The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Dropping the Mask ...
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

Why Europe Could Unravel Over a Question of Borders

By MAX FISHER 13 minutes ago

Instead of overcoming the thorny issue of nationalism, leaders of the European Union largely avoided it.

Now, as Europeans struggle with the social and political strains set off by migration, some are clamoring to preserve their sense of national identity.

LONDON — The European Union has always been sold, to its citizens, on a practical basis: Cheaper products. Easier travel. Prosperity and security.

But its founding leaders had something larger in mind. They conceived it as a radical experiment to transcend the nation-state, whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation.

Alternatively, World War I and II could be conceived of as disasters brought about by imperialism: e.g., “You invaded Poland.”

Norway’s foreign minister, Halvard M. Lange, compared Europe at that moment to the early American colonies: separate blocs that, in time, would cast off their autonomy and identities to form a unified nation. Much as Virginians and Pennsylvanians had become Americans, Germans and Frenchmen would become Europeans — if they could be persuaded.

Of course, Americans became unified against the outside world via American nationalism.

“The keen feeling of national identity must be considered a real barrier to European integration,” Mr. Lange wrote in an essay that became a foundational European Union text.

But instead of overcoming that barrier, European leaders pretended it didn’t exist. More damning, they entirely avoided mentioning what Europeans would need to give up: a degree of their deeply felt national identities and hard-won national sovereignty.

More damning is that barely anybody at the NYT notices the existence of a moderate middle ground of Europe for the Europeans in which Europeans unite to defend their borders against mass incursion from outside Europe.

Now, as Europeans struggle with the social and political strains set off by migration from poor and war-torn nations outside the bloc, some are clamoring to preserve what they feel they never consented to surrender. Their fight with European leaders is exploding over an issue that, perhaps more than any other, exposes the contradiction between the dream of the European Union and the reality of European nations: borders.

Establishment European leaders insist on open borders within the bloc.

Open borders within the Bloc were fairly popular until grandees like Ms. Merkel trashed the integrity of borders around the Bloc in 2015.

Free movement is meant to transcend cultural barriers, integrate economies and lubricate the single market. But a growing number of European voters want to sharply limit the arrival of refugees in their countries, which would require closing the borders.

National borders within the EU are a second line of defense against swamping, like having enough watertight compartments within the external hull of the Titanic would have been a good idea. In general, it’s smart to try to not run your ship of superstate into an iceberg, but if the leadership is so negligent and ensconced that they do so, then you have to fall back on secondary defenses.

This might seem like a straightforward matter of reconciling internal rules with public demand on the relatively narrow issue of refugees, who are no longer even arriving in great numbers.

After all, has anyone respectable ever published The World’s Most Important Graph?

I don’t think so, so why are you concerned about the future?

But there is a reason that it has brought Europe to the brink, with its most important leader, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, warning of disaster and at risk of losing power. The borders question is really a question of whether Europe can move past traditional notions of the nation-state. And that is a question that Europeans have avoided confronting, much less answering, for over half a century.

How Borders Could Break Europe

In 2015, at the height of the refugee crisis, Ms. Merkel warned that if European countries did not “fairly” share the burden, then opportunistic leaders could exploit the issue to dismantle Europe’s freedom of internal movement. “It won’t be the Europe we want,” she said. …

Shutting down internal movement would withdraw some of the union’s most popular perks — ease of travel for work, vacation or family — and undercut trade and labor transfers, weakening the single market economy.

It might seem strange, then, that such a policy could be seen as indulging public demand. The fact that its ramifications would go so far beyond refugees, whose arrivals are anyway down sharply, suggests that public demand is about more than anti-refugee sentiment.

Perhaps the drive to restore European borders is, on some level, about borders themselves.

Ya think?

Maybe when populists talk about restoring sovereignty and national identity, it’s not just a euphemism for anti-refugee sentiment (although such sentiment is indeed rife). Maybe they mean it.

Why Borders?

Traveling Germany with a colleague to report on the populist wave sweeping Europe, we heard the same concerns over and over. Vanishing borders. Lost identity. A distrusted establishment. Sovereignty surrendered to the European Union. Too many migrants.

Populist supporters would often bring up refugees as a focal point and physical manifestation of larger, more abstract fears. They would often say, as one woman told me outside a rally for the Alternative for Germany, a rising populist party, that they feared their national identity was being erased.

“Germany needs a positive relationship with our identity,” Björn Höcke, a leading far-right figure in the party, told my colleague. “The foundation of our unity is identity.”

Allowing in refugees, even in very large numbers, does not mean Germany will no longer be Germany, of course.

Of course.

But even this slight cultural change

Very slight.

is one component of a larger European project that has required giving up, even if only by degrees, core conceits of a fully sovereign nation-state.

Not “core concepts,” mind you, “core conceits.”

National policy is suborned, on some issues, to the vetoes and powers of the larger union. That includes control over borders, which are partially open to refugees but fully open to other Europeans.

Though the backlash has focused on refugees, who tend to present as more obviously foreign, studies suggest that it is also driven by resentment toward European migrants.

Traveling recently through Yorkshire, a postindustrial swathe of northern England, I heard complaints that began about refugees but shifted quickly to Polish workers, who have arrived in much greater numbers. Some spoke ominously, if implausibly, of towns where Polish was more commonly heard than English.

Working class Brits aren’t just racist against Pakistani pimps, they’re nationalist against Polish plumbers! Who ever heard of such a thing? (I mean other than every speech Nigel Farage ever gave?)

It is not easy for Europeans to abandon the old-style national identity, rooted in race and language, that has caused them such trouble.

Trouble, nothing but trouble. After all, what have national-minded Europeans such as Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, Verdi, Sibelius, and Yeats ever accomplished?

The human desire for a strong group identity — and for perceived homogeneity within that group — runs deep.

Germany for the Germans, Catalonia for the Catalans.

Europe for the Europeans?

A country of people who look like me, speak my language and share my heritage. These nationalist impulses, however dangerous, emerge from basic human instinct. It makes us feel safe; losing it makes us feel threatened. It is reinforced in our popular culture and built into the international order.

New Orders, Old Instincts

European leaders hoped they could rein in those impulses for long enough to transform Europe from the top down, but the financial crisis of 2008 came when their project was only half-completed. That led to the crisis in the euro, which revealed political fault lines the leadership had long denied or wished away.

And maybe the Euro disaster also revealed that the EU elites weren’t the all-competent geniuses that they thought they were.

The financial crisis and an accompanying outburst in Islamic terrorism also provided a threat. When people feel under threat, research shows, they seek a strong identity that will make them feel part of a powerful group.

Notice that Europeans not wanting to let in Muslims who might decide to try to massacre them is not a rational first-order response, instead it is, “research shows,” a psychological projection unrelated to any real world needs.

For that, many Europeans turned to their national identity: British, French, German. But the more people embraced their national identities, the more they came to oppose the European Union, studies found — and the more they came to distrust anyone within their borders who they saw as an outsider.

That’s why there have been all those pogroms against Polish plumbers in England. It doesn’t have anything to do with it being legal to criticize fellow Europeans but not other, more objectionable groups.

… Sebastian Kurz, the Austrian chancellor, has called for ever-harder “external” borders, which refers to those separating the European Union from the outside world, in order to keep internal borders open.

This might work if refugee arrivals were the root issue. But it would not resolve the contradiction between the European Union as an experiment in overcoming nationalism versus the politics of the moment, in which publics are demanding more nationalism.

So let’s not waste any time thinking about moderate, sensible compromises like not letting Europe be overrun by the Global South.

The point of the EU is not to do good things for Europeans, but to punish Europeans for their ancestors’ sins.

As the euro crisis showed, even pro-union leaders could never bring themselves to fully abandon the old nationalism. They are elected by their fellow nationals, after all, so naturally put them first. Their first loyalty is to their country. When that comes into conflict with the rest of the union, as it has on the issue of refugees, it’s little wonder that national self-interest wins.

Obviously, the real mistake is letting Europeans vote. Something must be done about that.

 
Hide 83 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Here’s something on the subject by Roger Scruton, delivered in Hungary and somewhat more pointed than his Trump piece

    https://www.roger-scruton.com/articles/276-the-need-for-nations

    Europe is, and in my view has ever been, a civilisation of nation states, founded on a specific kind of pre-political allegiance, which is the allegiance that puts territory and custom first and religion and dynasty second in the order of government. Give them a voice, therefore, and the people of Europe will express their loyalties in those terms. In so far as they have unconditional loyalties – loyalties that are a matter of identity rather than agreement – they take a national form.

    The political class in Europe does not like this, and as a result has demonised the direct expression of national sentiments. Speak up for Jeanne d’Arc and le pays réel, for the ‘sceptred isle’ and St George, for Lemmenkäinen’s gloomy forests and the ‘true Finns’ who roam in them, and you will be called a fascist, a racist and an extremist. There is a liturgy of denunciation here that is repeated all across Europe by a political class that affects to despise ordinary loyalties while surreptitiously depending on them. In recent years Hungary has been a particular target of attack. There are extraneous reasons for it in Hungarian history, of course, and I don’t need to remind you of them. But those reasons are not what animate the European elite. The present Hungarian government, by making issues of national identity and national sentiment fundamental to its platform, has excited a strong and censorious response from the European Union, regardless of any other grounds for such disapproval.

    On the other hand, national sentiment is, for most ordinary Europeans, the only publicly available and publicly shared motive that will justify sacrifice in the common cause – the only source of obligation in the public sphere that is not a matter of what can be bought and sold. In so far as people do not vote to line their own pockets, it is because they also vote to protect a shared identity from the predations of those who do not belong to it, and who are attempting to pillage an inheritance to which they are not entitled.

    Tell it like it is, brother!

  2. To a Jew, borders => nationalism => gassing of 6m Jews.

    Hence, 99% of Jews support open borders.

    It’s a Jewish thing.

    Since they control msm in the western world, they hold the megaphones.

    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    To a Jew, borders => nationalism => gassing of 6m Jews.

    Hence, 99% of Jews support open borders.
     
    That’s a gross exaggeration. However, it’s not about a head count. It’s about the resources that the organized Jewish community can marshal from members of the community. Those resources are staggering, and there’s no organ of this community that suggests that the immigration spigot should – or will – ever be shut off.

    It is advocacy of infinite immigration.
    , @AnotherDad

    To a Jew, borders => nationalism => gassing of 6m Jews.
    Hence, 99% of Jews support open borders.
    It’s a Jewish thing.
    Since they control msm in the western world, they hold the megaphones.
     
    Anon, there's definitely an element here post holocaust. But this is too simple.

    I think the more realistic take is that there's a strong sentiment at work here:
    "All nations ought to be open and penetrable by Jews".

    To a typical gentile--and certainly to white gentiles, who are products of a long de-tribalizing process, to build the most successful political unit ever, the nation state--your nation is your home. It's where "your people" hang their hat, where you are "at home".

    But to a tribal people, the tribeis your home. And to a tribal middle man minority, you are both separate--genetically, cultural (in the case of Jews, religiously)--from your national neighbors, and always potentially open to opportunities elsewhere.

    Some of these general tendencies can be found in the overseas Chinese or other middle-man minorities in the middle east or India. But many of those communities are "tribal"-in diaspora, where they are middle men--but actually have a home nation. So those communities, while they want to go wherever there is opportunity, also understand the basic idea of a "nation"--do not find it offensive, or chafe against it.

    And there are two additional super-charged aspects to the Jewish experience in Europe:

    1) Religious separatism.
    That the tribal identity was wrapped around a religious identity, but all the more so one that considered the ambient Christianity to be a specifically heretical offshoot, and then larded up Judaism with rules and practices to emphasize and enforce separation. I.e. super-high majority hostility.

    2) European de-tribalization and nation building.
    Many other middle man minorities are in places where there are other tribal or ethnic groupings. But Europe was in the midst of this long process of destroying tribalism, by integrating all tribes and peoples into these essentially geographically defined peoples with common language, religion, culture and identity. So in Europe the Jews--rejecting integration and clinging to tribalism--were really specifically rejecting the whole "flow" of the European project. A hostile rejectionist tribe amongst peoples who were specifically detribalizing and nationalizing.

    ~

    I'm not Jewish, not a historian. No doubt there are a bunch of subtleties I miss. But the basic picture, and why the Jewish experience and identity was more "super-charged" and hostile than say the over-seas Chinese or "overseas" Lebanese or Armenians, or some Indian communities like the Parsis or Marwaris is, I think, fairly clear. Just a much stronger rejection of their neighbors, while those neighbors were integrating to coherent national identities.

    , @Hibernian
    Borders = Nationalism = Israel

    Borders = Nationalism = The United States which is the safest country ever for the Jewish people including ancient and modern Israel
  3. On the other hand, national sentiment is, for most ordinary Europeans, the only publicly available and publicly shared motive that will justify sacrifice in the common cause

    Commonality is the only thing that will produce sacrifice for the common cause? You don’t say!

  4. More damning, is that barely anybody at the NYT notices the existence of a moderate middle ground of Europe for the Europeans in which Europeans unite to defend their borders against mass incursion from outside Europe.

    Yes, you would think that was common sense.

    National borders within the EU are a second line of defense, like having enough watertight compartments with the hull of the Titanic would have been a good idea. In general, it’s a good idea to try not to run your ship of superstate into an iceberg, but if the leadership is so negligent and ensconced that they do so, then you have to fall back.

    LOL! That was awesome.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    It’s bundling - tying something popular among Europeans (free movement within Europe) to something unpopular (free movement into Europe). Ironically, it’s what the EU slammed Microsoft for years ago, bundling Explorer (unpopular) with Windows (popular).
  5. Traveling recently through Yorkshire, a postindustrial swathe of northern England, I heard complaints that began about refugees but shifted quickly to Polish workers, who have arrived in much greater numbers. Some spoke ominously, if implausibly, of towns where Polish was more commonly heard than English.

    This shows how out of touch so-called cosmopolitan American journalists are. This is a reality in many locations in the UK and Ireland. There are lots of places you can get on a bus and hear nothing but East European languages. Many new housing estates or town centres are half or more EU migrant. There is literally nowhere you can go in the British Isles and not find Eastern Europeans. No town is too small. And of course like most diasporas they stick together. So, yes, there are lots of places.

    Our reporter doesn’t understand because it wasn’t his community that was displaced, his sons who missed out on jobs and had to compete with essentially a second world labour market. Who had to watch as people who were profoundly low trust and poker-faced unravelled the social capital they had previously enjoyed and spoke about how ‘lazy’ the natives were and how they should be thankful to them.

    These people had their homes terraformed into something alien and hostile that they no longer belong. And worst of all, it’s not just something they can get used to, because it never ends. The flow never stops unless you leave the EU. (The flow of EU migrants in other countries is so low the right to work will never be challenged.)

    The neocons wanted a bigger Europe. They got it. The Eastern European migration influx is key to why Brexit ultimately happened. It certainly was key in the 2015 election which saw mass defection from Labour to UKIP in precisely those places most heavily hit by EU migration leading the Tories to win en masse and Cameron to be obliged to hold the referendum.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
    Germany has much more EE workers than the UK does and you don't see this whining nonsense from Germans. Their workers compete just fine against the outsiders. The issue is that many Brits really are lazy and worthless. They're also cowards, given that they can lash out against these workers but they know they'll get in trouble if they talk of Pakistanis and others. It's just complete cowardice.

    When it comes to Brexit, it just means more Pakis. Boris Johnson and others openly stated that they wanted to get more commonwealth (read: Pakis) immigration and it wasn't "fair" to give a lane to EU migrants. So this whole 'taking back control' is bullshit. You'll still get flooded, just with more South Asians and Africans.

    I won't have any sympathy because whining about EE plumbers was a very big deal. Good riddance.

    , @Hibernian
    I think Polish people are more compatible with an Anglophone society than a lot of people in the world are. Full disclosure: I'm a 25% Polish-American. Also, they (Polish people) have gone to Ireland too.
  6. Why Borders?

    Because borders are necessary to life.

    How does penicillin kill bacteria? By interfering with the ability to synthesize the cell wall. What would happen to a human who was flayed and left skinless? Death, by some combination of bleeding and infection.

    Self must be able to separate itself from non-self to survive.

  7. Anonymous[229] • Disclaimer says:

    When people feel under threat, research shows, they seek a strong identity that will make them feel part of a powerful group.

    Most of the people Fisher retweets are fellow tribesmen, and most of the rest are post-Hart-Celler. Circling the wagons much?

    Notice that Europeans not wanting to let in Muslims who might decide to try to massacre them is not a rational first-order response

    The rise of nationalism seems to triggering an irrational response in a certain “powerful group”.

  8. A country of people who look like me, speak my language and share my heritage. These nationalist impulses, however dangerous, emerge from basic human instinct. It makes us feel safe; losing it makes us feel threatened.

    No, it’s never about feelings. It’s about the fact that life is a team sport. We all depend on the cooperation of those who share our interests as living things.

  9. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    Alternatively, World War I and II could be conceived of as disasters brought about by imperialism: e.g., “You invaded Poland.”

    Germany saw itself as a defender of Europe against international and non-European powers during WW2.

    • Replies: @Jack Strocchi

    Germany saw itself as a defender of Europe against international and non-European powers during WW2.
     
    Ahem...No.

    It’s true that the major geopolitical motive for WWII was the Nazi aim to eradicate Soviet Russia, which was a “non-European power” in one sense, being an agency of international communist conspiracy.

    Hitler wanted Russia as a kind of New World colony on Germany’s doorstep. The Slavs, to him, were no better than Red Indian unter mensch to be disposessed and disappeared.

    Most Germans did not want to go to war against Russia. What they did want was national unity with Auslanders. Hitler delivered on his promise to achieve that, and was thus able to obtain reciprocity from the German army on his per Lebensraum project. That was why the military oath of personal loyalty to Hitler was so important. The SS motto was “My honour is called loyalty" - to Hitler.

    So Hitler essentially guilt tripped the German people into war.
  10. Never suscribe to stupidity what can easily be explained by malice.

    • LOL: Hibernian, Rosie
  11. @Altai

    Traveling recently through Yorkshire, a postindustrial swathe of northern England, I heard complaints that began about refugees but shifted quickly to Polish workers, who have arrived in much greater numbers. Some spoke ominously, if implausibly, of towns where Polish was more commonly heard than English.
     
    This shows how out of touch so-called cosmopolitan American journalists are. This is a reality in many locations in the UK and Ireland. There are lots of places you can get on a bus and hear nothing but East European languages. Many new housing estates or town centres are half or more EU migrant. There is literally nowhere you can go in the British Isles and not find Eastern Europeans. No town is too small. And of course like most diasporas they stick together. So, yes, there are lots of places.

    Our reporter doesn't understand because it wasn't his community that was displaced, his sons who missed out on jobs and had to compete with essentially a second world labour market. Who had to watch as people who were profoundly low trust and poker-faced unravelled the social capital they had previously enjoyed and spoke about how 'lazy' the natives were and how they should be thankful to them.

    These people had their homes terraformed into something alien and hostile that they no longer belong. And worst of all, it's not just something they can get used to, because it never ends. The flow never stops unless you leave the EU. (The flow of EU migrants in other countries is so low the right to work will never be challenged.)

    The neocons wanted a bigger Europe. They got it. The Eastern European migration influx is key to why Brexit ultimately happened. It certainly was key in the 2015 election which saw mass defection from Labour to UKIP in precisely those places most heavily hit by EU migration leading the Tories to win en masse and Cameron to be obliged to hold the referendum.

    Germany has much more EE workers than the UK does and you don’t see this whining nonsense from Germans. Their workers compete just fine against the outsiders. The issue is that many Brits really are lazy and worthless. They’re also cowards, given that they can lash out against these workers but they know they’ll get in trouble if they talk of Pakistanis and others. It’s just complete cowardice.

    When it comes to Brexit, it just means more Pakis. Boris Johnson and others openly stated that they wanted to get more commonwealth (read: Pakis) immigration and it wasn’t “fair” to give a lane to EU migrants. So this whole ‘taking back control’ is bullshit. You’ll still get flooded, just with more South Asians and Africans.

    I won’t have any sympathy because whining about EE plumbers was a very big deal. Good riddance.

  12. The article can be made honest with one simple punctuation edit, like so:

    It is not easy for Europeans to abandon the old-style national identity, rooted in race and language, that has caused (((them))) such trouble

    • LOL: Harry Baldwin
  13. @anon
    To a Jew, borders => nationalism => gassing of 6m Jews.

    Hence, 99% of Jews support open borders.

    It's a Jewish thing.

    Since they control msm in the western world, they hold the megaphones.

    To a Jew, borders => nationalism => gassing of 6m Jews.

    Hence, 99% of Jews support open borders.

    That’s a gross exaggeration. However, it’s not about a head count. It’s about the resources that the organized Jewish community can marshal from members of the community. Those resources are staggering, and there’s no organ of this community that suggests that the immigration spigot should – or will – ever be shut off.

    It is advocacy of infinite immigration.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    https://youtu.be/lKDeyuM0-Og?t=13s
  14. Interesting.

    Max Fisher is an anti-Zionist Jew: http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/18/vox-explains-israel-is-the-worst-2/

    But of course at Unz.com being an anti-Zionist Jew makes him a Zionist Jew. It’s complicated.

    Now you could criticize him for having been an editor at Vox, home of the infamous Gaza-
    West Bank bridge: https://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2014/07/17/gaza-palestine-israel-vox/

    But ‘mask’ something, something.

  15. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Now, I’ve seen everything.

    https://twitter.com/NickJFuentes/status/1014694040988803072

    Anyway, the global spread of McDonalds proves that other nations can have American business without taking in tons of Americans.

    It’s often been said that Diversity is good cuz of restaurants. But McDonalds sure spread all over the world without diversity. Just take the formula and use it wherever.

  16. Notice that Europeans not wanting to let in Muslims who might decide to try to massacre them is not a rational first-order response, instead it is, “research shows,” a psychological projection unrelated to any real world needs.

    Yes, muslims are more dangerous on average, plus they – on average – depend more on welfare and work less.

    Highly successful immigrtion- and Euro-critic Thilo Sarrazin has finished a book about this subject in February, and he had a valid contract with Random House, to publish it – he even has received two advance payments for the book, but here’s what happened: Random House tried to withdraw fom the contract and declared, they would not publish the book, because this might not be appropriate “in the present situation”… (were they thinking of Nantes – cars and some buildings, too, have been burning there the third night in a row now? … )

    Sarrazin took the case to court, Focus online had it today.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
  17. Obviously, the real mistake is letting Europeans vote.

    Too true.

    “I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government…It is not for having share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England
  18. @anon
    To a Jew, borders => nationalism => gassing of 6m Jews.

    Hence, 99% of Jews support open borders.

    It's a Jewish thing.

    Since they control msm in the western world, they hold the megaphones.

    To a Jew, borders => nationalism => gassing of 6m Jews.
    Hence, 99% of Jews support open borders.
    It’s a Jewish thing.
    Since they control msm in the western world, they hold the megaphones.

    Anon, there’s definitely an element here post holocaust. But this is too simple.

    I think the more realistic take is that there’s a strong sentiment at work here:
    “All nations ought to be open and penetrable by Jews”.

    To a typical gentile–and certainly to white gentiles, who are products of a long de-tribalizing process, to build the most successful political unit ever, the nation state–your nation is your home. It’s where “your people” hang their hat, where you are “at home”.

    But to a tribal people, the tribeis your home. And to a tribal middle man minority, you are both separate–genetically, cultural (in the case of Jews, religiously)–from your national neighbors, and always potentially open to opportunities elsewhere.

    Some of these general tendencies can be found in the overseas Chinese or other middle-man minorities in the middle east or India. But many of those communities are “tribal”-in diaspora, where they are middle men–but actually have a home nation. So those communities, while they want to go wherever there is opportunity, also understand the basic idea of a “nation”–do not find it offensive, or chafe against it.

    And there are two additional super-charged aspects to the Jewish experience in Europe:

    1) Religious separatism.
    That the tribal identity was wrapped around a religious identity, but all the more so one that considered the ambient Christianity to be a specifically heretical offshoot, and then larded up Judaism with rules and practices to emphasize and enforce separation. I.e. super-high majority hostility.

    2) European de-tribalization and nation building.
    Many other middle man minorities are in places where there are other tribal or ethnic groupings. But Europe was in the midst of this long process of destroying tribalism, by integrating all tribes and peoples into these essentially geographically defined peoples with common language, religion, culture and identity. So in Europe the Jews–rejecting integration and clinging to tribalism–were really specifically rejecting the whole “flow” of the European project. A hostile rejectionist tribe amongst peoples who were specifically detribalizing and nationalizing.

    ~

    I’m not Jewish, not a historian. No doubt there are a bunch of subtleties I miss. But the basic picture, and why the Jewish experience and identity was more “super-charged” and hostile than say the over-seas Chinese or “overseas” Lebanese or Armenians, or some Indian communities like the Parsis or Marwaris is, I think, fairly clear. Just a much stronger rejection of their neighbors, while those neighbors were integrating to coherent national identities.

  19. “When people feel under threat, research shows, they seek a strong identity that will make them feel part of a powerful group.”

    Hmm … besides this European stuff, Max Fisher seems kinda worked up over Iranian missile technology in the desert. Now why would that be?

    Hey, lighten up Max! It’s not like they’re near our borders or anything.

    I mean, our borders are your borders, right?

    Right Max?

    Max??

  20. @Millennial

    Obviously, the real mistake is letting Europeans vote.
     
    Too true.

    "I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government...It is not for having share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them."
    • Replies: @Millennial
    Yes, famous second-ish-to-last words.
  21. This NYT reporter is contemptuous of pro-borders European. When reporting on these moral and intellectual inferiors, he can barely avoid writing, “Let them eat cake.”

    Time and again, Steve doesn’t parody, he quotes and links.

    I get to see the same themes cycling on the network TV news, and hear them over NPR.

    It’s almost a Trend!

  22. @ben tillman

    To a Jew, borders => nationalism => gassing of 6m Jews.

    Hence, 99% of Jews support open borders.
     
    That’s a gross exaggeration. However, it’s not about a head count. It’s about the resources that the organized Jewish community can marshal from members of the community. Those resources are staggering, and there’s no organ of this community that suggests that the immigration spigot should – or will – ever be shut off.

    It is advocacy of infinite immigration.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    He looks more like Chris Stein than Hitler.
  23. But its founding leaders had something larger in mind. They conceived it as a radical experiment to transcend the nation-state, whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation.

    What else did the founding leaders of the EU have in mind? Though he might have died prior to the formation of the EU, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi is described as:

    The pioneer of European integration, he served as the founding president of the Paneuropean Union for 49 years, which would be the preliminary ideological foundation of the European Union

    And Kalergi was the first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize prize in 1950, which is given to a person who has worked for European unification.

    So what did Kalergi have in mind?

    The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals

    Hmmm. Maybe Merkel and company really are following the founders’ wishes.

    • Replies: @Millennial
    Some of the current Habsburg clan (neck deep in EU advocacy, as usual) still name-drop Kalergi as a visionary who "unfortunately" couldn't get more support back in the day. I doubt they are unfamiliar with his writings.

    Georg von Habsburg decries nationalism and Kalergi's "unfortunate" failure here at 19:05

    https://youtu.be/1bU6moR3JkQ
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    So the woman of the future doesn't get to pick who she breeds with? Nice. Well, that solves the problem of the Incels.
    , @Wilkey
    Coudenhove-Kalergi was of mixed European ancestry on his fathers side and Japanese on his mothers side, so basically his pronouncement amounts to “I think people like me are genetically superior to people of single race or ethnicity. Which is different from more traditional racism I’m not exactly sure how. If you have smart parents of different races their kid will probably be smart. If you have dumb parents of different races their kid will probably be dumb. The mixing of races itself doesn’t do much, if anything at all.
  24. @Dieter Kief

    Notice that Europeans not wanting to let in Muslims who might decide to try to massacre them is not a rational first-order response, instead it is, “research shows,” a psychological projection unrelated to any real world needs.
     
    Yes, muslims are more dangerous on average, plus they - on average - depend more on welfare and work less.

    Highly successful immigrtion- and Euro-critic Thilo Sarrazin has finished a book about this subject in February, and he had a valid contract with Random House, to publish it - he even has received two advance payments for the book, but here's what happened: Random House tried to withdraw fom the contract and declared, they would not publish the book, because this might not be appropriate "in the present situation"... (were they thinking of Nantes - cars and some buildings, too, have been burning there the third night in a row now? ... )

    Sarrazin took the case to court, Focus online had it today.

    Thanks.

  25. The EU was actually a good idea in theory. Or at least the precursors of the EU such as the EEC. Trying to standardize things like rail gauges to facilitate trade across borders is good for trade, assuming Germany will no longer try to invade your nation by rail. But they couldn’t leave well enough alone.

    All trading relationships need a referee. With the US, the federal government became the referee among the states and thus consolidated its power. So too with what would eventually become the EU. But they abused this power by forcing their way into areas that were unrelated to trade in a way to social engineer from the top down.

    A lot of people scratch their heads and wonder why the progressives in the US are in bed with Wall Street and other big biz. They wonder why the left supports these international trade bodies and has abandoned the workers whom they supposedly support. The answer lies in the fact that these progressives know that if you have truly free trade across the globe you will need a referee. And if they can ascend to that position they can do to the world what the EU has done to Europe.

    The best defense against this is decentralization and bilateral trade arrangements instead of being a member of a global trading body or bloc.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    EU trade and the single currency and monetary policy have been bad for Southern European economies.
  26. @ben tillman

    More damning, is that barely anybody at the NYT notices the existence of a moderate middle ground of Europe for the Europeans in which Europeans unite to defend their borders against mass incursion from outside Europe.
     
    Yes, you would think that was common sense.

    National borders within the EU are a second line of defense, like having enough watertight compartments with the hull of the Titanic would have been a good idea. In general, it’s a good idea to try not to run your ship of superstate into an iceberg, but if the leadership is so negligent and ensconced that they do so, then you have to fall back.
     
    LOL! That was awesome.

    It’s bundling – tying something popular among Europeans (free movement within Europe) to something unpopular (free movement into Europe). Ironically, it’s what the EU slammed Microsoft for years ago, bundling Explorer (unpopular) with Windows (popular).

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    The logic of antitrust law, which is widely accepted an popular, can apply to to a lot of things outside antitrust law.

    For some reason, few seem to do it.

    This should be a political opportunity.
  27. @Dave Pinsen
    It’s bundling - tying something popular among Europeans (free movement within Europe) to something unpopular (free movement into Europe). Ironically, it’s what the EU slammed Microsoft for years ago, bundling Explorer (unpopular) with Windows (popular).

    The logic of antitrust law, which is widely accepted an popular, can apply to to a lot of things outside antitrust law.

    For some reason, few seem to do it.

    This should be a political opportunity.

  28. “whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation.”

    This is one of the foundational lies of the EU that its lackeys keep repeating. The precursor situation to the World Wars was not nationalist, it was the opposite: multicultural empires. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, the German Reich, the French Empire, and the British Empire went to war with each other over imperial interests. Nationalist America demurred to join in. Unfortunately, the US had stealth-imperial elites who eventually engineered US involvement in the megademicide.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    After a generation of the worst wars in history, Europe (and East Asia) at last had borders that more or less matched the "race-based identities" that so annoy the tender sensibilities of Max Fisher.

    The result?

    Three generations of unprecedented peace, prosperity and progress!

    What is this new wonder cure where political borders = ethnic borders? It works like nothing else ever has! We must reinforce it and spread the formula of success immediately!

    Wait, no. The Max Fishers of the world don't like it.

    Oh okay then. Let us set the stage for the next global conflagration.

    More "refugees" ... more immigration .... zzzzzzzzz .....

    [... tinder accumulating upon smoldering embers ...]
    , @ben tillman
    Don't forget the Ottomans.
    , @Anonymous
    The Allied and Central Powers were very nationalistic. They regarded imperial interests as an extension of national interests.
  29. The European Union has always been sold, to its citizens, on a practical basis: Cheaper products. Easier travel. Prosperity and security.

    But its founding leaders had something larger in mind. They conceived it as a radical experiment to transcend the nation-state,

    The NYT is literally saying that the EU was designed as this radical civilization redefining experiment, but was sold to European citizens as something else entirely to distract them from the truth.

    In other words, the EU was a giant lie and scam against the citizens of Europe.

    What’s weird is the NYT author just assumes that the choices of the handful of technocrats designing the EU overrides the preferences of the citizens of Europe.

    I’m also not convinced that mass immigration from outside of Europe was a founding goal of the EU. I don’t like the EU, but I’m not convinced that was the plan all along. I’ve even heard many say that Merkel blundered into the mass immigration issue and claimed it as some wise strategy in hindsight, rather than having pursued that from the beginning. In 2010, Merkel famously claimed that multiculturalism had utterly failed and seemed quite genuine about that.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The NYT is literally saying that the EU was designed as this radical civilization redefining experiment, but was sold to European citizens as something else entirely to distract them from the truth.

    In other words, the EU was a giant lie and scam against the citizens of Europe.

    What’s weird is the NYT author just assumes that the choices of the handful of technocrats designing the EU overrides the preferences of the citizens of Europe.
     
    Good stuff, Max. You are right.
  30. What I find interesting is that the Euros never looked to pre-Nationalist Christendom for a model of a sort of integrated Europe with an overlaid superstate.

    What made more sense, and probably still does, is devolution of European Nation states to the pre-extant regions and principalities. Alsace, Burgundy, Bavaria, Catalonia, Lombardy etc. It would be through the mini-nationalism that the semi-artificial national identities could be erased. The chauvinism of the small regions and principalities would mitigate the threat associated with nationalism. The regions would more easily negotiate a standard set of trading practices and multi-party rules which preserve regional character while maximizing the benefits of a Union. Admittedly England does not fit well into this paradigm.

    All of this is to say, however, that if the goal was to make a Europe a place full of rootless non-Europeans you wouldn’t do this.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I've wondered about this too. Europe has historical sub-national regions that are still strongly felt by the people who live there (even in England). If the elites really thought that modern nationalism was the problem, these historical regions would have been ideal allies for the EU superstate. Instead, all through Europe (or at least through Western Europe), these historical regions have been paved over with newly confected administrative regions that mean and correspond to pretty much nothing at all. Which suggests that the elites are not so much opposed to nationalism as they are simply opposed to Europeans altogether.
  31. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @istevefan
    The EU was actually a good idea in theory. Or at least the precursors of the EU such as the EEC. Trying to standardize things like rail gauges to facilitate trade across borders is good for trade, assuming Germany will no longer try to invade your nation by rail. But they couldn't leave well enough alone.

    All trading relationships need a referee. With the US, the federal government became the referee among the states and thus consolidated its power. So too with what would eventually become the EU. But they abused this power by forcing their way into areas that were unrelated to trade in a way to social engineer from the top down.

    A lot of people scratch their heads and wonder why the progressives in the US are in bed with Wall Street and other big biz. They wonder why the left supports these international trade bodies and has abandoned the workers whom they supposedly support. The answer lies in the fact that these progressives know that if you have truly free trade across the globe you will need a referee. And if they can ascend to that position they can do to the world what the EU has done to Europe.

    The best defense against this is decentralization and bilateral trade arrangements instead of being a member of a global trading body or bloc.

    EU trade and the single currency and monetary policy have been bad for Southern European economies.

  32. (((Anti-White genocidal shysters))) have not deviated one iota from (((their Kalergi agenda))):
    — ( http://alt-right.com/the-kalergi-plan/ )

    (((They))) push as hard on every front as hard as (((they))) can, backing off temporarily only when the goyim start getting uppity.

    The backing-off bit is ALWAYS temporary, until the (((shyster media))) come up with their next distraction. If a sufficient-enough distraction fails to materialize on cue, expect a (((false-flag))).

    I used to think (((White genocide))) was hyperbole.

    It’s not.

  33. The Joker: “When you wear a Halloween costume, you are appropriating another culture.”
    “Now step back and let the foreigner have your country.”

    BANE: “Yes, of course.”

  34. mal says:

    The globalist plan here is obvious: tout the recent drop in arrivals loudly, and get a legally binding agreement to let the E.U. staff and run internal border checkpoints in a continent-wide “agreement” after which the NGOs will ramp up the African boat brigades and Erdogan will allow overland caravans en masse again. They are probably attempting to pay off whomever needs to be paid to, in the words of The Economist, “let it happen” right now.

  35. @anon
    To a Jew, borders => nationalism => gassing of 6m Jews.

    Hence, 99% of Jews support open borders.

    It's a Jewish thing.

    Since they control msm in the western world, they hold the megaphones.

    Borders = Nationalism = Israel

    Borders = Nationalism = The United States which is the safest country ever for the Jewish people including ancient and modern Israel

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    That's for damn sure. The US is safer for people in general than most other countries. I can understand that's why the huddled masses want to come here, but they don't seem to grasp the fact that if you get enough huddled masses in here all at once, all that Cultural Diversity turns it into the Old Country they were trying to escape from in the first place.

    Were my ancestors immigrants? Sure. And they had to take a metric frack-ton of tests to get in, including showing evidence that they were capable of self-support. BTW, several generations willingly served in the military both in the Old Country and here.
  36. Sarcasm aside, letting Europeans vote probably DID contribute to their excessive tolerance.

    Democracy has a universalist spirit that always leans left over time, while authoritarianism trends towards the right. Even a left wing authoritarian would not swamp his own country with foreigners.

    So even if most Europeans are voting against migrants now, their tradition of democracy created the liberal culture that led to welcoming refugees in the first place.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Democracy has a universalist spirit that always leans left over time, while authoritarianism trends towards the right. Even a left wing authoritarian would not swamp his own country with foreigners.
     
    Jason, Asians--well Chinese--keep saying these sorts of things. And i'll grant there is some philosophical element to what you are saying about "democracy" beyond the--much larger--issue that high levels of universalism and affective empathy are coded in white gentile DNA.

    But the plain fact: the swamping with foreigners is an authoritarian project. It was imposed by Western elites, accompanied by massive propaganda--from schools, government, news media, Hollyweird. There's no Western nation where the people actually voted for it. The people generally oppose it in any opinion survey--in the face of rather extreme negative labelling (name calling) for doing so. And the imposition has created an explosion of populist--i.e. the people, not the elites--push back.

    I don't how much more clear it could be that this "bring in the foreigners!" deal is an elite authoritarian project, that is opposed by the popular democratic will.

    The plain fact is the West just has much worse elites than Asia--right now. (Asia's had some terrible ones of it's own.) Sad to say as a white man, but true.
    , @Almost Missouri
    I see what you are driving at and maybe there is something to it, but it doesn't necessarily work that way.

    Stalin and the Bolsheviks cheerfully used mass population movements to punish troublesome nationalities.

    Despite multi-generational democracy, Japan and South Korea haven't flooded themselves with foreigners.

    When the Visegrad countries were inside the left wing authoritarian Warsaw Pact, they had to host foreign students and immigrant colonies. Now that their people can vote, they express (and get) an unambiguous preference for their own kind.

    , @Wilkey
    “Democracy has a universalist spirit that always leans left over time, while authoritarianism trends towards the right.”

    I think it’s not so much democracy as the use and abuse of media within certain democracies to push an open borders agenda. I.E., open borders is an authoritarian policy, not a democratic one. This nation was a democracy for almost 180 years prior to 1965 (much more democratic, in fact) without the open borders religion taking hold. In 1882 we effectively banned an entire race of people from moving here, and that ban was implemented by the same generation that had ended slavery.

    What changed in 1965? The ascendance of a mass media culture (television) owned and controlled by a tiny, unrepresentative subset of people that controlled what people see and talk about more than any culture has been able to do in history. The open borders religion that followed cake from that. And the reascendence of nationalism in recent years owes its birth in large part to the democratization of information enabled by the internet.

    People don’t typically vote for open borders policies. Even left wing Oregon voted 2-1 against giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. And if information flowed more freely and debate were even more open and honest the votes would be even more lopsided than they are.
  37. Corn says:

    “Much as Virginians and Pennsylvanians had become Americans, Germans and Frenchmen would become Europeans — if they could be persuaded.”

    “Providence had also been pleased to give this connected country to one united people, “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs. . . . This country and this people seem to have been made for each other” -John Jay

    Creating a United States of America is easier than a United States of Europe. And creating the USA was no easy thing.

  38. @Altai

    Traveling recently through Yorkshire, a postindustrial swathe of northern England, I heard complaints that began about refugees but shifted quickly to Polish workers, who have arrived in much greater numbers. Some spoke ominously, if implausibly, of towns where Polish was more commonly heard than English.
     
    This shows how out of touch so-called cosmopolitan American journalists are. This is a reality in many locations in the UK and Ireland. There are lots of places you can get on a bus and hear nothing but East European languages. Many new housing estates or town centres are half or more EU migrant. There is literally nowhere you can go in the British Isles and not find Eastern Europeans. No town is too small. And of course like most diasporas they stick together. So, yes, there are lots of places.

    Our reporter doesn't understand because it wasn't his community that was displaced, his sons who missed out on jobs and had to compete with essentially a second world labour market. Who had to watch as people who were profoundly low trust and poker-faced unravelled the social capital they had previously enjoyed and spoke about how 'lazy' the natives were and how they should be thankful to them.

    These people had their homes terraformed into something alien and hostile that they no longer belong. And worst of all, it's not just something they can get used to, because it never ends. The flow never stops unless you leave the EU. (The flow of EU migrants in other countries is so low the right to work will never be challenged.)

    The neocons wanted a bigger Europe. They got it. The Eastern European migration influx is key to why Brexit ultimately happened. It certainly was key in the 2015 election which saw mass defection from Labour to UKIP in precisely those places most heavily hit by EU migration leading the Tories to win en masse and Cameron to be obliged to hold the referendum.

    I think Polish people are more compatible with an Anglophone society than a lot of people in the world are. Full disclosure: I’m a 25% Polish-American. Also, they (Polish people) have gone to Ireland too.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Hibernian:

    The redoubtable Irish Savant has a generally upbeat assessment about Poles in Ireland.

    While numerically few in NYC they are regarded as hard-workers. Their Greenpoint neighborhood is undergoing rapid gentrification by yuppie invaders.

    , @Altai
    I keep seeing Americans who think Eastern Europeans are high trust and otherwise miss the point of what happened in Britain and Ireland over the last 15 years. These people are still profoundly foreign and displace people from housing and jobs and keep wages down and create a Dubai style transient atmosphere and alien environment.

    You could make the exact same argument about the Irish in America. It didn't mean Anglo-American wasn't still displaced and wages and working conditions in the US took a massive hit. Asylum seekers can't work and often have no right to work early. EU migrants compete directly and don't ever stop. Every scrap of economic breathing space gets consumed. You never get a boom after the bust for the natives because the flows just keep coming. It has suppressed wages and made housing difficult to obtain and ruined social capital.

    Asylum seekers displace spatially, EU migrants displace spatially and economically.

    In 20 years your equivalent will be saying 'I think Mexicans are more compatible with an Anglophone society than a lot people in the world are'. (He'd be right too.)
  39. @Almost Missouri

    "whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation."
     
    This is one of the foundational lies of the EU that its lackeys keep repeating. The precursor situation to the World Wars was not nationalist, it was the opposite: multicultural empires. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, the German Reich, the French Empire, and the British Empire went to war with each other over imperial interests. Nationalist America demurred to join in. Unfortunately, the US had stealth-imperial elites who eventually engineered US involvement in the megademicide.

    After a generation of the worst wars in history, Europe (and East Asia) at last had borders that more or less matched the “race-based identities” that so annoy the tender sensibilities of Max Fisher.

    The result?

    Three generations of unprecedented peace, prosperity and progress!

    What is this new wonder cure where political borders = ethnic borders? It works like nothing else ever has! We must reinforce it and spread the formula of success immediately!

    Wait, no. The Max Fishers of the world don’t like it.

    Oh okay then. Let us set the stage for the next global conflagration.

    More “refugees” … more immigration …. zzzzzzzzz …..

    [… tinder accumulating upon smoldering embers …]

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The peace was maintained by 2 empires that dominated the globe and engaged in a Cold War against each other that could have resulted in the most destructive war of all time. Following the demise of one of those empires, peace has been maintained by the still extant other empire and its massive network of military bases and troop deployments all over the world.
  40. The nonsense, obfuscation and just plain silliness here, along with the usual condescenion and lecturing–par for the course.

    It does still strike me, to get these continual denunciations of the evils of racial identity and lectures on universalism from of all people … Jews. Is self-awareness just not a thing?

    Still–though always willing to argue–i fully cognizant that it’s pointless. This stuff is deeply felt.

    I really think we need a Utopia.

    Not a utopia, but the real deal, a nation–or rather an un-nation–“Utopia”. And all these utopians, all the anti-trumpers, all the borders-are-evil, the “tolerance” jihadis, all the globalists, the bankers, the American Jews who hate Americans (and their fellow travellers), all the shrieking SJWs, the gals with the “refugees welcome” banners, the Christian virtue signallers with adopted Haitian babies, the post-Christian virtue signallers, the “Coexist” folks … the whole lot, along with all their “refugee” and “migrant” and crops-rotting-in-the-fields strawberry pickers … can just go there, fly their rainbow flag, ride their unicorns and be happy.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    I really think we need a Utopia.
     
    Instead of mocking liberal snowflakes' requests for a "safe space", we should be embracing those requests. The "Utopia" you are talking about is a "safe space". That's the point of having exclusive territory -- it's a safe space.
  41. @Almost Missouri

    "whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation."
     
    This is one of the foundational lies of the EU that its lackeys keep repeating. The precursor situation to the World Wars was not nationalist, it was the opposite: multicultural empires. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, the German Reich, the French Empire, and the British Empire went to war with each other over imperial interests. Nationalist America demurred to join in. Unfortunately, the US had stealth-imperial elites who eventually engineered US involvement in the megademicide.

    Don’t forget the Ottomans.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Yes, the Ottoman Empire. I meant to include them. Thanks.
  42. @Alec Leamas
    What I find interesting is that the Euros never looked to pre-Nationalist Christendom for a model of a sort of integrated Europe with an overlaid superstate.

    What made more sense, and probably still does, is devolution of European Nation states to the pre-extant regions and principalities. Alsace, Burgundy, Bavaria, Catalonia, Lombardy etc. It would be through the mini-nationalism that the semi-artificial national identities could be erased. The chauvinism of the small regions and principalities would mitigate the threat associated with nationalism. The regions would more easily negotiate a standard set of trading practices and multi-party rules which preserve regional character while maximizing the benefits of a Union. Admittedly England does not fit well into this paradigm.

    All of this is to say, however, that if the goal was to make a Europe a place full of rootless non-Europeans you wouldn't do this.

    I’ve wondered about this too. Europe has historical sub-national regions that are still strongly felt by the people who live there (even in England). If the elites really thought that modern nationalism was the problem, these historical regions would have been ideal allies for the EU superstate. Instead, all through Europe (or at least through Western Europe), these historical regions have been paved over with newly confected administrative regions that mean and correspond to pretty much nothing at all. Which suggests that the elites are not so much opposed to nationalism as they are simply opposed to Europeans altogether.

  43. @ben tillman
    Don't forget the Ottomans.

    Yes, the Ottoman Empire. I meant to include them. Thanks.

  44. @Massimo Heitor

    The European Union has always been sold, to its citizens, on a practical basis: Cheaper products. Easier travel. Prosperity and security.

    But its founding leaders had something larger in mind. They conceived it as a radical experiment to transcend the nation-state,
     
    The NYT is literally saying that the EU was designed as this radical civilization redefining experiment, but was sold to European citizens as something else entirely to distract them from the truth.

    In other words, the EU was a giant lie and scam against the citizens of Europe.

    What's weird is the NYT author just assumes that the choices of the handful of technocrats designing the EU overrides the preferences of the citizens of Europe.

    I'm also not convinced that mass immigration from outside of Europe was a founding goal of the EU. I don't like the EU, but I'm not convinced that was the plan all along. I've even heard many say that Merkel blundered into the mass immigration issue and claimed it as some wise strategy in hindsight, rather than having pursued that from the beginning. In 2010, Merkel famously claimed that multiculturalism had utterly failed and seemed quite genuine about that.

    The NYT is literally saying that the EU was designed as this radical civilization redefining experiment, but was sold to European citizens as something else entirely to distract them from the truth.

    In other words, the EU was a giant lie and scam against the citizens of Europe.

    What’s weird is the NYT author just assumes that the choices of the handful of technocrats designing the EU overrides the preferences of the citizens of Europe.

    Good stuff, Max. You are right.

  45. @Jason Liu
    Sarcasm aside, letting Europeans vote probably DID contribute to their excessive tolerance.

    Democracy has a universalist spirit that always leans left over time, while authoritarianism trends towards the right. Even a left wing authoritarian would not swamp his own country with foreigners.

    So even if most Europeans are voting against migrants now, their tradition of democracy created the liberal culture that led to welcoming refugees in the first place.

    Democracy has a universalist spirit that always leans left over time, while authoritarianism trends towards the right. Even a left wing authoritarian would not swamp his own country with foreigners.

    Jason, Asians–well Chinese–keep saying these sorts of things. And i’ll grant there is some philosophical element to what you are saying about “democracy” beyond the–much larger–issue that high levels of universalism and affective empathy are coded in white gentile DNA.

    But the plain fact: the swamping with foreigners is an authoritarian project. It was imposed by Western elites, accompanied by massive propaganda–from schools, government, news media, Hollyweird. There’s no Western nation where the people actually voted for it. The people generally oppose it in any opinion survey–in the face of rather extreme negative labelling (name calling) for doing so. And the imposition has created an explosion of populist–i.e. the people, not the elites–push back.

    I don’t how much more clear it could be that this “bring in the foreigners!” deal is an elite authoritarian project, that is opposed by the popular democratic will.

    The plain fact is the West just has much worse elites than Asia–right now. (Asia’s had some terrible ones of it’s own.) Sad to say as a white man, but true.

  46. @Jason Liu
    Sarcasm aside, letting Europeans vote probably DID contribute to their excessive tolerance.

    Democracy has a universalist spirit that always leans left over time, while authoritarianism trends towards the right. Even a left wing authoritarian would not swamp his own country with foreigners.

    So even if most Europeans are voting against migrants now, their tradition of democracy created the liberal culture that led to welcoming refugees in the first place.

    I see what you are driving at and maybe there is something to it, but it doesn’t necessarily work that way.

    Stalin and the Bolsheviks cheerfully used mass population movements to punish troublesome nationalities.

    Despite multi-generational democracy, Japan and South Korea haven’t flooded themselves with foreigners.

    When the Visegrad countries were inside the left wing authoritarian Warsaw Pact, they had to host foreign students and immigrant colonies. Now that their people can vote, they express (and get) an unambiguous preference for their own kind.

  47. @AnotherDad
    The nonsense, obfuscation and just plain silliness here, along with the usual condescenion and lecturing--par for the course.

    It does still strike me, to get these continual denunciations of the evils of racial identity and lectures on universalism from of all people ... Jews. Is self-awareness just not a thing?


    Still--though always willing to argue--i fully cognizant that it's pointless. This stuff is deeply felt.

    I really think we need a Utopia.

    Not a utopia, but the real deal, a nation--or rather an un-nation--"Utopia". And all these utopians, all the anti-trumpers, all the borders-are-evil, the "tolerance" jihadis, all the globalists, the bankers, the American Jews who hate Americans (and their fellow travellers), all the shrieking SJWs, the gals with the "refugees welcome" banners, the Christian virtue signallers with adopted Haitian babies, the post-Christian virtue signallers, the "Coexist" folks ... the whole lot, along with all their "refugee" and "migrant" and crops-rotting-in-the-fields strawberry pickers ... can just go there, fly their rainbow flag, ride their unicorns and be happy.

    I really think we need a Utopia.

    Instead of mocking liberal snowflakes’ requests for a “safe space”, we should be embracing those requests. The “Utopia” you are talking about is a “safe space”. That’s the point of having exclusive territory — it’s a safe space.

  48. After my last trip to the UK, I concluded that they need more plumbers, not fewer. “British plumbing” has long been a running gag and the country still hasn’t evolved past the separate hot/cold faucets that went out of style in the U.S. around 1930. (They also haven’t figured out that electrical outlets in bathrooms are a great idea) The importation of skilled tradesmen who can bring your country into the 21st century is what I would call “good immigration.”

  49. The return of fisking. I love it!

  50. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri
    https://youtu.be/lKDeyuM0-Og?t=13s

    He looks more like Chris Stein than Hitler.

  51. “Alternatively, World War I and II could be conceived of as disasters brought about by imperialism: e.g., “You invaded Poland.”

    Yes, Hitler (and to a lesser extent Mussolini) were imperialists yet the nationalist regimes in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania, Finland, Bulgaria and Hungary where quite happy to respect the borders of other nations. In fact they were probably less imperialistic than modern day liberal Germany.

  52. You missed something Sailer.

    In this NYT passage u cited:

    “Traveling recently through Yorkshire, a postindustrial swathe of northern England, I heard complaints that began about refugees but shifted quickly to Polish workers, who have arrived in much greater numbers. Some spoke ominously, if implausibly, of towns where Polish was more commonly heard than English.”

    These English complain about the Poles because they are ALLOWED to complain about the Poles. Complain about the Pakis and “Asians” and you’re likely to get arrested for a hate crime. No joke, that happens.

    • Agree: jim jones
  53. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri
    After a generation of the worst wars in history, Europe (and East Asia) at last had borders that more or less matched the "race-based identities" that so annoy the tender sensibilities of Max Fisher.

    The result?

    Three generations of unprecedented peace, prosperity and progress!

    What is this new wonder cure where political borders = ethnic borders? It works like nothing else ever has! We must reinforce it and spread the formula of success immediately!

    Wait, no. The Max Fishers of the world don't like it.

    Oh okay then. Let us set the stage for the next global conflagration.

    More "refugees" ... more immigration .... zzzzzzzzz .....

    [... tinder accumulating upon smoldering embers ...]

    The peace was maintained by 2 empires that dominated the globe and engaged in a Cold War against each other that could have resulted in the most destructive war of all time. Following the demise of one of those empires, peace has been maintained by the still extant other empire and its massive network of military bases and troop deployments all over the world.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    What is keeping a Napoleon IV from re-trouncing Austria or a Wilhelm III from re-seizing Alsace?

    The US base Ramstein.

    Not.

    Even if you don't believe the obvious fact that Western Europeans no longer have an appetite for continental war, the hard reality is that most everyone has (or can quickly have) nukes, so national conquest of those powers is off the menu indefinitely. Indeed, the prospect of national conquest (armored columns storming west through the Fulda Gap) was last on the menu only when nationalist normalities were overshadowed by the imperial Soviet-US standoff, as you described. Now that the standoff is over, the stable status quo of congruent political-ethnic borders can resume, ... or it could resume if the neo-imperialist EU weren't intent on muddying the ethnic waters with mass migrations. So again the anti-national imperialists are setting up the next conflict. They just can't help themselves, apparently.

  54. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri

    "whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation."
     
    This is one of the foundational lies of the EU that its lackeys keep repeating. The precursor situation to the World Wars was not nationalist, it was the opposite: multicultural empires. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, the German Reich, the French Empire, and the British Empire went to war with each other over imperial interests. Nationalist America demurred to join in. Unfortunately, the US had stealth-imperial elites who eventually engineered US involvement in the megademicide.

    The Allied and Central Powers were very nationalistic. They regarded imperial interests as an extension of national interests.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Disagree. They certainly tried to use nationalism (often successfully) to further their imperial ends, but these were imperial objectives, not national ones.

    For example, Britain's Great War slogans were NOT that Britain was going to annex Germany (which would have been nationalist but dishonest--no one in Britain wanted to own Germany), but rather that British troops were "shedding their blood for freedom"(!), which if that sounds suspiciously vague or even contradictory to you, that's because it was. The real reason was imperial rivalry, but that doesn't make good copy when you are trying to get men to die for you.
  55. Any political entity that isn’t controlled by people who want to preserve its ethnic identity will come under the control of people who want to destroy it. With the heaving millions of surplus population to the South and East, any European country that isn’t explicitly pro-white will become non-white.

    I don’t think the EU as originally conceived in the 1950s was a bad thing. It sought to preserve peace through substituting economic interdependence among nation states for competition between expansionist empires. But it needs to be controlled by people who want to preserve Europe.

    There are people in the EU who want to go much further than anything mentioned so far in this thread. Many countries’ leaders (not just the EU government) want to bring in millions of non-whites and/or Muslims by including Turkey and Albania as members. Britain’s former Foreign Secretary David Miliband wanted eventually to include North Africa and parts of the Middle East.

  56. As countries like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic grow in economic power, I hope their worldview will become more influential within the EU. Their leadership is on a completely different level from that of the big northwestern states like Britain and Germany when it comes to the threat of immigration. What I’d like to see is the polar opposite of the present situation – the most powerful states of the union putting pressure on smaller members to build stronger borders.

  57. @istevefan

    But its founding leaders had something larger in mind. They conceived it as a radical experiment to transcend the nation-state, whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation.
     
    What else did the founding leaders of the EU have in mind? Though he might have died prior to the formation of the EU, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi is described as:

    The pioneer of European integration, he served as the founding president of the Paneuropean Union for 49 years, which would be the preliminary ideological foundation of the European Union
     
    And Kalergi was the first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize prize in 1950, which is given to a person who has worked for European unification.

    So what did Kalergi have in mind?

    The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals
     
    Hmmm. Maybe Merkel and company really are following the founders' wishes.

    Some of the current Habsburg clan (neck deep in EU advocacy, as usual) still name-drop Kalergi as a visionary who “unfortunately” couldn’t get more support back in the day. I doubt they are unfamiliar with his writings.

    Georg von Habsburg decries nationalism and Kalergi’s “unfortunate” failure here at 19:05

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    I don't know if he's genuine. He's got about 3cm less chin than any Habsburg I've ever seen.
  58. Traveling recently through Yorkshire, a postindustrial swathe of northern England, I heard complaints that began about refugees but shifted quickly to Polish workers, who have arrived in much greater numbers. Some spoke ominously, if implausibly, of towns where Polish was more commonly heard than English.

    There is genuine resentment in EU countries against the immigration of other Europeans, especially – because of their numbers – from the former communist bloc. But you need to put this into context. People feel resentment at any influx of newcomers, e.g. if Londoners flooded into Liverpool in large numbers. It was particularly intense in Wales against English people buying holiday homes there and driving up property prices. Over 200 of these homes were burned in arson attacks over a period of a dozen years. But the arrival of people of different races, who can bring more change to the gene pool in a decade than has happened in the last thousand years, is of a completely different order.

  59. @Steve Sailer
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

    Yes, famous second-ish-to-last words.

  60. Dropping the mask

    I would call this the “the enemy in plain sight”, apologies to Evelyn Waugh. Just as Right-totalist (Nazis) and Left-totalist (Bolshevik) politicians tried to eradicate ancient European nations, now Right-liberal economists and Left-liberal politicos are combining to destroy those same nations.

    Trouble, nothing but trouble. After all, what have national-minded Europeans such as Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, Verdi, Sibelius, and Yeats ever accomplished?

    The 19th C Romantic Movement was the most brilliant and popular phase of classical music. It was significantly driven by nationalism.

    Even so, they were nationalist and therefore Bad People. The following composers are scum who should all be banned:

    Beethoven, Brahms, – Germany I
    Strauss, Wagner – Germany II
    Bartok, Liszt – Hungary
    Chopin – Poland
    Verdi, Puccini, Rossini – Italy
    Dvorak, – Czech
    Mussgorsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky – Russia
    Grieg – Norway
    Sibelius – Finland
    Elgar, Williams – England
    Copland, Gershwin – America

    The same also goes for the people who liked their music. They too should be replaced.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I always liked the Czech Smetana. I just learned that he went deaf, but like Beethoven, kept composing.
  61. @Hibernian
    I think Polish people are more compatible with an Anglophone society than a lot of people in the world are. Full disclosure: I'm a 25% Polish-American. Also, they (Polish people) have gone to Ireland too.

    Hibernian:

    The redoubtable Irish Savant has a generally upbeat assessment about Poles in Ireland.

    While numerically few in NYC they are regarded as hard-workers. Their Greenpoint neighborhood is undergoing rapid gentrification by yuppie invaders.

  62. @Anonymous

    Alternatively, World War I and II could be conceived of as disasters brought about by imperialism: e.g., “You invaded Poland.”
     
    Germany saw itself as a defender of Europe against international and non-European powers during WW2.

    Germany saw itself as a defender of Europe against international and non-European powers during WW2.

    Ahem…No.

    It’s true that the major geopolitical motive for WWII was the Nazi aim to eradicate Soviet Russia, which was a “non-European power” in one sense, being an agency of international communist conspiracy.

    Hitler wanted Russia as a kind of New World colony on Germany’s doorstep. The Slavs, to him, were no better than Red Indian unter mensch to be disposessed and disappeared.

    Most Germans did not want to go to war against Russia. What they did want was national unity with Auslanders. Hitler delivered on his promise to achieve that, and was thus able to obtain reciprocity from the German army on his per Lebensraum project. That was why the military oath of personal loyalty to Hitler was so important. The SS motto was “My honour is called loyalty” – to Hitler.

    So Hitler essentially guilt tripped the German people into war.

  63. Working class Brits aren’t just racist against Pakistani pimps, they’re nationalist against Polish plumbers! Who ever heard of such a thing? (I mean other than every speech Nigel Farage ever gave?)

    Dang, this song is over ten years old already:

    Are you of legal drinking age?
    On minimum wage?
    Well, welcome in

    From across the Vistula
    You’ve come so very far
    All waving flags

    We’re all waving flags now
    Waving flags
    But don’t be scared

    And you
    You’re only here for a while
    And it’s all a joke
    Oh, it’s all a joke

  64. @Hibernian
    I think Polish people are more compatible with an Anglophone society than a lot of people in the world are. Full disclosure: I'm a 25% Polish-American. Also, they (Polish people) have gone to Ireland too.

    I keep seeing Americans who think Eastern Europeans are high trust and otherwise miss the point of what happened in Britain and Ireland over the last 15 years. These people are still profoundly foreign and displace people from housing and jobs and keep wages down and create a Dubai style transient atmosphere and alien environment.

    You could make the exact same argument about the Irish in America. It didn’t mean Anglo-American wasn’t still displaced and wages and working conditions in the US took a massive hit. Asylum seekers can’t work and often have no right to work early. EU migrants compete directly and don’t ever stop. Every scrap of economic breathing space gets consumed. You never get a boom after the bust for the natives because the flows just keep coming. It has suppressed wages and made housing difficult to obtain and ruined social capital.

    Asylum seekers displace spatially, EU migrants displace spatially and economically.

    In 20 years your equivalent will be saying ‘I think Mexicans are more compatible with an Anglophone society than a lot people in the world are’. (He’d be right too.)

  65. @Jack Strocchi

    Dropping the mask
     
    I would call this the “the enemy in plain sight”, apologies to Evelyn Waugh. Just as Right-totalist (Nazis) and Left-totalist (Bolshevik) politicians tried to eradicate ancient European nations, now Right-liberal economists and Left-liberal politicos are combining to destroy those same nations.

    Trouble, nothing but trouble. After all, what have national-minded Europeans such as Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, Verdi, Sibelius, and Yeats ever accomplished?
     
    The 19th C Romantic Movement was the most brilliant and popular phase of classical music. It was significantly driven by nationalism.

    Even so, they were nationalist and therefore Bad People. The following composers are scum who should all be banned:

    Beethoven, Brahms, - Germany I
    Strauss, Wagner - Germany II
    Bartok, Liszt - Hungary
    Chopin - Poland
    Verdi, Puccini, Rossini - Italy
    Dvorak, - Czech
    Mussgorsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky - Russia
    Grieg - Norway
    Sibelius - Finland
    Elgar, Williams - England
    Copland, Gershwin - America

    The same also goes for the people who liked their music. They too should be replaced.

    I always liked the Czech Smetana. I just learned that he went deaf, but like Beethoven, kept composing.

  66. @Millennial
    Some of the current Habsburg clan (neck deep in EU advocacy, as usual) still name-drop Kalergi as a visionary who "unfortunately" couldn't get more support back in the day. I doubt they are unfamiliar with his writings.

    Georg von Habsburg decries nationalism and Kalergi's "unfortunate" failure here at 19:05

    https://youtu.be/1bU6moR3JkQ

    I don’t know if he’s genuine. He’s got about 3cm less chin than any Habsburg I’ve ever seen.

  67. This Hitchens column plays it out as a stealthy left trying to gain the upper hand, and stick it to the rightist traditionalist “other.”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/marxism-didnt-die-its-alive-and-well-and-living-among-us/

    Tim

  68. Anon[183] • Disclaimer says:

    The vaunted benefits of no borders in Europe for travel, employment, and education are trivial for legal citizens. You might not have to show a passport versus having to show it, or apply for permission using an easy online form versus not. Anti borders types would have you believe Europeans would be trapped within their countries.

  69. The “founding leaders” of the European Union are, by general opinion, German, Italian and French (Adenauer, De Gasperi, Schuman). It is perhaps unfair to call the French last, but French feelings were more mixed and Schuman had not the standing of Adenauer or De Gasperi.
    In any case, Norwegian Labour minister of foreign affairs Halvard Lange was NOT a founding leader and his essay is in no way foundational.
    To be fair, Norway under Lange asked two times (1962 and 1965) to become part of the European Union – but Norway was so narrowly allied to Britain that, after De Gaulle vetoed the membership of Britain, Norway’s plea for membership was silently laid ad acta. And later on, the Norwegians were too prosperous and did no more want to be a member.

  70. @Anonymous
    The peace was maintained by 2 empires that dominated the globe and engaged in a Cold War against each other that could have resulted in the most destructive war of all time. Following the demise of one of those empires, peace has been maintained by the still extant other empire and its massive network of military bases and troop deployments all over the world.

    What is keeping a Napoleon IV from re-trouncing Austria or a Wilhelm III from re-seizing Alsace?

    The US base Ramstein.

    Not.

    Even if you don’t believe the obvious fact that Western Europeans no longer have an appetite for continental war, the hard reality is that most everyone has (or can quickly have) nukes, so national conquest of those powers is off the menu indefinitely. Indeed, the prospect of national conquest (armored columns storming west through the Fulda Gap) was last on the menu only when nationalist normalities were overshadowed by the imperial Soviet-US standoff, as you described. Now that the standoff is over, the stable status quo of congruent political-ethnic borders can resume, … or it could resume if the neo-imperialist EU weren’t intent on muddying the ethnic waters with mass migrations. So again the anti-national imperialists are setting up the next conflict. They just can’t help themselves, apparently.

  71. @Anonymous
    The Allied and Central Powers were very nationalistic. They regarded imperial interests as an extension of national interests.

    Disagree. They certainly tried to use nationalism (often successfully) to further their imperial ends, but these were imperial objectives, not national ones.

    For example, Britain’s Great War slogans were NOT that Britain was going to annex Germany (which would have been nationalist but dishonest–no one in Britain wanted to own Germany), but rather that British troops were “shedding their blood for freedom”(!), which if that sounds suspiciously vague or even contradictory to you, that’s because it was. The real reason was imperial rivalry, but that doesn’t make good copy when you are trying to get men to die for you.

  72. @Hibernian
    Borders = Nationalism = Israel

    Borders = Nationalism = The United States which is the safest country ever for the Jewish people including ancient and modern Israel

    That’s for damn sure. The US is safer for people in general than most other countries. I can understand that’s why the huddled masses want to come here, but they don’t seem to grasp the fact that if you get enough huddled masses in here all at once, all that Cultural Diversity turns it into the Old Country they were trying to escape from in the first place.

    Were my ancestors immigrants? Sure. And they had to take a metric frack-ton of tests to get in, including showing evidence that they were capable of self-support. BTW, several generations willingly served in the military both in the Old Country and here.

  73. @istevefan

    But its founding leaders had something larger in mind. They conceived it as a radical experiment to transcend the nation-state, whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation.
     
    What else did the founding leaders of the EU have in mind? Though he might have died prior to the formation of the EU, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi is described as:

    The pioneer of European integration, he served as the founding president of the Paneuropean Union for 49 years, which would be the preliminary ideological foundation of the European Union
     
    And Kalergi was the first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize prize in 1950, which is given to a person who has worked for European unification.

    So what did Kalergi have in mind?

    The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals
     
    Hmmm. Maybe Merkel and company really are following the founders' wishes.

    So the woman of the future doesn’t get to pick who she breeds with? Nice. Well, that solves the problem of the Incels.

  74. Anonymous[219] • Disclaimer says:

    That [nationalist] resurgence starts with borders. But Hungary’s trajectory suggests it might not end there. The country’s nationalist government, after erecting fences and setting up refugee camps, has seen hardening xenophobia and rising support for tilting toward authoritarianism.

    Can’t say anything about real or supposed Hungarian authoritarianism, but the view of this writer seems to be that once an aim is accomplished (e.g., a hard border around Hungary) that the energy that motivated it should dissipate. That is not what we see with political movements, however. Much of today’s leftism is a direct descendant of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Those people didn’t stop once they had achieved some concrete goal (the 1964 civil rights act, desgregation, etc.) For better and (mostly) for worse, they kept pushing. Same with the orgiastic praise for the “free market” that was, in large degree, a response to communism. It keeps going even as the threat to the free market has all but disappeared and monopolistic business practices return as the real threat to a democratic nation.

    Once an idea takes hold in the public consciousness it takes on a life of its own. That’s why (understandably) those fanatics who insist on open borders fight every single effort to secure them – the smart ones know that admitting in any way that we have a right to secure our borders creates a seed around which nationalism can form.

    Those of us who want a wall will not be happy with just a wall. We want more secure borders in all forms. We want a nation that acknowledges our (European) identity as the one that formed this nation and which should remain central to this nation’s core (the nerve of us).

  75. The human desire for a strong group identity — and for perceived homogeneity within that group — runs deep.

    …………………….

    When people feel under threat, research shows, they seek a strong identity that will make them feel part of a powerful group.

    And what group does Max Fisher belong to? Does he feel that his group is powerful?

  76. @Jason Liu
    Sarcasm aside, letting Europeans vote probably DID contribute to their excessive tolerance.

    Democracy has a universalist spirit that always leans left over time, while authoritarianism trends towards the right. Even a left wing authoritarian would not swamp his own country with foreigners.

    So even if most Europeans are voting against migrants now, their tradition of democracy created the liberal culture that led to welcoming refugees in the first place.

    “Democracy has a universalist spirit that always leans left over time, while authoritarianism trends towards the right.”

    I think it’s not so much democracy as the use and abuse of media within certain democracies to push an open borders agenda. I.E., open borders is an authoritarian policy, not a democratic one. This nation was a democracy for almost 180 years prior to 1965 (much more democratic, in fact) without the open borders religion taking hold. In 1882 we effectively banned an entire race of people from moving here, and that ban was implemented by the same generation that had ended slavery.

    What changed in 1965? The ascendance of a mass media culture (television) owned and controlled by a tiny, unrepresentative subset of people that controlled what people see and talk about more than any culture has been able to do in history. The open borders religion that followed cake from that. And the reascendence of nationalism in recent years owes its birth in large part to the democratization of information enabled by the internet.

    People don’t typically vote for open borders policies. Even left wing Oregon voted 2-1 against giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. And if information flowed more freely and debate were even more open and honest the votes would be even more lopsided than they are.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    People don’t typically vote for open borders policies.
     
    No, but they do typically vote for welfare state policies. Then the welfare bureaucracy, using its allies in parliament, vote to erode the borders. Because it's inherently in their interest to do so.

    Therefore, the people do indeed vote for open borders, albeit indirectly.

    The "safety net" should hang from the steeple, not the Reichstag. Because whatever the church may feel about immigration, they don't have the power to regulate it. Or the means to pay for it.

  77. Dropping the Mask …

    Just wait till they drop the jockstrap.

  78. @Wilkey
    “Democracy has a universalist spirit that always leans left over time, while authoritarianism trends towards the right.”

    I think it’s not so much democracy as the use and abuse of media within certain democracies to push an open borders agenda. I.E., open borders is an authoritarian policy, not a democratic one. This nation was a democracy for almost 180 years prior to 1965 (much more democratic, in fact) without the open borders religion taking hold. In 1882 we effectively banned an entire race of people from moving here, and that ban was implemented by the same generation that had ended slavery.

    What changed in 1965? The ascendance of a mass media culture (television) owned and controlled by a tiny, unrepresentative subset of people that controlled what people see and talk about more than any culture has been able to do in history. The open borders religion that followed cake from that. And the reascendence of nationalism in recent years owes its birth in large part to the democratization of information enabled by the internet.

    People don’t typically vote for open borders policies. Even left wing Oregon voted 2-1 against giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. And if information flowed more freely and debate were even more open and honest the votes would be even more lopsided than they are.

    People don’t typically vote for open borders policies.

    No, but they do typically vote for welfare state policies. Then the welfare bureaucracy, using its allies in parliament, vote to erode the borders. Because it’s inherently in their interest to do so.

    Therefore, the people do indeed vote for open borders, albeit indirectly.

    The “safety net” should hang from the steeple, not the Reichstag. Because whatever the church may feel about immigration, they don’t have the power to regulate it. Or the means to pay for it.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    Indeed, and I considered making that point. To the extent that open borders politicians win elections it is entirely the result of their other pro-welfare positions, which is in effect buying people’s votes with other people’s money. Those types of candidates are especially popular among women and poor minorities. That is why successful pro-borders candidates are often very supportive of the rest of the welfare state.
  79. @istevefan

    But its founding leaders had something larger in mind. They conceived it as a radical experiment to transcend the nation-state, whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation.
     
    What else did the founding leaders of the EU have in mind? Though he might have died prior to the formation of the EU, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi is described as:

    The pioneer of European integration, he served as the founding president of the Paneuropean Union for 49 years, which would be the preliminary ideological foundation of the European Union
     
    And Kalergi was the first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize prize in 1950, which is given to a person who has worked for European unification.

    So what did Kalergi have in mind?

    The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals
     
    Hmmm. Maybe Merkel and company really are following the founders' wishes.

    Coudenhove-Kalergi was of mixed European ancestry on his fathers side and Japanese on his mothers side, so basically his pronouncement amounts to “I think people like me are genetically superior to people of single race or ethnicity. Which is different from more traditional racism I’m not exactly sure how. If you have smart parents of different races their kid will probably be smart. If you have dumb parents of different races their kid will probably be dumb. The mixing of races itself doesn’t do much, if anything at all.

  80. @Reg Cæsar

    People don’t typically vote for open borders policies.
     
    No, but they do typically vote for welfare state policies. Then the welfare bureaucracy, using its allies in parliament, vote to erode the borders. Because it's inherently in their interest to do so.

    Therefore, the people do indeed vote for open borders, albeit indirectly.

    The "safety net" should hang from the steeple, not the Reichstag. Because whatever the church may feel about immigration, they don't have the power to regulate it. Or the means to pay for it.

    Indeed, and I considered making that point. To the extent that open borders politicians win elections it is entirely the result of their other pro-welfare positions, which is in effect buying people’s votes with other people’s money. Those types of candidates are especially popular among women and poor minorities. That is why successful pro-borders candidates are often very supportive of the rest of the welfare state.

  81. “But its founding leaders had something larger in mind.”

    Who are they ?

    Displacing the founding fathers .

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS