The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Steven Yates Archive
Trump’s Warsaw Speech and the Real “Clash of Civilizations”
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As everyone doubtless knows, President Trump gave the pot a hefty stirring in Warsaw, Poland prior to attending the G20 summit. His message was well-received by immediate listeners but aroused a Sturm und Drang and a half from the usual Western media suspects who couldn’t be more predictable if they tried.

First of all, the speech appealed directly to Polish national identity, and by implication, national identity generally, as well as faith as opposed to secularism:

Through four decades of communist rule, Poland and other captive nations of Europe endured a brutal campaign to demolish freedom, your faith, your laws, your history, your identity — indeed, the very essence of your culture and your humanity. Yet, though it all, you never lost that spirit. Your oppressors tried to break you, but Poland could not be broken….

A million Polish people did not ask for wealth. They did not ask for privilege. Instead, one million Poles sang three simple words: We Want God.

In those words, the Polish people recalled the promise of a better future. They found new courage to face down their oppressors, and they found the words to declare that Poland would be Poland again….

… And with that powerful declaration of who you are, you came to understand what to do and how to live. You stood in solidarity against oppression, against a lawless secret police, against a cruel and wicked system that impoverished your cities and your souls. And you won. Poland prevailed. Poland will always prevail.

When listening to those words, what we heard: what was true for Poland as the Soviet Empire collapsed holds out hope for Western peoples today. For the West is menaced by forces that would obliterate its culture and autonomy and what’s left of its faith if they could. Here were the words, near the end of Trump’s speech, that stood everyone’s hair on end, whether through inspiration or … something else.

We have to remember that our defense is not just a commitment of money, it is a commitment of will. Because as the Polish experience reminds us, the defense of the West ultimately rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to prevail and be successful and get what you have to have. The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it? We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive…. I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken! Our values will prevail! Our people will thrive! And our civilization will triumph!

The attacks came at once, as if on cue. Consider Eugene Robinson’s op-ed in the ever-reliably Trump-hating Washington Post. Robinson asked snarkily, “Triumph over whom?”

Let’s treat this as a fair question. Over ISIS? North Korea? Russia? Those being the villains of the moment, they are easy to single out. Trump did not name the real enemy in this speech: globalism (he did say, in his acceptance speech, “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo!”). Despite struggling with allegations (still with the flimsiest of evidential support) that Russia interfered with the 2016 election and that his campaign staff now including his son Don Jr. colluded with them, Trump is still seen as a major threat to globalist interests.

As I use the term, globalism is not the same thing as globalization. In many respects, globalization goes back millennia. It emerged with explorers of ancient times wanting to know what was over the horizon, and who lived there. In modern times it involves advances in technology, especially communications, that facilitate cross-border trade. None of these need erase national borders or a people’s cultural identity; through consciousness of differences it might even enhance them. Globalism is a more specific ideology holding that economies should integrate, that borders should be dissolved, culture is irrelevant, and that peoples can be moved around like chess pieces “reinventing themselves,” merged into a monoculture of mass consumption and disposability. The process needs transnational regulation and so must culminate in a world state, de facto or de jure, with a single global currency — digital rather than physical, so that all transactions can be recorded and monitored (even those involving cryptos!)

The global system would be ruled by an elite superclass (in my book Four Cardinal Errors: Reasons for the Decline of the American Republic I call this entity the superelite to distinguish it from more visible national elites) overseeing a hierarchy of administrators and technocrats. This superclass already controls most of the world’s wealth. The “developed” world is easily four fifths of the way to this kind of system, referred to as the “liberal order” or the “international order” or with some similar euphemism. The Brexiteers, Donald Trumps, Geert Wilders, and Marine Le Pens of the world are dragging their feet. The first two of these succeeded — at least for the moment. The latter lost major elections, placing their causes on hold.

Does globalism actually exist as I describe it, or is it a “conspiracy theory”? Let’s consult two architects of globalist thought. Zbigniew Brzezinski stated in his 1970 book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (p. 56-62 of 1970 ed.):

The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state….

A global human conscience is for the first time beginning to manifest itself…. Today we are … witnessing the emergence of transnational elites … composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional than national. These global communities are gaining in strength and … it is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook…


The new global consciousness, however, is only beginning to become an influential force. It still lacks identity, cohesion, and focus. Much of humanity — indeed, the majority of humanity — still neither shares nor is prepared to support it. Science and technology are still used to buttress ideological claims, to fortify national aspirations, and to reward narrowly national interests…. The new global unity has yet to find its own structure, consensus, and harmony.

David Rockefeller Sr. read the above, contacted the author, and with Henry Kissinger they organized the Trilateral Commission to address the problem identified in the final paragraph. Rockefeller was quoted two decades later telling a Bilderberg assembly (June 1991):

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”

This is probably the most famous David Rockefeller quote. There’s no hard proof he actually said it, though. He might have said it. We don’t know. What it says is not foreign to his thinking. He did assert the following, in his Memoirs (2002, pp. 404-05), in the context of a riposte against “populists,” and this time there is no doubt:

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents … to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

The recently-deceased Mr. Rockefeller, whose elders turned to banking seeing in it a source of lucre far greater than what had been available in oil, who resided at the helm of Chase Bank, and chaired the Council on Foreign Relations for many years, had the wealth and contacts necessary to pursue a purposeful agenda beyond the needs of mere international trade. It is said he had a rolodex containing over 10,000 names.

We can thus rest our case that globalism is a real phenomenon. Is it a conspiracy? Conspiracies, by definition, are hidden from you. As two of the above statements indicate, its leaders have hardly been hiding. Perhaps the reading public can be faulted for preferring glitzy bestsellers to books about reality.

The question before us: what is the alternative to it? One can almost hear the chorus: There Is No Alternative. Writers such as Robinson above are very good at invoking “economic theory” against “populism.” He had previously said: “The speech Trump delivered … had nothing useful to say about today’s interconnected world in which goods, people and ideas have contempt for borders.” He elaborated: “Industrial supply chains cross borders and span oceans. Words and images flash around the globe at the speed of light. Global issues, such as nuclear proliferation and climate change, demand global solutions. Like it or not, we are all in this together.”

In this case, who laid down those supply chains, and why must they invite “contempt for borders”? Are these aspects of a natural, deterministic dynamic that a technologically advancing, creative-destruction driven civilization is bound to follow? It is easy to argue that there is such a dynamic, in which case globalists are being carried along with the rest of us and are identifiable only because they are smarter than we mere mortals and therefore more conscious of the process than we are — not to mention better situated to profit from it.

But globalism as an ideology long predates today’s advanced technology. It has been around for close to 250 years — at least since the five scions of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 – 1812) were directed to found banks in four of the biggest cities in Europe (the fifth remaining in Frankfurt-am-Main), all remaining in communication with Dad and with each other. The coldly talented Nathan established himself as a dominant player in the City of London and succeeded his father as family patriarch as he built up N.M. Rothschild & Sons; his eldest son Lionel would succeed him. What ensued was not merely amassing wealth but accruing power, the power of private banking, international moneylending, and investment. “Give me control of a nation’s currency,” Mayer Amschel is alleged to have said, “and I care not who makes the laws.” Kings and other political figures who in one way or another crossed a Rothschild found themselves in one of many (fomented) regional wars of nineteenth century Europe.

There is a longstanding debate over what drives history: material forces (economic ones, blood ties, etc.) or ideas and worldviews (e.g., Christianity — or Judaism — or materialism). I hold out for the latter, because most material forces of modern times would not exist without men of power putting them in place guided by an idea or worldview (and materialism is a worldview, not a fact established by any science).

Globalism piggybacked on the relative success of the mixed economy that grew out of the New Deal, post-war Keynesianism, and the understandable desire to avoid another world war. The idea of a mixed economy (private and public, profit-driven enterprises encircled by and sometimes assisted by politically-created regulations, are what is “mixed,” after all) returns us to political economy, which is what Adam Smith and other classical writers considered their subject to be. There was no such thing, in other words, as nontrivial “economic law,” comparable to physics, abstracted from political and related considerations particular to time and place.


