1,124 words
Back when Brexit was being debated, I encouraged Britons to be done with the European Union. Indeed, I encouraged all the EU member states to leave. But I cautioned them not to be naïve. The same globalist policies pushed by the EU could and would be pushed by home-grown globalists, just as they are in non-EU states around the world.
But many Britons thought that they had bad globalist policies because Jean-Claude Juncker telephoned London and dictated them. Thus they reasoned that the bad policies would stop if Brexit simply cut the line.
It didn’t work out that way, because Britain was ruled by its own globalists. Whenever they wished to impose unpopular globalist measures, they were happy to blame the EU and say their hands were tied, for it spared them any responsibility. But once the EU was out of the picture, the local British globalists continued and even worsened EU policies, because that’s what they wanted all along.
The underlying error of the Brexit boosters was thinking that politics reduces simply to force. They thought bad policies were being forced on them. It’s a flattering notion, because it painted the UK as an innocent victim. But in fact, these policies persisted due to the dominance of liberal, globalist ideas over their own elites. Thus the only way to win is to challenge the hegemony of those ideas in one’s own homeland.
***
Of course this thinking is not confined to the UK. Just as many people in the UK blamed the EU for liberalism, many in Europe blame the United States for the same thing—even though most Western European countries are far more Leftist than the US, which European Leftists sneer at as retarded and reactionary.
For instance, it is a widespread meme to blame the United States for promoting gay marriage around the globe. Gay marriage is now legal in 38 countries, most of them white. Was this mandated by the United States? Not at all. Gay marriage was first legalized in the US in several states in 2004—after it became legal in just the sort of countries you’d expect: the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. It became national policy in the US only in 2015—after being legalized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Brazil, France, Uruguay, New Zealand, and Luxembourg.
Gay marriage spread around the world because there are homosexuals around the world who promoted it by appealing to dominant liberal ideas. It was because these ideas were already dominant that the likes of Donald Trump led the charge to legalize homosexuality in Africa and the likes of Charlie Kirk clapped along. Conservatives don’t like to challenge the hegemony of liberal ideas. Indeed, they like to “own the libs” by out-libing them.
***
But what about USAID? Remember when it was revealed that the US government was spending billions on liberal propaganda all over the world? Surely this proves that culture is downstream from politics!
Quite the contrary.
First, USAID was spending billions on propaganda. Why? Because politics is downstream from culture. Second, Leftists were in the position to create sinecures for fellow Leftists—sinecures that were not challenged by Republicans until Trump came along—precisely because their ideas were culturally and politically hegemonic. Giving yourself a salary and writing your preferences into law is one of the last things you do in the struggle for power, not one of the first.
***
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Is America Doomed? here.
Donald Trump has given new life to America-blaming by his absurd Europe-blaming. The United States has been the leading force in NATO since it was founded. If Trump thinks NATO is a bad thing, then Washington really deserves the lion’s share of the blame. Trump loves to blame Obama and Biden for bad things, but when it comes to NATO, somehow Europe is to blame.
Trump has gone so far as to say that if the United States were attacked, NATO would not come to its aid. Apparently, nobody told him that the only time that NATO’s Article Five was invoked was on September 12, 2001, and NATO did come to America’s aid. It is utterly maddening and has brought out the uglier forms of nationalism on both sides.
But let’s not lose sight of two facts. First, if America sunk beneath the waves like Atlantis, Europe would still be ruled by people like Emanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen. Second, American and European nationalists need to remain above this, because we are stronger if we work together.
***
Once you have been convinced that the EU or America is the source of bad policies, what do you do? If you really believe that the empire will simply say “no” to any nationalist policies, then the answer is: you do nothing. But even though you may be impotent to change the empire, maybe its geopolitical rivals will do your work for you. Moreover, you can enjoy imaginary power and agency by cheering on the empire’s geopolitical rivals: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.
Empire-blaming is perfectly calibrated to the interests of America’s and Europe’s enemies. First, it turns Western dissidents into impotent spectators who do nothing to improve their countries, which is great if you want those countries to remain weak. Second, it marginalizes dissidents because talking like subversives and traitors doesn’t play well among patriots. Third, because ideas really do matter, turning large numbers of Western dissidents into cheerleaders for their geopolitical enemies weakens the West and strengthens its enemies.
There is no question, for instance, that Russian subversion of the Western Right has aided the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Empire-blaming is so perfectly calibrated to the interests of the West’s enemies that it probably originated among them. But wherever it comes from, there is no question that it is lavishly subsidized and signal boosted, certainly by Russia and probably also by Iran and China.
But would the victory of the West’s geopolitical enemies improve anything? On the central question of race and multiculturalism, the answer is “No.” Russia, Iran, and China all scold the West for racism and xenophobia. Thus they are hardly an alternative to the anti-white hegemony we are fighting.
***
Blaming the EU or America or the Democrats doesn’t help if they are simply replaced with others who hold the same ideas and support the same policies. The circulation of anti-white elites is the best that mere political power can give us. But it is futile to eject anti-whites from power if you don’t eject them from your mind as well.
