Articles ##Europe

Ramzpaul is basically right in his quarrel with the “1488” wing of White Nationalism. He’s obviously frustrated with purity signaling spirals and LARPing. I believe he’s wrong to accuse 1488ers of being enemy plants, although some of them probably are. I think, however, that his deepest frustration stems from the sense that White Nationalist ideas have the potential to sweep through our society and redefine the political mainstream, were it not for the ease with which our enemies stigmatize them as “Nazi.” (I will use “Nazi” rather than “National Socialist,” because we are talking about stigmatizing rhetoric here.)

Are you worried that our race is in demographic decline? Only Nazis would worry about that! Do you want to secure our borders against criminals and terrorists? Only Naziswould want to do that! Do you think it is crazy that Sweden, Germany, and other European countries have imported thousands of rapists from Africa and the Middle East? Only a Nazi would care about that! Do you think that your country should prefer citizens to foreigners, workers to parasites, decent people to criminals? Only Naziswould think that way! Do you think that whites should start saying “no” to unjust and crazy non-white demands, such as Black Lives Matter protesters who basically demand an end to enforcing laws against black criminals? Only a Nazi would do that. You don’t want to be a Nazi, do you? Then stop protesting against policies that will destroy white people. After all, the only way for white people to atone for the crimes of Nazis is by ceasing to exist.

This kind of rhetoric is so asinine, and the aims it advances are so evil, that it should be child’s play to demolish it. But we have had more than 90 years of anti-Nazi propaganda dinned into us by now, which has created a powerful moral inhibition to think rationally about any policies, no matter how sensible, if they are stigmatized as “just like the Nazis.”

To make matters worse, there are plenty of our own people who happily collaborate in this process of stigmatizing and marginalizing sensible policies as “Nazi.” They jump up and say, “You’re damned right! Only Nazis believe in borders. Only Nazis oppose rape. Only Nazis take their own side in a fight.”

Given a choice between defending policies that are necessary for the survival of our very race — or defending the honor of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism, the 1488 crowd prefers the latter. But this is a perverse and self-defeating move.

Earlier this year, after the mass sexual assaults and harassment of German women by Muslim men on New Year’s Eve, the Mayor of Cologne declared that she was setting up “safe zones” for women at Carnival time. I tweeted the following:

Why can’t all of Germany be a safe zone for women?

It is good propaganda, because the natural answer is “Yes, why not?” We will win when the public’s first reaction to all nationalist policies is “Yes, why not?” Because if every individual should have a room of his own, and every family a house of its own, why shouldn’t every people have a country of its own? Why not?

But imagine a slightly different message:

Hitler was right. Why can’t all of Germany be a safe zone for women?

The initial reaction of most people would be indignation, disbelief, or puzzlement about the first sentence. And very few would go on to read the second sentence at all, much less think, “Yes, why not?” Beyond that, the fact that an opponent of mass rape links his position to Hitler actually lends credibility to the idiotic claim that opposing the rape of German women is somehow a bad thing because it is “just like Hitler.”

The case for racial and ethnic nationalism has never been stronger. Philosophy, science, history, and the news of the day all argue in its favor. Thus it is easy to see why the enemies of nationalism want to marginalize and stigmatize it by linking it to a single central European nationalist movement from the first half of the 20th century. Our enemies claim that Nazism is the only real and authentic form of racial or ethnic nationalism. It is harder to understand why friends of nationalism want to do the same thing.

Nazism is not the only real and authentic form of racial nationalism. It is not the only path to racial nationalist policies. Our politics is based on reason and reality, not on the historical contingencies of central Europe between the wars.

Why is it the case that even in countries like Poland, Ukraine, and Russia, which suffered terribly at the hands of the Nazis, there are nationalists who identify with National Socialism? I think this is a natural product of anti-Nationalist propaganda. When a population accepts the false equivalency nationalism = Nazism, most people will be deterred from nationalism, but there will always be a small minority who will still embrace it.

Some of these people are attracted to Nazism because they really believe it is evil. Not much can be done with such people. Others think it is true and good, and they will embrace what is true and good regardless of any stigmas. These people are admirable. Such sincere idealists might even believe that they can persuade enough of their fellow citizens to tip the political balance in favor of nationalism. After all, history is made by energetic minorities.

There are two problems with this notion:

1. The number of people receptive to Nazism — paleo or neo — is probably too small to change the direction of any society. (And yes, one’s movement might grow exponentially until it hits its absolute upper limit of, say, .02% of the general populace.)
2. Generic racial/ethnic nationalist policies have the potential to convert the vast majority of our people, which is why — again — our enemies seek to heap the odium of “Nazism” on them. We have an uphill battle on our hands, and — again — our own people should not make it harder.

So given a choice between option #1 and option #2, the best path to the salvation of our race is clearly #2. Yes, our enemies will always throw the “Nazi” charge our way. But we always have a choice when they do: to help them or to fight them.

Is this “mainstreaming”? No, I am a vanguardist. Mainstreamers want us to change our principles. They want us to be more like the mainstream. I want to keep our principles and change the mainstream to be more like us. I don’t want White Nationalism to go mainstream, I want the mainstream to go White Nationalist. I want to change the public mind, not mirror or echo it.

For me, there are four non-negotiable principles of White Nationalism: (1) Europeans are a distinct race, the white race; (2) our race is on the road to biological extinction because of bad political policies (white genocide); (3) the only solution is to this danger is to create racially and ethnically homogeneous white homelands; and (4) Jews are a distinct people that belong in their own homeland, not scattered about white homelands. We’ll never save our people by abandoning any of these principles, so we will just have to convert them to our way of thinking.

The opposite of the mainstream is the vanguard. But another opposite of the mainstream is the marginal. Vanguardism and marginality are not the same things, though. So we should never mistake self-marginalization for a winning vanguard strategy. Just because something is not mainstream does not mean that it is a vanguard capable of pulling the mainstream behind it.

“Hitler did nothing wrong” is funny as a meme, but it is not defensible as a thesis. And let’s be honest: it is funny because of its chutzpah. There is something bracing about sheer self-assertion in the face of practically the whole world. I was delighted when Charles Manson declared, “The war’s not over as far as I’m concerned.” (Remember, he’s not locked in there with them; they’re locked in there with him.) But the war really is over, although the struggle for European survival goes on. Yes, people build strength by carrying unnecessary burdens. But this is politics, not therapy. And political movements defeat themselves by taking on such burdens.

I once told a friend that I would gladly join his little spiritual honor guard at the crypt of National Socialism, except that I believe that we can actually win. There are a lot of self-defeating attitudes and behaviors on the Alternative Right: alcoholism, drug abuse, LARPing, bickering, internet drama, etc. I believe that people gravitate towards them because, deep down inside, they’re already defeated. They don’t believe we can win; that attitude leads to self-defeating behaviors; and thus their prophecy fulfills itself. Naturally, I would much prefer that they fulfill my prophecy instead: that the Millennials will someday be known as the Greatest Generation, because they will liberate our race and establish homelands for all our peoples.

So, to sum up, I think that Ramzpaul is basically right. But why do I think that it does not matter? Because the 1488ers will never go away, so I think he is wasting his time baiting them. Instead, we need to find a way of accepting their existence and making them into assets rather than liabilities. First, they do attract highly principled and idealistic people, some of whom we can educate. Second, the best way to convert people within our broader camp is not to attack them but to set an example by doing a better job of attacking our common enemies. Third, they make us seem more moderate and centrist by comparison. Thus they can serve as stalking horses, which might scare people into being more accommodating to our approach. Fourth and finally, as Jonathan Bowden often pointed out, the ultra fringes of any political movement generally attract highly energetic and creative people. We can draw upon some of that energy and steal their best memes: https://www.counter-currents.com/2016/04/why-ramzpaul-is-right/

The advocates of mass immigration will say things like “all countries have immigration” or “immigration doesn’t just happen in White, Western countries – it’s a global phenomena”. Such statements are highly deceptive, and yet the vast majority of people simply accept them.

Most people have heard of ‘guest-worker immigration’. This is the immigration system which operates in non-White countries from Africa and Asia to the Middle East.

One of the key features of guest-worker immigration is that immigrants are treated as temporary, economic residents. That is, they are granted permission to stay (i.e. temporary residence) and permission to work for a limited period (e.g. for 10 years on a limited-time visa), after which they are expected to leave.

A second, crucially important, feature of guest-worker immigration is that the total immigrant population always remains the same size, the total immigrant population remains fixed (once the required number of immigrants has been reached.)

The overall immigrant population will always remain the same size whether the immigration process continues for 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years. Furthermore, even if the immigrant population has a large number of births, their children will be returned home with their parents. Guest-worker immigration provides advantages of immigration without greatly affecting the demographic balance of the country deploying it.

Overall, guest-worker immigration is flexible. It makes immigration easy to plan and control. It is easy to increase or decrease the total number of immigrants as the country’s economy fluctuates. And, if desired, the total number of immigrants can be returned to zero – since immigrants neither become citizens nor permanent residents.

Guest-worker immigration treats immigrants as temporary, economic guest-workers right from the start. And, unsurprisingly, it is the most common immigration system in the world. It is the immigration of choice throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East – yet it isn’t deployed in even a single White, Western country.

Overall, citizenship immigration can be characterized by:  • Endless inward immigration

• No expatriation process for immigrants – only illegal immigrants may be expatriated

• An ever-growing immigrant population

Unlike guest-worker immigration, citizenship immigration always leads to an ever-growing immigrant population because there is no expatriation process to keep the overall immigrant population in balance, almost all immigrants quickly gain the right to permanent residence or citizenship, any children born to them will automatically acquire permanent residence and/or citizenship too.

The total immigrant population will never stop growing because, few, if any, will leave. Most will become permanent residents or citizens, and those who acquire citizenship (including any children they may have) will no longer even be considered immigrants.

One system keeps the immigrant population static and unchanged, whilst the other system leads to rapid growth. Citizenship immigration leads to a rapidly growing immigrant population.

Overall, citizenship immigration creates conditions where the native population will become outnumbered by the immigrant population (i.e become a racial minority). Citizenship immigration has a social engineering component which is absent altogether under guest-worker immigration.  In economic terms, guest-worker immigration is a far more flexible and efficient than citizenship immigration. Under guest-worker immigration, non-working immigrants can be expatriated, older workers are continuously replaced by younger workers, and the immigrant population itself is static – yet it can be intentionally increased or reduced as economically necessary.

Under citizenship immigration, because existing immigrants rarely leave, once the total immigrant population is large enough, it will continue to expand – even if further immigration is stopped altogether!

Citizenship immigrants are necessarily (as citizens) granted access to welfare, social security, pensions, medical and healthcare support, housing benefits and other costly public services. These are clearly additional social costs and overheads which reduce – not increase – the economic benefits available under guest-worker immigration. Indeed, under guest-worker immigration, these social costs and overheads are the privilege of citizens alone – and immigrants are rarely granted citizenship.

Guest-worker immigration leads to an immigrant population which is fixed in size. This makes it easy to plan for. Because the immigrant population is fixed in size, the additional budgeting is relatives small and easy to plan.  Under citizenship immigration, on the other hand – where the vast majority of immigrants will acquire permanent citizenship – the costs will grow rapidly. Overall, there is a vast difference between planning for a fixed, static immigrant population and funding an ever-growing immigrant population.

Under citizenship immigration, non-working immigrants cannot easily be returned home – even if would be economically expedient to do so. Their legally protected ‘right’ to permanent residence and citizenship (in all and only White countries) mean that the immigrant population cannot be reduced without resorting to drastic measures, such as withdrawing permanent residence status or cancelling citizenship – measures which were economically unnecessary in the first place.

Overall, then, there are no economic advantages to offering immigrants citizenship and permanent residence – there are only additional costs and social burdens.

Under guest-worker immigration, the purpose of immigrants is to empower the economy. But under citizenship immigration, the primary function of economics is to endorse, justify, and (if necessary) suffer substantial economic losses for large-scale immigration and demographic engineering.  We can gain an important insight into what has motivated citizenship immigration (rather than guest-worker immigration) by simply looking at which countries have implemented it. When we do, we find that all and only White, Western countries have implemented citizenship immigration.  Why would any country choose an inflexible, economically inferior system of immigration which clearly and demonstrably changes the demographic make-up of the country – especially when a far superior alternative is widely available?

Choosing citizenship immigration over guest-worker immigration makes absolutely no sense – unless radically changing the demographic make-up of your country is the desired result.  We are constantly told that immigration is an “economic necessity” – and yet it’s more expensive, more inflexible and it’s vastly more demographical harmful. White countries alone operate a completely different immigration system to non-White countries. The economic arguments are lies.

These days, demographic decline is a common justification for endless immigration into the West. It would not, therefore, be very surprising if pro-immigration advocates were to argue that the West needs citizenship immigration to prevent the demographic decline of their native White population. On the surface, this appears plausible, yet the ‘demographic decline’ argument has a serious credibility problem.

If citizenship immigration is the tool of choice to combat ‘demographic decline’, then why don’t rich, non-White countries like Israel and Qatar force their people to adopt it?

Qatar, for example, is a country with only 278,000 citizens, yet it has an immigrant population of over 2 million! Yet because Qatar operates a system of guest-worker immigration, the ethnic Qatari population is protected from race-replacement, despite being outnumbered 8 to 1 by immigrants! Qataris are a small statistical minority (compared to the immigrant population) yet their immigrants are temporary guests, not citizens. Qataris will neither become an ethnic minority in Qatar, nor lose their culture or sovereignty. So why should we?

The final nail in the coffin for the ‘demographic decline’ argument, however, is the openly hostile attitude of Western leaders to measures which might boost White birth rates and halt that decline.

When Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, won his country’s election in April 2014, he called for the total cessation of immigration into his country coupled with policies designed to boost native Hungarian birth-rates. The outrage which ensued was as caustic as it was immediate. The EU Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vidar Helgesen (Norway), called for the EU to immediately impose economic sanctions on Hungary.

Thus, in White, Western countries it is the worldview of Mr Helgesen – not Mr Orban – which prevails amongst our leadership. And far from supporting measures which might halt ‘demographic decline’ (in all and only White countries), Western leaders utterly condemn such measures and seek to demonize, ostracize and alienate anyone brave enough to even suggest them.

Indeed, French ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy went even further; stating, on several occasions, that EU countries have a ‘moral obligation’ to engage in race-mixing – and not just accept (citizenship) immigration.

In reality, there are two different systems of immigration, and they have very different outcomes. The ugly truth is that all White, Western countries have been forced to accept one system of immigration whilst all non-White, non-Western countries are free to choose another. So, not only is the idea that there is one, universal system of immigration false, but the outcomes of those systems could not be more divergent and extreme. We have been silenced by wolves justifying biased, one-sided policies as ‘fairness’. Yet there is nothing fair about the outcome they have in mind.  Read more here: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=32331 

Most Americans take for granted that democracy is an absolute good. If it can be said of an idea or a program that it promotes equality, Americans, whatever their political affiliations, will be loath to speak ill of the idea or to protest the program.  “Of course,” they will think to themselves, “anything that fosters fairness and equal treatment must be good for society. Should we not strive to treat everyone the same?  Is that not what America is all about?”

Well, no; at least not exactly. America strives to be the land of opportunity, a country where citizens are afforded equal dignity and are granted a say in their government. But the people do not control their government directly. They elect—or elect people to appoint—leaders who will represent their needs, values, and interests. We do so, not just for practical procedural reasons, but because we understand that there are certain people in our community whose skills for governing surpass those of their fellow citizens. In the same way, there are individual musicians, artists, and physicians whose skills in their respective areas are superior to the skills of others who share their aspirations for music, art, or medicine.

Imagine someone whose ruling ethic was that of egalitarian sameness trying to form a ballet troupe, an academic faculty, or a football team. I can’t say that many of us would be willing to pay to see such a troupe, to enroll in such a university, or to place a bet on such a team. Although the popularity of “reality TV,” the persistence of quota-driven affirmative action initiatives, and the lowering and/or mainstreaming of educational standards suggest, alarmingly, that many in our country would like to see the elimination of any kind of ranking, distinction, or hierarchy, the common-sense pragmatism of our citizenry has thus far prevented us from falling into the black hole of egalitarian mediocrity. We all recognize, in our best, noblest, and least envious moments, that just as we excel our neighbors in certain areas, they excel us in others.

Which is not to say that Americans would prefer a kind of rigid aristocracy in which only a very small number of upper-crust folk could engage, say, in drama or higher education or athletics. One of the strengths of our country is its widespread promotion of amateur theaters, community colleges, and local sports teams that involve people who may not have the skill to be the absolute best in their field, but whose significant gifts and talents allow them to make strong and meaningful contributions to their communities. The fact that there is only one Pope and a relatively small number of Cardinals has not prevented countless priests across the world from serving and enriching their local parishes.

In our American democracy, rulers hold power on the basis of popular election rather than hereditary right, politicians and soldiers swear allegiance to a code of laws rather than to a monarch, and average citizens have the right to appeal to and be protected by those laws. None of these political mandates necessitates a rejection of all hierarchy, rank, and distinction, though they do allow for more fluid movement within and between various social, political, and cultural classes. Still, democracy’s empowerment of the people does set in motion the potential for a kind of mob rule in which the people—drunk with their own power and sense of entitlement—demand that their whims be catered to by politicians and other leaders, while unscrupulous and flamboyant demagogues—drunk with their own delusions of grandeur—pander to the crowd and make promises that can only be met by draining and destabilizing the state:

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/03/the-dangers-of-egalitarianism-democracy.html

There are two types of countries – countries that are for their people, and countries that are for ideas.

The latter could be described as “wordism” – loyalty to an idea; for example, religion, monarchy, Communism, #Fascism, are all forms of “wordism”.

A “wordism” can never allow REAL Freedom of Speech because words made it, and words can destroy it. So the “wordism” declares that “You have free speech, but not HATE speech”.

Sound familiar? “Diversity” (Multiracial-ism), is also a “wordism”. The idea behind “Diversity” is that there can be no ethnic states. US General Wesley Clark said “there can be no ethnically pure states in Europe”, there are lots of “non-diverse” areas in non-White areas . . . but Europe is White.

Europe is expected to be “progressive” in the mind of an anti-White, and non-Whites are expected to be “primitive”.

This means that “Diversity”, the one true religion will mercilessly target any White area that goes against “Diversity” (Multiracial-ism).

Multiracial-ism has no loyalty to WHO lives in a certain country, but multiracial-ism demands loyalty of them.

So to say again, there can never be a “wordism” that allows freedom. Diversity it just a codeword for White genocide. MORE here: http://whitegenocideproject.com/diversity-or-freedom/