will show. There are times when friends must, bitterly and tearfully, part for the good of the whole. We have arrived at such a moment. The white race is stood on the precipice of destiny. One day it will be our very survival that is called to the dock of Fate. In that trial of fire and steel, Mother Nature will look on with withering contempt at those who do not accept the imperatives of genetic and racial perpetuation, and She is remorseless. There is no room for the liberal mentality of seeing both sides of it, of having it forwards, sidewards and backwards. There is survival and there is extinction, and now each of us must choose. What we are witnessing is the beginning of the making of that choice. A critical but necessary schism is appearing in our milieu. It will be a slow but sure separation of the true, racially-conscious Nationalists from the reflexively racist ultra-Tories and national chauvinists clinging to the comforting wreckage of the British Mixed-Race State. The latter are now a dead-weight due to their inability to evolve politically. A significant minority of them were never sincere racialists in the first place, rather they masqueraded as Nationalists, often due to a psychological need to wear the black hat. These obstinate ‘Britishers’, whether purblind, reactionary or just plain stupid, will now take their rightful place among the ‘racially liberated’ masses, happy to be appeased by whichever right-wing puppet the Establishment throws up from time-to-time. By contrast, those for whom the bottom line is, and always will be, race – the Nationalists – must forge a new future as New Europeans. For these few, the nation-state is a transient construct, a means to an end that can be adopted and discarded coldly according to the expediencies of racial survival. We, that small minority, who are conscious of our racial destiny, must come to the painful mental acceptance that the most cherished patient has finally croaked, and while it certainly deserves – and will one day receive – a dignified burial, wrapped in its own Union Flag, we are set on Fate: Britain as a political entity must now be left to die, lest it brings the entire white race down with it. A New Europe must arise!
__________________________________________________________________
Note: The above is an article I wrote more than a year ago for the White Independent Nation website. I still hold to the views expressed in the article. My only quibble now would be over the terminology, in that I think the word ‘Nationalist’ and ‘Nationalism’ needs to be abandoned by white-conscious people if we are going to make progress.