Do the Europeans really have an more authentic tradition they can fall back upon than we colonials? Are they somehow more fortified against the assaults of human rights and universalism then Enlightenment plagued Americans?
I am skeptical.
Jean Raspail, author of Camp of the Saints
The author of The Camp of the Saints, Jean Raspail, is a noted French traditionalist, hostile even to speaking English for interviews or foreign language media. However, his complaints about the destruction of his country sound very American — universalism replacing true culture, secular humanism replacing traditional religion, abstractions replacing a real blood and soil national community.
Raspail bemoans the innumerable think tanks, activists, and busybodies that heap up the funeral pyre of his nation. He writes of them in “The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic” that
They are confusing France with the Republic. “Republican values” have deteriorated ad infinitum, we all know that fully, but never with reference to France. However France is first and foremost a country of people who are blood brothers. Whereas the Republic, which is only one form of government, is synonymous for them with ideology, ideology with a capital “I”, the major ideology. It seems to me, to some extent, that they betray the first for the second.
Among the flood of references which I accumulate in thick files in support of this assessment, here is one which, though disguised as a well-behaved child, in fact illuminates well the extent of the damage. It is drawn from a speech by Laurent Fabius to the Socialist congress of Dijon, 17th May 2003: “When the image of Marianne in our municipal buildings acquires the beautiful face of a young immigrant Frenchwoman, then France will have reached a new milestone in the fulfillment of the values of the Republic…”
The universalism and culture destruction that took over France in 1789 still imposes costs today. Nor can this be blamed on Jews, or the mass media, or America. The hard truth is it was a manifestation of “the white man’s disease” in which Europeans take abstract ideas and try to apply them to real existing societies and peoples, with catastrophic results.
Sam Francis, all American white nationalist
Sam Francis, who was the editor of the Council of Conservative Citizens’ newspaper and a syndicated columnist, wrote of Raspail’s essay,
The Ideology is what the Open Borders crowd in this country calls the “Creed“ or the “Proposition,” the notion that in order to be an American, all you have to do is agree with an abstraction—“all men are created equal”—and therefore anyone who can crawl or creep across the border becomes part of the nation.
In France, the Ideology took shape in the French Revolution.
In this country, it rose to power in the Civil War and more recently in the liberalism (and the pseudo-conservatism) of the late 20th century.
Like the real France, the real America is also a “country of a common blood” (Jefferson used that very phrase in the original Declaration, as well as appeals to a “common kindred” and “consanguinity”).
In fact, every real nation is a country of a common blood.
The only nations that claim to be defined by creeds are—come to think of it—totalitarian states.
The Soviet Union, a 20th century descendant of the French Revolution, really was a credal nation, and it survived only because it rested on the same Terror that reigned in France.
When the common blood dries up and the civilization founded on it withers, all that’s left is the state—the government to which Mr. Kristol and the neocons are so attached.
Mr. Raspail understands perfectly well it’s not just France that faces the extinction the Creed and its partisans have inflicted.
“All of Europe marches to its death,” he writes, because of the demographic, racial and cultural tidal wave swallowing it.
He tried to warn his countrymen as well as Europe and America of what was happening 30 years ago, but nobody listened.
Today his prophecies seem tame, and for his own Patrie, if not for ours, it may well be too late.
The bickering over “who is to blame,” America or Europe, is pointless. The European New Right accurately identifies the disease, but to pinpoint America as the source of the contagion is misguided. In fact, if there is one country that created it, spread it, and popularized it without any help from the good old U.S.A., it was probably the home of the European New Right itself — France.
Does that mean France is stupid or evil? Of course not. There are important subcultures and thinkers that any white advocate should study and value. The same could be said of any nation in our Western family. All of us are suffering from the same disease and marching to the same fate. However, it infected us in different ways and can only cured through diverse tactics and responses to differing circumstances.
Let’s stop this pointless bickering about “Europe vs. America.” Unfortunately, while the specifics are different, the pattern for national and racial suicide in the New World and the Old are all too similar.
Twitter
Facebook
Flickr
YouTube
This is a well-reasoned piece, Mr. Hood.
