White Nationalism just got its best electoral victory in living memory. The UK’s departure from the EU is the first mortal blow to the EU as conceived by the cultural Marxists, the free market capitalists, and the NATO strategists. It is the first step to the EU or some successor state having a European Identity and a coherent Grand Strategy, one that reflects the goals and values of White Nationalists.
Grand Strategy and the EU’s Bipolar Disorder
The Grand Strategy of a country is something that does not change more than once per century if that often. It is dictated by geology and geography more often than it is voluntarily chosen by a countries leadership. For example, from the Late Middle Ages until the 1980s the primary priority of France has been to divide and contain the Germanic tribes in order to remain the dominant force on the continent. For centuries, the tsars dreamed of a warm water port until they won Sebastopol from the Turks.
From the time of The House of Tudor, and perhaps before, the prerogative of the England was that a hegemon never arises on the continent of Europe. Their involvement in the European Union may appear to some as an abandonment of that goal until one delves beneath the surface to understand the British role in the evolution of European institutions. In fact, the United Kingdom’s involvement in the EU meant that a European Grand Strategy and a European Identity would be impossible to achieve.
Britian thrives on its mercantile economy and has spread economic liberalism wherever the Union Jack has flown. England was blessed with many deep water natural harbors. Its advantage in the number of these harbors over France and other European powers is measured not by “how many more” but “how many times more.” This leads to unusual ecenomic realities, such as the fact that, long after coal mining began in the US, Bostonians, and many others on the East Coast of the US, could get their coal more cheaply by boat from England than via the riverine and overland routes of their own country. Add to that the fact that William the Conqueror led the last successful invasion of England, and we understand the joke in geopolitical circles that Britain is a large lump of coal covered in grass and protected by the Atlantic. They are secure on their island and the world is their zone of economic interest.
Contrast the impact of geography on strategy in England and its successor states with that of Poland. Poland, which lacks natural defensive borders and easy access to global markets, has, since its modern rebirth, spent almost all of its strategic energy on managing its relations with Russia and Germany. To paraphrase Will Rogers, to England and its successor states, a stranger was defined as a trading partner they have not met yet. A rare luxury indeed. Most of continental Europe has (surprise!) a more continental approach than the Thallasocracies of the world. This results in a bipolarism in the strategic mindset of the EU.
There are, generally speaking, two directions that European integration can take: deeper and broader. Going deeper would mean developing a common approach to defense and foreign policy for the first time. Going broader would mean expanding the already existing free trade and freedom of movement zones to new countries.
Britain has always been the strongest voice for a broader Europe. As recently as last year, David Cameron has reiterated his support for Turkish inclusion in the EU. When he took the reins of the Conservative Party he said he would “fight for” Turkish Inclusion. Recognizing how deeply unpopular this elite consensus opinion is, in the month before the Brexit vote, Cameron claimed that this “could not happen before the year 3000,” but Euroskeptics are well aware of the willingness of their political leaders to lie about such things.
Turkey in the EU
The inclusion of Turkey would mean that the largest delegation to Brussels would be from a non-European people. Europe would have the pleasure of looking over the back fence to see Iran and Iraq as immediate neighbors. This is a border surrounded on all sides by Kurds, the worlds largest stateless nation, who dream of a Kurdish state. About 80 million Turks would enter into labor arbitrage with the workers of Europe who are already watching their purchasing power drop as globalization marches forward and Blacks and Arabs march inward. Not to mention the fact that nearly 5 million refugees have recently settled in Turkey from conflict zones in the Middle East.
In terms of security, modern Turkey is turning away from the secular principles of its founding fathers. President Erdogan, who many specialists on the region claim to be a longtime member of the Muslim Brotherhood, has held power for over a decade in Turkey. (The author was once in the office of a devout non-Turkish Muslim claiming to be part of this semi-secret society, who proudly showed off a photo of himself with Erdogan dating back to the early 1990s. The alleged context was building international links within the Brotherhood.) The Lebanese-American journalist Serena Shim was killed by Turkish Intelligence for filming from a distance friendly exchanges between the Turkish Military and ISIS. This NATO member has been a reliable supplier of arms to ISIS, including those plundered from Libya by the likes of Chris Stevens.
Why does the UK support Turkey in the EU?
At this point it should be clear that Turkish inclusion would indeed serve the first priority of UK Grand Strategy; a deeper union is not possible with Turkey involved. It also plays to their strengths by providing a new trading partner and source of cheap labor.
Why does the US support Turkey in the EU?
For the answer to this question one need look no further than the the book The Next 100 Years . It is written by George Friedman, a neo-con who runs Stratfor, which is like Blackwater but filled with former CIA Agents like himself. Friedman also just happens to be Jewish. Friedman identifies the Turco-American relationship as the most important one to develop by the end of the 21st Century.
Turkey is the indispensible country when it comes to building gas pipelines to Europe which will block a possible Russian monopoly. Also, control of the strait leading to the Black Sea will block in the Russian Navy’s Southern Fleet. Just as the UK teamed up with the sultans of this non-European entity in the 19th century to fight their white cousins from Russia, the US foreign policy establishment (regardless of the influence of the Organized Jewish Community) wishes to do the same in the 21st century. Ideally the US government (once it loses its Yiddish inflection) would adopt a racial nationalist foreign policy despite being at the moment a 2/3 White country. Perhaps the best we can reasonably hope for is that it embraces it’s Jeffersonian and Jacksonian traditions at the expense of the recently dominant Hamiltonian and Wilsonian traditions. (See Walter Russell Mead’s, “The Jacksonian Tradition and American Foreign Policy ” for a better understanding of these four tendencies.)
Toward the next European Union
Turkey still has its supporters in the upper echelons of Europe’s career politicians, but clearly, the migrant crisis, stagnating employment prospects and purchasing power, the rise nationalist parties, and most importantly Brexit, will cause these venal power brokers to think twice before rubber stamping a Turkish entry into the EU.
A White Nationalist political order is possible on the international scale through a Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, which Michael O’Meara has written about previously. The current EU is far from the prototype for this political arrangement, but by doing the hard work of negotiating mutually beneficial economic and monetary policy between Germany and France (two very different but potentially complementary economies), through the continued academic exchanges (and intermarriages) of the university-level Erasmus programs, and by the shared suffering brought on by the misguided policies of cultural Marxist elites, continental Europeans will be better prepared to ratify and enact a Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis in the coming decades than if the EU were to disappear and all sovereignty be returned to each member state in the next few years.
Thank You Third Way Voters of England!
Brexit was made possible by the turnout of the white middle class and white working class voters of England in record numbers. They bravely ignored their political leaders and moved beyond the Left-Right paradigm to embrace the nationalist option of rejecting the policy of replacement level immigration. This may bring an end to the United Kingdom as currently composed, but this is the only way to keep England for the English.
When we speak of White Nationalism we are consciously redefining the older concept of nationalism. However, “British Nationalism” by definition ignores historic realities, something English supporters were willing to do, but potential support from non-English British people was never forthcoming. In the end, the decision to look to Westminster rather than Brussels was an English one. This author did not believe such an outcome was possible without the prerequisite of Scotland’s departure before yesterday’s vote. The combination of the non-White voting bloc and the bourgeois Lib-Con voting bloc in England seemed challenging enough already, but when combined with the 10% of the UK population in Scotland who were certain to choose Brussels it seemed impossible.
The working and middle class English have shocked the world. The impact of their decision may be felt across this century in ways far more important than temporary shocks to the stock market or a small boost in confidence of anti-EU political parties.