Okay, so you’ve managed to forge an alliance of European nations which depends not on “pooling sovereignty,” as the EU is fond of describing its many infringements on the sovereignty of nations, but the pooling of military and diplomatic capability while respecting each European nation’s borders and sovereignty. Things are going well, and there is infrastructure in both military and diplomatic matters which allows, should the need arise, for the nations of Europe to act as a single force against external threats. Steel and fire have forged a mighty sword that Europe can use to punish her enemies. Now what do we do?
Nothing. We go on living as we’ve always lived, in peace and prosperity. Or at least that’s the general idea. Europe’s wealth in both resources and women will always attract barbarians hungry for plunder. We must, therefore, protect ourselves.
Listening to this old-ish interview with our esteemed editor Greg Johnson, I am reminded of the foundational ideas which were later laid out and formalized in the White Nationalist Manifesto. Of particular note is the idea of nationalism for all, or in brainier terms, reciprocal nationalism — If I can, then you can. If I have the right to a homeland, then you have the right to a homeland, and vice versa. And given that we both have an interest in having homelands, we agree to not only recognize each others’ right to a homeland, but help each other maintain a homeland in various ways.
This is the ideal we should strive towards as both ethnic nationalists and racialists. However, we might run into some problems specific to practical reality, rather than idealized visions.
Reciprocity and mutual recognition of rights is a feature of white civilizations. I will once again remind you of the origins of white people and the uniqueness of our civilization, as documented by Dr. Ricardo Duchesne. We are the descendants of warrior aristocrats who fought for pure prestige on the Pontic-Caspian steppe and then burst outward, into Europe, Iran, India, and beyond. Warriors keep their words, for honesty and honor are the things that asabiyyah is made of, what keeps the warband together.
On the other hand, other notable world civilizations are notorious for their unwillingness to act forthrightly, honestly, and most importantly, keep their word. A Muslim will promise that he will, inshallah (God willing), do something and promptly not do it at all, rationalizing that Allah did not will it, even though the volitional impetus was on him and him alone. A Jew will promise something, then torture the text of his promise to the point that it means something else entirely, like you having promised him to perform something while he has the right of receipt and refusal with interest. The Chinese and Koreans will outright lie and present a false face to the world, and will often lie ex post facto and not perform that which they have promised to perform, becoming insulted at the very idea that they owe something. Indians, depending on their caste, will either consider it beneath them to honor their obligations or will rescind them out of resentment. Even uncivilized races, such as blacks and Amerindians, have inspired tales of duty evasion and Indian giving. No reciprocal relations can be had with such people.
For this reason, while I too dream of the world where many nations live side-by-side in peace and shore up each others’ sovereignty, I fear that the nations of Europe must find a way to enforce their sovereignty, and do so proactively, keeping the ravages of enforcement far from her borders.
Plan A is, and forever will be, the world of ethnostates respecting each others’ sovereignty under conditions of reciprocity. What follows is Plan B.
For starters, the border of Europe is not the Mediterranean sea. Shallow, inland seas aren’t borders — they are highways of people, goods, culture, and language. A casual stroll through Sicily gives one the feeling of a place Spanish and Greek, but scarcely Italian. The entire Adriatic coast stands in the long shadows of Venice and Ragusa (Dubrovnik), both daughters of Byzantium, with the hinterland turning into a vastly different world, not 10 kilometers inland. The sea is the great highway of nations, for good or for evil. It is through this great bounty of the sea that I can write on a laptop “designed in California,” as they put it, but made in China with components built in Israel, from what I understand. It also means that to the British Empire, Yorkshire was more alien than the Raj, and that to the American Empire, Alabama is more alien than Kandahar.
For this reason, Europe, like our forefathers the Romans, must conceive of the Mediterranean sea as not only Mare Internum, but Mare Nostrum. It’s our goddamn drink. The borders of Europe lie further to the south and east, in Africa, in Tripolitania, in Barbary, in Asia Minor, in Misr and the Levant. And as did our forefathers, the Romans, to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, we must proactively secure those shores of Our Sea.
One big problem. These places are populated by peoples which may object to the idea of Euromarines landing on their shores and proclaiming the Margraviate of Ifriqiya. Well, who said we have to use the Euromarines? Why not begin by asking nicely? While it is quite true that the non-whites who run those places are less likely to keep their words, it behooves us as honorable warriors and diplomats to first offer them terms that allow them the most sovereignty. And so, we do not establish the Margraviate of Ifriqiya, but allow the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya under the wise stewardship of Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to continue as an independent state, under the condition that they prevent any nonwhite movement towards Europe and Our Sea, in effect acting as border guards. Only if they refuse, or if they go back on their word, do we send in the Euromarines and establish the Margraviate of Ifriqiya under one of the particularly cruel and nasty ex-Yugoslav warlords. That is how one maintains borders with limited resources. This is more or less the relationship that existed between Europe and Col. Gaddafi until he was quite unceremoniously stabbed in the back by a Hillary Clinton-led faction within the Obama administration. The good Colonel’s warning — that without him, the gates of Europe would be flung open and all of Africa would flow into the Mediterranean — was proven quite true.
Good news. The non-white countries comprising the southern and eastern shores of Mare Nostrum are for the most part well-run, or as well as they can be run under the circumstances. There’s very little doubt in my mind that a vigorous exercise of European diplomatic muscle, backed by tales of the strength and cruelty of Euromarines, can easily convince King Mohammed VI of Morocco, General Abdel Fatah el-Sisi of Egypt, and President Bashar “Lion of Syria” Assad of the necessity of acting as Europe’s border guards. These are men who’ve shown themselves to be reasonable in the past. Similarly, the geography of Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya ensures that these countries can be brought into the European fold with relative ease, especially if Europe can promise these countries protection from Arab Spring-style colored revolutions, such as destabilized Tunisia and Libya in 2011. Europe should not, however, rely on known creatures of the American deep state such as Khalifa Haftar to do its bidding. Rather, local potentates of worth and merit should be promoted as friendly Brotherly Leaders. Finally, while no one figure of note has emerged in Lebanon, such a figure can easily be drafted from Lebanon’s Christian minority, or the Christian Lebanese diaspora in Europe. Those old Canaanites have political dynasties dating back to the time of Alexander the Great. It is one of those places which has no shortage of local patricians willing to work with enterprising conquerors.
In any case, a detachment of Euromarines or Euroguards might have to be posted at any given time in the various independent border states, both to defend our friendly Brotherly Leaders, and to serve as a killswitch in the event that said Brotherly Leaders become too big for their britches. And if indeed such allied border states fall, then we deploy the sword of Europe and establish margraviates. However, unless we’re willing to ethnically cleanse the locals and settle white Europeans in their place, the margraviates will turn into expensive and bloody occupation nightmares. So, every margraviate would have to have a built-in, secret expiration date before which the margrave will have to select and groom a local potentate to become a new friendly Brotherly Leader of an independent border state.
Two big problems stare starkly at us from this model. The first is called Israel. The second is called Turkey. In many ways, they are the same problem. In many other ways, they are two very different ticking time bombs that have to be defused delicately.
Let’s start with their commonalities. Both would not exist without the economic and military support of the American empire. One of the most educational events in imperial economics happened in mid-2018, when Donald Trump doubled the tariff on Turkish aluminum and steel imports to the US. This move sent the Turkish lira into a tailspin. A friend of mine who is unfortunately of cuckservative political bent wondered just how much aluminum and steel Turkey exports to the US. The answer is: not enough so that a simple rise in tariffs would send the Turkish lira into a tailspin. Rather, what the tariff signaled to the markets is that the US would no longer treat Turkey with kid gloves in its trade policies, and would no longer run as large of a trade deficit to shore up Turkey’s economic might. I can only imagine that Israel receives an even more favorable economic treatment from the US.
In military matters, both Turkey and Israel receive generous assistance in both money and technology from the US, to say nothing of the US periodically trying to knock out their regional rivals. It is quite telling to me that both Turkey and Israel are touted as great military powers, but Israel has serious deficits in manpower, whereas Turkey, which is flush with cannon fodder, lacks a proper officer corps. These are logistical chokepoints where Uncle Sam cannot invent strength for them; and incidentally, all other forms of might and capital flow from human capital, to say nothing of Uncle Sam’s own problems with securing military-grade men to fight in his legions.
Now, we have to ask ourselves — why don’t we negotiate with Turkey and Israel like we would with other allied border states? Well, the problem is that these nations are far more closely entwined with the American empire than any of the other states on the Mediterranean coast. It is true that Israel uses America, but America uses Israel (and Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, and the Albanians in the Balkans, etc.). The American empire sees both Turkey and Israel as canker sores it can pick at to spark conflicts in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean, causing trouble for rivals and local nations. There is also the minor matter of attitude — Turks and Jews see Europe as theirs, and they understand the privileged position they occupy under the American empire’s hegemony as trusted allies, who’re nevertheless allowed to maintain their ethnostates, unlike those Europeans who must be enriched and diversified, usually with Turks and Jews. Both nations also use the nonwhites of the world as bioweapons against Europe, encouraging and enabling their immigration to white countries. Now, while we can hope that with the collapse of the American empire, this problem will go away, we already see both Turkey and Israel kissing up to Tsar Putin, whose attitudes towards the sovereignty of European nations might be less than reasonable. In any case, a Russo-Turkish and Russo-Israeli alliance would be as good for Europe as the present American-Turkish and American-Israeli alliances.
More than in any other place, we need the Euromarines. Or the Marines of Christ. Three of Christianity’s holiest sites — Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem — are occupied by these two hostile, nonwhite, infidel countries. This would be a good enough cause for war in the good ol’ days. Why not today? Instead of supporting Our Greatest Ally™ to own the Muslims, why not establish an explicitly Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, whose capital is Jerusalem, with every European country’s embassy in Jerusalem. Whatever’s left of Palestine, we can give to the Hashemite monarchs in Jordan, who can be made into friendly border state allies. Oh, and we pull the plug on the open-air gay disco in Tel Aviv, for reasons of sexual decency. And our good friend and ally Bashar “Lion of Syria” Assad can have the Golan Heights if he still wants them.
The difference between Turkey and Israel, I suspect, is that Turkey is likely to fold like a cheap lawn chair under a united European assault, especially if a crusade to reclaim Christianity’s holy sites is used as a pretext, thus locking Russia out of assisting Turkey — indeed, enthusiastic Russian Orthobros might join in the fun. Furthermore, much of Turkey’s ruling class consists of white Balkanites whose families converted to Islam as recently as the beginning of the 20th century, with some anecdotally still practicing Christianity in secret. My own distant Muslim relatives who live in Istanbul are white and still speak fluent Macedonian, even after four generations as “Turks.” Even would-be Sultan Erdogan is descended from Georgian converts, while some nastier rumors have him coming from a long line of Armenians. Indeed, this is typical of imperial and post-imperial nations. They lose their sense of identity when they absorb whoever’s in their path to keep the gears of the imperial machine turning. Such is the case of Turkey, such is the case of Russia, such is the case even of America, though I believe that at the core of every empire is a nation which can, under favorable circumstances, be born and crawl out from under the empire’s corpse. These members of the Turkish elite can, therefore, make a separate peace with a resurgent Europe, embrace a white identity, (re)convert to Christianity, and serve as the rulers and administrators of whatever entity or entities replace the current Kemalist abomination. The dearth of competent men in Turkey’s officer corps is another factor against any hypothetical resistance Turkey might put up.
Israel, on the other hand, has nukes and the Samson Option, or at least it would appear so. And while Turkey is indeed a creature of Washington and a promontory of the American empire, it’s doubtful that an America facing its own problems would die on that particular hill, whereas it is entirely within the realm of possibility that she would quite literally destroy herself and the world to defend Israel. I have few ideas on how to approach this problem without setting off an unfortunate nuclear exchange. A far tougher nut to crack than Turkey, but perhaps an opportunity will present itself in the future.
Naturally, any kind of operation to subjugate these borderlands depends on first removing from Europe proper the Jews and Turks who already live here. Pacifying Algeria would also depend on deporting France’s substantial Algerian population as well, but in their case, they can even be recruited to help build Algeria up into a functional state.
Turkey and Israel function after a fashion. Bashing them apart to form a series of margraviates and border states might be a little bit unfair to Turks and Jews. After all, don’t they deserve their own ethnostates? In theory, yes. Under conditions of reciprocity, yes. However, we do not live in theory and these two peoples have shown themselves historically to be oath-breakers and liars who cannot be trusted to be good neighbors.
A Yankee Poet in Greenwich Village
Toward A New Era of Nation-States, Part VI: The Will to Power as a Governing Principle
The Anti-Semitism Con
The Oded Yinon Plan & American Foreign Policy
The Three Caballeros
A Response to Nathan Cofnas
Toward A New Era of Nation-States, Part V: Liberal Democracy in the Service of Global Hegemony