The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Derbyshire ArchiveBlogview
Globalists vs. Nationalists in Europe—And in the U.S.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
VictorOrban
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Steve Bannon’s interview with CBS’ Charlie Rose delighted VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow because Bannon confirmed Brimelow’s argument that Trump, contrary to general perception, did try to compromise with the GOP Establishment—Bannon even called it the “the Original Sin of the Administration”. [Breitbart’s Bannon declares war on the GOP, CBS News, September 10 2017] And it must delight all VDARE.com readers because of Bannon’s forthright dismissal of immigration enthusiasm (as well as the idea of a DACA Amnesty):

CHARLIE ROSE: America was, in the eyes of so many people, and it’s what people respect America for, it is people have been able to come here, find a place, contribute to the economy. That’s what immigration has been in America. And you seem to want to turn it around and stop it.

STEVE BANNON: You couldn’t be more dead wrong. America was built on her citizens.

The same fault line, between globalists and nationalists, is also evident over in Europe. Last week saw a widening of the gulf between the spineless, suicidal Western Europeans and those Eastern-bloc nations determined to maintain their demographic stability in the face of mass invasions from Africa and the Middle East.

What happened last week was, the European Court of Justice, which is a sort of Supreme Court for the E uropean Union, ruled that two of those Eastern bloc nations, Hungary and Slovakia, have to take in quota numbers of the illegal aliens who have been flooding into Europe since the great surge of two years ago.

This dispute in fact goes back just two years this month, to September 2015, the height of that crisis. There was an EU summit meeting at which it was decided that 160,000 illegals from Greece and Italy would be shared around the 28 EU member states.

Several Eastern countries have just refused to take their quotas. Poland, for example, was given a quota of six thousand and some. Total admitted so far: zero. Hungary’s quota was thirteen hundred. Total admitted so far: zero. Slovakia’s quota was a mere nine hundred. Total admitted: zero.

Czechia has been a tad less delinquent. Their quota was 27 hundred: they’ve admitted twelve.

Not twelve hundred; just twelve.

Hungary and Slovakia, with support from Poland, which has had a change to a more nationalist government since that summit, brought a complaint to the Court of Justice arguing that the quota agreement was not properly decided. That’s the complaint the Court rejected this week.

Responding to this week’s ruling, the East Europeans are defiant, the Hungarians most of all. The court decision was, said that country’s foreign minister, “outrageous and irresponsible” and “endangers the future and security of Europe as a whole.” “Politics raped European law,” he thundered to reporters in Budapest. [Hungary and Slovakia defiant after EU court rebuke, by Eszter Zalan, EUObserver, September 5, 2017]

ORDER IT NOW

There’s an element of kabuki about this. Because of their forty-year subjugation under the previous transnationalist scourge, Soviet Communism, the East European countries are still economically behind their Western neighbors in the Union, so that not many of the illegals actually want to go there. Their preferred destinations are the big old welfare democracies of northwest Europe and Scandinavia.

Most of the two hundred-odd assigned by quota to the Baltic republics — Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia — for example have since decamped to Germany. [Resettled in the Baltics, refugees flee for wealthier lands, By Andrius Sytas and Gederts Gelzis, Reuters, November 28, 2016.]

Still, this is a key fault line in the worldwide ideological struggle between nationalism and globalism. Their governments’ defiance of the EU is popular with East Europeans, even though these countries are big beneficiaries of EU subsidies. Poland is the biggest beneficiary of regional aid in the EU; yet an opinion poll conducted in June this year found that 51 percent of Poles support leaving the EU if that’s the only way to stop an influx of Muslims. [Poles Value Denying Muslim Refugees Over Being in EU, Poll Shows, By Marek Strzelecki, Bloomberg, July 5, 2017]

Even more striking, younger Poles — in the 18-24 age group — are more anti-EU than Poles in general. The word “Polexit” has already been coined. [Is there any prospect of ‘Polexit’?, by Aleks Szczerbiak, Polish Politics Blog, September 7, 2017]

Similarly in Hungary, the second biggest and most influential country in the group. Hungary has elections coming up next year, and Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party, which is strongly nationalist, was polling at 53 percent in July. Polling second at 21 percent was Jobbik—which is even more nationalist.

There is just not much of a market for transnationalist globalism in East Europe—even though these countries are net beneficiaries of EU aid programs.

I know, I know: these are small, distant countries whose concerns seem remote from our own . Or as British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain described what was then Czechoslovakia in 1938: “a faraway land of which we know little.”

How’d that work out, Neville?

Globalism and nationalism are at war, though, and one of the key fronts is Europe. I wish strength to the East Europeans, and firmness in their resolve to keep themselves as distinct nations.

By paying attention to their struggle, perhaps we can learn something that will help in our own.

2010-12-24dl[1] John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com:FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
    []
  1. Yan Shen says:

    Every sane person should support nationalism, the idea that a country exists first and foremost for its own citizens. The problem is that nationalism outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa proper often becomes corrupted into racialism.

    I sound like a broken record at this point, but perhaps I can get through to Mr. Derbyshire here. America has a unique history, like Singapore, which ensures that it’ll always be more multicultural than the countries of Europe, Asia, or Africa. I support racial nationalism for those places, but once again let’s acknowledge that America has a different history. There’s no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back. Ask yourself what you’re trying to accomplish here. No one who’s here legally is going to be deported, unless we literally have the 4th Reich here in the United States.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world. Rational people can be convinced that it’s in all of our interests as Americans that we curtail some of the excesses of recent years, such as unbridled immigration. Unfortunately you can’t sell that message by repeatedly insinuating that only descendants of white Europeans are somehow “real” Americans. That kind of message doesn’t unite, it divides. This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire like to hold up Japan as a paragon for the sort of nationalistic country that America should aspire to be, but I wonder if it’s lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan’s focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese. They don’t see themselves as being part of an existential Song of Ice and Fire, so to speak. Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe? Let them deal with their own problems. As Americans we have ours to deal with. If Europe is too dumb to enforce its own borders and sensible immigration policies, then let it suffer the consequences! We’re all grown men and women here.

    The fact of the matter is Derb, this is the state we find ourselves in in America today. For better or worse, these people are your neighbors and your countrymen, whether or not you like them or feel any particular affinity towards them. It’s already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder. Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I’m sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    Read More
    • Troll: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Randal
    Same old siren call of appeasement and surrender: give in, don't fight, accept what has been done to you and "move on". Somehow that will mean a decent settlement can be achieved, and not that those who have attacked (and make no mistake, mass immigration has been and is a deliberate attack on the indigenous people, whether in the US or in Europe - the US is no longer the expanding settler colonial nation it was a century and more ago) will be emboldened to consolidate what they have and push further.

    Here's the core of the issue. There can be no ceasing of the fight that the people you are criticising are fighting until, first and foremost, late C20th mass immigration is halted and the harm it, and all the associated anti-racist bullshit, has done is recognised, and the antiracist stuff is recognised for what it mostly is - anti-white racism. That's the absolute bottom line. Any other approach is abject surrender. And if you really want to stop the drift towards white identity then you should get behind the drive to halt mass immigration and end anti-white discrimination. Because the simple fact is that the more America becomes a state without a clear ethnic majority, the more it will move towards a state in which ethnic identity politics dominate all, and the more necessary and inevitable white identity becomes.

    Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe?
     
    For the reason explicitly set out in Derbyshire's piece, obviously - the same basic globalism versus nationalism dynamic is playing out on both continents, albeit shaped to the particular national contexts.

    But you knew that, of course.
    , @Hunsdon
    You have to go back.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country

    There’s no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back.
     
    The End of History, so to speak. If a plot of land can go from 90% one race to 50% that race in 50 years, it can go back to 90% in 50 years. I agree that it's incredibly unlikely that the U.S. is going to be 90% white again, but that's not to say that it can't.

    History is replete with examples of territory changing hands. How Jewish was Palestine in 1945?

    Ask yourself what you’re trying to accomplish here.
     
    Here's my list in order of priority/achievability:

    1. Create a sense of European/White identity among my fellow European Americans while pushing back against the anti-white establishment. This sense of identity would lead to . . .

    2. Creation cultural and political organizations for whites. These would be patterned after Jewish groups. Use these organizations to push for white interests in all aspects of our society. In particular, use this power to halt all non-white immigration since it's "Not Good for the Whites." Once whites have established themselves as a separate, cohesive group in society, we would push for . . .

    3. Establishment of European American enclaves within the greater society. Naturally, this would be by choice, i.e. no white would be forced to join such enclaves. There would be neighborhoods, schools and business areas that would be defacto European American. To some degree, you see this in cities in Europe where Muslims are quietly taking over and enforcing Sharia law on the streets. Once areas have become a safe haven for whites who choose to live among their own, we would push for . . .

    4. Creation of a white homeland. Instead of being an enclave within a society, we would become our own country.

    Now, if you say, Citizen, you're living in a fantasy world, I'd point out that my plan looks very similar to what Jews were planning in 1900. Also, how much countries that are now Muslim were not 100 years ago. Finally, who would have thought looking at the world in 1900, that Western European who dominated the world at the time and seemed destined expand their power and people would be reeling little more than a century later.

    Things change.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world.

     

    You are wrong. To stop globalists, you must the most simple retort to their endlessly clever - and disingenuous - arguments for why immigration will improve the "well-being" of American citizens. Once you turn this into a debate club, the globalists will win. But globalists can't get around the most simple of answers to why a person should not be allowed into your land: He's not my race.

    Every other argument loses eventually.

    but I wonder if it’s lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan’s focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese.

     

    In Japan, race and nation are the same thing. That's the whole point. Your two sentences contradict each other and frankly a bit embarrassing.

    It’s already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder.

     

    Yes, the situation where every group but whites views itself as a separate group and acts in accordance is bad enough, so you whites shouldn't join in. For the good of these other tribal groups, you shouldn't act tribal as well.

    Do you actually read what you write.

    Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations?

     

    Yeah, because integrating a small number of Malay and Indians is the same as mixing Hispanics and blacks. I'm sure that your fellow Asian Americans would be all for it.
    , @Jason Liu
    Singapore would be better off if it was more homogeneous than it is now. How would Japan remain Japanese if it wasn't ethnically Japanese and racially East Asian?

    And what is this "Confucian statesman" thing you keep bringing up? There's nothing specifically Confucian about LKY. If anything his "Asian values"is more in line with Southeast Asian communitarianism.
    , @attilathehen
    You will not be able to get through to Derbyshire because he has an imported Chinese wife and offspring. Derbyshire is thoroughly deranged. He babbles about Europe but has China stalking the rooms of his home. Always cherchez la femme/le homme of these "nationalists."
    , @utu
    This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    I think this is pretty accurate assessment. But there is more. Note the good job they do in propagandizing on behalf of Israel and Jews via the HBD meme. They think that this is the only way to buy themselves a limited immunity. Do they think they can strike a bargain with the devil? Anyway, they should know that the devil will pull the plug from their little operations the moment they may become successful. This might be the reason they fear nothing more than the success. In the mean time they make some extra income and keep producing more Zionists among Whites on the Right. This is not a bad feat to transform anti-semitic right into Jew loving Zionists. This was the MO of Marine Le Pen and her split from her father's tradition.

    BTW, flexing muscle by Poland, Hungary and Slovakia is only possible because of their complete loyalty to the US and Israel. They can do what they do only because US/Israel is implementing the plan of weakening the EU and especially Germany. Germany can't be allowed to link economically with Russia. Brexit is a part of the same plan. The UK does not want to go down with the EU.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Appreciate your thoughtful comment but in large part cannot agree.

    Not to be too snarky, but remember where the word nation comes from. Look at the root in Latin. It had everything to do with race, i.e. our broadly extended family. Genetics and culture are both essential to a nation, properly understood. Otherwise it may be a "country" but not a "nation."
    , @polskijoe
    I am European minded and born. I agree the US cant be considered a completely white nation.
    Thats part of the reason I disagree with American white nationalists (the other is some of them are neonazis).

    In Europe tradition, monarchs, monoethnic, monoChristian religion and European values were key.

    The US was always Freemasonic (opposing monarchs), freedom of religion and all that stuff.
    Originally the population was British/Irish, then came Germans, then Italians/Poles, etc.
    However, there was always a significant Negro population (most of them are mixed now).

    |The Monroe Doctine (supported by Anglos) was opposed by Europeans traditionalists..

    USA will never be a white nation. The only thing you can hope for is separatism (which is still very difficullt).

    , @Loveofknowledge

    Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I’m sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.
     
    Here are a couple of good quotes from Lee Kuan Yew. These are from page 30 of "Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master's Insights on China, the United States, and the World". Somehow I think Derb, Sailer, et al would rather like this guy.

    "Multiculturalism will destroy America. There is a danger that large numbers of Mexicans and others from South and Central America will continue to come to the U.S. and spread their culture across the whole of the country. If they breed faster than the WASPs [white Anglo-Saxon Protestants] and are living with them, whose culture will prevail? Will the WASPs change them, or will the immigrants change the existing culture? They will change each other, but it would be sad for American culture to be changed even partially."
     
    That was originally from 2011. And the other quote:

    "Long term for America, if you project another 100 years, 150 years into the 22nd century, whether you stay on top depends upon the kind of society you will be, because if present trends continue, you will have a Hispanic element in your society that is about 30%, 40%. So, the question is, do you make the Hispanics Anglo-Saxons in culture or do they make you more Latin American in culture? ...If they come in drips and drabs and you scatter them across America, then you will change their culture, but if they come in large numbers, like Miami, and they stay together, or in California, then their culture will continue, and they may well affect the Anglo-Saxon culture around them. That is the real test."
     
    Openly extolling the virtues of Anglo-Saxon culture? Lee Kuan Yew would get run of the USA on a rail!
    , @Pete22
    False.

    Nationalism mostly is irrelevant, morally and in every other sense, except as a preservation mechanism for borders assisted racialism. That's its only value.

    Nationalism is doomed to fail as a stand-alone concept, and especially apart from its role as a preserver of race.

    Its existence is as a transitionary idea leading from smaller territorial tribalism to cohesive international racialism. It destroys the former and inhibits the latter.

    Nationalism won't be able to function civically or as a defensible concept globally apart from this role. A lack of borders assisted racialism, within the concept of nationalism, makes nations internally dysfunctional and leads to civic and international political decline.

    The worst case scenario, and likely one that is slated for future world reality, is that of racialism without borders. Nationalism's dissolution will hasten that framework, and force the races who can adapt to do so (essentially making them equivalent to international Jews), but those at the bottom of the socioeconomic and culturally performing racial hierarchy will continue to lose their identities and their racial integrity. Don't expect the same for those at the top, across most of the ruling races.

    Defending nationalism at the cost of racialism is a de facto persecution of the ethnopolitical integrity of the lower classes, in that you assign to them a doomed-to-fail concept as a replacement for the concept that offers them sociopolitical protection, and thus is an assault on their struggle to avoid de facto slavery.

    Without ethnopolitical coherence, they lose their political strength. Those without political strength are de facto slaves to groups with such strength. Your type of opinion is nothing more than this persecution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/globalists-vs-nationalists-in-europe-and-in-the-u-s/#comment-2002676
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Realist says:

    Vikor Orban – One of the few intelligent white leaders on the planet.

    Read More
  3. Randal says:
    @Yan Shen
    Every sane person should support nationalism, the idea that a country exists first and foremost for its own citizens. The problem is that nationalism outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa proper often becomes corrupted into racialism.

    I sound like a broken record at this point, but perhaps I can get through to Mr. Derbyshire here. America has a unique history, like Singapore, which ensures that it'll always be more multicultural than the countries of Europe, Asia, or Africa. I support racial nationalism for those places, but once again let's acknowledge that America has a different history. There's no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back. Ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish here. No one who's here legally is going to be deported, unless we literally have the 4th Reich here in the United States.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world. Rational people can be convinced that it's in all of our interests as Americans that we curtail some of the excesses of recent years, such as unbridled immigration. Unfortunately you can't sell that message by repeatedly insinuating that only descendants of white Europeans are somehow "real" Americans. That kind of message doesn't unite, it divides. This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire like to hold up Japan as a paragon for the sort of nationalistic country that America should aspire to be, but I wonder if it's lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan's focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese. They don't see themselves as being part of an existential Song of Ice and Fire, so to speak. Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe? Let them deal with their own problems. As Americans we have ours to deal with. If Europe is too dumb to enforce its own borders and sensible immigration policies, then let it suffer the consequences! We're all grown men and women here.

    The fact of the matter is Derb, this is the state we find ourselves in in America today. For better or worse, these people are your neighbors and your countrymen, whether or not you like them or feel any particular affinity towards them. It's already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder. Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I'm sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    Same old siren call of appeasement and surrender: give in, don’t fight, accept what has been done to you and “move on”. Somehow that will mean a decent settlement can be achieved, and not that those who have attacked (and make no mistake, mass immigration has been and is a deliberate attack on the indigenous people, whether in the US or in Europe – the US is no longer the expanding settler colonial nation it was a century and more ago) will be emboldened to consolidate what they have and push further.

    Here’s the core of the issue. There can be no ceasing of the fight that the people you are criticising are fighting until, first and foremost, late C20th mass immigration is halted and the harm it, and all the associated anti-racist bullshit, has done is recognised, and the antiracist stuff is recognised for what it mostly is – anti-white racism. That’s the absolute bottom line. Any other approach is abject surrender. And if you really want to stop the drift towards white identity then you should get behind the drive to halt mass immigration and end anti-white discrimination. Because the simple fact is that the more America becomes a state without a clear ethnic majority, the more it will move towards a state in which ethnic identity politics dominate all, and the more necessary and inevitable white identity becomes.

    Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe?

    For the reason explicitly set out in Derbyshire’s piece, obviously – the same basic globalism versus nationalism dynamic is playing out on both continents, albeit shaped to the particular national contexts.

    But you knew that, of course.

    Read More
  4. Randal says:

    Steve Bannon’s interview with CBS’ Charlie Rose delighted VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow

    Shame that so many of the decently nationalist types turn out to be foaming idiots and/or liars as far as foreign policy is concerned:

    Steve Bannon compares China to 1930s Germany and says US must confront Beijing

    Goes with the territory I suppose.

    A hundred years from now, this is what they’ll remember — what we did to confront China on its rise to world domination,” Bannon told the New York Times.

    “China right now is Germany in 1930,” he said. “It’s on the cusp. It could go one way or the other. The younger generation is so patriotic, almost ultranationalistic.”

    Bannon, I understand, has lived in China, so this fatuous and childishly propagandist assertion is not based upon ignorance of Chinese society. Therefore he’s either profoundly ignorant of early C20th European history or he’s just lying for propaganda reasons.

    If there’s a comparison to be made for China today in its patriotic fervour and its geostrategic rise, it’s with early C20th America and not with the utterly different 1930s Germany. Clearly, any such comparison is imprecise, and there are reasons to regard China’s rise as both more and less problematic than was the rise of the US. But if there’s one course of action absolutely guaranteed to push China in the wrong direction, it’s military confrontation and an attempt to cling on by military means to the anachronistic US dominance of the western Pacific.

    Bannon previously lived in Shanghai where he ran an online gaming company, but returned to the US in 2008. He has long been convinced the US is headed for a major confrontation with China.

    “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016 on a Breitbart podcast. “There’s no doubt about that.

    If he’s really stupid enough to think that a war with China would be anything but a catastrophe for the region and for the US – even if the US were to “win” it, then it is hard to avoid the conclusion, even for someone like myself who regards his domestic programs and attitudes as vital parts of a crucial fight between nationalism and globalism as described by Derbyshire above, that the world is better off with him outside the US government.

    The hardest thing in the world seems to be to find nationalists that are not warmongers. That’s unsurprising, perhaps inevitable, but still necessary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    It is easy to find nationalists who are not warmongers, if you look at ethnonationalists. The alt-right is anti-war. The warmongers are the main line conservatives and liberals who in common champion the non-ethnic proposition nation-state. These are the folks bombarding third world countries with CronyCap Industries XF-1 Freedom Inflicter drone strikes in an insane effort to turn them into Sweden with a suntan. All they've done so far is burn through trillions of dollars, and turned Sweden into Sweden with a suntan.
    , @utu
    I had a soft spot for Bannon as he was the only one who could articulate what Trump could be all about (not that Trump knew himself what he was all about). His talk about China is troubling unless it is purely Machiavellian with intention to move towards national economy and reindustrialization. But at this stage of the game I think it is all over so what Bannon thinks or says is irrelevant.
    , @Kenny
    "The hardest thing in the world seems to be to find nationalists that are not warmongers."

    I couldn't disagree more....that isn't what the problem is..the problem is that there aren't enough warmongers who are nationalists willing to fight for their people..The problem is the exact opposite of what you are saying.
  5. szopen says:

    While it’s true that Poles would support leaving EU if that would be the only way to stop “refugees”, the truth is also that vast majority of Poles, unfortunately, still support EU membership in gneral, and even blindly supports “tighter integration”. The support is the range of 80s percents, and in younger generation in 70% something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The cancer always will find a way to spread in eventually.
    , @Wally
    You missed the point.

    Sure, they support the EU free ride, as long as they don't have to take useless 'refugees'.
    Clearly they would leave the EU if they had to make a choice.

    , @polskijoe
    completely agreed.

    the good news in Poland, is that since 2000
    support for EU is dropping.

    if Poles leave now, there will be lots of protests (mostly leftists).
    if the tension with EU continues more Poles will dislike EU.

    the bad news in Poland, leftists are growing. Now up to 30 percent are modern liberals.
  6. @szopen
    While it's true that Poles would support leaving EU if that would be the only way to stop "refugees", the truth is also that vast majority of Poles, unfortunately, still support EU membership in gneral, and even blindly supports "tighter integration". The support is the range of 80s percents, and in younger generation in 70% something.

    The cancer always will find a way to spread in eventually.

    Read More
  7. Henceforth, immigration should be defined as new people who don’t upset the national character.

    So, Jews moving to Israel is immigration. Germans in Ukraine moving to Germany is immigration.

    But when masses of the Other arrive, it is colonization or demographic imperialism. If millions of Muslims or Hindus arrive in Israel, it is doomed.

    So, immigration adds more of the same. If Anglos move to Anglo-made nation, that is immigration.

    When millions of Chinese or Hindus arrive in Canada, it is colonization or demographic imperialism. Or mass imperialism.

    Read More
  8. Nationalists advocate the de-centralization of power in the West. Nationalists therefore are anti-imperialist. The Anglo/Zio Empire is in steep decline. Advantage Nationalist. The EU will fall apart first. How many divisions does Brussels have? The United States will balkanize only after the final fall of Imperial Washington.

    More power to Hungary! The Greeks are too dumb to get out. Evidently the French also. The Brits appear set to dither for decades. Logically it would be East Europe that would break off first. The further west you go the more entrenched the Empire.

    Read More
  9. Tiny Duck says:

    In the final analysis, Bannon comes across as nothing more than a ‘drunken, power mad narcissus.’

    That would make him the perfect accomplice for a power mad, inept narcissus with a fake tan and an army of angry Caucasians who have lost power, prestige and their ability to cope with a changing America.

    Read More
  10. Alfa158 says:
    @Randal

    Steve Bannon’s interview with CBS’ Charlie Rose delighted VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow
     
    Shame that so many of the decently nationalist types turn out to be foaming idiots and/or liars as far as foreign policy is concerned:

    Steve Bannon compares China to 1930s Germany and says US must confront Beijing

    Goes with the territory I suppose.


    A hundred years from now, this is what they’ll remember — what we did to confront China on its rise to world domination,” Bannon told the New York Times.

    “China right now is Germany in 1930,” he said. “It’s on the cusp. It could go one way or the other. The younger generation is so patriotic, almost ultranationalistic.”
     

    Bannon, I understand, has lived in China, so this fatuous and childishly propagandist assertion is not based upon ignorance of Chinese society. Therefore he's either profoundly ignorant of early C20th European history or he's just lying for propaganda reasons.

    If there's a comparison to be made for China today in its patriotic fervour and its geostrategic rise, it's with early C20th America and not with the utterly different 1930s Germany. Clearly, any such comparison is imprecise, and there are reasons to regard China's rise as both more and less problematic than was the rise of the US. But if there's one course of action absolutely guaranteed to push China in the wrong direction, it's military confrontation and an attempt to cling on by military means to the anachronistic US dominance of the western Pacific.


    Bannon previously lived in Shanghai where he ran an online gaming company, but returned to the US in 2008. He has long been convinced the US is headed for a major confrontation with China.

    “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016 on a Breitbart podcast. “There’s no doubt about that.
     

    If he's really stupid enough to think that a war with China would be anything but a catastrophe for the region and for the US - even if the US were to "win" it, then it is hard to avoid the conclusion, even for someone like myself who regards his domestic programs and attitudes as vital parts of a crucial fight between nationalism and globalism as described by Derbyshire above, that the world is better off with him outside the US government.

    The hardest thing in the world seems to be to find nationalists that are not warmongers. That's unsurprising, perhaps inevitable, but still necessary.

    It is easy to find nationalists who are not warmongers, if you look at ethnonationalists. The alt-right is anti-war. The warmongers are the main line conservatives and liberals who in common champion the non-ethnic proposition nation-state. These are the folks bombarding third world countries with CronyCap Industries XF-1 Freedom Inflicter drone strikes in an insane effort to turn them into Sweden with a suntan. All they’ve done so far is burn through trillions of dollars, and turned Sweden into Sweden with a suntan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    It is easy to find nationalists who are not warmongers, if you look at ethnonationalists. The alt-right is anti-war
     
    You might well be correct there as a general rule, though my impression is that there are plenty of people in the Trumpist coalition who combine a degree of ethnonationalism with a degree of support for interventionist wars (perhaps often rooted in a blind support for the US military).

    The warmongers are the main line conservatives and liberals
     
    Of course, but that is obvious.

    The problem is when people like Bannon, whom you might expect would see things differently from the globalist interventionist consensus, seem to find their own reasons to collaborate in particular elite warmongering efforts.
  11. Smiddy says:

    It isn’t just “change” every socioeconomic demographic for the American middle class has been plummeting since the 60s – and the immigration of people who add nothing to the middle class is a primary cause of this you nitwit. Immigration breeds pluralism which breeds infighting which enables globalists to further victimize (particularly) the middle and lower classes, let alone all loyal Americans… You say “change” like someone who doesn’t understand how short of a shelf life multi-ethnic societies have historically had – in fact feel free to name me a historical country in which the founding ethnicity became a minority, and it still functioned successfully (let alone not collapsed – which is the norm).

    Though I’m sure this is way too complex for someone as emotional as you to understand. Just surprised to see such a pathetic comment here at theUR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    Who were you responding to? You did not make that clear in your post.
  12. Poles may be ‘dumb’, but you gotta love them sometimes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    It might be all kabuki, but its very entertaining kabuki!
  13. Brabantian says: • Website

    How the anti-globalist hope of millions, US President Donald Trump, may be going down -

    Roger Stone says Donald Trump is likely being drugged by his aides as prelude to a coup d’état … and that Chief of Staff John Kelly may be doing the drugging, after pressuring Trump’s long-time personal bodyguard Keith Schiller to leave the White House, Schiller regarded as a personal aide totally loyal to & protective of Trump.

    Roger Stone says, “The president does not drink, the president most certainly does not do drugs. With a loyalist like Schiller no longer standing next to the president, incapacitating him would be relatively easy.” More from Kit Daniels:

    « Trump’s reportedly sudden shifts in behavior mesh perfectly – too perfectly – with the establishment media’s prediction that the president would soon suffer cognitive issues.

    « Deep state operatives are putting sedatives in President Trump’s food & drink to make him more pliable & disoriented, according to multiple White House sources … Insiders close to Trump noticed his slurred speech & sleepiness over the past several months, which are strikingly similar to changes observed in former Presidents John F. Kennedy & Ronald Reagan, both of whom were sedated. »

    Just to recall … Donald Trump on fire, in excerpts from maybe his greatest campaign speech, ‘Donald Trump Names the Globalists’ … Whatever happens to Trump, or whatever Trump does or doesn’t do, this is the Trump we will always remember … video 5min28sec

    Read More
  14. @Priss Factor
    Poles may be 'dumb', but you gotta love them sometimes.

    https://twitter.com/polNewsInfinity/status/907333257267642370

    It might be all kabuki, but its very entertaining kabuki!

    Read More
  15. Tiny Duck says:

    whites have no real right to life

    we never created we only stole

    we taught war to People of Color

    we hate homosexuals and Muslims

    we killed the Indians

    we enslaved the Blacks

    the world would be a better place without us

    Read More
    • Replies: @fish

    Oh Trent....why you be such a ghey haterz?!

    - Leonard Pitts
     
  16. Hunsdon says:
    @Yan Shen
    Every sane person should support nationalism, the idea that a country exists first and foremost for its own citizens. The problem is that nationalism outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa proper often becomes corrupted into racialism.

    I sound like a broken record at this point, but perhaps I can get through to Mr. Derbyshire here. America has a unique history, like Singapore, which ensures that it'll always be more multicultural than the countries of Europe, Asia, or Africa. I support racial nationalism for those places, but once again let's acknowledge that America has a different history. There's no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back. Ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish here. No one who's here legally is going to be deported, unless we literally have the 4th Reich here in the United States.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world. Rational people can be convinced that it's in all of our interests as Americans that we curtail some of the excesses of recent years, such as unbridled immigration. Unfortunately you can't sell that message by repeatedly insinuating that only descendants of white Europeans are somehow "real" Americans. That kind of message doesn't unite, it divides. This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire like to hold up Japan as a paragon for the sort of nationalistic country that America should aspire to be, but I wonder if it's lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan's focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese. They don't see themselves as being part of an existential Song of Ice and Fire, so to speak. Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe? Let them deal with their own problems. As Americans we have ours to deal with. If Europe is too dumb to enforce its own borders and sensible immigration policies, then let it suffer the consequences! We're all grown men and women here.

    The fact of the matter is Derb, this is the state we find ourselves in in America today. For better or worse, these people are your neighbors and your countrymen, whether or not you like them or feel any particular affinity towards them. It's already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder. Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I'm sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    You have to go back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tiny Duck
    You are a fake American and have no place in this country

    whenever Trump is taken out and the democrats take over (inevitable because of demographics) we will take measures to make sure those with evil views are dealt with
  17. Responding to this week’s ruling, the East Europeans are defiant

    “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

    Pass the popcorn, please.

    Read More
  18. Tiny Duck says:
    @Hunsdon
    You have to go back.

    You are a fake American and have no place in this country

    whenever Trump is taken out and the democrats take over (inevitable because of demographics) we will take measures to make sure those with evil views are dealt with

    Read More
  19. The arguments would be much easier if nationalists were opposed only by globalists. In fact, many of our opponents are not true globalists but ethno-masochists.

    Ethno-masochists believe that we’ve got it coming for our crimes of colonialism, slavery, and imperialism. By “we”, of course they do not mean themselves, but other people who share their ethnicity – even people like the Swedes who did not participate in colonialism, slavery or imperialism (except against other whites). Ethno-masochists do not even care whether hostile immigrants themselves have a history of colonialism, slavery or imperialism – because they are not making a rational argument, they are indulging their personal ethno-masochism. It is important to fight them on these terms, and not accept the idea of a hereditary guilt that applies only to ourselves.

    Ethno-masochism is really “masochism by proxy”. Ethno-masochists obtain a particular pleasure from “socking it” to nationalists and conservatives whom they imagine to be the heirs of the imperialists and slave traders. This attitude was openly declared by Andrew Neather, an aide to Tony Blair, who declared that the purpose of mass immigration to Britain was not to fulfil any needs of the country, but “to rub the right’s nose in diversity” and “make diversity irreversible”.

    Ethno-masochists are dangerous opponents. Globalism at least has rational arguments that can be countered. It is possible to argue, for example, that we don’t want globalism because it does not benefit the vast majority of our citizens. In contrast, the ethno-masochist will not be satisfied until all Trump voters and Daily Mail readers have been vanquished, and he/she does not care whether their own country is destroyed in the process.

    Read More
  20. 9/11/73. The beginning of the most brutal economic policy ever perpetrated on the world – neoliberalism and the rise of the Globalists. If people only knew that THEY are the real fascists, pointing fingers at everyone else. My wish is that people would call out HRC on this during her book tour.

    Remember when WL revealed that she called for a hemispheric, borderless world in one of her corporate speeches? That is their intention. It began with the EU, now the ME region, but proving difficult to conquer Syria and Iran. Remember when they wanted to form the North American Union? Because once these regions are in place, the corporate dictatorship would be realized.

    Destroying the Constitution is priority #1 since the neoliberals detest anything having to do with human and environmental rights. (TPP?) Losing nationhood would also strip our right to a sovereign government that can issue new money for fiscal investment in the public good. Turning the world into Greece through sham science austerity tactics is their modus operandi.

    When ANTIFA began chanting “No Nations, No Borders…” that was a dead giveaway that the globalists were behind that engineered group.

    Here is a great article (below) on the formation of the EU by none other than the remnants of the Nazi regime!

    Walter Hallstein and Walther Funk were the link to furthering this imperialist agenda post WWII:

    “Daniel J. Beddowes and Flavio Cipollini, who together authored a book titled The EU: The Truth About the Fourth Reich – How Hitler Won the Second World War, argue that Funk put the finishing touches on the plans for what is today the EU.

    According to Beddowes and Cipollini, “[i]t was Funk who predicted the coming of European economic unity. Funk was also Adolf Hitler’s economics minister and his key economics advisor.” The authors indicate that Hitler’s post-war plans foresaw a federalized, economically integrated European Union free of “the clutter of small nations,” and that these plans were themselves based on a belief held by Lenin, that “federation is a transitional form towards complete union of all nations.” Therefore, argue the authors, it is not by chance that the EU closely resembles Hitler’s blueprint for a unified Europe, and that most EU member-states are getting poorer while Germany is continuously getting richer.”

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/neoliberalism-nazi…/231660/

    Read More
  21. KenH says:

    Kudos to Victor Orban. I can’t imagine any cucky, “race doesn’t matter” U.S. or Western European politician proclaiming that the U.S. or W. Europe is not an immigrant country or doesn’t intend to be one. All hell would break loose especially in the U.S. and the offender would never work in this town (D.C.) ever again in “free” America. The Jewish elites would see to that.

    What Orban is rally saying his that over his dead body will Hungary become a revolving door for the Middle East and other parts of the third world. It’s a good thing their welfare benefits lag far behind their Western brethren which attracts the third world hordes. So for now Hungary isn’t a top destination for “migrants”.

    The Congress overwhelmingly condemned white people who don’t hate themselves or wish to become a persecuted minority in their own nation.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-unanimously-approves-resolution-condemning-white-nationalists-n800816

    Read More
  22. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck
    whites have no real right to life

    we never created we only stole

    we taught war to People of Color

    we hate homosexuals and Muslims

    we killed the Indians

    we enslaved the Blacks

    the world would be a better place without us

    Oh Trent….why you be such a ghey haterz?!

    - Leonard Pitts

    Read More
  23. Wally says:
    @szopen
    While it's true that Poles would support leaving EU if that would be the only way to stop "refugees", the truth is also that vast majority of Poles, unfortunately, still support EU membership in gneral, and even blindly supports "tighter integration". The support is the range of 80s percents, and in younger generation in 70% something.

    You missed the point.

    Sure, they support the EU free ride, as long as they don’t have to take useless ‘refugees’.
    Clearly they would leave the EU if they had to make a choice.

    Read More
  24. Wally says:
    @Priss Factor
    Henceforth, immigration should be defined as new people who don't upset the national character.

    So, Jews moving to Israel is immigration. Germans in Ukraine moving to Germany is immigration.

    But when masses of the Other arrive, it is colonization or demographic imperialism. If millions of Muslims or Hindus arrive in Israel, it is doomed.

    So, immigration adds more of the same. If Anglos move to Anglo-made nation, that is immigration.

    When millions of Chinese or Hindus arrive in Canada, it is colonization or demographic imperialism. Or mass imperialism.

    Correct.

    So?

    Read More
  25. @Yan Shen
    Every sane person should support nationalism, the idea that a country exists first and foremost for its own citizens. The problem is that nationalism outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa proper often becomes corrupted into racialism.

    I sound like a broken record at this point, but perhaps I can get through to Mr. Derbyshire here. America has a unique history, like Singapore, which ensures that it'll always be more multicultural than the countries of Europe, Asia, or Africa. I support racial nationalism for those places, but once again let's acknowledge that America has a different history. There's no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back. Ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish here. No one who's here legally is going to be deported, unless we literally have the 4th Reich here in the United States.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world. Rational people can be convinced that it's in all of our interests as Americans that we curtail some of the excesses of recent years, such as unbridled immigration. Unfortunately you can't sell that message by repeatedly insinuating that only descendants of white Europeans are somehow "real" Americans. That kind of message doesn't unite, it divides. This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire like to hold up Japan as a paragon for the sort of nationalistic country that America should aspire to be, but I wonder if it's lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan's focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese. They don't see themselves as being part of an existential Song of Ice and Fire, so to speak. Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe? Let them deal with their own problems. As Americans we have ours to deal with. If Europe is too dumb to enforce its own borders and sensible immigration policies, then let it suffer the consequences! We're all grown men and women here.

    The fact of the matter is Derb, this is the state we find ourselves in in America today. For better or worse, these people are your neighbors and your countrymen, whether or not you like them or feel any particular affinity towards them. It's already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder. Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I'm sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    There’s no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back.

    The End of History, so to speak. If a plot of land can go from 90% one race to 50% that race in 50 years, it can go back to 90% in 50 years. I agree that it’s incredibly unlikely that the U.S. is going to be 90% white again, but that’s not to say that it can’t.

    History is replete with examples of territory changing hands. How Jewish was Palestine in 1945?

    Ask yourself what you’re trying to accomplish here.

    Here’s my list in order of priority/achievability:

    1. Create a sense of European/White identity among my fellow European Americans while pushing back against the anti-white establishment. This sense of identity would lead to . . .

    2. Creation cultural and political organizations for whites. These would be patterned after Jewish groups. Use these organizations to push for white interests in all aspects of our society. In particular, use this power to halt all non-white immigration since it’s “Not Good for the Whites.” Once whites have established themselves as a separate, cohesive group in society, we would push for . . .

    3. Establishment of European American enclaves within the greater society. Naturally, this would be by choice, i.e. no white would be forced to join such enclaves. There would be neighborhoods, schools and business areas that would be defacto European American. To some degree, you see this in cities in Europe where Muslims are quietly taking over and enforcing Sharia law on the streets. Once areas have become a safe haven for whites who choose to live among their own, we would push for . . .

    4. Creation of a white homeland. Instead of being an enclave within a society, we would become our own country.

    Now, if you say, Citizen, you’re living in a fantasy world, I’d point out that my plan looks very similar to what Jews were planning in 1900. Also, how much countries that are now Muslim were not 100 years ago. Finally, who would have thought looking at the world in 1900, that Western European who dominated the world at the time and seemed destined expand their power and people would be reeling little more than a century later.

    Things change.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world.

    You are wrong. To stop globalists, you must the most simple retort to their endlessly clever – and disingenuous – arguments for why immigration will improve the “well-being” of American citizens. Once you turn this into a debate club, the globalists will win. But globalists can’t get around the most simple of answers to why a person should not be allowed into your land: He’s not my race.

    Every other argument loses eventually.

    but I wonder if it’s lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan’s focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese.

    In Japan, race and nation are the same thing. That’s the whole point. Your two sentences contradict each other and frankly a bit embarrassing.

    It’s already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder.

    Yes, the situation where every group but whites views itself as a separate group and acts in accordance is bad enough, so you whites shouldn’t join in. For the good of these other tribal groups, you shouldn’t act tribal as well.

    Do you actually read what you write.

    Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations?

    Yeah, because integrating a small number of Malay and Indians is the same as mixing Hispanics and blacks. I’m sure that your fellow Asian Americans would be all for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Here’s my list in order of priority/achievability:

    1. Create a sense of European/White identity among my fellow European Americans while pushing back against the anti-white establishment. This sense of identity would lead to . . ."

    A great deal of "European Americans" look at themselves as Americans sans the European moniker, who trace themselves to one or more European ethnic groups. You assume that white Americans today ought to focus on the macro label, rather on the micro label. Except, that emphasis on "European American" is out of date, much to your chagrin. Now, if white people want to refer to themselves as "European Americans", that is their liberty. But consider that Europeans who came to our land had their own political and social divisions, and carried with them that baggage of an "ethnic hierarchy" that has all but disappeared among today's white youth.

    "2. Creation cultural and political organizations for whites. These would be patterned after Jewish groups. Use these organizations to push for white interests in all aspects of our society. In particular, use this power to halt all non-white immigration since it’s “Not Good for the Whites.” Once whites have established themselves as a separate, cohesive group in society, we would push for . . .

    "3. Establishment of European American enclaves within the greater society. Naturally, this would be by choice, i.e. no white would be forced to join such enclaves. There would be neighborhoods, schools and business areas that would be defacto European American. To some degree, you see this in cities in Europe where Muslims are quietly taking over and enforcing Sharia law on the streets. Once areas have become a safe haven for whites who choose to live among their own, we would push for . . ."

    You have such enclaves within American society, but it is based on individual ethnicities. Today's white Americans have made that choice not to squarely identify as being "European Americans", but as a result, they are labeled "anti-white" or "cuck" merely for exercising that liberty.

    "4. Creation of a white homeland. Instead of being an enclave within a society, we would become our own country."

    And now you are overplaying your hand. Why should white people who work with or live among or are friends with non-white people suddenly demand that non-whites must leave? Why should white people leave their communities if they have intermingled with non-whites because it has been decreed that these places are now "white"? How would such a homeland be created? Who would be in charge of this process? How would such an arrangement pass constitutional muster? What would happen to those white people who refused to move?

    See, your proposal has a myriad of questions that require thoughtful answers.

    "Now, if you say, Citizen, you’re living in a fantasy world, I’d point out that my plan looks very similar to what Jews were planning in 1900."

    Americans aren't Jews.

    "Finally, who would have thought looking at the world in 1900, that Western European who dominated the world at the time and seemed destined expand their power and people would be reeling little more than a century later."

    Who would have thought that black people in 1500 would have been exported as slaves to "white lands"?

    Who would have thought that black and white people would have been separated by Jim Crow for decades in America?

    Who would have thought that Asians would no longer be barred from emigrating to the United States?

    Who would have thought that white people today, when making their own decisions based on race and culture, would be called "anti-white", "cuck", "race traitor", and "Churchian"?

    "In Japan, race and nation are the same thing. That’s the whole point."

    Americans is a nation of racial and ethnic mutts. Japan is not America.

  26. Jason Liu says:
    @Yan Shen
    Every sane person should support nationalism, the idea that a country exists first and foremost for its own citizens. The problem is that nationalism outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa proper often becomes corrupted into racialism.

    I sound like a broken record at this point, but perhaps I can get through to Mr. Derbyshire here. America has a unique history, like Singapore, which ensures that it'll always be more multicultural than the countries of Europe, Asia, or Africa. I support racial nationalism for those places, but once again let's acknowledge that America has a different history. There's no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back. Ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish here. No one who's here legally is going to be deported, unless we literally have the 4th Reich here in the United States.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world. Rational people can be convinced that it's in all of our interests as Americans that we curtail some of the excesses of recent years, such as unbridled immigration. Unfortunately you can't sell that message by repeatedly insinuating that only descendants of white Europeans are somehow "real" Americans. That kind of message doesn't unite, it divides. This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire like to hold up Japan as a paragon for the sort of nationalistic country that America should aspire to be, but I wonder if it's lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan's focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese. They don't see themselves as being part of an existential Song of Ice and Fire, so to speak. Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe? Let them deal with their own problems. As Americans we have ours to deal with. If Europe is too dumb to enforce its own borders and sensible immigration policies, then let it suffer the consequences! We're all grown men and women here.

    The fact of the matter is Derb, this is the state we find ourselves in in America today. For better or worse, these people are your neighbors and your countrymen, whether or not you like them or feel any particular affinity towards them. It's already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder. Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I'm sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    Singapore would be better off if it was more homogeneous than it is now. How would Japan remain Japanese if it wasn’t ethnically Japanese and racially East Asian?

    And what is this “Confucian statesman” thing you keep bringing up? There’s nothing specifically Confucian about LKY. If anything his “Asian values”is more in line with Southeast Asian communitarianism.

    Read More
  27. @Yan Shen
    Every sane person should support nationalism, the idea that a country exists first and foremost for its own citizens. The problem is that nationalism outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa proper often becomes corrupted into racialism.

    I sound like a broken record at this point, but perhaps I can get through to Mr. Derbyshire here. America has a unique history, like Singapore, which ensures that it'll always be more multicultural than the countries of Europe, Asia, or Africa. I support racial nationalism for those places, but once again let's acknowledge that America has a different history. There's no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back. Ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish here. No one who's here legally is going to be deported, unless we literally have the 4th Reich here in the United States.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world. Rational people can be convinced that it's in all of our interests as Americans that we curtail some of the excesses of recent years, such as unbridled immigration. Unfortunately you can't sell that message by repeatedly insinuating that only descendants of white Europeans are somehow "real" Americans. That kind of message doesn't unite, it divides. This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire like to hold up Japan as a paragon for the sort of nationalistic country that America should aspire to be, but I wonder if it's lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan's focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese. They don't see themselves as being part of an existential Song of Ice and Fire, so to speak. Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe? Let them deal with their own problems. As Americans we have ours to deal with. If Europe is too dumb to enforce its own borders and sensible immigration policies, then let it suffer the consequences! We're all grown men and women here.

    The fact of the matter is Derb, this is the state we find ourselves in in America today. For better or worse, these people are your neighbors and your countrymen, whether or not you like them or feel any particular affinity towards them. It's already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder. Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I'm sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    You will not be able to get through to Derbyshire because he has an imported Chinese wife and offspring. Derbyshire is thoroughly deranged. He babbles about Europe but has China stalking the rooms of his home. Always cherchez la femme/le homme of these “nationalists.”

    Read More
  28. pyrrhus says:

    “How’d that work out, Neville?”

    Would have worked out fine, infinitely better than what happened, if Britain hadn’t issued military guarantees to countries it couldn’t possibly defend….Result? A Britain that was still on food rationing in 1953, and that only survived because it induced the US to enter the war, after Hitler’s crazy attack on Russia.

    Otherwise, great column John!

    Read More
  29. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    There’s no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back.
     
    The End of History, so to speak. If a plot of land can go from 90% one race to 50% that race in 50 years, it can go back to 90% in 50 years. I agree that it's incredibly unlikely that the U.S. is going to be 90% white again, but that's not to say that it can't.

    History is replete with examples of territory changing hands. How Jewish was Palestine in 1945?

    Ask yourself what you’re trying to accomplish here.
     
    Here's my list in order of priority/achievability:

    1. Create a sense of European/White identity among my fellow European Americans while pushing back against the anti-white establishment. This sense of identity would lead to . . .

    2. Creation cultural and political organizations for whites. These would be patterned after Jewish groups. Use these organizations to push for white interests in all aspects of our society. In particular, use this power to halt all non-white immigration since it's "Not Good for the Whites." Once whites have established themselves as a separate, cohesive group in society, we would push for . . .

    3. Establishment of European American enclaves within the greater society. Naturally, this would be by choice, i.e. no white would be forced to join such enclaves. There would be neighborhoods, schools and business areas that would be defacto European American. To some degree, you see this in cities in Europe where Muslims are quietly taking over and enforcing Sharia law on the streets. Once areas have become a safe haven for whites who choose to live among their own, we would push for . . .

    4. Creation of a white homeland. Instead of being an enclave within a society, we would become our own country.

    Now, if you say, Citizen, you're living in a fantasy world, I'd point out that my plan looks very similar to what Jews were planning in 1900. Also, how much countries that are now Muslim were not 100 years ago. Finally, who would have thought looking at the world in 1900, that Western European who dominated the world at the time and seemed destined expand their power and people would be reeling little more than a century later.

    Things change.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world.

     

    You are wrong. To stop globalists, you must the most simple retort to their endlessly clever - and disingenuous - arguments for why immigration will improve the "well-being" of American citizens. Once you turn this into a debate club, the globalists will win. But globalists can't get around the most simple of answers to why a person should not be allowed into your land: He's not my race.

    Every other argument loses eventually.

    but I wonder if it’s lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan’s focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese.

     

    In Japan, race and nation are the same thing. That's the whole point. Your two sentences contradict each other and frankly a bit embarrassing.

    It’s already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder.

     

    Yes, the situation where every group but whites views itself as a separate group and acts in accordance is bad enough, so you whites shouldn't join in. For the good of these other tribal groups, you shouldn't act tribal as well.

    Do you actually read what you write.

    Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations?

     

    Yeah, because integrating a small number of Malay and Indians is the same as mixing Hispanics and blacks. I'm sure that your fellow Asian Americans would be all for it.

    “Here’s my list in order of priority/achievability:

    1. Create a sense of European/White identity among my fellow European Americans while pushing back against the anti-white establishment. This sense of identity would lead to . . .”

    A great deal of “European Americans” look at themselves as Americans sans the European moniker, who trace themselves to one or more European ethnic groups. You assume that white Americans today ought to focus on the macro label, rather on the micro label. Except, that emphasis on “European American” is out of date, much to your chagrin. Now, if white people want to refer to themselves as “European Americans”, that is their liberty. But consider that Europeans who came to our land had their own political and social divisions, and carried with them that baggage of an “ethnic hierarchy” that has all but disappeared among today’s white youth.

    “2. Creation cultural and political organizations for whites. These would be patterned after Jewish groups. Use these organizations to push for white interests in all aspects of our society. In particular, use this power to halt all non-white immigration since it’s “Not Good for the Whites.” Once whites have established themselves as a separate, cohesive group in society, we would push for . . .

    “3. Establishment of European American enclaves within the greater society. Naturally, this would be by choice, i.e. no white would be forced to join such enclaves. There would be neighborhoods, schools and business areas that would be defacto European American. To some degree, you see this in cities in Europe where Muslims are quietly taking over and enforcing Sharia law on the streets. Once areas have become a safe haven for whites who choose to live among their own, we would push for . . .”

    You have such enclaves within American society, but it is based on individual ethnicities. Today’s white Americans have made that choice not to squarely identify as being “European Americans”, but as a result, they are labeled “anti-white” or “cuck” merely for exercising that liberty.

    “4. Creation of a white homeland. Instead of being an enclave within a society, we would become our own country.”

    And now you are overplaying your hand. Why should white people who work with or live among or are friends with non-white people suddenly demand that non-whites must leave? Why should white people leave their communities if they have intermingled with non-whites because it has been decreed that these places are now “white”? How would such a homeland be created? Who would be in charge of this process? How would such an arrangement pass constitutional muster? What would happen to those white people who refused to move?

    See, your proposal has a myriad of questions that require thoughtful answers.

    “Now, if you say, Citizen, you’re living in a fantasy world, I’d point out that my plan looks very similar to what Jews were planning in 1900.”

    Americans aren’t Jews.

    “Finally, who would have thought looking at the world in 1900, that Western European who dominated the world at the time and seemed destined expand their power and people would be reeling little more than a century later.”

    Who would have thought that black people in 1500 would have been exported as slaves to “white lands”?

    Who would have thought that black and white people would have been separated by Jim Crow for decades in America?

    Who would have thought that Asians would no longer be barred from emigrating to the United States?

    Who would have thought that white people today, when making their own decisions based on race and culture, would be called “anti-white”, “cuck”, “race traitor”, and “Churchian”?

    “In Japan, race and nation are the same thing. That’s the whole point.”

    Americans is a nation of racial and ethnic mutts. Japan is not America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Good thing for Japan. And what we were was a nation of overwhelmingly white European mutts, with a dominant common culture and language and mores.

    That bears little resemblance to what we have become, and no resemblance to what this land will become if we don't reforge a common European American identity and fight as best we can.
  30. utu says:
    @Yan Shen
    Every sane person should support nationalism, the idea that a country exists first and foremost for its own citizens. The problem is that nationalism outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa proper often becomes corrupted into racialism.

    I sound like a broken record at this point, but perhaps I can get through to Mr. Derbyshire here. America has a unique history, like Singapore, which ensures that it'll always be more multicultural than the countries of Europe, Asia, or Africa. I support racial nationalism for those places, but once again let's acknowledge that America has a different history. There's no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back. Ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish here. No one who's here legally is going to be deported, unless we literally have the 4th Reich here in the United States.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world. Rational people can be convinced that it's in all of our interests as Americans that we curtail some of the excesses of recent years, such as unbridled immigration. Unfortunately you can't sell that message by repeatedly insinuating that only descendants of white Europeans are somehow "real" Americans. That kind of message doesn't unite, it divides. This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire like to hold up Japan as a paragon for the sort of nationalistic country that America should aspire to be, but I wonder if it's lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan's focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese. They don't see themselves as being part of an existential Song of Ice and Fire, so to speak. Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe? Let them deal with their own problems. As Americans we have ours to deal with. If Europe is too dumb to enforce its own borders and sensible immigration policies, then let it suffer the consequences! We're all grown men and women here.

    The fact of the matter is Derb, this is the state we find ourselves in in America today. For better or worse, these people are your neighbors and your countrymen, whether or not you like them or feel any particular affinity towards them. It's already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder. Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I'm sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    I think this is pretty accurate assessment. But there is more. Note the good job they do in propagandizing on behalf of Israel and Jews via the HBD meme. They think that this is the only way to buy themselves a limited immunity. Do they think they can strike a bargain with the devil? Anyway, they should know that the devil will pull the plug from their little operations the moment they may become successful. This might be the reason they fear nothing more than the success. In the mean time they make some extra income and keep producing more Zionists among Whites on the Right. This is not a bad feat to transform anti-semitic right into Jew loving Zionists. This was the MO of Marine Le Pen and her split from her father’s tradition.

    BTW, flexing muscle by Poland, Hungary and Slovakia is only possible because of their complete loyalty to the US and Israel. They can do what they do only because US/Israel is implementing the plan of weakening the EU and especially Germany. Germany can’t be allowed to link economically with Russia. Brexit is a part of the same plan. The UK does not want to go down with the EU.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Note the good job they do in propagandizing on behalf of Israel and Jews via the HBD meme. They think that this is the only way to buy themselves a limited immunity. Do they think they can strike a bargain with the devil?
     
    Here you move from observing their behaviour to speculating about the motives for it, which is unavoidably much more tricky.

    Some of the hbd types probably emphasise the jewish IQ advantage for the same reason they do the east Asian one, to reinforce their own intellectual consistency and refute charges that they are just "blowing their own [ethnic] trumpet". Some also doubtless believe it helps to protect them from the full force of the suppressive forces aimed at "anti-Semites". Hard to be sure which motivation is more important for which individual. Both probably apply in many cases.


    In the mean time they make some extra income and keep producing more Zionists among Whites on the Right. This is not a bad feat to transform anti-semitic right into Jew loving Zionists. This was the MO of Marine Le Pen and her split from her father’s tradition.
     
    The same corruption of the Front National occurred on the homosexualist issue as well, and similar methods were involved - the introduction of associates and "advisers" from the identity lobby in question at the highest levels. This process is also visibly in operation around Trump. It's more a matter of naivety and insufficient moral fibre on the part of the leaders themselves, imo, than anything hbd types write.
  31. utu says:
    @Randal

    Steve Bannon’s interview with CBS’ Charlie Rose delighted VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow
     
    Shame that so many of the decently nationalist types turn out to be foaming idiots and/or liars as far as foreign policy is concerned:

    Steve Bannon compares China to 1930s Germany and says US must confront Beijing

    Goes with the territory I suppose.


    A hundred years from now, this is what they’ll remember — what we did to confront China on its rise to world domination,” Bannon told the New York Times.

    “China right now is Germany in 1930,” he said. “It’s on the cusp. It could go one way or the other. The younger generation is so patriotic, almost ultranationalistic.”
     

    Bannon, I understand, has lived in China, so this fatuous and childishly propagandist assertion is not based upon ignorance of Chinese society. Therefore he's either profoundly ignorant of early C20th European history or he's just lying for propaganda reasons.

    If there's a comparison to be made for China today in its patriotic fervour and its geostrategic rise, it's with early C20th America and not with the utterly different 1930s Germany. Clearly, any such comparison is imprecise, and there are reasons to regard China's rise as both more and less problematic than was the rise of the US. But if there's one course of action absolutely guaranteed to push China in the wrong direction, it's military confrontation and an attempt to cling on by military means to the anachronistic US dominance of the western Pacific.


    Bannon previously lived in Shanghai where he ran an online gaming company, but returned to the US in 2008. He has long been convinced the US is headed for a major confrontation with China.

    “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016 on a Breitbart podcast. “There’s no doubt about that.
     

    If he's really stupid enough to think that a war with China would be anything but a catastrophe for the region and for the US - even if the US were to "win" it, then it is hard to avoid the conclusion, even for someone like myself who regards his domestic programs and attitudes as vital parts of a crucial fight between nationalism and globalism as described by Derbyshire above, that the world is better off with him outside the US government.

    The hardest thing in the world seems to be to find nationalists that are not warmongers. That's unsurprising, perhaps inevitable, but still necessary.

    I had a soft spot for Bannon as he was the only one who could articulate what Trump could be all about (not that Trump knew himself what he was all about). His talk about China is troubling unless it is purely Machiavellian with intention to move towards national economy and reindustrialization. But at this stage of the game I think it is all over so what Bannon thinks or says is irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    His talk about China is troubling unless it is purely Machiavellian with intention to move towards national economy and reindustrialization.
     
    I think the way he would probably defend it would be as some kind of "big stick waving" designed to incline China more towards accepting an overall deal on terms more favourable to the US.

    Imo, it's a dangerous underestimation of both China and the forces in the US establishment that would like to have a confrontation of China (unless Bannon's talk is genuinely straight on this and he actually shares that goal, which is also possible).

    But at this stage of the game I think it is all over so what Bannon thinks or says is irrelevant.
     
    Looking more and more likely imo.
  32. Randal says:
    @Alfa158
    It is easy to find nationalists who are not warmongers, if you look at ethnonationalists. The alt-right is anti-war. The warmongers are the main line conservatives and liberals who in common champion the non-ethnic proposition nation-state. These are the folks bombarding third world countries with CronyCap Industries XF-1 Freedom Inflicter drone strikes in an insane effort to turn them into Sweden with a suntan. All they've done so far is burn through trillions of dollars, and turned Sweden into Sweden with a suntan.

    It is easy to find nationalists who are not warmongers, if you look at ethnonationalists. The alt-right is anti-war

    You might well be correct there as a general rule, though my impression is that there are plenty of people in the Trumpist coalition who combine a degree of ethnonationalism with a degree of support for interventionist wars (perhaps often rooted in a blind support for the US military).

    The warmongers are the main line conservatives and liberals

    Of course, but that is obvious.

    The problem is when people like Bannon, whom you might expect would see things differently from the globalist interventionist consensus, seem to find their own reasons to collaborate in particular elite warmongering efforts.

    Read More
  33. Randal says:
    @utu
    I had a soft spot for Bannon as he was the only one who could articulate what Trump could be all about (not that Trump knew himself what he was all about). His talk about China is troubling unless it is purely Machiavellian with intention to move towards national economy and reindustrialization. But at this stage of the game I think it is all over so what Bannon thinks or says is irrelevant.

    His talk about China is troubling unless it is purely Machiavellian with intention to move towards national economy and reindustrialization.

    I think the way he would probably defend it would be as some kind of “big stick waving” designed to incline China more towards accepting an overall deal on terms more favourable to the US.

    Imo, it’s a dangerous underestimation of both China and the forces in the US establishment that would like to have a confrontation of China (unless Bannon’s talk is genuinely straight on this and he actually shares that goal, which is also possible).

    But at this stage of the game I think it is all over so what Bannon thinks or says is irrelevant.

    Looking more and more likely imo.

    Read More
  34. Randal says:
    @utu
    This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    I think this is pretty accurate assessment. But there is more. Note the good job they do in propagandizing on behalf of Israel and Jews via the HBD meme. They think that this is the only way to buy themselves a limited immunity. Do they think they can strike a bargain with the devil? Anyway, they should know that the devil will pull the plug from their little operations the moment they may become successful. This might be the reason they fear nothing more than the success. In the mean time they make some extra income and keep producing more Zionists among Whites on the Right. This is not a bad feat to transform anti-semitic right into Jew loving Zionists. This was the MO of Marine Le Pen and her split from her father's tradition.

    BTW, flexing muscle by Poland, Hungary and Slovakia is only possible because of their complete loyalty to the US and Israel. They can do what they do only because US/Israel is implementing the plan of weakening the EU and especially Germany. Germany can't be allowed to link economically with Russia. Brexit is a part of the same plan. The UK does not want to go down with the EU.

    Note the good job they do in propagandizing on behalf of Israel and Jews via the HBD meme. They think that this is the only way to buy themselves a limited immunity. Do they think they can strike a bargain with the devil?

    Here you move from observing their behaviour to speculating about the motives for it, which is unavoidably much more tricky.

    Some of the hbd types probably emphasise the jewish IQ advantage for the same reason they do the east Asian one, to reinforce their own intellectual consistency and refute charges that they are just “blowing their own [ethnic] trumpet”. Some also doubtless believe it helps to protect them from the full force of the suppressive forces aimed at “anti-Semites”. Hard to be sure which motivation is more important for which individual. Both probably apply in many cases.

    In the mean time they make some extra income and keep producing more Zionists among Whites on the Right. This is not a bad feat to transform anti-semitic right into Jew loving Zionists. This was the MO of Marine Le Pen and her split from her father’s tradition.

    The same corruption of the Front National occurred on the homosexualist issue as well, and similar methods were involved – the introduction of associates and “advisers” from the identity lobby in question at the highest levels. This process is also visibly in operation around Trump. It’s more a matter of naivety and insufficient moral fibre on the part of the leaders themselves, imo, than anything hbd types write.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Some of the hbd types probably emphasise the jewish IQ advantage for the same reason they do the east Asian one, to reinforce their own intellectual consistency and refute charges that they are just “blowing their own [ethnic] trumpet”. Some also doubtless believe it helps to protect them from the full force of the suppressive forces aimed at “anti-Semites”. Hard to be sure which motivation is more important for which individual. Both probably apply in many cases.
     
    Another motivation might be to simply explain reality, for example why Jews seem to dominate our societies. Unless we acknowledge the IQ advantage, we cannot explain this phenomenon at all.

    A fourth motivation is to paint the enemy as dangerous as possible, so as to rally your side and warn them off from trying to make deals with it. I think that this might be the motivation for Kevin MacDonald, for example.
  35. anon says: • Disclaimer

    New reports on the ongoing US program to arm Syria’s rebels have brought focus on several different operations. Among these is evidence that the US used the Ramstein Air Base in Germany as a route through which to ship the weapons.
    That’s a big problem, because all indications are that the United States never informed the German government of these shipments http://news.antiwar.com/2017/09/13/us-used-ramstein-base-to-arm-syrian-rebels-without-informing-german-govt/

    That’s what Al Qaida did to Afghanistan . This resulted in invasion or foreign arrival. May be every time foreigners arrive in the West , they arrive for the same reason but after modifying the scenario and the reasons . Enjoy it Derby and ask your European brethren to enjoy it as well. They went eagerly to Kabul and Baghdad even sometimes without being asked to come.
    Enjoy Derby. I am enjoying it.

    Read More
  36. Kenny says:
    @Randal

    Steve Bannon’s interview with CBS’ Charlie Rose delighted VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow
     
    Shame that so many of the decently nationalist types turn out to be foaming idiots and/or liars as far as foreign policy is concerned:

    Steve Bannon compares China to 1930s Germany and says US must confront Beijing

    Goes with the territory I suppose.


    A hundred years from now, this is what they’ll remember — what we did to confront China on its rise to world domination,” Bannon told the New York Times.

    “China right now is Germany in 1930,” he said. “It’s on the cusp. It could go one way or the other. The younger generation is so patriotic, almost ultranationalistic.”
     

    Bannon, I understand, has lived in China, so this fatuous and childishly propagandist assertion is not based upon ignorance of Chinese society. Therefore he's either profoundly ignorant of early C20th European history or he's just lying for propaganda reasons.

    If there's a comparison to be made for China today in its patriotic fervour and its geostrategic rise, it's with early C20th America and not with the utterly different 1930s Germany. Clearly, any such comparison is imprecise, and there are reasons to regard China's rise as both more and less problematic than was the rise of the US. But if there's one course of action absolutely guaranteed to push China in the wrong direction, it's military confrontation and an attempt to cling on by military means to the anachronistic US dominance of the western Pacific.


    Bannon previously lived in Shanghai where he ran an online gaming company, but returned to the US in 2008. He has long been convinced the US is headed for a major confrontation with China.

    “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016 on a Breitbart podcast. “There’s no doubt about that.
     

    If he's really stupid enough to think that a war with China would be anything but a catastrophe for the region and for the US - even if the US were to "win" it, then it is hard to avoid the conclusion, even for someone like myself who regards his domestic programs and attitudes as vital parts of a crucial fight between nationalism and globalism as described by Derbyshire above, that the world is better off with him outside the US government.

    The hardest thing in the world seems to be to find nationalists that are not warmongers. That's unsurprising, perhaps inevitable, but still necessary.

    “The hardest thing in the world seems to be to find nationalists that are not warmongers.”

    I couldn’t disagree more….that isn’t what the problem is..the problem is that there aren’t enough warmongers who are nationalists willing to fight for their people..The problem is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pete22
    “The hardest thing in the world seems to be to find nationalists that are not warmongers.”

    A curious opinion given that the extant root of the concept of modern internationalism mandates the destruction of nations, and thus culture, at all costs. It's a concept of unending international war.

  37. Randal says:

    I couldn’t disagree more….that isn’t what the problem is..the problem is that there aren’t enough warmongers who are nationalists willing to fight for their people..The problem is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

    I don’t think so, if I understand your point correctly. Do you mean that things would be fine if the warmongers were to focus their efforts on fighting the domestic enemies of their own people rather than, as they generally do at the moment, the overseas enemies of influential foreigners and lobby groups?

    If so, we aren’t really disagreeing, just coming at the same problem from different directions.

    Read More
  38. @Yan Shen
    Every sane person should support nationalism, the idea that a country exists first and foremost for its own citizens. The problem is that nationalism outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa proper often becomes corrupted into racialism.

    I sound like a broken record at this point, but perhaps I can get through to Mr. Derbyshire here. America has a unique history, like Singapore, which ensures that it'll always be more multicultural than the countries of Europe, Asia, or Africa. I support racial nationalism for those places, but once again let's acknowledge that America has a different history. There's no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back. Ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish here. No one who's here legally is going to be deported, unless we literally have the 4th Reich here in the United States.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world. Rational people can be convinced that it's in all of our interests as Americans that we curtail some of the excesses of recent years, such as unbridled immigration. Unfortunately you can't sell that message by repeatedly insinuating that only descendants of white Europeans are somehow "real" Americans. That kind of message doesn't unite, it divides. This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire like to hold up Japan as a paragon for the sort of nationalistic country that America should aspire to be, but I wonder if it's lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan's focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese. They don't see themselves as being part of an existential Song of Ice and Fire, so to speak. Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe? Let them deal with their own problems. As Americans we have ours to deal with. If Europe is too dumb to enforce its own borders and sensible immigration policies, then let it suffer the consequences! We're all grown men and women here.

    The fact of the matter is Derb, this is the state we find ourselves in in America today. For better or worse, these people are your neighbors and your countrymen, whether or not you like them or feel any particular affinity towards them. It's already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder. Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I'm sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    Appreciate your thoughtful comment but in large part cannot agree.

    Not to be too snarky, but remember where the word nation comes from. Look at the root in Latin. It had everything to do with race, i.e. our broadly extended family. Genetics and culture are both essential to a nation, properly understood. Otherwise it may be a “country” but not a “nation.”

    Read More
  39. @Corvinus
    "Here’s my list in order of priority/achievability:

    1. Create a sense of European/White identity among my fellow European Americans while pushing back against the anti-white establishment. This sense of identity would lead to . . ."

    A great deal of "European Americans" look at themselves as Americans sans the European moniker, who trace themselves to one or more European ethnic groups. You assume that white Americans today ought to focus on the macro label, rather on the micro label. Except, that emphasis on "European American" is out of date, much to your chagrin. Now, if white people want to refer to themselves as "European Americans", that is their liberty. But consider that Europeans who came to our land had their own political and social divisions, and carried with them that baggage of an "ethnic hierarchy" that has all but disappeared among today's white youth.

    "2. Creation cultural and political organizations for whites. These would be patterned after Jewish groups. Use these organizations to push for white interests in all aspects of our society. In particular, use this power to halt all non-white immigration since it’s “Not Good for the Whites.” Once whites have established themselves as a separate, cohesive group in society, we would push for . . .

    "3. Establishment of European American enclaves within the greater society. Naturally, this would be by choice, i.e. no white would be forced to join such enclaves. There would be neighborhoods, schools and business areas that would be defacto European American. To some degree, you see this in cities in Europe where Muslims are quietly taking over and enforcing Sharia law on the streets. Once areas have become a safe haven for whites who choose to live among their own, we would push for . . ."

    You have such enclaves within American society, but it is based on individual ethnicities. Today's white Americans have made that choice not to squarely identify as being "European Americans", but as a result, they are labeled "anti-white" or "cuck" merely for exercising that liberty.

    "4. Creation of a white homeland. Instead of being an enclave within a society, we would become our own country."

    And now you are overplaying your hand. Why should white people who work with or live among or are friends with non-white people suddenly demand that non-whites must leave? Why should white people leave their communities if they have intermingled with non-whites because it has been decreed that these places are now "white"? How would such a homeland be created? Who would be in charge of this process? How would such an arrangement pass constitutional muster? What would happen to those white people who refused to move?

    See, your proposal has a myriad of questions that require thoughtful answers.

    "Now, if you say, Citizen, you’re living in a fantasy world, I’d point out that my plan looks very similar to what Jews were planning in 1900."

    Americans aren't Jews.

    "Finally, who would have thought looking at the world in 1900, that Western European who dominated the world at the time and seemed destined expand their power and people would be reeling little more than a century later."

    Who would have thought that black people in 1500 would have been exported as slaves to "white lands"?

    Who would have thought that black and white people would have been separated by Jim Crow for decades in America?

    Who would have thought that Asians would no longer be barred from emigrating to the United States?

    Who would have thought that white people today, when making their own decisions based on race and culture, would be called "anti-white", "cuck", "race traitor", and "Churchian"?

    "In Japan, race and nation are the same thing. That’s the whole point."

    Americans is a nation of racial and ethnic mutts. Japan is not America.

    Good thing for Japan. And what we were was a nation of overwhelmingly white European mutts, with a dominant common culture and language and mores.

    That bears little resemblance to what we have become, and no resemblance to what this land will become if we don’t reforge a common European American identity and fight as best we can.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Good thing for Japan. And what we were was a nation of overwhelmingly white European mutts, with a dominant common culture and language and mores."

    Yes, for Japan, not America.

    We were initially a nation of overwhelmingly white Europeans, along with Africans and Indians (feather, not dot). Those Europeans--the English, Dutch, French, German, Finnish--when they settled America had significant reservations about one another, which is other than surprising since they brought over with them their nationalist proclivities. Eventually, however, they intermarried and intermingled, and combined several cultural aspects, to form a new ethnic group--American--which has continued to evolve and morph over the course of our history.

    Remember, the English were also forged out of several ethnic groups--the Picts, the Angles, the Saxons, the Britons, the Romans, the Danes, and the Normans. In a similar fashion, these groups that had been wary of one another also blended their beliefs and customs.

    "That bears little resemblance to what we have become, and no resemblance to what this land will become if we don’t reforge a common European American identity and fight as best we can."

    Not all white Americans share your sentiments. They tend to identify themselves as American, not as European American, who have one or more ethnic backgrounds. Feel free to label yourself as a European American, that is your liberty. Of course, if other whites reject that label, or prefer to label themselves differently, that is also their prerogative. It does not mean they are "cucks" or "race traitors" or "Churchians".

    "Genetics and culture are both essential to a nation, properly understood. Otherwise it may be a “country” but not a “nation.”"

    That would be your opinion on the matter.

  40. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Good thing for Japan. And what we were was a nation of overwhelmingly white European mutts, with a dominant common culture and language and mores.

    That bears little resemblance to what we have become, and no resemblance to what this land will become if we don't reforge a common European American identity and fight as best we can.

    “Good thing for Japan. And what we were was a nation of overwhelmingly white European mutts, with a dominant common culture and language and mores.”

    Yes, for Japan, not America.

    We were initially a nation of overwhelmingly white Europeans, along with Africans and Indians (feather, not dot). Those Europeans–the English, Dutch, French, German, Finnish–when they settled America had significant reservations about one another, which is other than surprising since they brought over with them their nationalist proclivities. Eventually, however, they intermarried and intermingled, and combined several cultural aspects, to form a new ethnic group–American–which has continued to evolve and morph over the course of our history.

    Remember, the English were also forged out of several ethnic groups–the Picts, the Angles, the Saxons, the Britons, the Romans, the Danes, and the Normans. In a similar fashion, these groups that had been wary of one another also blended their beliefs and customs.

    “That bears little resemblance to what we have become, and no resemblance to what this land will become if we don’t reforge a common European American identity and fight as best we can.”

    Not all white Americans share your sentiments. They tend to identify themselves as American, not as European American, who have one or more ethnic backgrounds. Feel free to label yourself as a European American, that is your liberty. Of course, if other whites reject that label, or prefer to label themselves differently, that is also their prerogative. It does not mean they are “cucks” or “race traitors” or “Churchians”.

    “Genetics and culture are both essential to a nation, properly understood. Otherwise it may be a “country” but not a “nation.””

    That would be your opinion on the matter.

    Read More
  41. @Randal

    Note the good job they do in propagandizing on behalf of Israel and Jews via the HBD meme. They think that this is the only way to buy themselves a limited immunity. Do they think they can strike a bargain with the devil?
     
    Here you move from observing their behaviour to speculating about the motives for it, which is unavoidably much more tricky.

    Some of the hbd types probably emphasise the jewish IQ advantage for the same reason they do the east Asian one, to reinforce their own intellectual consistency and refute charges that they are just "blowing their own [ethnic] trumpet". Some also doubtless believe it helps to protect them from the full force of the suppressive forces aimed at "anti-Semites". Hard to be sure which motivation is more important for which individual. Both probably apply in many cases.


    In the mean time they make some extra income and keep producing more Zionists among Whites on the Right. This is not a bad feat to transform anti-semitic right into Jew loving Zionists. This was the MO of Marine Le Pen and her split from her father’s tradition.
     
    The same corruption of the Front National occurred on the homosexualist issue as well, and similar methods were involved - the introduction of associates and "advisers" from the identity lobby in question at the highest levels. This process is also visibly in operation around Trump. It's more a matter of naivety and insufficient moral fibre on the part of the leaders themselves, imo, than anything hbd types write.

    Some of the hbd types probably emphasise the jewish IQ advantage for the same reason they do the east Asian one, to reinforce their own intellectual consistency and refute charges that they are just “blowing their own [ethnic] trumpet”. Some also doubtless believe it helps to protect them from the full force of the suppressive forces aimed at “anti-Semites”. Hard to be sure which motivation is more important for which individual. Both probably apply in many cases.

    Another motivation might be to simply explain reality, for example why Jews seem to dominate our societies. Unless we acknowledge the IQ advantage, we cannot explain this phenomenon at all.

    A fourth motivation is to paint the enemy as dangerous as possible, so as to rally your side and warn them off from trying to make deals with it. I think that this might be the motivation for Kevin MacDonald, for example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Unless we acknowledge the IQ advantage, we cannot explain this phenomenon at all.
     
    Agree.

    The "selection process" since Masada to the state of Israel created:
    -very socially intelligent people.
    -very intelligent in, say, "cerebral" pursuits.
    -hard working, with strong self-discipline; in order to survive and be useful to the host's masters they
    had to be very good at what they did.
    -very aware of a VERY long hostility of the host.
    -resulting from the previous, very tight as community.
    -resulting from above, tight family, with strong family values.

    Whoah...looking at all that........wouldn't that be exactly what we'd like OUR people to be?
    , @Pete22
    Jewish cultural advantage is an order of magnitude more significant than any IQ advantage, though there is an IQ advantage in being able to continuously execute on and reinforce the culture. If IQ were the primary deciding factor, than smarter Anglos would have the political advantages of the Jewish group. They do not because they lack the cultural political tool that Jews have to implement, which keeps even their lower IQ members within the Jewish political bubble.

    The world is being taken to a place where the Jewish cultural model will (and does) reign supreme. This place is one wherein true political power is not wielded through an assertion of advantageous borders, but instead through the political effectiveness of a truly international nation.
  42. polskijoe says:
    @Yan Shen
    Every sane person should support nationalism, the idea that a country exists first and foremost for its own citizens. The problem is that nationalism outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa proper often becomes corrupted into racialism.

    I sound like a broken record at this point, but perhaps I can get through to Mr. Derbyshire here. America has a unique history, like Singapore, which ensures that it'll always be more multicultural than the countries of Europe, Asia, or Africa. I support racial nationalism for those places, but once again let's acknowledge that America has a different history. There's no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back. Ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish here. No one who's here legally is going to be deported, unless we literally have the 4th Reich here in the United States.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world. Rational people can be convinced that it's in all of our interests as Americans that we curtail some of the excesses of recent years, such as unbridled immigration. Unfortunately you can't sell that message by repeatedly insinuating that only descendants of white Europeans are somehow "real" Americans. That kind of message doesn't unite, it divides. This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire like to hold up Japan as a paragon for the sort of nationalistic country that America should aspire to be, but I wonder if it's lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan's focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese. They don't see themselves as being part of an existential Song of Ice and Fire, so to speak. Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe? Let them deal with their own problems. As Americans we have ours to deal with. If Europe is too dumb to enforce its own borders and sensible immigration policies, then let it suffer the consequences! We're all grown men and women here.

    The fact of the matter is Derb, this is the state we find ourselves in in America today. For better or worse, these people are your neighbors and your countrymen, whether or not you like them or feel any particular affinity towards them. It's already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder. Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I'm sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    I am European minded and born. I agree the US cant be considered a completely white nation.
    Thats part of the reason I disagree with American white nationalists (the other is some of them are neonazis).

    In Europe tradition, monarchs, monoethnic, monoChristian religion and European values were key.

    The US was always Freemasonic (opposing monarchs), freedom of religion and all that stuff.
    Originally the population was British/Irish, then came Germans, then Italians/Poles, etc.
    However, there was always a significant Negro population (most of them are mixed now).

    |The Monroe Doctine (supported by Anglos) was opposed by Europeans traditionalists..

    USA will never be a white nation. The only thing you can hope for is separatism (which is still very difficullt).

    Read More
  43. polskijoe says:
    @szopen
    While it's true that Poles would support leaving EU if that would be the only way to stop "refugees", the truth is also that vast majority of Poles, unfortunately, still support EU membership in gneral, and even blindly supports "tighter integration". The support is the range of 80s percents, and in younger generation in 70% something.

    completely agreed.

    the good news in Poland, is that since 2000
    support for EU is dropping.

    if Poles leave now, there will be lots of protests (mostly leftists).
    if the tension with EU continues more Poles will dislike EU.

    the bad news in Poland, leftists are growing. Now up to 30 percent are modern liberals.

    Read More
  44. peterAUS says:
    @reiner Tor

    Some of the hbd types probably emphasise the jewish IQ advantage for the same reason they do the east Asian one, to reinforce their own intellectual consistency and refute charges that they are just “blowing their own [ethnic] trumpet”. Some also doubtless believe it helps to protect them from the full force of the suppressive forces aimed at “anti-Semites”. Hard to be sure which motivation is more important for which individual. Both probably apply in many cases.
     
    Another motivation might be to simply explain reality, for example why Jews seem to dominate our societies. Unless we acknowledge the IQ advantage, we cannot explain this phenomenon at all.

    A fourth motivation is to paint the enemy as dangerous as possible, so as to rally your side and warn them off from trying to make deals with it. I think that this might be the motivation for Kevin MacDonald, for example.

    Unless we acknowledge the IQ advantage, we cannot explain this phenomenon at all.

    Agree.

    The “selection process” since Masada to the state of Israel created:
    -very socially intelligent people.
    -very intelligent in, say, “cerebral” pursuits.
    -hard working, with strong self-discipline; in order to survive and be useful to the host’s masters they
    had to be very good at what they did.
    -very aware of a VERY long hostility of the host.
    -resulting from the previous, very tight as community.
    -resulting from above, tight family, with strong family values.

    Whoah…looking at all that……..wouldn’t that be exactly what we’d like OUR people to be?

    Read More
  45. @Yan Shen
    Every sane person should support nationalism, the idea that a country exists first and foremost for its own citizens. The problem is that nationalism outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa proper often becomes corrupted into racialism.

    I sound like a broken record at this point, but perhaps I can get through to Mr. Derbyshire here. America has a unique history, like Singapore, which ensures that it'll always be more multicultural than the countries of Europe, Asia, or Africa. I support racial nationalism for those places, but once again let's acknowledge that America has a different history. There's no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back. Ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish here. No one who's here legally is going to be deported, unless we literally have the 4th Reich here in the United States.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world. Rational people can be convinced that it's in all of our interests as Americans that we curtail some of the excesses of recent years, such as unbridled immigration. Unfortunately you can't sell that message by repeatedly insinuating that only descendants of white Europeans are somehow "real" Americans. That kind of message doesn't unite, it divides. This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire like to hold up Japan as a paragon for the sort of nationalistic country that America should aspire to be, but I wonder if it's lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan's focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese. They don't see themselves as being part of an existential Song of Ice and Fire, so to speak. Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe? Let them deal with their own problems. As Americans we have ours to deal with. If Europe is too dumb to enforce its own borders and sensible immigration policies, then let it suffer the consequences! We're all grown men and women here.

    The fact of the matter is Derb, this is the state we find ourselves in in America today. For better or worse, these people are your neighbors and your countrymen, whether or not you like them or feel any particular affinity towards them. It's already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder. Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I'm sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I’m sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    Here are a couple of good quotes from Lee Kuan Yew. These are from page 30 of “Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World”. Somehow I think Derb, Sailer, et al would rather like this guy.

    “Multiculturalism will destroy America. There is a danger that large numbers of Mexicans and others from South and Central America will continue to come to the U.S. and spread their culture across the whole of the country. If they breed faster than the WASPs [white Anglo-Saxon Protestants] and are living with them, whose culture will prevail? Will the WASPs change them, or will the immigrants change the existing culture? They will change each other, but it would be sad for American culture to be changed even partially.”

    That was originally from 2011. And the other quote:

    “Long term for America, if you project another 100 years, 150 years into the 22nd century, whether you stay on top depends upon the kind of society you will be, because if present trends continue, you will have a Hispanic element in your society that is about 30%, 40%. So, the question is, do you make the Hispanics Anglo-Saxons in culture or do they make you more Latin American in culture? …If they come in drips and drabs and you scatter them across America, then you will change their culture, but if they come in large numbers, like Miami, and they stay together, or in California, then their culture will continue, and they may well affect the Anglo-Saxon culture around them. That is the real test.”

    Openly extolling the virtues of Anglo-Saxon culture? Lee Kuan Yew would get run of the USA on a rail!

    Read More
  46. Pete22 says:
    @Yan Shen
    Every sane person should support nationalism, the idea that a country exists first and foremost for its own citizens. The problem is that nationalism outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa proper often becomes corrupted into racialism.

    I sound like a broken record at this point, but perhaps I can get through to Mr. Derbyshire here. America has a unique history, like Singapore, which ensures that it'll always be more multicultural than the countries of Europe, Asia, or Africa. I support racial nationalism for those places, but once again let's acknowledge that America has a different history. There's no point in harkening back to the good ole days when America was still 90% white, because those days are never coming back. Ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish here. No one who's here legally is going to be deported, unless we literally have the 4th Reich here in the United States.

    There are numerous good reasons why any rational American should embrace the form of nationalism that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens ahead of people in the rest of the world. Rational people can be convinced that it's in all of our interests as Americans that we curtail some of the excesses of recent years, such as unbridled immigration. Unfortunately you can't sell that message by repeatedly insinuating that only descendants of white Europeans are somehow "real" Americans. That kind of message doesn't unite, it divides. This is ultimately where the Richard Spencers, Jared Taylors, John Derbyshires, and Steve Sailers of the country fail. They intermittently pay lip service to nationalism and citizenism, but if you read enough of their writings and read between the lines, you can tell that the primary lenses through which they view these sorts of matters is not nation, but race.

    Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire like to hold up Japan as a paragon for the sort of nationalistic country that America should aspire to be, but I wonder if it's lost upon both of these gentlemen that Japan's focus is fundamentally nationalist as opposed to racialist. The Japanese want the country to remain Japanese. They don't see themselves as being part of an existential Song of Ice and Fire, so to speak. Why is an American nationalist so concerned with Europe? Let them deal with their own problems. As Americans we have ours to deal with. If Europe is too dumb to enforce its own borders and sensible immigration policies, then let it suffer the consequences! We're all grown men and women here.

    The fact of the matter is Derb, this is the state we find ourselves in in America today. For better or worse, these people are your neighbors and your countrymen, whether or not you like them or feel any particular affinity towards them. It's already bad enough that we find ourselves in an increasingly perilous situation rife with identity politics and PC insanity. The last thing we need are ethnic tribalists threatening to render us asunder. Might I humbly recommend that you adopt some of the pragmatism of a Lee Kuan Yew with respect to navigating the terra incognita of modern day race relations? LKY was both the consummate race realist, something which I'm sure you fancy yourself as well, and the consummate Confucian statesman. More than ever, I suspect that this is kind of figure who needs to make his voice heard in our national discourse.

    False.

    Nationalism mostly is irrelevant, morally and in every other sense, except as a preservation mechanism for borders assisted racialism. That’s its only value.

    Nationalism is doomed to fail as a stand-alone concept, and especially apart from its role as a preserver of race.

    Its existence is as a transitionary idea leading from smaller territorial tribalism to cohesive international racialism. It destroys the former and inhibits the latter.

    Nationalism won’t be able to function civically or as a defensible concept globally apart from this role. A lack of borders assisted racialism, within the concept of nationalism, makes nations internally dysfunctional and leads to civic and international political decline.

    The worst case scenario, and likely one that is slated for future world reality, is that of racialism without borders. Nationalism’s dissolution will hasten that framework, and force the races who can adapt to do so (essentially making them equivalent to international Jews), but those at the bottom of the socioeconomic and culturally performing racial hierarchy will continue to lose their identities and their racial integrity. Don’t expect the same for those at the top, across most of the ruling races.

    Defending nationalism at the cost of racialism is a de facto persecution of the ethnopolitical integrity of the lower classes, in that you assign to them a doomed-to-fail concept as a replacement for the concept that offers them sociopolitical protection, and thus is an assault on their struggle to avoid de facto slavery.

    Without ethnopolitical coherence, they lose their political strength. Those without political strength are de facto slaves to groups with such strength. Your type of opinion is nothing more than this persecution.

    Read More
  47. Pete22 says:
    @reiner Tor

    Some of the hbd types probably emphasise the jewish IQ advantage for the same reason they do the east Asian one, to reinforce their own intellectual consistency and refute charges that they are just “blowing their own [ethnic] trumpet”. Some also doubtless believe it helps to protect them from the full force of the suppressive forces aimed at “anti-Semites”. Hard to be sure which motivation is more important for which individual. Both probably apply in many cases.
     
    Another motivation might be to simply explain reality, for example why Jews seem to dominate our societies. Unless we acknowledge the IQ advantage, we cannot explain this phenomenon at all.

    A fourth motivation is to paint the enemy as dangerous as possible, so as to rally your side and warn them off from trying to make deals with it. I think that this might be the motivation for Kevin MacDonald, for example.

    Jewish cultural advantage is an order of magnitude more significant than any IQ advantage, though there is an IQ advantage in being able to continuously execute on and reinforce the culture. If IQ were the primary deciding factor, than smarter Anglos would have the political advantages of the Jewish group. They do not because they lack the cultural political tool that Jews have to implement, which keeps even their lower IQ members within the Jewish political bubble.

    The world is being taken to a place where the Jewish cultural model will (and does) reign supreme. This place is one wherein true political power is not wielded through an assertion of advantageous borders, but instead through the political effectiveness of a truly international nation.

    Read More
  48. Pete22 says:
    @Kenny
    "The hardest thing in the world seems to be to find nationalists that are not warmongers."

    I couldn't disagree more....that isn't what the problem is..the problem is that there aren't enough warmongers who are nationalists willing to fight for their people..The problem is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

    “The hardest thing in the world seems to be to find nationalists that are not warmongers.”

    A curious opinion given that the extant root of the concept of modern internationalism mandates the destruction of nations, and thus culture, at all costs. It’s a concept of unending international war.

    Read More
  49. Dissident says:
    @Smiddy
    It isn't just "change" every socioeconomic demographic for the American middle class has been plummeting since the 60s - and the immigration of people who add nothing to the middle class is a primary cause of this you nitwit. Immigration breeds pluralism which breeds infighting which enables globalists to further victimize (particularly) the middle and lower classes, let alone all loyal Americans... You say "change" like someone who doesn't understand how short of a shelf life multi-ethnic societies have historically had - in fact feel free to name me a historical country in which the founding ethnicity became a minority, and it still functioned successfully (let alone not collapsed - which is the norm).

    Though I'm sure this is way too complex for someone as emotional as you to understand. Just surprised to see such a pathetic comment here at theUR.

    Who were you responding to? You did not make that clear in your post.

    Read More
  50. Svigor says:

    Yan Shen says:
    September 12, 2017 at 2:50 am GMT • 600 Words

    1st comment usually goes to the nutcases.

    Ethno-masochism is really “masochism by proxy”. Ethno-masochists obtain a particular pleasure from “socking it” to nationalists and conservatives whom they imagine to be the heirs of the imperialists and slave traders.

    They’re ethno-sadists. You just described someone who wants to inflict pain on OTHERS, not himself. That’s a sadist, not a masochist. So it’s ethno-sadism, not ethno-masochism. We already have a good word for this: racist.

    And we already knew globalists are racist against Whites.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering