Sep 23, 2015

Losing London to Regain England: The Coming Multicultural Meltdown

via Alternative Right

London is the only city in the world that can credibly argue that it is both the greatest city in the world and that it is the greatest city in all of history. Excepting Paris, there is not another city in the world that has been so central to its nation’s identity for so long. (I don’t know, maybe some Scandinavian capital has always been just as dominant in its national conscious, but I’m talking about major powers.) Of England’s truly world famous monuments, most are found in, or very near, the City of London. London is England’s New York, Washington, and Hollywood, all in one. Much more could be said about London’s immense significance to England and the world, but none of it changes the fact that, sooner or later, England needs to let it go.

England is just over 85% white, with about 8 million non-whites. Lets assume the goal is a white population of at least 95%. Even if repatriation could reduce the non-white population to 5 million, England would still need to more than double its white population to reach the 95% white mark. So while white immigration and non-white emigration should both be encouraged, they are not enough to overcome the numbers we face. Frankly, I think believing that England can reduce its non-white population to 5 million is wildly optimistic. And to get it even lower would, I sense, require an unacceptable financial burden, cruelty, or both. Deep-down, I hope, we all grasp that revoking the citizenship of millions of people, and attempting to forcibly deport them, will almost certainly undermine our cause.

As long as London is part of England, the numbers will never work, but that calculation changes if the London metropolitan area is made an independent city-state. Over 40% of England’s non-whites live in what is called Greater London (and I am imagining that a city-state of London would extend over a somewhat larger area), so minus London, England is still 90% white. With London one country and the rest of England (or the UK) another, the route to a 95%+ white ethnostate suddenly becomes obtainable. Non-whites living someplace like the Midlands would be more amenable to leaving England if all it means is that they have to move down the road to London.

Racial demographics though, is not the only reason a partition is necessary. I have every confidence that Ethnonationalism can be transformed into an attractive and popular ideal, but a significant number of people will always be loyal to some form of liberal Universalism. As I’ve said before, Universalism is intuitive morality, but it is also very straightforward and logical. In this way, it has the same ideological advantage enjoyed by Libertarianism, but it is also much more nimble than Libertarianism because it is not so dependent on the validity of a particular model, or for that matter, particulars of any kind. It is such a devastatingly powerful ideology that it will always have deep believers. (I believe labeling Liberalism/Universalism a “simplistic morality” is a good talking-point, but I have no illusions that this is some magic bullet.)

So if at some point ethnonationalists are lucky enough to gain the advantage in England, rather than overplaying their hand, and effectively trapping unfriendly potential agitators within their borders, they should simply push for a parting of ways. One side gets London, the other side gets England. This is a fair trade; one side gets more territory, but the other side gets the best territory. Given the current population distribution, most people would not even need to move to live in the state more suited to their personal inclination. And really, London is not meant to be part of an ethnostate; London is the original globalist city, and that is not a bad thing to have in the world. Or you could think of it like this, without the backing of the rest of Britain, London can not do nearly as much damage to the rest of the world.

A London-England divorce is obvious and copacetic from a geographical and historical perspective, and if the Flemish and Walloons part company, Brussels as a city-state also makes a certain amount of sense, but from a purely aesthetic standpoint, I have never really wanted to see this model transported all over Europe. If Catalonia wants to secede from Spain because they believe they are a separate nation, or if other groups want to carve-out their own space for ideological reasons, fine. I have always hoped however, that European secession for the sole purpose of securing a racially European state would not be necessary, that that problem could be solved by other means. I am a Particularist and all, but if every European country divided itself into a white state, a multiracial state, and whatever else, it would just get a bit tedious, to me.

But now, watching to this surreal invasion of Europe by the most cowardly elements of the Near East (of those who are not blunt economic migrants, most are able-bodied young men fleeing war), and the Europe’s pathetic reaction, I must withdraw my superficial objections. Europe’s ineptitude in the face of this crisis has been stunning; they are literally letting people walk right in.

"Please invade us."
And of course, incompetence is not the only problem; the real problem is that Europe simply lacks the will to survive. Racial and religious foreigners invade their country, and Germans come out to cheer their safe arrival. Readers commenting in The New York Times, mostly liberals, disproportionately Jewish (i.e. hardly a group known for being overly sympathetic to German survival), and almost all living thousands of miles away from the action, overwhelmingly oppose the invasion, often in explicitly racial and religious terms, yet polls show that Germans themselves mostly approve of it. When a country is that far to the “Left,” for lack of a better term, of Times readers, it leaves little room to hope for an ethnonationalist tomorrow. Germany is a dead-man-walking. At this point, I have to think that secession will prove to be the only hope for German ethnonationalists. The same goes for Sweden, and probably a few other European states.

I realize this sort of white separation all sounds very American, I realize that Europeans feel more bound to their immediate soil, but at some point European Identitarians have to face the facts: They are not going to be saved by a mass uprising or military dictatorship, not long term. If they want their own states, they are going to have to create them.

It is also worth noting that in many European countries, especially Germany, the majority of the population is well past the age of forty. When people get to be that old, the energy and inclination for revolution is not there, and let there be no doubt, Europe requires revolutionary change. Secession gets around this problem too—one of the advantages of secession is that you do not have to win over as many people to your side.

Maybe most importantly of all, secession forces the issue. In the right situation, the threat of secession, or even more so, the act itself, might well succeed in blackmailing the rest of the country to accept ethnonationalist immigration demands for the sake of reunion (entire states—Eastern Europeans, perhaps—could adopt this strategy vis-à-vis the EU). Certainly, if European ethnonationalists gather in some region of their country and declare independence, it forces people to pick a side. The mildly ethnocentric European has to decide: how much is he willing to sacrifice for a European Europe? Is he going to continue living in a country that is now that much more brown and Muslim, or is he going to cross the new border and join his people? Is he going to support his government taking-up arms to suppress his co-ethnics’ attempt to perpetuate themselves, even when they are not trying to force it on the rest of the country? It is one thing to standby quietly while your people commit suicide, it is another thing to actually participate in their murder.

No comments:

Post a Comment