Ethnonationalist Filth

Lies, lies, and more lies.

Laugh at this. Emphasis added:

In case you’re wondering, my metaphor of the two neighbors represents here the two extremes present in the Dissident Right with regard to European unity in the face of the many pressures and difficulties our peoples are faced with. The neighbor who ignores the fire next door, thus allowing it to spread to his own domicile, is the so-called petty nationalist. The petty nationalist does not realize that multiculturalism, globalism, immigration, and all of the well-known conflagrations of today will eventually spread to his house. The neighbors who, having put out the fire, start living together and intruding on each others’ most intimate moments are the so-called racial imperialists, who’d weld together the various disparate nations of Europe and forcefully integrate them into one homogenous racial blob. 

Please name someone who is best described as - “racial imperialists, who’d weld together the various disparate nations of Europe and forcefully integrate them into one homogenous racial blob.”

Who? Richard Spencer, the extreme Anglocentrist whose “movement” “career” is more or less kaput? Who? von Hoffmeister, who no one hears about any more? Who?  Please tell us who all these dastardly “racial imperialists” are; inquiring minds want to know.  Or is it just a bogeyman of the ethnonationalists?  

People don’t generally like either of these options.

Then why do you spend time arguing against both?

The position of the petty nationalist is very much indefensible. 

Tell that to Johnson.

The various nations of Europe cannot individually defend themselves against gigantic global enemies, be they the full force of the Islamic ummah, rootless cosmopolitan subversives, transnational corporations, or the gold-hoarding, industry-stealing, disease-exporting dragon in the Far East. Not counting Russia, Germany is Europe’s most populous and wealthiest nation, and France has the greatest military power. Not one of these countries can reasonably stand up to either China, the Islamic world, or even Russia and the USA, to say nothing of Europe’s smaller nations. I’ve written on this subject before, about Eastern Europe’s justifiable anxieties about Russia. When you’re small and your neighbor is big, when he can very easily show up at your doorstep with an army as large as your population, no number of assurances will convince you that he won’t eventually change his mind and decide that might makes right. Naturally, the nations of Europe form alliances to ward off external threats.

And why should European nations form alliances only with each other then, if it is merely out of national self-interest?  Why not an alliance of Latvia with China against Russia?  An alliance of England and Russia against those dastardly Polish plumbers (more about them below)?  Why would “the nations of Europe” preferentially “form alliances” against “external” threats?  Why are all of the threats external, and not any of them internal, to Europe?  

If you start following through the chain of logic to what the obvious answers are, then you begin to reach an endpoint that involves more than just some temporary ad hoc “alliances.” You begin to get to issues of shared racial, cultural, and civilizational heritages and an innate sense of belonging to a common Race-Culture.

At the same time, these alliances must remain alliances. 

Again, if these are merely temporary alliances of convenience, then why shouldn’t the UK make an alliance with China in competition against, say, Germany?

Just as the neighbors of our metaphor started hating each other when they were forced to share bedrooms and toilets, so the nations of Europe become enthralled to mutual resentment and contempt…

“Enthralled?” In that context? Poor word choice, awkward sentence construction. ESL alert!

…when forcibly integrated with each other. The vitriol dripping from the tongues of English nationalists when talking about Polish plumbers is astounding and would discourage many from attempting to create a continent- and race-wide common consciousness.

Those same “English nationalists” grovel to “Commonwealth Immigration” of Blacks and Browns. Who cares what they "think?"  More fundamentally – who says that pan-Europeanism entails “Polish plumbers” living in England?  Why are ethnonationalists so relentlessly mendacious, so fundamentally dishonest, that they have to repeat these strawman arguments over and over again?

The NATO pact is one such example of a wrongheaded alliance. NATO policy against “duplication of capabilities” shoehorns every European nation’s military into specializing for one role, while the US military is exempt from this requirement. In practice, this means that no one European nation can use its military independently from the US. France is the only exception, only due to its long absence from the alliance, thanks to the wisdom of its president Charles de Gaulle who — for all his faults and treasons, well documented on this site and elsewhere — still managed to keep France somewhat sovereign in the latter half of the 20th century, or at least somewhat independent from the Anglo-Soviet duopoly. This is to say nothing of the fact that NATO is a way for US politicians to extort money from European member states and transfer it to the American military-industrial complex. 

Uh-huh.  Europeans are really paying their fair share of the military costs.  No.

In short, this is not an alliance, but a tool for imposing American (globohomo) suzerainty on the nations of Europe. The inclusion of non-European countries such as Turkey is likewise an incalculable mistake that could very easily drag the whole of Europe into wars that are not in its interest and give Turkish military personnel access to European military secrets and assessments of European military capabilities.

Never happened with individual nation states!  Sure!  Countries like England and France making common cause with the Ottomans against Russia, Greece, and Balkan Slavs never happened, by gummint!  It’s just a figment of a historian’s imagination!  And once again - why should an ad hoc system of temporary alliances include, say, Greece, but exclude Turkey?

If you thought that was bad, let me tell you about The Bruxelles Horror, The Thing From Strasbourg, The Union from the Black Latrine, which you may know as the EU. This bureaucratic nightmare of regulations and directives is the biggest threat to the sovereignty of European nations since the Turkish invasions of the 16th and 17th centuries. Its now-notorious method of decision-making by committee makes it the wet dream of leftoids, apparatchiks and other generally undesirable neurotypes. It is a colossal attempt to homogenize European nations into unworkable middles, resulting in labor laws which are too stringent for Italians, but too relaxed for Germans, in levels of centralization too high for Englishmen, but too low for Frenchmen.

As if the EU is something that someone like Yockey would have approved of. Idiot.

When the 2010 sovereign debt crisis rolled around, it was forced to abandon this approach of unworkable middles and was taken over by Angela Merkel, who uniformly imposed the German way of doing things on the entire continent, resulting in much misery and intra-European hatred. 

I thought that Der Movement supports German domination?

People who would have been friendly before started hating each other, because they were forced to live together — and more importantly, live like each other. Deny an Italian his riposa, his three-hour lunch break, and the many redundancies and inefficiencies of Italian communal life, and he’ll resent you with all the deep darkness contained in the word vendetta. 

What would a Der Movement blog post be without the typical snide contemptuous ridicule of the wops? This is, by the way, why I have my own (justified) contempt of Italy and the Italians, because their “La Dolce Vita” attitude opens them up to mockery by others.

The reason why the European Union broke at its British and Italian seams is simple. It forced the Italians to work like Germans, and it dictated to the British as if they were French. 

Last I looked Italy was still part of the EU.  So I’m not sure what “Italian seam” is breaking there.

Pretty soon, it will have to either force the French to build a cult of labor and economic gains like the Germans, or shoehorn decentralized and pacific Germany into the semi-militarized dirigisme of the Fifth Republic, with the impoverished and nationalist Ossies dragged kicking and screaming behind. European history is very clear as to what happens when France and Germany get locked in a cycle of mutual hatred.

Nutty ranting. The entire EU project is essentially Europe being bullied by the Germans and their French close allies.  If there’s a “cycle of mutual hatred” there then the rest of us must have missed it. Hatred between Germans and Greeks? Possibly yes. Germans and French?  Now?  No. By the way, the previous cycles of French-German "mutual hatred" was typically due to ethnonationalism.

I already have a good idea of what happens when you force Europeans to share living space because I’ve spent my entire life in the shadow of the Yugoslav wars. In a series of conflicts spanning from 1991 to 2001, the various nations of Yugoslavia settled their accounts with blood and iron. Men who were neighbors, coworkers, best men at each others’ weddings, friends, who named each other brother, who participated as comrades in peacekeeping missions as part of the Yugoslav National Army, were suddenly shooting at each other, burning each others’ houses and raping each others’ wives and daughters. It was a brother war if there ever was one, but mention to a Serb that a Croat is his brother will likely get you punched in the face, even 20 something years on.

So, under a tight Yugoslav regime everyone got along, but as soon as the centralization was relaxed, bloodshed ensued. Not exactly a sterling argument for ethnonationalism, is it?

My question to those who would force European nations to live together — who’d keep the European Union but try to make it based and redpilled — is this: if Yugoslavia couldn’t keep its six nations together, even with its 1974 constitution which transformed this federal state into a confederacy of states, how the hell are you going to gather Europe’s many nations together in a continent-wide federal entity without the end result including death camps, snipers shooting civilians in the streets, and wholesale expulsions of entire populations by armed forces?

Excuse me, you mendacious scum, it is your ethnonationalist Grand Poobah Johnson who has advocated war and ethnic cleansing among Europeans. Meanwhile, you’ll note that the “EU horror” that you have described has not descended into “death camps, snipers shooting civilians in the streets, and wholesale expulsions of entire populations by armed forces.” Don’t project Yugoslav violence onto the rest of Europe. When the UK wanted to leave the EU, they left (eventually). There wasn’t any “death camps, snipers shooting civilians in the streets, and wholesale expulsions of entire populations by armed forces.” 

People resent each other when forced to live together. 

How about people of the same ethnic group? They are “people” “forced to live together.”  Not everyone in the same mono-ethnic nation are compatible.

Nations do as well. Ask a Croatian nationalist about Yugoslavia, and he’ll claim that Croats were the perpetual victims of that state and that Croatian labor built Yugoslavia. Ask a Serbian nationalist about Yugoslavia, and he’ll claim that Yugoslavia was an anti-Serbian entity that served to undermine and destroy Serbian nationhood at the expense of elevating every other nationality. Ask a Macedonian nationalist about Yugoslavia, and you’ll get a spirited rant about how the Yugoslav authorities suppressed and gaslit Macedonian nationalism and used our country as a dumping ground for toxic waste. What’s interesting is that all of these stories are partially true. Yugoslavia was indeed an anti-Croat, anti-Serb, and anti-Macedonian entity, and it was also anti-Slovene, anti-Montenegrin, and anti-Bosniak. It was pro-Yugoslav, but Yugoslavs do not really exist outside the sick fantasy of former regime apparatchiks and extremely confused children of mixed marriages.

Descriptive, not prescriptive.  What happened in Yugoslavia is an example of why we need MORE European unity, not less.

That’s perhaps going too far. Yugoslav means southern Slavs. There definitely exists such a group of people and it includes all the nations of the former Yugoslavia, as well as the Bulgarians. In this sense, southern Slav is an ethnic designation. It is an element of identity, a level between nation and race. One can have various levels of identity, beginning with familial, scaling up to local, regional, national, ethnic, sub-racial and finally racial. And so, I am a Macedonian, but also a southern Slav, a Slav, and white. All levels of identity can be vectors of identity politics. Not all levels brook the establishment of a common state. History teaches us that the national level is the highest at which stable state-type entities can be established. 

The Roman Empire lasted longer than some of the nation states of Europe that are currently extant. Yes, Rome collapsed. Will the nation states of Europe last as long under current conditions?  By the way, what’s a nation? You talk about Germany. What about Prussia and Bavaria? Italy? What about Padania? France? Brittany?  Spain?  Catalonia?  

But there’s nothing stopping us from forming alliances at the higher levels and ultimately, at the highest, racial level.

This implies racial commonality.  What’s a nation?  Can a race be a nation? It’s White nationalism, after all. Why do you define nation to exclude Europe and Yugoslavia but include Germany, France, Spain, and Italy? What about England, Wales, and Scotland vs. the UK?  Should we atomize Europe to a hundred mini-nations?  If not, why not?  If so, then are you going to have dozens of ever-shifting alliances – or how about a federal structure instead?  

You’re a hypocrite if you talk about “nations” but define "nation" to include states that contain groups that could, and sometimes do, consider themselves independent ethnies. On the other hand, if you have “a Europe of a hundred flags” then all of your comments about how tiny nations cannot stand alone come back to haunt you.

So we either have a myriad of “the mouse that roared” alliances or we have an overarching federal structure.

What if there’s a middle ground between letting your neighbor’s house burn to the ground and moving in with him, making life intolerable for the both of you?

Preserve the neighborhood.  The homes are part of a neighborhood, part of a town or city.  They are not atomized dwellings completely free of connections to the world around them.

When large and organized enemies attack Europe, Europe has reacted by forming alliances against such enemies. 

And sometimes, Europeans sided with non-Europeans against other Europeans.  Ethnonationalism!

After many centuries of raids and invasions, the Pope called on Christian Europe to proactively defend itself against the strength of Islam. After many years of hard fighting, the Crusades finally broke the back of the Muslim caliphate and introduced confusion and disunity among the followers of Muhammad. European men of various nations standing side-by-side turned back the tide of Turks at the gates of Vienna. The loss of authority for the Pope and the Catholic church spelled the end of European unity, and what followed were many centuries of brother wars until the imperfect solution provided by the Peace of Westphalia.

So you admit that the end of European unity led to “many centuries of brother wars.” Thanks for refuting ethnonationalism, much appreciated!

The nations of Europe...

Which are?

…are facing many threats...

Including ethnonationalism.

...and we have to face these many threats together if we are to live. However, we must face these threats as equals coming together for a common goal, which is the survival of each nation. Already, we are seeing the beginnings of such alliances in entities like the Visegrád group, which do not seek to subordinate European nations, nor do they seek to forcefully integrate them with each other. 

Name a serious person in the “movement” today who wants to “forcefully integrate” European nations with each other.  That’s not the same as a voluntary federation of nations.

Rather, the nations of Europe will work together for their common defense against external threats, both from hostile immigrants and great powers seeking to impose their suzerainty on us. Anything less means defeat. Anything more will lead to devastating brother wars. The best way to prevent a brother war is to let each brother have his own house.

All of that nonsense after this moron wrote: “...spelled the end of European unity, and what followed were many centuries of brother wars.”

The “brother wars” happened precisely BECAUSE OF ethnonationalism. That’s why Johnson supports war and ethnic cleansing among Europeans – because it is ethnonationalism that, ultimately, has to be forced upon people, ancient grudges inflamed and enabled to prevent the pan-European ideal.  It’s folks in Der Movement who really despise other Europeans, much more so than the man in the street. It’s the freaks and fetishists who are projecting their contempt on everyone else.