But the mixed economy has been a mixed blessing. It created prosperity and the largest middle class the world had ever seen, but had numerous costs. One was that individuals, including those in that middle class, became increasingly dependent on its systems. This is a separate article; for now we will just observe that these systems, which over a period lasting more than a century intertwined the political economy of the changing workplace with advancing technology, mass media culture, and family dynamics, diminished real individual freedoms as people were encircled by its effects and its products — their lives made less and less convenient if they did not cooperate and consume. Brzezinski foresaw the culmination of these changes:

Another threat … confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under surveillance and control (pp. 252-53).

There can be no doubt this has happened. Globalist machinations have empowered a superelite — whose members move capital across borders and cut deals that affect the lives of millions of people as easily as we cross the room. Their nemeses include the distrustful national footdraggers who loused up the Doha Round and “populists” like Trump who roused the rabble against, e.g., NAFTA and the (now dead) TPP, and who question the wisdom of open borders policies which, arguably, have caused chaos all across Europe — outside the protected enclaves of EU banking titans and globalists such as Angela Merkel.

Globalist political economy has left people behind, because in the globalist worldview, people are as disposable as cheaply made Chinese products. Those left behind now have voices of various stripes across the ideological spectrum — people like Trump and Le Pen on the right, Bernie Sanders on the left, and writers such as Pankaj Mishra who aren’t easily classifiable but whose Age of Anger: A History of the Present is, in my humble opinion, a must read. Mishra’s key observation (my way of putting it): globalization created expectations around the world that have been thwarted by globalistreality: impoverishment of former middle classes; chronic instability; incompatible cultures thrown into involuntary contact, some of them refugees of wars of choice; and a loss of autonomy for all involved, amidst a massive and growing consolidation of wealth at the top.

The real ‘clash of civilizations’ is thus between incompatible visions of the future of civilization: between that of globalists and those I will call localists. What I have in mind here incorporates nationalists and those who want still smaller forms of governance, because for them the nation-state is too large.

Globalists want to dominate the world by dominating its financial systems and, through those, its political economy — visible politicians being vetted and controlled, and a “mainstream” media owned by their corporations. They want a mass consumption monoculture, cultural differences being cosmetic rather than substantive. Education must be tailored to this, and not toward graduating students with thinking skills apart from the mass.

Localists want autonomy: freedom from encircling forces they had no say in and no control over, whether created by “free trade” deals or open borders policies they did not sign off on. They want control over their lives, families, communities, economies, and nations.

Globalists sing the praises of “democratic capitalism,” but there is no reason to believe their vision has anything to do with either democracy, conceived as a political system answering to its people, or free markets. For under the mixed economy it became a given that markets needed regulating if only to improve the health and safety of an often-uninformed public (unless you really believe, e.g., that cigarette manufacturers would put warning labels on their products voluntarily, this being just one example). It was then just one step to global markets needing regulators with global reach, and other global problems (e.g., alleged man-made climate change) requiring coordinated global solutions. “Free trade” has evolved considerably since Ricardo schooled us about comparative advantage. It is now freedom for billionaires to do as they please, often at the expense of the livelihoods of millions!

The globalists world state would answer primarily to their corporations because the latter have the money, having profited from those global supply lines and from having moved operations to where labor is cheapest — before, that is, labor is replaced altogether by technology and thrown to the wolves.

The political economy of a world state, which I’ve elsewhere called technofeudalism, would be Hell on Earth unless you’re in the superelite, or near the top of its second tier of administrators and technocrats. It would be highly centralized, with systems of control over lives via controls over money, work, and technology. Surveillance would be total. Innovation would be possible, but within given parameters. The cooperative might experience, at best, a Brave New World, as doubtless the soma of mass entertainment (sports, celebrities, those glitzy bestsellers) would continue. For the recalcitrant, it could be more like 1984.

What, then, of localism? By its nature it is diverse, as there are many possible variants on demands for autonomy and self-determination. Its diversity is manifestly not its strength! One looks around and has to wonder whether this ‘clash of civilizations’ will be a real contest or a complete rout! For as much as mainstream writers fuss about “populism” as if that term referred to a single, isolable ideology, the plain truth is, globalism’s opponents are all over the map!

There is the alt-right, if you want ‘em. There is also the alt-left of Sanders supporters, who instinctively reject the elitism of the Clintons. Those two hate each other’s guts, despite their shared opposition to the mass consumption monoculture globalists want.

There are the various libertarianisms, anarchisms, etc. Some of these folks, perhaps realizing their ideology cannot possibly work in a population of over 320 million people, are withdrawing and trying to form ministates or autonomous colonies in countries like Chile. They are trying to develop small systems based entirely on free market thought (of Ayn Rand, the Austrian school, anarcho-capitalism, etc.). One of these flamed out spectacularly a few years ago, although another is being developed step by step as its leaders try to avoid the errors of the first. The problem is that any such effort is hampered by the laws of the nation they’ve chosen, and while Chile is much less hostile to such ventures than the U.S. would be, it is no less wired into the globalist system in a manner appropriate to a “developing” nation.

There are also groups such as Local Futures whose point of departure is realizing there are indigenous peoples in far corners of the world who were doing quite well without the “democratic capitalism” of the West, thank you very much, who found it more disrupting and disheartening than beneficial, and whose lives and communities might serve as models to emulate by those seeking to live off “the grid” in favor of a new agrarianism. This is no longer legally possible in the U.S., as a woman in Florida learned the hard way in 2014.

The problem is again, many of these groups want nothing to do with one another. Readers of this essay may be antiglobalists but want nothing to do with most of them. Some are not even aware of others. This lack of any semblance of unity does not bode well for any strategy of opposition.

Opposing globalism openly is risky in any event. An academic who defended economic nationalism would likely be forced from his job in the present environment. Independent commentators may have the Internet but can forget about being published in well-paying markets. Candidates for public office who speak openly of globalism being an enemy of freedom in America can forget about being able to raise the money and gain the visibility necessary to run credible campaigns. Funding sources tend to be wired into globalist interests. They would not be where they are otherwise. As for visible figures who don’t need the money, e.g., Trump, if his enemies should succeed in taking him down, whether via substanceless Russia allegations or by some other ploy, we might see how risky! We might see whether Trump’s election was more than a speed bump on the road towards a global state. Things are getting late, after all! Were this a baseball game, we’d be starting the ninth inning!

Trump’s campaign was self-funded, and this was one source of his appeal. His present travails are proof of how hard it is to oppose globalism even in one of the world’s most powerful offices. The “swamp” is proving deeper, wider, and more venomous than I think he imagined in his worst nightmares! And the failures of the Wilders and Le Pen campaigns in Europe suggest that “populism” may have run its course, at least in Europe — surprisingly, given what we alluded to earlier: European nations being overrun by unassimilable Muslim immigrants. If Trump finds it difficult to document any crime wave associated with Mexicans in the U.S. illegally, the situation in Europe should leave very little room for doubt. It is not hyperbole to say that in the hands of open borders politicians like Merkel, Europe is committing suicide! Trump’s asking whether the West has the will to survive is telling! Small wonder Merkel and other G20 attendees had little use for him!

Do we have the will to survive? What will we do about it?

We can survive if we can learn to have what is best in globalization without embracing globalism — if, that is, we can communicate and educate and deal with one another across borders and transcending cultures while still respecting them. This may be a tall order at this point, even though it should be self-evident that a society either unable or unwilling to recognize the different between friends and unassimilable enemies will not survive. I hardly need note further the vast resources arrayed on the other side, or that other side’s capacity — and willingness — to invoke every weapon in its arsenal, from mere propaganda to economic warfare (investors withdrawing wherever “populism” takes root so that jobs vanish and uninformed local media blame the “populists”), to political assassinations and “regime change” when deemed necessary.

We can survive if we rediscover our roots: contact with the land that sustains us, support for extended families as a key to stable communities, and above all, loyalty to principles laid down long ago by our Creator (“We Want God”). These constants offer stability and perspective as we move into an uncertain future which will likely be a rough ride in any event, and without which we will soon be at the mercy of that tiny minority, the superelite, whose only concerns in life are money and power.


Steven Yates is a writer with a Ph.D. in philosophy. He is the author of the books Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Four Cardinal Errors: Reasons for the Decline of the American Republic (2011), approximately two dozen articles and reviews in academic journals and anthologies, and over a hundred articles of online commentary, especially on Dr. Yates taught philosophy at several colleges and universities in the Southeast. In 2012 he moved from South Carolina to Santiago, Chile, where he has taught periodically at two universities there, as well as having involved himself in teaching English and operating a small editing business, Final Draft Editing Service. He is married to a Chilean, and at present writes almost full time.

He blogs about philosophy and the foibles of academia at Lost Generation Philosopher.

His Patreon donation page is here.

Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Molyneux gets really passionate.

    He(Yates) blogs about philosophy and the foibles of academia at Lost Generation Philosopher.

    His Patreon donation page is here.

    Is Patreon reliable? Not to Lauren Southern.

    Speaking of endangering lives, it is globalist wars and the open borders policy that are leading to killings, rapes, violence, but never mind.

    Patreon is just a globalist corporation.

  2. ” The real ‘clash of civilizations’ is thus between incompatible visions of the future of civilization: between that of globalists and those I will call localists. ”

    This clash now is quite visible over new Polish legislation.
    A new law creates democratic control over the nomination of judges, something the USA has for high court judges since the USA exists.
    But Brussels opposes this, threatens with taking away Poland’s voting right in EU decisions, stopping EU subsidies to Poland.

    A similar clash is over Hungary, the country has enough of Soros’ propaganda university.
    But Soros visited Juncker and Tusk, Hungary was put under pressure, and now I’m not sure if Soros’ institutions will be expelled or not.

    Then there is the clash over immigration, the orthodox catholic E European countries refuse Muslim migrants.

    And of course we see this clash over Brexit, the EU is of the opinion that the European High Court after Brexit still has jurisdiction in GB.
    Brussels does not see that the Anglican Church was created to stop the pope interfering in British affairs.

    • Replies: @cliff arroyo
    , @anonymous
    , @Ace
  3. utu says:

    Rockefeller was quoted two decades later

    Who quoted him and where? Or should I ask who made up this quote?

  4. Excuse me not having taken time to finish reading your article before responding to the stimulus of your (apprpriately) distinguishing globalisation and globalism. As one who generally supports the standard argùments for free trade despite also wanting to do a quality check on immigrants to my proserous and fairly law abiding country I would be pleased to see a study of the problems of small countries and what ordering of the world could and should mitigate them.

    Establlished small countries seem to be OK. But what about the Greeces? Especially, what about an African small country possibly with only one major mineral deposit as a source of wealth and inevitable volatity in its commodity’s price?

  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The super-elite are rapidly losing their grip on the hearts & minds of the populace. This will accelerate as they move to implement more coercive measures (already happening) so it’s only a matter of time before some mass-depopulation program becomes desirable.

    Hopefully, we’ll stop them before that happens.

  6. Jason Liu says:

    By a long shot, globalist ideology is driven by western nations, especially America.

    The west needs moral and philosophical reformations, new ways of thinking that respect identity without the paranoid screeching about bigotry. The alt-right, with its pure focus on whiteness, is not going to be able to do this. It takes a broader vision to create and propagate new ideologies that can be applied to society in general.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Ace
  7. @jilles dykstra

    I live in Poland and the story with the legislation is different and a bit more complex.

    The problem is that it’s basically putting judges under direct political control of the ruling party with no checks and balances in their choice or dismissal.

    Lots of people would be in favor of some reform of the judiciary which is fairly terrible but this is an obvious power grab (the government would also appoint those in charge of verifying elections).

    Scuttlebut is that the purpose is to trump up legal charges against opposition candidates to keep them out of future elections.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  8. Wandering Jews have long been labeled “rootless cosmopolitans”. Their culture is an adaption to their lifestyle, is this lifestyle. (Largely Jewish) Globalists take a model that works in the particular case of the Jewish people and try to generalize it to apply to the whole world. But what works as an exception is made possible by the existence of the base upon which it rests. The rule that governs the exception cannot in and of itself build or sustain the foundation upon which the exception rests.

    Humans are personal animals who need an intimate connection with their environs and other people. A mathematic model based on the economic principles of banking cannot be the base upon which human societies are created.

    As Socrates observed, many people who claimed to know about some particular thing erred–committed “original sin” in the Greek, not Old Testament sense–when they generalized, on the basis of their limited knowledge, and thinking that they knew a lot about a lot, talked authoritatively about that with which they were not familiar.

    Bankers are ill equipped to construct the Ideal Society.

  9. The big question is what exactly is “globalism” and Mr Yates says that “globalism is not the same thing as globalization”. I have long regarded “anti-globalism” as a branch of the US hegemonist ideology designed essentially to break up the European Union so as to force its Member States back under tight US control, as in cold war days. Mr Yates confirms me in that belief. He designates four “anti-globalizers”: Trump and three far-right politicians from … the EU! It could hardly be more obvious! No other “anti-globalizers” are mentioned, certainly none from outside the EU, and it would thus appear that “globalism” is an evil which affects only the EU! That doesn’t sound terribly “global” to me! There’s a brickbat for Merkel, a “globalist” and a believer in something called “open borders”. I’ve seen the latter term used, essentially, by US alt-right authors, but I’m not sure what it means. It certainly doesn’t correspond to anything that exists in the EU. Russia is briefly mentioned, essentially to deny Russiagate, and is listed as a “villain of the moment” but not a word, needless to say, about Ukraine. Putin, of course, was originally intended to be both a battering ram to break up the EU and a bogeyman to frighten the defenceless little of countries of Europe back under US control, as “payment” for which he was to be allowed to re-annex all or part of the former Soviet Union. In other words, Putin isn’t an “anti-globalist”, he’s just an American stooge. That is just one part of the general “coming unstuck” of the whole scheme.
    The problem lies in that very contradiction: US hegemonists are trying to “sell” national sovereignty in Europe, or perhaps more accurately, ram it down out throats, but what they call “national sovereignty” is only such sovereignty as the US hegemonists vouchsafe to grant us, and that applies to Putin as much as to anyone else in Europe. He gets Ukraine not because he’s entitled to it but because the US says he’s to get it. That contradicts the very nature of state sovereignty. The nation-state is the basis of European political culture and we are all very attached to our sovereign nation-states. But since so many European nation-states are small, including possible future candidates like Scotland or Catalonia, the only way we can survive as nation-states is by coming together and building a sort of “giant Switzerland”. The only way we can maintain our differences is by being different together! The US “anti-globalists” deny us that right. That’s why I classify them as US global hegemonists and I think Mr Yates’ article confirms my view.

  10. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    “And of course we see this clash over Brexit, the EU is of the opinion that the European High Court after Brexit still has jurisdiction in GB.
    Brussels does not see that the Anglican Church was created to stop the pope interfering in British affairs.”

    It’s my understanding that a separate treaty exists between the European High Court and GB that is not subsumed under the Brexit withdrawal. I’m not a lawyer, however …

    Great article, Mr. Yates. You are a kindred soul. I wish — oh, so wish — that we could start a university here in the US, a place of freedom and true intellectualism.

    Oh, and thanks for the references at the bottom of your article. Hopefully, the new entrepreneur-based project in Chile will make it, this time. Can’t wait to get the newsletter.


