Counter-Currents
  • Private Events
  • T&C
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
  • Webzine
  • Books
  • Podcasts
  • Donate
  • Paywall
  • Crypto
  • Mailing List
  • About
  • Contact
  • RSS
    • Main feed
    • Comments feed
    • Podcast feed

LEVEL2

  • Webzine
  • Books
  • Podcasts
  • Donate
  • Paywall
  • Crypto
  • Mailing List
  • About
  • Contact
  • RSS
    • Main feed
    • Comments feed
    • Podcast feed
  • Private Events
  • T&C
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
Print January 17, 2019 9 comments

Fukuyama on Civic Nationalism

Greg Johnson

3,801 words

In his new book Identity, Francis Fukuyama seeks to forestall the rise of white identity politics. Nevertheless, as I argue in “Fukuyama on Identity Politics,” Identity is a very useful book for White Nationalists because it concedes many of our most important premises. In “Fukuyama on Diversity,” I argue that Fukuyama admits that diversity is a problem and offers only very weak reasons to value it at all. Here I examine Fukuyama’s alternative to white identity politics, namely a conservative form of color-blind civic nationalism. 

Making the European Union Work

Fukuyama focuses on the European Union rather than individual European states because he clearly wants to make the EU work.

The EU, he says, was created because “exclusive ethnic definitions of national identity had been at the root of the two world wars that Europe experienced” (p. 143). “The founders of the European Union deliberately sought to weaken national identities at the member-state level in favor of a ‘postnational’ European consciousness, as an antidote to the aggressive ethno-nationalism of the first half of the twentieth century” (p. 143).

It is astonishing that the modern EU project is founded on an almost perfect inversion of historical truth. The First World War was not a clash of ethnostates but of Empires: the British, French, and Russian vs. the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires. The war broke out because of the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s clash with the kingdom of Serbia—itself a multinational state—over the multinational territory of Bosnia, as they scrambled to divide the carcass of the multinational Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. The entire war could have been avoided, though, if ethnonationalism rather than imperialism had been the guiding policy of Europe, moving borders and people to create homogeneous sovereign homelands for all peoples.

The Second World War could have been avoided in the same way if, in the aftermath of the First World War, the principle of national self-determination had been actually practiced as opposed to merely preached. But instead of dividing multiethnic empires into homogeneous states wherever possible, the victors divided countries like Germany and Hungary and created new multiethnic states like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

The European Union, in short, is built on lies. The World Wars were not caused by nationalism. They were caused by the suppression of the legitimate nationalist aspirations of European peoples by multinational imperial bodies—just like the European Union.

How does Fukuyama propose to make the EU work? According to Fukuyama, the main failures of the EU were (1) not creating a “strong sense of pan-European identity that supersedes the identities of its member states” (p. 153) and (2) not creating “democratic accountability” which left the citizens of EU states feeling “little sense of ownership or control over the institutions governing Europe as a whole” (p. 144). Thus the solution is to intensify the EU’s existing drive to destroy the national identities of the member states, but to make the process more democratic, so the technocrats can tell protesters that “You are doing it to ourselves.” (Of course this democracy would have to be a sham, otherwise Europeans will vote to stop the destruction of their homelands.) As Fukuyama puts it:

The European agenda must start with redefinitions of national identity embodied in its citizenship laws. Ideally, the EU should create a single citizenship whose requirements would be based on adherence to basic liberal democratic principles, one that would supersede national citizenship laws. . . . It would help if the EU democratized itself by shifting powers from the Commission to the Parliament and tried to make up for lost time by investing in European identity through the creation of appropriate symbols and narratives that would be inculcated through a common educational system. . . . Those laws of EU member states still based on jus sanguinis [the right of blood, i.e., citizenship through descent] need to be changed to jus soli [the right of soil, i.e., the idea that one has the right of citizenship simply by being born on a given country’s soil, what Vox Day mocks as “magic dirt”] so as not to privilege one ethnic group over another. (p. 167)

Let’s pause for a minute, take a deep breath, and reflect on the strange decay of language that allows such overheated Jacobin fantasies to be called a form of conservatism.

These proposals, if adopted, would spell the death of the white race and all of its distinct nations in Europe. Every European nation has below-replacement levels of fertility. Redefining European identity in inclusive liberal democratic terms will lead inevitably to open borders. (Face it, that’s really the whole point in redefining European identity as openness.) Open borders and granting citizenship to anyone born within Europe’s territory will lead to the replacement of Europeans with non-Europeans within a few generations. Basically, for whites, liberal democratic openness amounts to openness to collective suicide. And Fukuyama proposes making openness to demographic annihilation the defining value of European identity.

Ironically, Fukuyama himself realizes that “diversity cannot be the basis for identity in and of itself; it is like saying that our identity is to have no identity . . .” (p. 159). But making an identity of liberal democracy, defined as being essentially open to diversity, has the exact same problem. As a concept, it is vacuous, and when put into practice it can lead only to destruction.

But won’t our replacements be “Europeans” if they are assimilated to the new European identity—which is to be maximally open to demographic replacement? Of course not.

First of all, it might be the case that only white people are stupid enough to adopt a collective suicide pact as an identity.

Second, why would any healthy population wish to emulate the value system of a race that built the richest civilization in world history—then went mad and gave it all away?

Third, it would be far more advantageous for immigrant populations to merely pretend to accept liberal democratic openness while practicing strict preferences for their own tribes. Liberal democratic true believers would blind themselves to this form of cheating, so there is little danger of being found out and punished. And even if cheaters were caught, liberals would just blame themselves (or retrograde xenophobic whites) for failing to be sufficiently open.

Fourth, Fukuyama envisions a democratized European Union, which means that once the white population is too small and weak to maintain the hegemony of its suicidal value system, the newcomers will simply vote to replace it with something more to their liking, most probably an Islamic state. It is the height of naivete to think that once non-whites are the majority, they will continue to take orders from white liberals.

Fukuyama has a few specific proposals for EU member states. He praises Emanuel Macron trying to break France’s unions and “liberalize” its labor laws to make it possible for more blacks and Muslims to find jobs (p. 172). In short, migrant employment should be paid for by falling French wages and living standards.

He also suggests destroying the Dutch system of state-supported parochial schools and replacing it with a single state education system with a standardized curriculum of liberal democratic swill—again, to better integrate Muslims (pp. 151, 171). As if Dutch schoolboys and schoolgirls don’t have enough problems with Muslim youths outside of school hours.

These are very real threats to the well-being of countless Europeans. Yet Fukuyama airily reassures us that “The region [a sinisterly generic term for Europe] is not threatened by immigrants so much as by the political reaction that immigrants and cultural diversity create” (p. 153). In fact, the deepest threat to Europe is liberal democracy. The pauperization of French workers; the bullying and rape of Dutch schoolchildren; the Bataclan massacre, the Nice massacre, and countless other terrorist attacks on European soil—these events do not threaten the plans of people like Fukuyama and the EU leadership. Pauperization, cultural annihilation, and race replacement are parts of the plan. They are small prices  to pay — for other people to pay — for the realization of the European Dream. What threatens the EU is Europeans awakening to the fact that the EU’s dream is their nightmare, then rejecting their destruction.

Are any of Fukuyama’s suggestions likely to be adopted? Of course not. Even the most Left-wing and ethnomasochist EU member states would reject these schemes. To his credit, Fukuyama himself recognizes that his proposals have no realistic chance of being implemented by the EU. At best, they can only be implemented by particular member states. Which means on his own terms that liberal democracies will be increasingly polarized between identity politics of the Left and the Right. Fukuyama warns that, “Down this road lies, ultimately, state breakdown and failure” (p. 165).

But the breakdown and failure Fukuyama envision is of multicultural, multiracial liberal democracies that do not adopt assimilationism and the construction of a liberal democratic “identity” to unify them. There is, however, another solution: the preservation, restoration, or creation of racially and ethnically homogeneous states by moving borders and people—and I will never tire of repeating that Fukuyama admits that these processes can be carried out in a wholly non-violent and ethical manner.

Making Multicultural America Work

Fukuyama’s proposals for making a multicultural America work are no more plausible. Basically, he argues for a “liberal democratic” multicultural civic nationalism, which consists of a creed and a minimally “Protestant” culture. First the creed:

[The] creedal understanding of American identity emerged as the result of a long struggle stretching over nearly two centuries and represented a decisive break with earlier versions of identity based on race, ethnicity, or religion. Americans can be proud of this very substantive identity; it is based on belief in the common political principles of constitutionalism, the rule of law, democratic accountability, and the principle that “all men are created equal” (now interpreted to include all women). These political ideas come directly out of the Enlightenment and are the only possible basis for unifying a modern liberal democracy that has become de facto multicultural. (p. 158)

Fukuyama deserves praise for conceding that the “creedal” civic nationalist concept of American identity was contested from the start and only became dominant in the 20th century—in fact in the 1960s with the success of the black civil rights movement and the abandonment of America’s immigration laws that aimed at maintaining a white supermajority.

Fukuyama argues that a creedal identity is not enough. It is a necessary condition to make a multicultural liberal democracy work. But it is not a sufficient condition. The other necessary condition is . . . a common culture, including a set of virtues. But this common culture has to be vacuous enough to somehow include multiculturalism, and it has to be detached from any fixed biological categories like race and, I presume, sex. Fukuyama’s answer is the Anglo-Protestant culture, stripped of anything exclusively Anglo and Protestant, i.e., retaining only those aspects of Anglo-Protestant identity that make it a collective suicide pact.

The only specific Anglo-Protestant virtue that Fukuyama mentions is, of course, the “work ethic.” Americans, after all, work hard. Not as hard as Asians, Fukuyama reminds us, but certainly harder than those effete Europeans. Americans respect hard work and economic competition (and low wages) so much that we have repeatedly debased the ethnic homogeneity of our society to bring in hard-working and cheap (or just plain cheap) immigrants. And if white Americans are displaced by non-white immigrants, well that’s fair. You didn’t mistake this economic zone for a homeland did you?

In the end, there’s nothing specifically Anglo or Protestant about the economy. As producers and consumers, we are all fungible. Who works hard in America these days? Fukuyama’s answer is: “It is just as likely to be a Korean grocery-store owner or an Ethiopian cab-driver or a Mexican gardener as a person of Anglo-Protestant heritage living off dividends in his or her country club” (p. 161).

This point is problematic in a number of ways.

First, it proves too much, for if there’s nothing specifically Anglo-Protestant about the marketplace, there is nothing specifically American about it either. The market and its virtues are global. Thus in what sense are we talking about anything American at all?

Second, the proper reaction of an American identitarian to this concept of identity is simply to reject it. We reject any universal, non-exclusive identity that makes all men fungible. The whole point of a national identity is to be exclusive. The whole point of a homeland is to enjoy it as a birthright and to pass it on to one’s posterity—and only one’s posterity. The whole point of a homeland is that it belongs to us, and we belong to it, unconditionally. We don’t have to earn it. We don’t have to compete with foreigners to keep it. Why shouldn’t Americans have that kind of homeland, that kind of security—especially if we do not begrudge others the right to their own homelands?

The only reason anyone will ask you to replace an exclusive form of national identity with an inclusive one is because he envisions replacing you in your homeland. Once you define yourself as replaceable, someone will replace you.

Third, to claim that a Korean, an Ethiopian, a Mexican, and a WASP are “just as likely” to be hard-working is implicitly to reject biological race differences and to embrace social constructivism, which Fukuyama hints at elsewhere. But biological race differences are real, which means that taken at random, WASPs and Koreans are far more likely than Mexicans and Ethiopians to be successful in the American economic system. And Fukuyama implicitly recognizes this, since if race did not matter, why is his hypothetical Korean not a gardener and his hypothetical Mexican not a grocery-store owner?

Finally, note the lazy, sloppy language. No WASP “lives off dividends in his or her country club.” Nobody lives in country clubs at all. This anti-WASP canard has become so hackneyed that people can’t even be bothered to make it sound plausible.

Will Fukuyama’s proposals save liberal democracy in America? The answer is no.

First of all, although Fukuyama advertises his book as an attempt to stave off Trumpian identity politics, his outlook and policy proposals are essentially indistinguishable from Trumpian civic nationalism. So liberal democrats will simply reject Identity as a disingenuous attempt to advance Trumpism while bashing Trump.

Second, demanding that immigrants assimilate, even to an almost vacuous liberal creed and Protestant culture, is still “racism” and “cultural imperialism” as far as the Left is concerned. Is Fukuyama really going to challenge the taboo against racism? I doubt he is willing to pay that price, which means that his proposals are a dead letter.

White Nationalists, by contrast, have no problem taking heat for “racism”: we unapologetically take our own side in ethnic conflicts. We aim to create or restore white homelands by moving people and borders. But we have no desire to assimilate non-whites—or be assimilated by them. We simply want to go our separate ways. That’s the whole point of having separate homelands where different peoples can practice different ways of life without outside interference.

Third, even if Fukuyama’s ideas were adopted, they would not be enough to save America from white identity politics. White identity politics is not simply being driven by Left identity politics, so that if one turned off Left identity politics, white identity politics would dry up. Rather, white identity politics is being driven by one of the consequences of Left identity politics, namely white dispossession. But even if the Left halted identity politics, white dispossession is still “baked in” to Fukuyama’s scheme, since the borders would remain open, white birthrates would remain low, and non-white birthrates would remain high. But as the white majority continues to decline, white ethnocentrism will continue to rise, feeding white identity politics.

Fourth, even if we implemented all of Fukuyama’s policies, only whites are likely to actually believe in and practice multicultural civic nationalism—because only whites do so today. There is nothing in Fukuyama’s plan to prevent non-whites from cheating: outwardly professing liberal democratic universalism and demanding to be treated accordingly, while covertly practicing preferences for their own tribes. Thus Fukuyama’s solution would simply intensify the ongoing process of white dispossession. At best it might slow down the backlash, by blinding people to what is happening. But it might also ensure that the backlash is far more severe when it actually arrives.

In their hearts, I think many civic nationalists believe that America and Europe took a wrong turn when they opened their borders and embraced diversity. But they are unwilling to contemplate actually rolling back the Left’s social engineering, specifically the catastrophic demographic and cultural trends of the last half-century. It is a gigantic failure of imagination and nerve.

For example, consider Fukuyama’s comments on the millions of illegal aliens in America:

It is . . . ridiculous to think that the United States could ever force all these people to leave the country and return to their countries of origin. A project on that scale would be worthy of Stalin’s Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. (p. 176)

First, if it is possible for people to enter the United States, it is possible for them to leave. What’s truly ridiculous is thinking that the turnstile at the border only turns one way. Second, the United States has forced millions of Mexicans to return to Mexico twice in the 20th century, and in neither case did it turn into genocide. (We need a wall, so we don’t have the deport them a fourth time.) Third, didn’t Fukuyama himself, on page 142 of the very same book, claim that ethnic cleansing can take place in an entirely non-violent and ethical fashion?

Because of this failure of nerve and imagination, writers like Fukuyama are driven to the makeshift ideology of “liberal democratic” multicultural civic nationalism. If you believe that Leftism and diversity are destroying civilization, but you are too scared to contemplate actually reversing the damage, your only hope is to halt the decline by imposing a sham unity on ethnic diversity—by synthesizing an inclusive creed and culture, then demanding people assimilate it.

Another reason why a color-blind civic nationalism appeals to Fukuyama is simply because he is not white. No matter how convinced he might be that multiculturalism and immigration have catastrophic consequences, he will never contemplate an alternative that does not secure his presence and upward mobility.

To defeat civic nationalists like Fukuyama, we must not only demonstrate that their solutions are unworkable, but also show that the creation of racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands is both moral and practical. The Left is destroying white civilization, and neocons like Fukuyama can’t save it. It is time for them to step aside and let ethnonationalists take over.

Afterthoughts

Fukuyama makes three other noteworthy points that are useful to White Nationalists.

First, he argues that dual citizenship is a “rather questionable practice” if “one takes national identity seriously.” “Different nations have different interests that can engender potentially conflicting allegiances” (p. 168). I don’t know what percentage of neocons have dual US-Israeli citizenships, but it is certainly above the national average, and Fukuyama knows it. So this is a rather gutsy position to take.

Second, Fukuyama points out a crucially important distinction that globalists stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, namely the distinction between human rights and civil rights (pp. 173-74). Human rights are universal. Civil rights are particular. We are morally obligated to respect the human rights of all people. We are not morally obligated to give civil rights to all people. Ethnonationalists can recognize that all people have basic human rights, but we can still say that they are not good fits for our particular societies.

Third, Fukuyama points out an important implication of the distinction between human rights and civil rights (p. 175). We all have human rights, but simply having human rights does not entitle us to enter other people’s countries and demand to participate in their political life, which is what civil rights entitle us to do. Nations still have the right to control their borders and determine who may and may not become “naturalized” parts of their body politic.

One human right that we need to respect is the right of refugees to safe harbor. After all, any people can suffer misfortune. (Although obviously dumber and more quarrelsome peoples are more “accident prone” than others.) But the United Nations has already drawn up reasonable laws about refugees. A refugee has the right to take refuge in the closest safe country, for instance Syrians fleeing to Turkey or Lebanon. (This makes sense in terms of moral reciprocity, given that in different circumstances, Turks and Lebanese might wish to take refuge in Syria.) But once a person leaves the closest safe place for better pay and benefits, he is no longer a refugee, he is a migrant, and other countries have the absolute right to bar his entry.

Afterword

Identity is a poorly written book. It is repetitive, padded, and poorly organized. There are also a number of places where I actually laughed out loud. To end on a light note, I will share a few.

In his Preface, Fukuyama writes: “Megalothymia thrives on exceptionality: taking big risks, engaging in monumental struggles, seeking large effects, because all these lead to recognition of oneself as superior to others. In some cases, it can lead to a heroic leader like a Lincoln or a Churchill or a Nelson Mandela. But in other cases it can lead to tyrants like Caesar or Hitler or Mao who lead their societies into dictatorship and disaster” (pp. xiii-xiv).

On page 34, Fukuyama writes: “Rousseau’s assertion that pride emerged only at a certain stage of social evolution is curious; it begs the question of how such an intrinsic human feeling could spontaneously appear in response to an external stimulus.” “Begs the question” refers to a logical fallacy, which is clearly inapplicable here. Fukuyama means “raises the question.” This is a very common error in spoken English, but it seldom gets into books by reputable publishers.

On page 70, Fukuyama writes of jihadis: “When they showed up in Syria with a long beard and toting an AK-47 or staged a murderous attack on their fellow Europeans, their families always professed surprise and incomprehension at the transformation.” First, most jihadis carry American-made weapons. Second, “fellow Europeans.” Third, taking Muslim professions of surprise and incomprehension at face value when their religion teaches them to lie to infidels as a weapon of jihad.

But the best laugh appears on page 176: “. . . the United States now hosts a population of 11–12 million undocumented aliens. . . . The idea that they are all criminals because they violated U.S. law to enter the country is ridiculous.” If you are ever on trial, you should suggest that your lawyer use Fukuyama’s argument: “Your honor, the idea that my client is a criminal just because he violated the law is ridiculous.”

Related

  • Neema Parvini’s The Populist Delusion

  • Céline vs. Houellebecq

  • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 447
    New Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson

  • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 446
    James J. O’Meara on Hunter S. Thompson

  • O Manifesto Nacionalista Branco:
    Parte 3, Genocídio Branco

  • Lauren Oyler’s Fake Accounts

  • Remembering Richard Wagner
    (May 22, 1813–February 13, 1883)

  • “Should War Be Criminalized?”

Tags

Alexandre Kojèvebook reviewsEuropean UnionFrancis FukuyamaG. W. F. HegelGreg Johnsonidentityidentity politicsPlatothumosUnited States

Previous

« Trump vs. the Tyranny of Experts

Next

» Gaslighting the Normies

9 comments

  1. ronehjr says:
    January 17, 2019 at 9:59 am

    The way you describe the book it sounds like Fukuyama is just trying to get white people to accept our demise peacefully.

  2. Razvan says:
    January 17, 2019 at 10:11 am

    ” the victors divided countries like Germany and Hungary and created new multi ethnic states like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia”

    The multi-ethnic mess was created by empires, including Hungary and Austro-Hungary. I wouldn’t blame President Wilson too much for that. In certain situations it was impossible to create ethnically homogeneous states due to the amalgamation of populations practiced by the Empires. After the devastation brought by the war, bolshevik uprisings, and the epidemics it was simply not feasible to propose large population movements across the new borders. So the borders were drawn so that the majority or at least the largest minority to be part of it’s own national state.

    And frankly speaking, many peoples were perfectly content being part of the Empire but not to be part of Hungary. Many were loyal to Vienna but could never be loyal to Budapest. As simple as that. And you can include here almost everyone in Central and Eastern Europe. Romanians (the largest minority of the Empire), Serbs, Slovaks, Germans (as an example the German minority in Transylvania voted for the unification with the Kingdom of Romania not Hungary!)

    Now, while I strongly believe in the practical value of ethnic homogeneity this is not always feasible. Also a myriad of small but homogeneous states without a certain supra-national structure will render them indefensible against the Asian Empires – Russia and China! And these two do know how to genocide. So again, an effete bureaucrat of EU Commission is a better choice (and probably the only one acceptable currently) in order to maintain the peace between not perfectly homogeneous states but also to prevent the Asian Empires expansion in Europe.

    This structure was working in a certain degree until Angela Merkel blown it up by opening unilaterally the borders of Germany.

    My hope is for a Union of all white peoples (Europe, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and a proper part of South America) each people living in its own state based on its historical right (defined genetically and culturally), but organized in a supra national white states entity; expulsion of all non-European populations and individuals, including the mixed race individuals. Common defense, common positions regarding the rest of the world. Free internal markets. Free circulation of ideas and goods. Limited people circulation.

    1. Greg Johnson says:
      January 17, 2019 at 1:07 pm

      The bureaucrats in the EU have nothing to do with Europe’s collective security. You are thinking of NATO.

      1. Razvan says:
        January 17, 2019 at 1:42 pm

        Security has many aspects. You are thinking only to the military aspect. And yes NATO is of capital importance.

        The military and intelligence are the most important, but there are the economic aspects too.
        A larger economic bloc is able to react better on embargo, blockade, or any kind of crisis than a sigle country.

        Europe is a pretty small teritorry. You need a good ballance between integration and separation. A good judgement on what can and should be integrated and what can and should be separated.

        I believe that EU can and should be maintained as long as
        – it remains for white people only
        – the mutual accepted rules are respected and enforced – i.e. no slackers

  3. Samuel Nock says:
    January 17, 2019 at 7:06 pm

    The countries that have most embraced ethic diversity, and ONLY those countries, need to become more diverse.

    The race that has most renounced any sense of group identity, and ONLY that race, must further renounce its group identity.

    Fukuyama makes Three Card Monty scammers at Times Square look like sophisticated rhetoricians.

    Great, absolutely irrefutable series of articles by Greg.

    It will never happen of course, but Fukuyama should debate Greg on this topic. I even have the perfect title for the event: “Last Man Falling”.

  4. Madden says:
    January 18, 2019 at 10:57 am

    I think a more appropriate title for this book would have been: The End of History and the Last White Man.

  5. Ben says:
    January 18, 2019 at 6:24 pm

    You’re right, that last line is laugh out loud preposterous. “The idea that my client is a criminal just because he violated the law”. I mean, what is the world coming to, anyway?

  6. HungarianFashionista says:
    January 21, 2019 at 1:55 pm

    he preservation, restoration, or creation of racially and ethnically homogeneous states by moving borders and people—and I will never tire of repeating that Fukuyama admits that these processes can be carried out in a wholly non-violent and ethical manner

    People in multicultural societies are rarely distributed along clear geographical lines. We will always have to move people. In case of recent immigrants, it may be easy. In case of old indigenous populations, especially if they are warlike races, not so much. They will fight, because of who they are, and we will have to bomb them into submission.

    the victors divided countries like Germany and Hungary and created new multiethnic states like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia

    The problem was not that these new countries were multiethnic – in Yugoslavia brothers and cousins were fighting against each other -, but that they were laid over tectonic lines.

    The Czech Republic was part of Austria, Slovakia was part of the Hungarian kingdom.

    Slovenia was part of Austria, Croatia was an autonomous part of Hungary, Serbia was part of the Ottoman empire.

    The process is probably not over yet, a few other countries may break up along former imperial lines in the next 20-30 years. And there may be others that simply turn out to be not viable. Running an independent state is hard. (Begging Trump for a US military base is not a security policy. Buying Russian gas and reselling it at a profit is not an economy.)

    Generally speaking, I understand that my fellow white people in America wish to stop immigration, and even separate from blacks and browns. I wholeheartedly support that. But when they use Eastern Europe as example and justification, and even try to prescribe for us the same policies that they wish to implement at home – it just feels like there is a lack of understanding between us, to say the least.

  7. HungarianFashionista says:
    January 21, 2019 at 2:27 pm

    The war broke out because of the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s clash with the kingdom of Serbia—itself a multinational state—over the multinational territory of Bosnia, as they scrambled to divide the carcass of the multinational Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. The entire war could have been avoided

    Bosnia was unmanageable along ethnic lines back then, just as it is now. Austria did a fairly good job governing it for the benefit of all. Just ask Bosnians, the Habsburgs are quite popular over there.

    Nation states are structures of power, just like empires. They have interests, and armies. The idea that they would never fight wars strikes me as just another kind of utopianism.

Comments are closed.

If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.

Note on comments privacy & moderation

Your email is never published nor shared.

Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.

  • Recent posts

    • Neema Parvini’s The Populist Delusion

      Greg Johnson

      3

    • Europe’s Eastern Shield

      Nicholas R. Jeelvy

      14

    • Céline vs. Houellebecq

      Margot Metroland

    • White Identity Nationalism, Part 3

      Neil Kumar

      2

    • White Americans’ Racial Consciousness is No Longer an Unknown Quantity

      Beau Albrecht

      15

    • The Tex-Mex Misfit Massacre

      Jim Goad

      19

    • White Identity Nationalism, Part 2

      Neil Kumar

      3

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 448
      The Writers’ Bloc with Karl Thorburn on Mutually Assured Destruction

      Counter-Currents Radio

    • The US Spring Primaries are a Sign that White Identity Politics is Here to Stay

      Cyan Quinn

      6

    • The Union Jackal, May 2022

      Mark Gullick

      7

    • White Identity Nationalism, Part 1

      Neil Kumar

      4

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 447
      New Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson

      Counter-Currents Radio

      3

    • On Racial Humor

      Spencer J. Quinn

      26

    • Facts on the Ground

      Hamilton T. Burger

      4

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 446
      James J. O’Meara on Hunter S. Thompson

      Counter-Currents Radio

      2

    • O Manifesto Nacionalista Branco:
      Parte 3, Genocídio Branco

      Greg Johnson

    • The Worst Week Yet:
      May 15-21, 2022

      Jim Goad

      24

    • Lauren Oyler’s Fake Accounts

      Anthony Bavaria

      6

    • The Copypasta Apocalypse
      From Jesus to Gendron, via Brother Stair

      James J. O'Meara

    • The Life & Death of a Patriot:
      Personal Reflections on the Great Replacement

      Veiko Hessler

      2

    • Remembering Richard Wagner
      (May 22, 1813–February 13, 1883)

      Greg Johnson

    • This Weekend’s Livestreams
      James O’Meara on Counter-Currents Radio & Karl Thorburn on The Writers’ Bloc

      Greg Johnson

      4

    • The Counter-Currents 2022 Fundraiser
      Every Man an Editor

      Greg Johnson

      7

    • Against the Negative Approach in Politics

      Nicholas R. Jeelvy

      6

    • What Christian Nationalism Looks Like in Current-Year America

      Robert Hampton

      25

    • “Should War Be Criminalized?”

      Greg Johnson

      5

    • O Manifesto Nacionalista Branco:
      Parte 2, Extinção Branca

      Greg Johnson

    • Morálka lidské mysli Jonathana Haidta, část druhá

      Collin Cleary

    • Animals & Children First

      Jim Goad

      41

    • The Great Replacement Prize

      Greg Johnson

    • Remembering Julius Evola
      (May 19, 1898–June 11, 1974)

      Greg Johnson

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 445
      The Writers’ Bloc with Kathryn S. on Mircea Eliade

      Counter-Currents Radio

      2

    • O Manifesto Nacionalista Branco:
      Parte 1, Introdução

      Greg Johnson

    • Extremities:
      A Film from Long Ago that Anticipated Today’s Woke Hollywood

      Stephen Paul Foster

      10

    • The National Health Service:
      My Part in Its Downfall

      Mark Gullick

      10

    • Male Supremacism in the United States?

      Margot Metroland

      2

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 444
      Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson

      Counter-Currents Radio

      1

    • Fallen Castes

      Thomas Steuben

      18

    • Work to Be Such a Man

      Morris van de Camp

      6

    • Be a Medici:
      New Patrons for a New Renaissance

      Robert Wallace

      21

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 443
      Interview with Jim Goad

      Counter-Currents Radio

    • Das Manifest des weißen Nationalismus:
      Teil 5, Die Wiederherstellung Unserer Weissen Heimatländer

      Greg Johnson

    • Where Do We Go from Buffalo?

      Jim Goad

      42

    • Rammstein’s Deutschland

      Ondrej Mann

      8

    • If I Lost Hope

      Greg Johnson

      5

    • Das Manifest des weißen Nationalismus:
      Teil 4, Wie Können Wir den Weissen Genozid Beenden?

      Greg Johnson

    • Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre

      Greg Johnson

      66

    • The Counter-Currents 2022 Fundraiser
      Between Now and May 20th, Give a New Monthly Gift and Receive a New Book!

      Cyan Quinn

    • This Weekend’s Livestreams
      Jim Goad on Counter-Currents Radio & Kathryn S. on The Writers’ Bloc

      Greg Johnson

    • Remembering Hinton Rowan Helper

      Spencer J. Quinn

      11

  • Recent comments

    • Muhammad Aryan Europe’s Eastern Shield @Vehmgericht 1. Does Islam attract imbeciles?   Some of the "imbeciles" that Islam has...
    • Nick Jeelvy Europe’s Eastern Shield I could write a lot about Bulgaria's history with Russia, but because of who I am, it would do...
    • Andrew Europe’s Eastern Shield Thanks for your response Nick! :) Maybe an article about Bulgarias historical ties to Russia...
    • threestars The Tex-Mex Misfit Massacre The Columbine shooters weren't some meek bullying victims, they weren't shy, and they were quite...
    • Nick Jeelvy Europe’s Eastern Shield Like all generalizations, some details are lost when we look at the bigger picture. A country by...
    • Nick Jeelvy Europe’s Eastern Shield The historic Islamic philosophers were for the most part first or second generation Persian or...
    • Jj The Union Jackal, May 2022 Why is the author glorifying thatcher, the British Reagan. Britain used to be a homogeneous,...
    • Andrew Europe’s Eastern Shield Is it not somewhat of an oversimplification that many in the West are pro-Russian and East are...
    • Berk Europe’s Eastern Shield Eastern Europe was betrayed by France, England and Germany siding with islam/turkey in the past at...
    • Ian Smith Neema Parvini’s The Populist Delusion I listened to this lecture on Machiavelli and enjoyed it. Great for midwits like me who are curious...
    • T Steuben Europe’s Eastern Shield If the West hadnt dithered and infighted Constantinople might not have fallen to the Turks and the...
    • Giles Corey White Identity Nationalism, Part 3 After this magisterial three-part essay, at the beginning of which Mr. Kumar painstakingly described...
    • Ovidiu Neema Parvini’s The Populist Delusion a study which claims to show empirically that US is an oligarchy not a democracy https://www.bbc....
    • Don Europe’s Eastern Shield A great piece that I thoroughly enjoyed.  A grand summary and analysis of  many centuries of history...
    • Vehmgericht The Union Jackal, May 2022 The big cities it is true are full of surly sub-saharans and the shifty subcontinental types (...
    • Vehmgericht Europe’s Eastern Shield A rather blunt question could be: Does Islam attract imbeciles?(*) If one compares the achievements...
    • illtakemystand White Identity Nationalism, Part 3 For coming from a person of color, these aren’t bad ideas.
    • C Neema Parvini’s The Populist Delusion Some guys are in it for money and power; others are spiritually motivated.  It is all a function of...
    • Nick Jeelvy Europe’s Eastern Shield The Macedonian census is bullshit. Data from the state health insurance fund indicates Albanians are...
    • Vikings Europe’s Eastern Shield An even more important topic is the Albanian Question. Having traveled to all Balkan countries last...
  • Books

    • Kerry Bolton
    • Jonathan Bowden
    • Buttercup Dew
    • Collin Cleary
    • Jef Costello
    • F. Roger Devlin
    • Julius Evola
    • Gregory Hood
    • Juleigh Howard-Hobson
    • Greg Johnson
    • Jason Jorjani
    • Ward Kendall
    • Anthony M. Ludovici
    • Trevor Lynch
    • H. L. Mencken
    • J. A. Nicholl
    • Andy Nowicki
    • James J. O'Meara
    • Michael O'Meara
    • Christopher Pankhurst
    • Tito Perdue
    • Michael Polignano
    • Spencer J. Quinn
    • Savitri Devi
    • Fenek Solère
    • Irmin Vinson
    • Leo Yankevich
    • Francis Parker Yockey
  • Webzine Authors

    Contemporary authors

    • Howe Abbott-Hiss
    • Beau Albrecht
    • Aquilonius
    • Anthony Bavaria
    • Michael Bell
    • Alain de Benoist
    • Kerry Bolton
    • Jonathan Bowden
    • Buttercup Dew
    • Collin Cleary
    • Giles Corey
    • Jef Costello
    • Morris V. de Camp
    • F. Roger Devlin
    • Bain Dewitt
    • Jack Donovan
    • Ricardo Duchesne
    • Émile Durand
    • Guillaume Durocher
    • Mark Dyal
    • Guillaume Faye
    • Stephen Paul Foster
    • Fullmoon Ancestry
    • Jim Goad
    • Tom Goodrich
    • Alex Graham
    • Mark Gullick
    • Andrew Hamilton
    • Robert Hampton
    • Huntley Haverstock
    • Derek Hawthorne
    • Gregory Hood
    • Juleigh Howard-Hobson
    • Richard Houck
    • Alexander Jacob
    • Nicholas R. Jeelvy
    • Greg Johnson
    • Ruuben Kaalep
    • Tobias Langdon
    • Julian Langness
    • Travis LeBlanc
    • Patrick Le Brun
    • Trevor Lynch
    • Kevin MacDonald
    • G. A. Malvicini
    • John Michael McCloughlin
    • Margot Metroland
    • Millennial Woes
    • John Morgan
    • James J. O'Meara
    • Michael O'Meara
    • Christopher Pankhurst
    • Michael Polignano
    • J. J. Przybylski
    • Spencer J. Quinn
    • Quintilian
    • Edouard Rix
    • C. B. Robertson
    • C. F. Robinson
    • Hervé Ryssen
    • Kathryn S.
    • Alan Smithee
    • Fenek Solère
    • Ann Sterzinger
    • Thomas Steuben
    • Robert Steuckers
    • Tomislav Sunić
    • Donald Thoresen
    • Marian Van Court
    • Dominique Venner
    • Irmin Vinson
    • Michael Walker
    • Aylmer Wedgwood
    • Scott Weisswald
    • Leo Yankevich

    Classic Authors

    • Maurice Bardèche
    • Julius Evola
    • Ernst Jünger
    • D. H. Lawrence
    • Charles Lindbergh
    • Jack London
    • H. P. Lovecraft
    • Anthony M. Ludovici
    • Sir Oswald Mosley
    • National Vanguard
    • Friedrich Nietzsche
    • Revilo Oliver
    • William Pierce
    • Ezra Pound
    • Saint-Loup
    • Savitri Devi
    • Carl Schmitt
    • Miguel Serrano
    • Oswald Spengler
    • P. R. Stephensen
    • Jean Thiriart
    • John Tyndall
    • Francis Parker Yockey
  • Departments

    • Book Reviews
    • Movie Reviews
    • TV Reviews
    • Music Reviews
    • Art Criticism
    • Graphic Novels & Comics
    • Video Game Reviews
    • Fiction
    • Poems
    • Interviews
    • Videos
    • English Translations
    • Other Languages
      • Arabic
      • Bulgarian
      • Croatian
      • Czech
      • Danish
      • Dutch
      • Estonian
      • Finnish
      • French
      • German
      • Greek
      • Hungarian
      • Italian
      • Lithuanian
      • Norwegian
      • Polish
      • Portuguese
      • Romanian
      • Russian
      • Slovak
      • Spanish
      • Swedish
      • Ukrainian
    • Commemorations
    • Why We Write
  • Archives
  • Top 100 Commenters
Sponsored Links
Alaska Chaga Antelope Hill Publishing Imperium Press American Renaissance A Dissident’s Guide to Blacks and Africa The Patrick Ryan Show Jim Goad The Occidental Observer
Editor-in-Chief
Greg Johnson
Books for sale
  • Trevor Lynch’s Classics of Right-Wing Cinema
  • The Enemy of Europe
  • Imperium
  • Reactionary Modernism
  • Manifesto del Nazionalismo Bianco
  • O Manifesto Nacionalista Branco
  • Vade Mecum
  • Whiteness: The Original Sin
  • Space Vixen Trek Episode 17: Tomorrow the Stars
  • The Year America Died
  • Passing the Buck
  • Mysticism After Modernism
  • Gold in the Furnace
  • Defiance
  • Forever & Ever
  • Wagner’s Ring & the Germanic Tradition
  • Resistance
  • Materials for All Future Historians
  • Love Song of the Australopiths
  • White Identity Politics
  • Here’s the Thing
  • Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy
  • Graduate School with Heidegger
  • It’s Okay to Be White
  • The World in Flames
  • The White Nationalist Manifesto
  • From Plato to Postmodernism
  • The Gizmo
  • Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch’s CENSORED Guide to the Movies
  • Toward a New Nationalism
  • The Smut Book
  • The Alternative Right
  • My Nationalist Pony
  • Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right
  • The Philatelist
  • Confessions of an Anti-Feminist
  • East and West
  • Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come
  • White Like You
  • Numinous Machines
  • Venus and Her Thugs
  • Cynosura
  • North American New Right, vol. 2
  • You Asked For It
  • More Artists of the Right
  • Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics
  • The Homo & the Negro
  • Rising
  • The Importance of James Bond
  • In Defense of Prejudice
  • Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)
  • The Hypocrisies of Heaven
  • Waking Up from the American Dream
  • Green Nazis in Space!
  • Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country
  • Heidegger in Chicago
  • The End of an Era
  • Sexual Utopia in Power
  • What is a Rune? & Other Essays
  • Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
  • The Lightning & the Sun
  • The Eldritch Evola
  • Western Civilization Bites Back
  • New Right vs. Old Right
  • Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations
  • The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity
  • Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013
  • Pulp Fascism
  • The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition
  • Trevor Lynch’s A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
  • And Time Rolls On
  • Artists of the Right: Resisting Decadence
  • North American New Right, Vol. 1
  • Some Thoughts on Hitler
  • Tikkun Olam and Other Poems
  • Summoning the Gods
  • Taking Our Own Side
  • Reuben
  • The Node
  • The New Austerities
  • Morning Crafts
  • The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
Copyright © 2022 Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd.

Paywall Access





Please enter your email address. You will receive mail with link to set new password.

Edit your comment