We won’t win until we have state power. But that comes last. First, we must overthrow the hegemony of anti-white ideas. But that battle takes place on the intellectual plane. Ballots or bullets cannot win a battle of ideas.
24 comments
There’s a silver lining to the political antagonism between Europe and America, and America and Canada, in that it lessens the whiggish styled belief in the inevitability of cosmopolitan liberalism. A lot of the fanaticism and confidence in our enemies comes from believing they’re on the “right side of history”. That greater integration into global markets and a homogenized, globalized culture was something that you couldn’t meaningfully oppose. If globalization does start unravelling, then a lot of their arguments about inevitability seem unpersuasive to the public. An unraveling of the Special Relationship between Europe and America would be crippling to the globalist narrative. Even the declining living standards in western countries is causing many on the political left to defect to more hardline command economy positions, as they can’t paint the “cost of living crisis” as something temporary.
Having America and Europe so politically aligned and integrated gives our enemies with institutional power strategic depth as well, as Greg touched on. American NGOs can propagandize Europe, and European NGOs can help soften America for more replacement migration. Increased political antagonism could prevent these groups from operating across borders due to the perceived security risk. Every time Belarus weaponizes migrants, suddenly the open borders EU position becomes questioned by those in power in that specific instance. Refugees stop being a good thing when your enemies send them. The Hungarian Nationalism from Orban has been opposed every step by the EU powers, and had the union been more integrated, he could’ve ended up ousted. Geopolitical tensions between white nations does weaken our enemies more than it weakens us.
White Nationalists, if they can put on their big boy pants and stop with the petty braggart behavior, could maintain transnational bonds even while Europe and America increasingly drift apart politically and economically. Similar to how Communists once maintained transnational links even while their respective countries were antagonistic. Our enemies could be unable to maintain global ties and intercontinental co-operation while we can. But this requires a bit of humble pie on everyone’s part. Let’s save the arguments until after we’ve restored every white nation.
All true Greg, but heck, at least Don Lemon got arrested today.
We are White people. Our enemies are antiwhites. We should be loyal to each other and we should oppose our common enemies. We should not despise and tear down each other’s nations.
You exonerate America for things I think America is guilty for, but that’s all right. Bitter criticisms of White nations, each group of Whites tearing down the others, is counterproductive and it should not be done. If some of the criticisms are supported by facts, that does not make this bad habit any better.
Americans should get a pass in the same way and to the same extent that Russians should get a pass, and in the same way and to the same extent that Ukrainians should get a pass. A White man is a White man. A White woman is a White woman. We should take it easy on each other.
Who do you think spreads the most mean-spirited denigrations of the French, most consistently and effectively? The Germans, because of the times when Germany was a playground for French armies? The English? No.
The most mean-spirited anti-French campaign I have seen was from Jewish neocons condemning “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” for not getting into the war on Iraq.
Who spreads the nastiest anti-Germanism? That’s an easy one. And on and on it goes.
Our most cunning antiwhite enemies constantly point us out to each other and say sic ’em, as though we were stupid attack dogs ready to ruin each other on command.
We should not sic ’em. Not the Americans. Not the French. Not the Germans. Not anyone.
We Whites have to be an effective in-group or we will not survive. Effective in-groups do not thrive on mutual denigration, blaming, and shaming.
There is no question, for instance, that Russian subversion of the Western Right has aided the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Already in 2013-2014 West-European “extreme Right” condemned Maydan and praised Putin. There were exception of course like great Italian Stafano delle Chiaie. Anyway it is strange that some White Rightists saw and still see in Pu a defender of White Race and of traditional values. Them I would advice to read Wolf Stoner’s articles on biocentrism.com.
Related is the “Boomer” hate, as seen on X. Generational division is obviously highly counterproductive. Its source was essentially proven in the 1960’s and one suspects the usual culprits are behind it, today. Like national division, I call upon everyone to oppose it when you see it. Speak up. Point out what it is, why it’s bad, and whom you suspect is behind these crippling divisions.
Your advice is good. I have followed it and I hope a lot of other people follow it.
I participated in boomer hate until I seen that in East Asia their boomer hate is 3x higher and borderline approaching euthanasia territory. And this is a region of the world without replacement migration, so the racial situation can’t entirely be pinned on the boomer question. Places like South Korea and Japan are much worse with their intergenerational internecine conflicts. Hiro (The Japanese guy that bought out 4chan) was on camera recently smiling while he talked about a potential day-of-the-pillow for Japan. You absolutely would never see any westerner talk about mass slaughter so casually on camera like that.
I think there’s a nuanced conversation to be had about the effects of extended life expectancy and a lopsided population pyramid, without getting into generational shit-flinging. I see no evidence that millennials will be any different to boomers in old age, if nothing changes.
There’s actually a discussion I’ve seen missed by the white nationalist sphere, and that’s about the actual extent of the contemporary population crash due to low birthrates. All the time, from mainstream commentators in this sphere, I’ve seen them downplay the damage of contemporary low birthrates. The reasoning goes that because we’ve had famines and population crashes before, this is a nothingburger and comparable to the Irish potato famine.
The actual fact is that past famines and epidemics had a negligible effect on the population. There’s a good book called “Famine Demography: Perspectives from the Past and Present” that details how the demographic impact of past famines is very overstated. They basically killed off the non-breeding population (very old and young), and immediately afterwards there was a baby boom that repaired the damage. It was the old and sickly that were already primed to die that were being killed off, and young kids that are able to be replaced with new pregnancies. It’s why Bengal and Ethiopia brushed off their 20th century famines like they were nothing. Literally only 2% of 20-40 year olds during the Irish Potato famine died off, a negligible amount. The contemporary low birthrates of a place like South Korea is comparable to like 15 Irish Potato famines, demographically speaking, and there’s no post famine baby-boom to make up for it. It’s also compounding every generation, so two generations have the damage of 30 Irish potato famines.
The point is that contemporary low birthrates are a unique phenomenon. And white nationalists who are brushing them off as being comparable to past famines are causing the conversation to be misrepresented. We have to be accurate about problems if we wish to solve them. And talking to people from Eastern Europe that are bringing in Indians to work slop jobs, there’s a vibe there that they actually have no choice. Politicians from Croatia talk about it in a despairing manner but still go along with it. Maybe western politicians aren’t entirely lying when they say we need them to keep society running. People underestimate how old and how unhealthy western countries are.
https://academic.oup.com/book/51951
I’m not anti-Europe, but a minute spent on Europe is a minute wasted.
The struggle to achieve self-determination in North America is the only fight that matters.
We Americans might one day be in a position to help Europeans. Europe as such will never be in a position the help us. Nor will any European nation. Not in a way that makes a difference, or on any timeline that matters.
Everything flows from this reality. Or ought to.
If this movement had leaders instead of so many cranks, gadflies and grifters, priorities could be set.
Americans ought to focus exclusively on their own, to include Saskatchewan, Alberta and east of the Fraser British Columbia.
When sovereignty is achieved, then send the Army from Germany to topple the parasite regimes in Britain and Ireland. This includes sending the Windsors to the wall along with the bankers who own them.
After that, the Continent.
If any nation on the Continent manages to sort itself out by then, all the better. But only a fool would hold his breath waiting on that.
You must be a gamer.
Please, Americans, do whatever you do but don’t ”help” us. Ever.
Could America have realistically achieved independence entirely through metapolitics? Bullets may have their place in this battle as they have in probably every revolutionary fight. At some point, after the hegemony of opposing ideas is broken and support for the current regime has sufficiently eroded, the job may need to be finished with force. We should be ready to do so if necessary.
No, that’s not the point. But if America had complained about the British system then replicated it anyway, that would have been a metapolitical failure.
As a European white nationalist, I say that America was a great opportunity for the white race, which we have so far lost. The problem was that the British gained exclusive dominance in North America. The English always had a special role among European nations—they were very useful for colonizing India and other countries that could only be reached by sea. But in America, their tendency toward commercial capitalism had a very negative effect. It may have been suitable for China and India, where not many white settlers could live, but not for America. In America, it was necessary to establish new smaller kingdoms and principalities based on the feudal principle, because monarchy and feudalism, roughly in its 12th-15th century form, are the natural modes of political organization of white nations.
Usually when a country such as Iran scold the West for racism and xenophobia, it is a residue of colonialism and intervention vis-à-vis the Global South. Their agenda is different from that of the anti-white hegemony WN:s are fighting.
They support BLM.
That’s just political facade, it’s their way of finding an excuse to scold, which is laughable because the truth is that Iranians are far more racist towards blacks than whites are.
Iranian moral support of BLM is laughable because they are supporting what the American deep state created and promotes. The Iranian government would be supporting the anarcho-tyranny that the American power elite also covertly back. Trashing America for “racism” (meaning White racism…not Jewish, black, or Hispanic racism) is the most treasured goal of the American elite.
The same elite wants to see a weak and divided Iran in the region, therefore it doesn’t make sense to support them.
Isn’t the idea that politics is downstream from culture itself a liberal (Lockean-Montesquiean) conceit? The regime is architectonic, as Aristotle says, and what we broadly call culture and politics are both beholden to and stem from it.
Only of you think culture is merely constructed, as opposed to evolved. There are cultures before there are states.
Sure, but that fact doesn’t disprove my contention that the distinction between the political and the cultural is a liberal one.
I don’t know what that means.
Greg: For instance,… Gay marriage is now legal in 38 countries, most of them white. Was this mandated by the United States? Not at all. Gay marriage was first legalized in the US in several states in 2004—after it became legal in just the sort of countries you’d expect: the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. It became national policy in the US only in 2015…
QUESTION: Once you have been convinced that the EU or America is the source of bad policies, what do you do?
—
Recognize that normalizing homosexuality/LGBT is deleterious for out race, for one thing. That’s what.
What the National Alliance has done is make all LGBT freaks ineligible for Alliance membership — that includes both the “husbands” and the “wives” in homosexual relationships. They have their communities, we have ours.
If you have a Subscriber 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.