I don’t understand why Yockey is even being discussed here, nor why the attacks on Mr. Wallace occurred in a prior thread.
I watched the video of the Yockey Memorial that Mr. Yeoman posted and was more intrigued with what soccer game was being played then the talk.
This is not to disparage Mr. O’Meara, but to point out that the esoteric subject matter is a misguided tactic when trying to appeal to a wide audience.
As stated in prior thread, put your pens to good use instead of engaging in pointless in-fighting.
The West Coast folks, from what I have read at counter-currents, seem to care about characters few have heard of (who in the world is Savitri Devi?).
The people on the East Coast are constantly involved in real activism, by attending events and networking through established groups like the CoCC.
Andrew Yeoman and his group(s) are to be commended as well for a decentralized approach to the collapse coming.
I have hopes for Counter-Currents, but attacking Mr. Wallace for his failure to grasp the importance of Yockey is not a sound strategy.
Like the title of the biography on Yockey, the difference between those who find Yockey important and those who do not can succinctly be described simply as calling the former “Dreamers” and the latter “Doers”.
14 Words are all that matters. Nothing more, nothing less.
The hard truth is that bickering isn’t pointless. It’s the very foundation of civilization.
Europeans have a long history of taking abstract ideas and applying them with both good and bad results, mostly good. In the past Europeans have shown great skill in frankly evaluating problems and correcting our abstractions to avert catastrophes. The problem today is that control of the steering mechanism has fallen under the control of people who hate us. Political correctness smothers frank evaluation.
Being gagged and driven off a cliff by people who hate you isn’t “suicide”. However, the suggestion that “the white man” is “diseased” and the anti-White regime we have now represents “suicide” is one of those abstract ideas that could very well have catastrophic results.
France has a large, well organized and significantly successful pro-white opposition movement. Most Europeans countries have something similar on a smaller scale. America is the odd country out when it comes to white resistance. We have no real organized national movement to represent our people’s interests.
Another difference is that the public discourse and the positions of leading politicians on immigration and racial issues have shifted right over the last 15 years in Europe, where as in America, they have shifted left. We still think of Europe as being the super politically correct place it was 20 years ago, but the success of the “far right” in election has shifted the debate in our favor. In some countries, most notably Denmark and Italy, immigration restrictionist parties have joined governing coalitions and helped reduce immigration levels.
The European ‘far right’ parties are mostly civic nationalists, or ‘Patriotards’ as many would call them. They have to form their own parties, because the party system there allows the party leadership the ability to choose candidates and kick out nonconforming members, so people like Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul could never get elected as a ‘Christian Democrat’ or some such.
Many of the “Far Right” parties in Europe are to the Left of the Democrats in America.
In terms of economic policies, yes most “Far Right” parties in Europe are more to the left so to speak.
But not all of them are what we would call civic nationalists. Parties that fall under that classification would be Gert Wilder’s party in the Netherlands and the DPP of Denmark.
But parties like Jobbik in Hungary, NDP in Germany, and the Lega Nord in Italy have more of a real nationalist bent. They know who their real constituency is and are there to fight for their people.
Currently, we don’t have anything like that in America. Hopefully A3P will change all of that, but I am not that optimistic.
I’m about 1/4 into Camp of the Saints. I’m having trouble pushing through. It’s so abysmally pessimistic and dirge-like. It’s all our fault. We just won’t do anything. Nobody cares. Pour a glass of Scotch and write a book about how sad it is the barbarians will never appreciate a good glass of Scotch. Not a word so far about You Know Who. As my edition was translated by a jew and has a blurb of praise on the cover by another I’m guessing Raspail never mentions them. What crap.
In contrast I flew through The Turner Diaries. The story was simpler in most ways, but more real in the most important: who our enemies are and how they operate. Pierce recognized our inherent weaknesses, but he never gave up on us.
Camp of the Saints is awesome, though admittedly hard to push through. Regardless of its take on the situation, it hits the nail right on the friggin head. And I mean right on the head. And in that respect it is beautiful.
Tanstaafl,
I have difficulty believing that any book could make the Turner Diaries look good.
“The universalism and culture destruction that took over France in 1789 still imposes costs today. Nor can this be blamed on Jews, or the mass media, or America. The hard truth is it was a manifestation of “the white man’s disease” in which Europeans take abstract ideas and try to apply them to real existing societies and peoples, with catastrophic results.”
The French were starving, partly because of the aristocracy.
Aristocracy sucks because it never is rule by the best – it’s rule by people descended from someone who was one of the best at some time in the past.
Wandrin, are you Jewish?
Jean Respail’s novel “Camp of the Saints” is one of my favorite books ever. Maybe my favorite. His depiction of the super serious, useless idiots in the White West as the West faces the Third World invasion is incredible.
Every page is filled with abusive satire to all the horrible traitorous fools in the West who champion all that is non White, everything Third World…. only, it’s not supposed to come in to their personal space and then things point more and more that, yes indeed, this NW, Third World will indeed come in to their personal space.
Everyone gets their just desserts and the few brave souls who take our side, they face fate, horror with brilliant courage and best of all
humor.
Stiff upper lips folks!
I have a few copies of Camp of the Saints if everyone needs it.
Surprisingly, I have found that many White “liberals” will read this book.
Don’t right off the liberals, they are not going to wave racist flags, or guns or come out in the open as White Nationalists, but more White liberals than you think work for population control, abortion rights for good reasons.
Lawrence of Appalachia
I was very impressed with William Johnson’s interviews stressing that A3P is neither right nor left, conservative or liberal. He seemed to promote a very American, pragmatic approach to political issues. They don’t seem to be promoting yet another -ism, it’s simply “a political party for White Americans” that will support what is good for White Americans.
That’s perfect. A clear rejection of the “proposition nation” propaganda.
“Wandrin, are you Jewish?”
I’m sorely tempted sometimes.
I can imagine the pitch. “Hey folks, we want to go back to aristocracy like in France before the revolution, me and my buds here are gonna be the Counts and Dukes while you all go back to being peasants like your ancestors and live in huts and starve. Who’s in?”
Don’t get trampled in the rush.
Well, there’s always an aristocracy and there’s always people living in huts, is all.
“. . .Everyone gets their just desserts. . .”
Like Banana Cream? As the late Soupy Sales exclaimed- “my gal can’t make lemon meringue, but she can sure make my banana cream.”
. . .deserts. . .as in deserved. . .
Veni Vidi Dixi,
Yes, I quite agree that we need a party like A3P. Enough of this ‘color-blind’ nonsense. America was founded, built, and maintained by Whites for Whites. And that seems to be what Johnson is promoting, and I support him every step of the way.
The problem is, while I do think it is important that we continue to try and make our presence felt in mainstream politics, I don’t believe our ‘salvation’ will come from it. It certainly helps to have something like A3P so that we have some input, but considering how utter corrupted our system has become only something on the order of a revolt by the states will anything really change.
Spooky,
True. It’s the hereditary bit i’m against because over time you don’t get anything like rule by the best. The thing about the French Revolution is the French revolutionaries had a perfectly valid point at the time in the context they were in.
Ideally Democracy should be time-limited Aristocracy although obviously it hasn’t worked out that way.
I’m actually against the French Revolution, for rule by favor of the King and against democracy in all its forms. But that’s me.
Quoted in the article:
And this is why I’m against ideology.
I don’t expect to be voting for an A3P Congressional candidate anytime soon, but A3P can do a few useful things now. First, Americans understand politics, so having a political party promoting White issues will make sense to people. A3P can take the place of various third parties like the Libertarians, Greens, Christian party, etc., which substitute ideological or religious identity for White identity and waste the time and energy of countless idealistic Whites. A3P will force the Republicans, perhaps even the Democrats in places like WV, to co-opt at least some pro-White issues and rhetoric.
Plus everyone involved in A3P looks, speaks, and acts like normal, everyday White people. There’s no boring lectures about point 3.2 of Ayn Rand’s Libertarian philosophy and no need for old right European esoterica or fanaticism about some issues or another.
Spooky asks: “Wandrin, are you Jewish?”
Wandrin gives this elusive reply: “I’m sorely tempted sometimes.
I can imagine the pitch. “Hey folks, we want to go back to aristocracy like in France before the revolution, me and my buds here are gonna be the Counts and Dukes while you all go back to being peasants like your ancestors and live in huts and starve. Who’s in?”
Over at TANSTAAFL’s place he posts this:
Wandrin said… (in response to the comment -
“Jews are attacking culturally”)
jews aren’t doing anything as jews.
jewish racists, masquerading as white anti-racists, are calmly attacking white people.
All things considered I will take that as a YES.
Spooky,
“I’m actually against the French Revolution, for rule by favor of the King and against democracy in all its forms. But that’s me.”
Fair enough. I’m for a blood-based liberal democracy that incorporates the simple truth that diversity kills.
Jackson,
“All things considered I will take that as a YES.”
You got me, sheriff.
“Camp of the Saints” may be a dirge of sorts, but the overall tone is more of a very dark and sarcastic humor. Foremost it is a satire. Like Swift, it is a timeless portrayal of human stupidity. That provides a fascinating, enduring mix.
Raspail is a very respected writer in France; even a comic book based on a novel of his was released a few years ago.
No, Tanstaafl, you will not find any You-Know-Who’s in it. As a royalist Frenchman Raspail has other enemies before his eyes, those that rose in 1789 (which btw was deserved by a at this point cruel, degenerated and utterly corrupt class.) France isn’t the USA, and already in the early 20th century they succeeded to flood their country with immigrants from colonial countries without Jewish assistance. They have set the basis entirely themselves.
And honestly, I feel that some people put so much emphasis into blaming the You-Know-Hows, because it is the only thing that safes them from despair. The bigger, even worse picture, the truth, they dare not face, is this: the enemy is foremost within. If he wasn’t, no enemy from the outside would have any power. We do not see the Western peoples getting pushed over a cliff. Rather they are rushing to jump off it, like the mythical Lemmings.
I often wonder which comes first, like the egg and hen question: decadent people or decadent ideas.
I agree with the primary thrust of this piece: stop the bickering among allies on both sides of the Atlantic ocean, and work toward our respective goals, which are complementary rather than adversarial to one another.
Gregory Hood wrote:
We are to blame for our predicament as a people, that is undeniable, but the role of the Jew should not be ignored or underestimated with regard to the French Revolution. Here is a concise and punchy summation of the overarching subject:
Source: André Mahé and George Soulés. La Fin du
Nihilism. Paris: F. Sorlot, 1943.
Pingback: Sam Francis, Jean Raspail and Western Unity - White News Now Forums
“And honestly, I feel that some people put so much emphasis into blaming the You-Know-Hows, because it is the only thing that safes them from despair.”
1. jews, and especially jewish media control and its consequences provides a perfect example of stealth ethnic conflict illustrating the inevitable negative consequences of having two tribes on the same ground.
2. History seems to show people will revolt against an alien elite far more readily than a native one.
3. On the other hand obsessively naming the jew with unradicalized people reinforces multicult conditioning and is entirely counter-productive.
So, always and never, depending on circumstances..
Petronius, you make some very good points, to wit: “…the enemy is foremost within. If he wasn’t, no enemy from the outside would have any power.” and “I often wonder which comes first, like the egg and the hen question: decadent people or decadent ideas.” Bingo on that observation!
Like Kevin MacDonald once queried, is the Suicide of the West innate, or assisted? A hell of a lot of both, I believe.
In the USA, the Jews will falsely argue that the “founding fathers” thought of America as a proposition nation. In France, the Jewish media frequently argue that today’s current race-replacement policy is a continuation of the revolutionary ideals of 1789. That’s a lie. During the French revolution, no one ever came up with the idea of race replacement.
The Jews have recycled much of the ideology of the French revolution and they are now giving French identity lessons. But they have added a few original ideas of their own.
It is true that the French revolutionaries liked to destroy art, slaughter people, steal their property, and declaim philosophical rubbish. And they were in favor of “French universalism” and against national minorities who didn’t speak French. But unlike today’s Jews, they didn’t support mass immigration from Africa.
Do the Europeans really have an more authentic tradition they can fall back upon than we colonials? Are they somehow more fortified against the assaults of human rights and universalism then Enlightenment plagued Americans?
I think they do have more traditions that they have kept alive. However they may also be more susceptible to bad leadership and a false sense of security. Not as rebellious as we Americans.
Jean Raspail, author of Camp of the Saints
The author of The Camp of the Saints, Jean Raspail, is a noted French traditionalist, hostile even to speaking English for interviews or foreign language media.
Now that’s dedication, I respect that.
Thanks for posting that from O’Meara, Robert. He definitely has a talent for writing and communicating the essential nature of a subject in a clear and concise manner.
“The West Coast folks, from what I have read at counter-currents, seem to care about characters few have heard of (who in the world is Savitri Devi?)…. Like the title of the biography on Yockey, the difference between those who find Yockey important and those who do not can succinctly be described simply as calling the former “Dreamers” and the latter “Doers”.”
This is a sorely mistaken view that I’m afraid is rooted in ignorance of the subject.
There seems to be two ways for nationalist parties in Europe to go. There are those stay truly nationalist and those who turn “national conservative” in order to be accepted and get their piece of the pie.
At one time, back in the 70s, there was a “Progress Party” in all three Scandinavian countries (Fremskrittspartiet in Denmark/Norway and Framstegspartiet in Sweden). The Swedish one died, the Norwegian one turned “conservative” and is now the largest party, while the real nationalists in the Danish one left and formed the above mentioned DPP.
The Europan country to watch in 2010 is Sweden. The Sweden Party (Sverigedemokraterna) has been developing from semi-NS in the 80s to radical in the 90s to “national conservative” in this decade. They have moved slightly to the right on economic issues in the past few years. Represented in dozens of local councils, they are probably qualifying for parlamentary representation in this fall’s general election, by crossing the 4 % line.
As a result of SD’s change the National Democrats (Nationaldemokraterna) were formed some years ago. They are middle-of-the-road economically (by Swedish standards) and are clearly racial and mention the JQ, but taking care to use intelligent phrasing. Loads of Sweden Democrats are defecting to them and it will be interesting to see if that will make the SDs stumble on the finish line to making into parlament.
On a European level ND is maintaining close and cordial relationships (including sending representatives to elections) with NPD, Jobbik and BNP, while SD is trying to be “respectable” and stay away. SD is mostly anti-moslem (moslem violence is a major problem in Sweden) while ND is more anti-Jewish.
Yockey has a very nuanced understanding of European and American history and their relations.
Hunter is the one reducing it to “Europe vs. America.”
The charitable interpretation is that he is playing dumb because, as a newly minted Southern populist, he is pandering to imaginary legions of common-sensical, patriotic yeoman frontier folk distrustful of European ideaers.
Don’t encourage him Hood.
I read Camp of the Saints, and it is excellent as far as it goes, but it does not mention Jews. It is as if it is lobotomized. It became popular I think partly because it did not mention Jews. It was amazing to see the holes in the story where we KNOW Jews were at work behind the scenes. Keep that in mind as you read it.
As for the French revolution, jews without any shadow of a doubt had a hand in that. Why wouldn’t they? They hated the upper classes of Europe that had expelled them so many times over 2000 years. Jewish chicanery in Europe is not a recent phonomena. Jews were there, they had grudges, they participated. Yes we do tend to guide ourselves by abstractions, and Jews are experts at capturing emerging movements in this regard and using them like horses trained up to move their carts (their interests). They mess with and change the natural progression of our abstractions and ideals we live by. We are open to this manipulation because we are open to new ways of seeing, we are individualists, we are idealists. People who can manipulate these things and appeal to our emotions can have vastly disproportionate influence on us. Thus the Jewish pattern. Bastille day is like the Katyn massacre in this regard, or the butchering of the czar and his family. There is a pattern.
I do not seek to blame anyone for anything, I look for influences. Jewish influence destroys our culture and civilization. So does influence from other races. Nation is blood, nationality. A common vision comes from a common evolutionary background, a common evolutionary trajectory. Europeans invented science, freedom, objectivity, idealism. That is because those are WHO WE ARE as a people. Our common vision gave rise to and sustains these things. Freedom is totally European — it flows from European ways of seeing. Other races couldnt care less about freedom. It never comes up with them. We have a long history of it — from the “thing” meetings of equals of the vikings to the scottish writing about freedom in the 1300′s to the Magna Carta, to the USA. Freedom, it’s a WHITE thing.
A large portion of ‘Camp of the Saints’, esp. the least believable parts actually came right out of the newspaper headlines and official talking heads at the time…so I can certainly sympathize with Raspail’s pessimism.
Meritocratic Republic (tribal council in a modern building), officials elected by citizens, citizenry predicated on (min. 2yrs?) national service…i’m not holding my breath, though.
“Many of the “Far Right” parties in Europe are to the Left of the Democrats in America.”
On race and immigration, all of these parties are well to the right of the GOP. Also, the concept of “civic nationalism” is most relevant in France and the US. In countries like Germany and Hungary, nationalism only comes in the blood and soil variety. Even the ideologically weaker European “far right” parties are full of ethno-nationalists and even people with backgrounds as national socialists. You are not giving people in Europe enough credit.
Tan writes:
Being gagged and driven off a cliff by people who hate you isn’t “suicide”.
True.
But it would be suicide to let such a person into your car and then hand them the keys.
Yockey was anti-American. O’Meara himself said that Yockey was anti-American in his speech.
Greg,
So our race’s problem has nothing to do with our own politics post-Enlightenment?
Mostly, they advocate a forced deportation of illegal immigrants and stricter immigration requirements and limits, pretty similar to a large portion of the GOP. The ‘House Immigration Reform Caucus’ advocates positions basically the same as most European nationalist parties, and has 93 members, mostly Republicans plus a few Democrats from rust belt and southern states. This comes out to 21.4% of Congress, so if our Congress had a multiparty system like Europe, this would be the equivalent of a nationalist party winning 21.4% of the vote, plus a chance to enter government with the ‘mainstream right’
>>Being gagged and driven off a cliff by people who hate you >>isn’t “suicide”.
>But it would be suicide to let such a person into your car and then hand >them the keys.
If done knowingly then yes.
@Steven Romer
“That is because those are WHO WE ARE as a people.”
That’s exactly it in my view.
Everything people say about the Enlightenment, democracy blah blah may be true but if this whole abstract idealism thing is how white people are then we should work with the grain and learn to manipulate ourselves better than the jews do.
For instance:
1. Undermine their moral authority with moral inconsistency.
2. Couch everything we say in terms of what’s good for the group / nation. Use the group altruism guilt-trip but in the old positive direction not the inward, self-hating, self-destructive direction the jews created.
“Yockey was anti-American. O’Meara himself said that Yockey was anti-American in his speech.”
Yockey thought anyone who loved “the true America” — the America that still bore traces of the noble, heroic, and Gothic character of its European progenitors — would hate the America that had become a Jew-run monstrosity.
Don’t think Yockey hated European America. He hated Jew-America.
And if you’re not an anti-American in this sense, then who can you possibly pose as someone who advocates for “white America?”
Thank you Robert Campbell for quoting that bit of historical perspective from Michael O’Meara.
Yockey thought anyone who loved “the true America” — the America that still bore traces of the noble, heroic, and Gothic character of its European progenitors — would hate the America that had become a Jew-run monstrosity.
Don’t think Yockey hated European America. He hated Jew-America.
And if you’re not an anti-American in this sense, then who can you possibly pose as someone who advocates for “white America?”
Which parts of American culture and history would you place in ‘Jew-America’ and ‘real-America’?
Which parts of European culture and history would you place in ‘Jew-Europe’ and ‘real-Europe’?
Greg writes:
I agree this is a better analogy for what’s happening, but even this isn’t suicide unless when you’re handing him the keys you both agree the goal is to drive off a cliff. If you give him the keys because he says he’s going to drive you where money grows on trees, then drives you off a cliff, that’s not suicide. Stupid or greedy, sure, but suicide, no.
My point is that it’s wrong to call something suicide if there is no consciousness that the end result is death, if the person has not consciously willed themselves to die. Beside that, calling it suicide improperly simplifies and personifies the behaviors and consequences which are actually spread across time and people, as if everyone has agreed and will suffer equally. Obviously
we haven’t or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
notuswind writes:
When I object to calling it suicide it’s for the reasons above, not because I’m trying to absolve our race from it’s responsibility for it’s own survival. Plenty of our own are complicit, and I grant some are even conscious that their actions are helping destroy our race. Calling this genocide gets much closer to the truth. It does not imply there aren’t any perpetrators who are traitors.
Calling it suicide puts all the blame on us. Calling it genocide does not put all the blame on someone else.
“Mostly, they advocate a forced deportation of illegal immigrants and stricter immigration requirements and limits, pretty similar to a large portion of the GOP. The ‘House Immigration Reform Caucus’ advocates positions basically the same as most European nationalist parties, and has 93 members, mostly Republicans plus a few Democrats from rust belt and southern states. This comes out to 21.4% of Congress, so if our Congress had a multiparty system like Europe, this would be the equivalent of a nationalist party winning 21.4% of the vote, plus a chance to enter government with the ‘mainstream right’”
This is nonsense. Most nationalist parties in Europe advocate racially based immigration policies, an ethnically based definition of national identity and repatriation of non-white immigrants. They are not in anyway equivalent to right wing Republicans. Name one person in the GOP who advocates that only white people be allowed to emigrate to America, links being “American” with a person’s race or advocates that post 1965 immigrants and their descendants be repatriated.
That’s been changed in the parties that actually did have that. For example, the old ‘Vlaams Blok’ party used to have such a policy, but when it reformed as the ‘Vlaams Belang’ after being banned, the new policy calls for integration and ‘deporting economic migrants who fail to assimilate’
The BNP proposes a halt to new immigration, as well as deporting illegal immigrants and those who commit felonies.
Tan,
Thanks for the clarification.
To the extant that European nationalist parties have moderated their platforms, it’s because they were forced to by law. You can’t say that about Republicans. Everyone in Europe knows that if the BNP or VB won a parliamentary majority in the next election it would mean repatriation of non-whites. We’ve had GOP domination of the Federal government for six years without any efforts at all to cut back immigration or change any anti-white policies. During that period, the GOP president, Congressional leadership and party officials all tried very hard to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and dramatically increase legal immigration from third world countries.
Why are you twisting mental pretzels to claim that European nationalists are not more pro-white the Republicans Congressmen? Your position is absurd.
White Nationalism is about white racial solidarity across borders(which our enemies have in spades), not jingoistic populism of the sort that the Republican party uses to dupe their voters. That seems to be the place that your and Hunter’s statements on nationalism in Europe are coming from.
Being born and raised in Scandinavia – but now an American – I can attest to the fact that the few “radical” GOPers are not to the “right”of European nationalists when it comes to ethnic issues.
BNP (Britain), NPD (Germany), Vlaams Belang (Belgian Flanders), Jobbik (Hungary), DFP (Denmark) and ND (Sweden) have a large amount of radical members and leaders. There is everything from “regular” White Nationalists to National Socialists, but since freedom of speech and action is limited, many people walk a tightrope.
In Britain and Germany it’s easy to go to jail for speaking your mind or not favoring brown people. This week, a Swedish court decided that advocating National Socialism equals “hets mot folkgrupp”, i.e. “conspiracy (to commit a crime) against ethnic group”! Thus, our Europans comrades have to be careful.
In the United States, the 1st Amendment protects almost anything and an established politician, together with a good legal counsel and a smart speechwriter could do a lot more than the Europeans can, but won’t. There is the occasional Tancredo, but mostly there is nothing.
It is also important to realise that what is “right” and “left” differs between the U.S. and Europe. In terms of economy, a lot of the Europan White Nationalists are in favor of a “mixed economy” with a moderate welfare state. This would put them to the “left” of both Reps and many Dems here.
Erik Nordman (formerly “Nordicreb”)
Pingback: How Then Shall We Live? | Spirit/Water/Blood