  11. @cliff arroyo

    I would welcome more explanation

    • Replies: @cliff arroyo
  12. @Michael Kenny

    What is happening is that the EU is quite busy to destroy nation states and nation cultures.
    Nationalism is fascism and racism, the foundation of genocide by gas chambers.
    Even Macron denies the existence of a French culture, at the same time his objective is to ‘modernise’ France, in other words, change the culture.

    • Replies: @Ace
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @Ace
  13. Trump is a TROJAN HORSE for the Zionists and their NWO agenda and because of this I do not take anything Trump says at face value as he is a Zionist boot licker.

  14. utu says:
    @Michael Kenny

    Great point that anti-globalism in Europe is just a tool of American hegemonism to weaken the EU.

    You have mentioned Switzerland and its system. If people in Brussels were as smart and tactful and respectful of people wishes and referenda as the rather weak federal government of Switzerland, there would be much less opposition to the EU project. Unfortunately the EU project was hijacked by very dangerous ideologues.

    I am not sure about this ‘Putin isn’t an “anti-globalist”, he’s just an American stooge’ but I wonder myself about what Putin and his oligarchs really want.

  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Michael Kenny

    You’re wrong. The US (and the EU) is fully controlled by the supranational globalists. At least it was until Trump but that battle is still to be decided. The EU was not created to make the member nations stronger – it was designed to remove the sovereignty from the populace while they’re being genocided. Open your eyes.

    • Replies: @NotBob
  16. utu says:

    Is the author a part of the Radian “commune” project in Chile? If he is the one who will rip off the silly investors he at least is a true Radian if, however, he is one of the silly investors he is a fool.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  17. Ace says:

    A thoughtful article. One quibble is that the author’s disdain for the alt-right seems odd given that he has no difficulty with the idea of unassimilable foreign enemies but seems to look down his nose at people who recognize there are unassimilable domestic enemies. The slow destruction of one American city after another with no end in sight must simply be part of the natural advancement of white society.

  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The idea of globalism is much older. The ottoman empire was an example of globalism. The mongol empire before that, was globalism. Heck even the roman empire was globalistic in a way. Globalistic forces have always existed alongside localistic forces. And it was a form of globalism (colonialisation) that also helped make the west wealthy. It is also globalism that helped make the united states a super-power by helping its dollar become the global reserve currency.

    Thats globalism right there.

    But localism is also important because sometimes leaders of countries know whats best for their people better than some foreign person. Even if the foreign-persons have good intentions, they may not ‘get it right’ as native born leaders do. A lot of people in the world might not have achieved the living standards they have now…..if it was not for the development of ‘nation-states’ in the first place.

    So i think a ‘balance’ of globalism and localism is better over one or the other.

  19. Ace says:
    @jilles dykstra

    On the Anglican Church, Henry was desperate for an heir, no unimportant matter given the inherited monarchy then in place. Civil wars could result when orderly succession was not an option.

    Henry’s request for an annulment was nothing out of the ordinary but the Pope’s dilemma was that at the time he was under the de facto control of Charles, the Holy Roman Emperor, who was Catherine of Aragon’s uncle.

    The local representatives of Rome could be some arrogant swine but for Henry the one thing on his mind was succession. The destruction of the monasteries was made possible by the break with Rome but it was not Henry’s objective at the outset.

    • Replies: @Alden
  20. Ace says:
    @Jason Liu

    Every minority pressure group out there is a reliable source of virulent anti-white hatred.

    Diversity did not have to be but those who brought it about were unwise. The idea that America should be anything other than a white majority nation is absurd. Hosannas issue when hostile minorities and unassimilable foreigners talk about ethnic and racial interests but whites are just supposed to fade gracefully to khaki. And shut up about it. Reassert ourselves? The horror.

    Economic collapse will flush a lot of stupidity from the system. It will be a giant game of 52 Pick Up but better chaos soon than certain degradation later.

  21. @jilles dykstra

    Don’t have time at the moment, but the short story is that the party leader’s (Kaczyński’s) insitutional vision is essentially a recreation of communist Poland without the communism. Most of what they’ve done is welfare handouts and trying to reform insitutions back into their communist era forms.

    He’s waged war against the court system since his party won the election with mostly nonsensical complaints so this is part of that.

    The one good idea the government has is refusing to settle “refugees” (the Merkeljugend).

    • Replies: @Beckow
    , @Anonymous
  22. Ace says:
    @jilles dykstra

    ** Nationalism is fascism and racism, the foundation of genocide by gas chambers. **

    Where do you get this nonsense? Globalists freaks, not nationalists, are busy bringing about the evils of which you speak or reasonable facsimile.

    When did a 12-year period in thousands of years of history become its crown jewel instead of an aberration?

    Vlad impaled his Muslim enemies way before that. Let’s take that as our Year Zero. It makes as much sense.

  23. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    Nationalism is fascism and racism, the foundation of genocide by gas chambers.

    Actually not. But since you raise the genocide card, let’s remember that globalization as it is occurring now is genocide by suppressed European reproduction and mass replacement immigration.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  24. Anonymous [AKA "Steven Yates"] says:

    I presume you mean “Randian.” In the interests of full disclosure, the answer to both your questions is, “No.” I’ve no past or present involvement with either project.

    • Replies: @Pachyderm Pachyderma
  25. Brilliant article! Thanks again, Mr. Unz.

    Through four decades of communist rule, Poland and other captive nations of Europe endured a brutal campaign to demolish freedom, your faith, your laws, your history, your identity — indeed, the very essence of your culture and your humanity. Yet, though it all, you never lost that spirit.

    Ironically, one reason why Poland today is still very Polish is the historic fact of their post-war domination by the Soviets. It was Stalin who, after the war, ordered all the ethnic Germans to move to the DDR, all the ethnic Czechs to move to Czechoslovakia, all the ethnic Lithuanians to move to Lithuania, etc. So thanks to Stalin, Poland is now even more Polish than ever before. This, by the way, is true of nearly all the former Warsaw Pact countries in E. Europe.

    The cooperative might experience, at best, a Brave New World, as doubtless the soma of mass entertainment (sports, celebrities, those glitzy bestsellers) would continue. For the recalcitrant, it could be more like 1984.

    Amazing! I’ve had the exact same though myself for so many years now.

    • Replies: @cliff arroyo
  26. @Seamus Padraig

    In terms of language and cultural identification, yes. In terms of genetics…. I’ve known Polish people with Russian, German, Yiddish, English, Greek, Romanian, Czech, Hungarian, Vietnamese and a few other last names. The Jewish genetic element looms large in public life (the categories Jew and Pole overlap some rather than being starkly separate).

    But language and culture? Yes, never more Polish.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  27. @Wizard of Oz

    well they could volunteer for servitude, if their resource is needed we could conquer them and take it.they could contract for better nations to impose civilization on them in return for the resource. They could hobble along as resort towns offer themselves as banking havens, sell themselves off to those wanting to experiment with different forms of government. Basically they better get with reality before reality gets with them

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  28. Solid essay, my dear Mr. Yates, which would have been better had you exercised restraint in use of the exclamation point.

  29. expeedee says:

    Maybe I’m one of those horrible reductionist types. But taking a sociobiological view of the issues, it seems to me what is failing is not so much the idea of globalism or the EU, but rather multiculturalism. Even in the utopian globalist model, it is unlikely that W.D. Hamilton’s rule of inclusive fitness and ethnic genetic interests are going to disappear. I see lots of trouble ahead for Europe and the US.

  30. Alden says:

    A secondary objective was to seize the property of the church and Catholics because by 1530 Henry was almost bankrupt because of his invasions of France and Scotland and his incredibly extravagant building projects and lifestyle. One of his palaces was the largest palace in Europe at the time even though England was only average in terms of wealth and population.

    The Pope was under palace arrest at castle St Angelo. In 1537 Charles 5 of the Holy Roman Emperor also King Charles1 of Spain invaded and sacked Rome. Thousands were nurdered, buildings were destroyed, so many women were raped by the German Lutheran and Spanish Catholic soldiers that the city was burdened with the massive costs of the resulting orphans for years.

    Every time the Pope made motions toward granting the divorce Charles 5&1 just threatened another sack of Rome over which the Pope was the secular ruler and protector.

    As important as a male heir for Henry was the property of the church and Catholics.

    What a farce, 6 wives, several mistresses and what did Henry get? 2 sickly constantly ailing boys who both died before they were 18 and 2 sickly girls who couldn’t have children. ER 1 lived to an old age but she was the only one.

    He was the joke of Europe.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Ace
  31. Ukie says:

    Poland then Ukraine, what remains. Expel foreign dissidents.

  32. Demographic Imperialism under the cover of Globalism is the GREATEST threat against civilizations, cultures, and races. Globalism calls for domination of ALL THE WORLD by globalist supremacists.

    Since Jewish finance is most dominant, it wants to take over all banks in all nations.
    Since US military is most powerful, it wants to encircle and control all the world.
    Since Hollywood is most formulaic, it wants to take over all cinemas.
    Since blacks are fastest and toughest, they want to take over all sports teams of all nations. (Look what happened to the French soccer team). And since black men are most sexually aggressive, they feel it’s their right to colonize all wombs around the world.
    Since white beauty is most prized, it is what all the world aspires to through artificiality or race-mixing.
    Since West is richest, all the poor sods want to move there.

    The West colonizes the Rest through military, finance, and media… and the Rest colonizes the West with sheer numbers.. mostly Africans, Muslims, and Hindus.

    This was the Old Empire.

    It was imperialism from above or uber-imperialism. The great powers descended all over the world and laid claim. Empire that spread light.

    Now, we have imperialism from below or unter-imperialism. Third-rate Third World mobs, marauders, parasites, leeches, and squatters come to the West to feed on it like it’s a beached whale. Empire that spreads darkness.

    Green parties say “Save the Whale”, but the whale that needs saving is the West.

    Well-fed Western elites talk of Hope, but the Third World mobs are driven by Hunger.

    Hunger is a more powerful force. If left unchecked, Hunger will devour Hope.

    In the end, it will come down to Hate vs Hate.

    White Patriots will Hate the Western Elites who peddle Hope and Hate the Third World mobs that come with Hunger.

    And Western elites will Hate White Patriots because they must have their narco-fix of Hope to feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou.
    And Third World unter-imperialists will Hate White Patriots for saying NO to Third World Hunger for White Meat. Also, Hope convinced the Hunger that Hunger has moral claim on the West, i.e. the West belong as much to Africans and Arabs as to Europeans. (Some Hopers believe non-whites have MORE CLAIM because their Hunger justifies them.)
    So, the Third World Hunger feels it has a RIGHT to invade the West and take over.

    White Patriots must turn Hunter against the Hunger. And it must deny more Hope drugs to decadent well-fed Westerners who’ve grown lax and apathetic(and only passionate in their own demise as some delusional redemptive act).

    • Replies: @Ace
  33. @Colleen Pater

    Same lesson not very bright parents in First World should teach their children: make yourselves pleasant and useful to rich people and don’t have lots of children who will need a generous welfare system. The trouble is the second part of that is mostly for the benefit of the rich people (aka taxpayers) in the First World, except…. The spillover of too many children in many small countries is often creating no penalty. You obviously have the Caribbean in mind but you could see the logic even more clearly of Samoans and Tuvaluans etc sending their surplus people to join their cousins benefitting from New Zealand’s (or Australia’s) welfare state.

    Your satdonic realism sparked a connection to my reaction to the particular line of humbug about human caused global warming that leaders of small island countries have been trying to use to blackmail countries which export or burn coal (or oil). I couldn’t help noting that the reason people are going to continue leaving Kirabati and Tuvalu (Internet/www country code TV: haven’t we already given them a nice little earner?) is excess Christianity assisted fertility. My calculations then proceeded to the cost of raising the level of those islands by one metre (assuming natural subsidence doesn’t beat it) and that seemed to me to be the way to go for my tax and charitable dollars. Unfortunately I haven’t thought up an answer for Nigeria’s hundreds of millions though I suspect there is scope for more imagination than you can get out of Lynn and Vanhenen along the lines of exploiting existing enormous genetic variability and quasi cast systems in Africa. Now that the Catholic Church is an (over)spent moral force a regime of voluntary sterilisation within Africa (two nuts for a liftime supply of giggle juice plus education and matriarchy for the girls) is something that might get traction with Muslim ex and potential slave traders….

    *And now for something really important* since I haven’t had an answer from our software-and-all-round genius host. (Probably kindly refraining from using the affectionate words “you utterly ignorant nitwit” that I suspect usually mark old friendships with those of dimmer intellect).

    I couldn’t get a browser connection from the email notification of your reply on my smartphone by clicking on “View in browser”. The nice young advertisements for Australia’s immigration policy at the central Samsung sales and service centre (actually this time it was a young white female IT student) told me it was an problem – anyway not my phone’s software at fault as of a week ago. Can you or anyone confirm???

    OK I haven’t tested the link on a computer but I would still like to know whether others have the same problem on some or all phones.

  34. @Alden

    Fascinating stuff, or at least entertaining.

    First, to add further to my knowledge of things important to me, were those 1537 events the context of Verdi’s Tosca? (I like the bits and pieces in my head to hang together nicely so I can put off Alzheimer’s, well the manifestation of it, till I am 100).

    Second, drawing on existing quanta in my head, I have to point out that 1537 (the year of Edward VI’s birth to Jane Seymour, Henry’s third wife) was long after Henry’s divorce. (Word of advice. Don’t spend too much time on UR: it will make you go blind. Just relax with sime jolly History Channel documentaries: I’m sure something like “The Six Wives etc” would sootha) the fevered brain and be aeathetically pleasing for all tastes, including those wanting decapitations).

    What was that “largest palace in Europe”? Surely not Hampton Court Palace? My understanding was that Cardinal Wolsey built it and gave it to the king when appeasement was needed. Of course you may be able to say who added the all important Tennis Court to it which serves as the model for most new ones today as they proliferate around the truly civilised world at about one every five years. [Yes Real/Royal/Court Tennis/Jeu de Paume].

    • Replies: @anon
  35. Everyone! Help please. See last three pars of #34 – in case UR software had renumbered it it is the reply to Collen Pater #28.

  36. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    were those 1537 events the context of Verdi’s Tosca?


    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  37. @Wizard of Oz

    Oz would probably be the closest thing to Paradise on Earth if it forbade all non-White immigration. That’s the one thing that could screw it up.

  38. It is not the first time a sarcasm of me is misunderstood.
    What I wrote about nationalism is the implicit reasoning of many against nationalism.

  39. @CanSpeccy

    A sarcasm misunderstood

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  40. Ace says:
    @Priss Factor

    An excellent take on the madness.

    In the end, all explanations fail. This is no criticism of you. It is simply to say that the madness is such that it is purely satanic. A malevolence is at work that is beyond human comprehension.

    • Replies: @white noise
  41. Ace says:

    Thank you.

    Reading the Wikipedia treatment if those events just now I see Henry opposing the church but only in the context of ensuring royal supremacy. He demand money to forget the church’s crime of favoring Rome. No mention of anything presaging wholesale dispossession.

    I believe stealing the property of the abbeys was a separate issue. Other rulers in Europe were also finding that maintaining modern armies was expensive.

    Belloc argued that Henry was too generous in letting the nobility do the dirty work of dispossession (and cutting them in) and that he weakened the monarchy thereby. But that’s another story.

  42. Miro23 says:
    @cliff arroyo

    In terms of language and cultural identification, yes. In terms of genetics…. I’ve known Polish people with Russian, German, Yiddish, English, Greek, Romanian, Czech, Hungarian, Vietnamese and a few other last names. The Jewish genetic element looms large in public life (the categories Jew and Pole overlap some rather than being starkly separate).

    But language and culture? Yes, never more Polish.

    The situation there is a firm ethnic Polish majority with integrated minorities having a first loyalty to Poland – language and culture.

    This is the way the US used to work up to the 1950’s and is probably the only basis for a successful society. It needs to be 100% clear that the US is an Anglo society with an Anglo tradition and ethnic minorities have to integrate and have a first loyalty to US language and culture.

    This is my understanding of “America First” and why it is such a threat to the whole ZioGlob frontier less, stateless, tradition free, PC multicultural corporate/financial project.

    There’s nothing for the ZioGlob in “America First”. The Jewish MSM, Jewish controlled Congress (“Israel First”) , corporate low wage outsourcers, Jewish FED/Wall St and Neo-cons spending tax payer \$ trillions on Israel’s wars and every kind of corporate special interest don’t want it.

    • Replies: @cliff arroyo
  43. @Intelligent Dasein

    My equally shorthand view would be weighted to the need to retain a level of growing prosperity that makes a not too rancorous democracy workable and in the short term certainly and, for more complicated reasons the mid to long term I think Austraia’s immigration policies and practices are a big plus.

    I would guess our average immigrant’s IQ is well above 100 as they come either as students or for skilled jobs though I confess to not knowing how much family reunion there still is for our 1970s undesirables and early millenial African tefugees (not many but an insulating dose I trust).

    It took till about 1966 for the Australian democracy to civilise itself and its people (with a bit of help from WW2 refugees and upwardly mobile Italians and Greeks while we were building manufacturing behind tariff barriers) so the White Australia Policy could be safely abandoned. There have been some hiccups on our way to where we are now with I guess 30 per cent with at least one foreign born parent, and some of the less educated working and lower middle class people have shown some susceptibilty to populist complaints about “Asian” (and now again of course Muslim) immigrants. But the reality is, in Oz as well as America, breeding by the productive (let’s call them net taxpayers without considering Deans of Science or inventors) is relatively low and late so the native IQ is undoubtedly declining while native welfare dependence on a positive or negative net taxpaying basis goes up.

    Too late for your sorts of dreams. Just encourage your children to marry successful Chinese and Indian Ametican professionals, academics and businesspeople. Australia’s most famous old club once famous (actually not really true) for absolutely excluding Jews and Catholics now has Mao’s Lsst Dancer as a member…. And so it goes, quite comfortably. And my closest relations’ children go to an elementary school where its flash new swimming pool has been paid for mostly by the small minority of Chinese parents.

    I would hate to think of what the hospital I was in recently would be like without the medical staff, including my Taiwanese born specialist, of whom nurses I remember came (or their parents came) from Vietnam, India, Sri Lanka, China and Kenya (gorgeous actually: though she said she was Bantu I suspected a bit of the Nilotic like Obama’s father and the Tutsi, and smart).

    So, even if one’s ambition is to make and keep a country beneficent fot Trump’s lower middle class and downwardly mobile supporters I think the Australian model is probably the only reliable way to go till we have a Brave New World where Eugenics is benign and accepted. (Yes Joey, Grandma’s right, you can have lots of fun with it every day but not make babies. That’s what we promised Grandma after your Mum overdosed and she brought you to us when you were 18. And yes you can have fun with sister Joanna and no she can’t have babies either until they’ve got that goddamned awkward last genetic fix in place).

  44. @anon

    Thank you for not shaming me. The “of course” is not so much 1800 and it is the Kingdom of Naples v. the French which provides the setting. But it was of course Puccini’s opera. Can I say it was my deliberate mistake designed to test UR readers on the quota of traditional respectable junk in their brains?

    Ah well, not as bad as thinking Henry was still seeking his divorce in 1537…

  45. Beckow says:
    @cliff arroyo

    You seem to think that inserting ‘communist’ in front of anything, like ‘communist institutions’, is a bona fide explanation. It is not, it is basically a shallow nonsense. Institutions in Poland have ancient roots, evolved over time, but there is no particular ‘communist’ tint to them, or would be – the processes, terminology, power relationships are very old and quite stable. The ideology has changed, but the underlying institutional structure much less so. So for example a cross on the wall appears and reappears (or a communist slogan, or a German monarch’s picture, or a tsar), but the way things are done, the processes and the decision making have been very stable. This is Central Europe after all – the home of the office byrocracy.

    What Kaczynski is doing is trying to put his own cadres in charge of the key institutions like media and courts. That’s all. He won the election and now he wants to actually have power to change things. You can’t do it if the opposition keeps control of all the key institutions. The same happens everywhere – the policy is at its heart not much more than personnel policy. The liberals who lost – and are unlikely to win again for a long time due to the Merkeljugend issue – want to keep running Poland as before by their total control of key institutions. They after all dominate Warsaw and all the jobs there (not dissimilar to Washington or London).

    Kacsynski really has no other option – he can try to place his people in positions of influence (they won the elections after all), or he can just pack it in and do nothing. But that’s not why he was elected. The liberal belly-aching is silly and hypocritical, why does a TV chief have to be an ‘enlightened liberal from Warsaw’? Or all judges? People don’t like them, it is time to figure out why instead of desperately holding on to their sinecures.

    • Replies: @cliff arroyo
  46. I note with interest that Pankaj Mishra was not only Arundahti Roy’s first publisher, but is married to Mary Mount, who is the daughter of Sir Ferdinand Mount, 3rd Baronet, and the head of the Policy Unit during Margaret Thatcher’s premiership. He has an interesting family tree:

    “The only son of Robert Mount and Lady Julia Pakenham, youngest daughter of the 5th Earl of Longford, KP, Ferdinand inherited the baronetcy from his uncle Lt-Col. Sir William Mount, Bt, TD, DL, who died in 1993, having had issue three daughters, including Mrs Mary Cameron, JP (b. 1934), mother of David Cameron, former Prime Minister (and Conservative Party leader).”

    I don’t get invited to the kind of dinner parties that I guess Mishra goes to, but with an extended family like that, you have to imagine the issues raised in this essay get discussed.

    What is more mysterious is who is stopping this from turning around? It’s clearly a tragically flawed project.

  47. @Beckow

    Kaczyński didn’t win the election. Beata Szydło did. Kaczyński was kept out of sight during the campaign which made many people think he was leaving public life and that the party would turn into a more conventional Christian Democrat affair (which would be a natural in Poland).

    The second the election was over he emerged and took over again.

  48. @Miro23

    “The situation there is a firm ethnic Polish majority with integrated minorities having a first loyalty to Poland – language and culture.”

    Exactly! On a day to day basis everybody’s Polish though a minority also have genetic ties to other groups.

    That’s also the case with the sort-of-indigenous Tatar muslim population which is historically known for very strong Polish patriotism (they often dont’ get along with later muslim immigrants).

    There are limits to how far this can work in Europe but in most places they’re not even trying to create (or maintain!) national identities based on language and culture (except to a limited extent with Eastern European immigrants).

    Instead they’re trying to create a common European identity based on ‘common European’ values which are either never spelled out or which immigrants (especially africans and muslims) don’t share at all and want no part of. It’s won’t work because… it can’t work.

    • Replies: @Davidski
  49. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    Yes, sorry.

    I missed that you were stating the globalist rationale for national genocide, not your own view.

    And in case anyone is unaware of the mechanism of this genocide, let me repeat that it is by means of suppressed European reproduction and mass replacement immigration.

    In Britain, the EuroHolocaust has now passed the point of irreversibility.

    Almost 30% of births are to foreign-born mothers and the Traitor in Chief, Theresa May has managed to assure that despite the Brexit vote, Britain’s borders will remain uncontrolled for another five years. By then, with another million or so foreign-born mothers, with another couple of million native-born Brits dead, and a million or so second generation immigrants coming of age, a new referendum will reverse Brexit and the borders will remain open for ever.

    Now, only a bloody civil war could reverse the process. Or as Enoch Powell said, “I see the Tiber foaming with much blood.”

  50. Anonymous [AKA "Think Again"] says:
    @cliff arroyo

    No offence, but you’re full of shit. Worse, you sound like a hysterical neoliberal. Trying to bring back communist Poland? Get the fuck out.

    As for ‘muh welfare handouts’. Poland was really in the gutter after endless neoliberalism. People didn’t even have basic employment security. PiS has changed that. All the neoliberals screamed that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment(because that’s what the neoliberal propaganda tells you). What happened? It’s lowest as its been for over 26 years.

    A lot of other social protections came in, and nothing happened except life got better. The one reason why I’m optimistic about Poland is that unlike in a lot of countries, you don’t have to choose between a pro-working class party (on economics) or pro-working class on refugees/third worlders. So in the UK, you have UKIP which is good on immigration. But their economic programme is tailor-made for rich bankers.

    This will be a permanent reason why they will never breach 10-15%, and why their support collapsed so fast. The anti-Polish neoliberals, who live in the big cities and don’t care about the Polish nation, are seeing their parties in retreat.

    Of course nothing is permanent in politics, and I’d want the *whole* political spectrum to be pro-Poland in immigration terms, but having a political party which is pro-working poor and pro-lower middle class while at the same time rejecting third worlders is very important. Frankly, you sound like a lot of these neoliberals except on immigration.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @cliff arroyo
  51. Corvinus says:

    “No offence, but you’re full of shit. Worse, you sound like a hysterical neoliberal. Trying to bring back communist Poland? Get the fuck out.”

    You really need to educate yourself on this matter, especially if Lech Walesa is involved.

    • Replies: @cliff arroyo
  52. Corvinus says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    “Oz would probably be the closest thing to Paradise on Earth if it forbade all non-White immigration.

    Actually, you are describing a living hell.

  53. @Anonymous

    “No offence, but you’re full of shit. Worse, you sound like a hysterical neoliberal. Trying to bring back communist Poland? ”

    Do you live in Poland or speak Polish? Kaczyński doesn’t want to return communism but the general system in the communist period (with top down rule, patronage, promotion by loyalty rather than competence etc).

  54. @Corvinus

    Kaczyński (and all of Pis) hate, hate HATE Wałęsa.

    Their official story is that he was a communist spy (throughout the Solidarity period) and that he facilitated a soft transition into capitalism so that the communists could still retain power.

    Doesn’t make much sense, but that’s what they believe – PiS supporters hate Wałęsa worse than any communist.

    • Replies: @Beckow
  55. Beckow says:
    @cliff arroyo

    Well, Walesa was a registered communist collaborator – he claims that he did it to use the communists, and maybe he did. But then he would say so, what else can he say?

    Walesa also managed a very soft transition that allowed most communist cadres to prosper at least in the 90’s, and retain positions and lots of power (there were 3 million members of the communist party in 1989). You can argue that was the best way, but you can’t seriously argue that it didn’t happen.

    So what exactly ‘doesn’t make sense’?

  56. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Will Poland be punished for crimes of citizens during World War Two? They killed fellow citizens and helped Nazis and Soviets until crushed by both sides.
    If Polack gets punishment, when will Russia be punished and when will Ukraine be punished?

    • Troll: utu
  57. @Anonymous

    Why isn’t your reply posted on a yellow background like the other authors? Are you a stepchild or something to Ron?

  58. NotBob says:

    Just a note, ‘Michael Kenny’ seems to have a reputation as a pro-EU troll on other sites. Most people familiar with his diatribes assume he is paid to put this stuff out as he is consistent, consistently wrong, and consistently does not answer refutation of his ‘points’. He may well be part of that EU-funded staff that is tasked with monitoring sites such as this to “correct” anti-EU attitudes. Maybe a holdover from this:

    Example: Assuming it is the same ‘Michael Kenny’, a few days ago he was faulting Trump for assuming there was a thing such as “the West” with certain characteristics or goals, and then immediately referred to “us Europeans” and”We Europeans” and assigned to them a “will to survive”. I was not the only person to point out this obvious lack of consistency (to be polite), but as usual there is no response.

    More than one commenter has suggested he just be ignored. He isn’t here for discussion.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  59. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s very possible judging from his “style”. I’ve seen an increasing number of shills everywhere and it amazes me that no one is suing the the paymasters. I’m going to have to look into it. Untold millions (taxpayer money mostly) are being spent, openly, on propaganda and subversion of democracy.

    • Replies: @NotBob
  60. annamaria says:

    Meanwhile, the effect of \$6 trillion spent on the “war on terror” shows in Iraq:
    “Perhaps Russia will bring the “freedom and democracy” to Iraq that Washington promised but after 14 years has failed to deliver.”

  61. NotBob says:

    They’ve got the millions to spare, Anon. I appreciate the idea, I’d love to see some efforts other than this kind of site. Not just counter the spread, but actually slow down the production of the BS. But I think trying to sue the European Commission – or the CIA or Soros – would be difficult to say the least.

    For scale only, I sued a ‘major’ arts organization in my city over a flagrant violation of employment law (even my lawyer -who took the case for free – said it was one of the most foul things he had seen). Once the donors lined up to protect the organizations image and their pro bono goons got in on the action to boost their prestige, best I could do was settle for far less than the eventual lost income.

    On the propaganda side, Jeff Bezos buys WaPo for \$300M, gets a CIA contract for \$600M, changes the masthead to ‘Democracy dies in Darkness’, and proceeds to unscrew lightbulbs, blow out candles, and sling huge sacks of doo-doo far and wide every day. That’s just one example.

    I would like to be wrong on this, but maybe that’s why we don’t see the suits you ask for. Maybe too difficult to go after somebody for what would be their ‘opinion’. The best we have for now is keep trying to point out (maybe yell a little?) just how much propaganda is being delivered, by whom, and why. Give people who don’t believe you a few sites to check out. Consortium News gets repetitive but not ‘down the Alex Jones rabbit hole’. Found this place off the blogroll at MoonofAlabama. If they get it, they get it. If not, you tried. WARNING: I have lost a few friends this way, so handle with care.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The good news is that the people are waking up and the genie is out. Red-pilled people can’t go back into the box and we’re past the event horizon in terms of influence.

  63. FKA Max says:

    Gregory Hood wrote a very good article on Western elites and specifically Emmanuel Macron.

    I personally believe that Macron is “our guy”.

    Emmanuel Macron and the Crisis of the Elite

    Did we back the wrong candidate in France? Is Emmanuel Macron—dare I say it—“our guy”?
    It is a strange “conservatism” that welcomes reckless procreation and dismisses an awareness of limits as “liberal.” And yet Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Macron’s other critics are reacting to something real. The French president’s suggestion that African women are breeding like animals and must be restrained by an enlightened elite awakens primordial terrors in the hearts of the mainstream Left and Right.
    If Europeans are replaced with Africans, Western Civilization will disappear. The choices are simple: The West, yes or no? The white race, yes or no? Our rulers have exhausted all other options. Mr. Macron, and his fellow Western elites, can no longer avoid the question. And we, as whites, must not let them destroy us by making the wrong choices.

    It is a strange “conservatism” that welcomes reckless procreation and dismisses an awareness of limits as “liberal.” And yet Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Macron’s other critics are reacting to something real. The French president’s suggestion that African women are breeding like animals and must be restrained by an enlightened elite awakens primordial terrors in the hearts of the mainstream Left and Right.

    Chapter Ten “Reflections on God and Religion” of “Common Sense Renewed” by “Robert Christian”.

    Full PDF:

    French army band medleys Daft Punk following Bastille Day parade

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @FKA Max
  64. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max

    I accidentally doubly quoted the “It is a strange “conservatism” that welcomes reckless procreation and dismisses an awareness of limits as “liberal.”” paragraph from Mr. Hood’s article. The correct quote to the link following this paragraph is this:

    “utilitarian rationality”, which puts the well-being of an entire society/nation/civilization/humanity as its highest priority and goal (noblesse oblige, benevolent/enlightened technocracy, long-term planning/strategy).

  65. P- Grosse says:

    If there is a clash of civilizations, why Muslims are not invading Mexico? Mexicans hate Mohammed and Coran, they are Christians and Muslims supposedly hate Christians. Do they love each others?

    • Replies: @white noise
    , @White Noise
  66. Anonymous [AKA "Mark Regets"] says:

    The author and I are may not agree on the preferred role of the nation-state in the world. I think that individuals are more empowered and have more liberty in a more global world, but that is a much longer discussion.

    But maybe he will still understand my concern.

    In Trump’s speech in Poland, the word “democracy” was not used once.

    In a visit to a country where there have been widespread concerns about the collapse of political liberty, the President of the United States did not make even an oblique reference to free speech or any of the other components of liberty.

    By defining freedom in only nationalist terms, Trump implicitly defined it as only the right to be ruled by your own kind. That type of ethnic freedom has been important in history–it was very important to the 1848 central European revolts against the Hapsburgs and other dynasties. But is a very narrow component of overall liberty, and not a very American one. In the 20th century, ethnic based concepts of liberty unleased many horrors on the world.

  67. Davidski says:
    @cliff arroyo

    You Sir are making some seriously outlandish claims about Polish genetic ancestry. Is this wishful thinking or are you just being dishonest?

    Please educate yourself.

  68. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I think that individuals are more empowered and have more liberty in a more global world, but that is a much longer discussion.

    It’s a fairly short one but since you’re using “empowered” un-ironically I can see how it could become complicated for you. Citizens can only vote for their national leaders. That’s the only democratic lever they have and the only way to protect their empowerment and liberty.

    That’s a problem for the globalists so they’ll directly interfere through NGOs, Soros and the CIA but even if a god leader gets elected his hands are supposed to be tied by the supranational trade agreements, WTO or the EU. And let’s not even mention global banks and global markets.

    Meanwhile, the Internet’s globalist lords are aggressively monitoring everything and shaping the information flow. Anti-globalist voices are getting de-funded, slandered, shilled and pushed away from high traffic nodes. This process has greatly accelerated since MAGA and brexit.

    So, the only new globalist freedom is given to a Guatemalan citizen to leave his sunk ship (Guatemala – destroyed by globalist forces for the most part), and enter a sinking one (like the US – getting destroyed now). I don’t think it’s worth it TBH – certainly not for the NWO vision in which the goyim are flattened into a brown paste of misery, dis-empowerment and un-liberty.

  69. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max

    The following applies to Emmanuel Macron as well, in my opinion:

    This is how I see Mr. Unz; he is one of the few elites/institutional guardians who thinks for himself:

    The key to throwing off these chains of mental immaturity is reason. There is hope that the entire public could become a force of free thinking individuals if they are free to do so. Why? There will always be a few people, even among the institutional “guardians,” who think for themselves. They will help the rest of us to “cultivate our minds.” Kant shows himself a man of his times when he observes that “a revolution may well put an end to autocratic despotism . . . or power-seeking oppression, but it will never produce a true reform in ways of thinking.” The recently completed American Revolution had made a great impression in Europe; Kant cautions that new prejudice will replace the old and become a new leash to control the “great unthinking masses.”

  70. Ace says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Mr. Dykstra, I misread your comment. Please accept my apologies for my stupid reply.

  71. @Ace

    “In the end, all explanations fail. This is no criticism of you. It is simply to say that the madness is such that it is purely satanic. A malevolence is at work that is beyond human comprehension.”

    And most people are not even aware, because they don’t (want to) believe in such things.

  72. @P- Grosse

    “If there is a clash of civilizations, why Muslims are not invading Mexico? Mexicans hate Mohammed and Coran, they are Christians and Muslims supposedly hate Christians. Do they love each others?”

    Good question. The muslims can’t speak Spanish. Contrary to USA or Europe, Mexico is very cohesively religious: 96 % of the country is fiercely Catholic. Also, generally the Mexican society is an integrated one, where fervent nationalism is alive and kicking. That’s why.

    For the elites, those pesky Mexicans are a tough nut to crack 😀

  73. @P- Grosse

    In more detail: Because the Mexicans are so fervently Catholic (thus, Christian), the concept of family is very important to them. While the elites succeeded in disintegrating the American family, they have failed miserably in regards to the Mexican family, which remains alive and kicking, immune to indoctrination so far.

    For instance, the Mexican females don’t buy any of the feminist bullshit (which is a Jewish concoction anyway, of course), so they keep busy making more and more babies and making sure that the family remains as raucous and united as ever. As the Jewish plotters know, if the family is strong, the society stays strong.

    Also, in Mexico, you are a politician at your peril, because if you don’t deliver, the people will take it on you very directly. Suffice to say, politicos and police live very afraid of incurring the public’s wrath, and it’s not uncommon to hear of “public servants” who suddenly appear dead, one single bullet in the head. The Mexicans can easily take justice in their own hands, and it’s not always the cartels who do it.

    Talking about the cartels… a brilliant (recent) move by the Mexican people was to infiltrate the drug cartels (which were another Jewish/CIA invention), and so now some of the cartels act as kinda Robin Hoods on crack… delivering the goods in the little towns that the politicians promised but failed to deliver. And some of the drug lords are now local idols, because they not only sell drugs, they also help the poor… They give back to the community, so to speak.

    Moreover, when the Mexicans perceive a foreign threat, they stick together, and together they confront the common enemy, they’re not shy of taking it to the streets en masse, and can resort to violence more or less easily when provoked. And thanks to the elites, who were hoping to arm the cartels only, the Mexicans now have plenty of guns and even AK-47’s and enough ammunition to defend themselves.

    They don’t generally interbreed with foreigners, not inside Mexico anyway, so they haven’t been infiltrated by other races… And because of the local fervent Catholic belief, Muslims are… not welcome. African slaves arrived in the port of Veracruz in droves, many, many years ago, brought by the Spaniards… They ceased to exist, after some time, because the Mexican females were not very keen on having black babies. A population of mulatos survives in the area, the result of interbreeding of those blacks with Mexican women, but they are a minority, and their offspring comes whiter and whiter, as time passes by…

    You get the picture. The Mexicans remain stubbornly Mexican. They have big problems, but they remain in one piece. Unbreakable.

    Maybe the whites can learn a trick or two from those pesky brownies 😉

    By the way… About 45 % of the Mexican population is now kinda white, of European ancestry. But that happened in the past, they don’t mix with Europeans much anymore. But, the thing is that, roughly, almost half the Mexican population is white now.

    … And back to the USA and Europe: The problem is the white Caucasian females, who appear to be the unwitting traitors here… They were easily seduced by all the feminist crap that the Jewish plotters threw at her. And that alone has brought a lot of trouble and disruption, socially.

    As for the Mexicans, in spite of financial subjugation (the Bank of Mexico is of course owned and controlled by the Soros/Rothschild ilk), somehow, the master plan went wrong in Mexico, and my guess is that the globalists haven’t figured out what to do with the Mexicans, and aren’t happy with them. It’s hard to tame such a stubborn, resourceful, unruly bunch.

    • Troll: Sya Beerens
  74. Neo liberalism is a disaster for the inhabitants of the 3rd world and what they’re saying is: We demand that every one on the planet lives by our rules or else. So if a poor Pakistani doesn’t have the means for “gender equality” between his kids and wife times 80% of the planet he’s/they’re incompatible with The Agenda.

    That’s how the global south experiences “Climate Action” “Corona crisis” “open borders” aka indefinite incarceration vs Democracy and Freedom.

    The “migrant crisis” is a recycled concept. “Muslim” “Foreigner” “Asylum Seekers” “White man’s burden” “Overpopulation” “Global Pandemic” the anti humans.

    This entire website is dedicated to this

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steven Yates Comments via RSS
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
How America was neoconned into World War IV
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement