Jan 6, 2016


via Radix

“Cultural Appropriation” is a term out of today’s Newspeak lexicon. It’s basically the equivalent of shouting “bad dog!” whenever a White person dares eat sushi, read The Bhaghavad Gita, or just try to engage in a little yoga. (The advanced guard of gentrifying Urban Elf fascism!)

It’s part of the power discourses that attempt to silence White voices from our society. As Richard Spencer has pointed out before, political correctness and cries of “appropriation”, is anti-White and is directed at removing White people from positions of influence, at all levels, even yoga instructors for students with disabilities.

Nowhere do we see this reflected more than in popular culture. Where a regular stream of hems and haws about the “whitewashing” of characters and Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s await any intrepid young Googler. But notice there is never a complaint when a POC shows up in a previously White franchise, universe, or historical epoch. In fact it’s downright celebrated in this, our newly minted current year.

From the latest installment of Star Wars, to the spires of Hogwarts it seems as if the march of Diversity, Inc. goes forward without opposition. Despite the lulz and dank memes of #BoycottStarWarsVII, demands for ever more “representation” seem to be growing in a galaxy far, far, away. And in the wizarding world of Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling even seems to have no problem “erasing” her original vision for a newer and far more “diverse” one.

Of course the worst culprits of what I’ll call “Whiteouting” (it’s as if a thousand sociology grad students cried out at once and were suddendly silenced), have to be historical dramas. I first noticed this as a boy watching the film Robin Hood:Prince of Theives where Morgan Freeman plays a rather swarthy moor. Things have only “progressed” in our time, so to speak. Recently I was rather “triggered” by two television show posters. One for the series Once Upon a Time featuring a Black Sir Lancelot, and the other a Beowulf adaptation with a Black supporting character. More so then Star Wars or Harry Potter or any other contemporary “universe” these instances of “Whiteouting” bothered me. It’s because they are the ultimate acts of White erasure.

It takes two of our greatest myths, Arthur and Beowulf, and hands them over to the destructive forces of our time. Don’t even get me started on the angle of miscegenation between Lancelot and Guinevere (is not even adultery sacred!)
All of this jabbering about our rather inane popular culture has a serious point though. Who we are is revealed to us by the myths we tell ourselves and our children. Many can barely recall Arthur and Beowulf enough to defend them, hence the rabid fights over Star Wars and Harry Potter (another subject, another time). Through “Whiteouting” our enemies hope to render our identities blank slates to become “new men” (or is it last?)

It’s why unplugging from our postmodern swamp is so important. So is telling our own stories, building our own “counterculture” and owning the legends of our ancestors. Resistance means defiance.

What is more defiant than taking what is rightfully yours?

The Barren Land

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

Today I walked, as I do almost every day now, the mile or two to the local grocery store. And I noticed and experienced several things. I live in a suburban area on the outskirts of a nearly all-White city. I have to go through a lot of winding streets before I hit the main avenue where the stores are. So every day I get to see how people live, close up.

There aren’t many pedestrians like me these days. People blow by me in their monoxide-spewing cars by the dozen or half dozen every trip to the main drag, looking at me through the windshield as if I’m an anachronism, or a bug under glass, or just something they weren’t expecting to see. I notice that if I catch their eyes, they usually look away. On the rare occasions — especially in this cold weather — when I meet a fellow pedestrian, there’s at least a 50 per cent. chance he or she will just walk by, head down, without a word, even when I brightly say “hello” or “howdy.” It’s like I’m not even there.

These White suburbanites keep this neighborhood very clean. Lawns are mowed and trimmed and landscaped with a zeal exceeding a church lady’s zeal for prayer. Sometimes I think there must be an 11th Commandment, and it’s about lawn maintenance. Trash and recycling are put out in neat city cans on the appointed days without fail. In most driveways and garages are two or more late-model cars papered with all the required tags and stickers and sub-stickers. Snow is blown with petroleum-consuming noisemakers every hour or two during snowstorms. If I walk at night, I can see the warm light of lamps mingled with the cold, flickering glare of giant-screen LCD TVs. I see people watching television one hundred times more than I see them doing anything outside except lawn-worship.

It’s all neat and all clean and very well-kept. And sterile. Every block or two there’s a family with kids. And every block or two there are at least twenty houses. By my rough calculation, that’s much less than 5 per cent. of the homes having children. To the White children of today’s America, there is seldom such a thing as “the kids next door.” There is almost never such a thing as a spontaneous game of hide-and-seek or stick ball or roller-skate races or bike races. And it’s very, very quiet, even on Summer afternoons.

What a difference from my childhood. I was nine years old in 1965. On nice days after school, the sidewalks were pretty thick with kids — just about all White kids, I among them — in my Alexandria, Virginia neighborhood back then. And the standard practice for parents was to give your kids free reign to go anywhere in the neighborhood until dinnertime. Going even a mile away was no problem, even taking a long walk to the local shopping center was nothing to be concerned about. (I also remember that, even in big-city Alexandria, the habit of leaving your doors unlocked was so ingrained that they had to run radio and television ads to convince people to stop doing it.) The air was full of ringing voices and laughter, something that is much more seldom heard today.

What happened? Well, for one thing, the Jew-led “sexual revolution” happened. The upcoming generation was sold on the idea that we could have a lot more love and a lot more sex and a lot more “choices” and a lot more freedom if women would put little coils of wire in their wombs or continuously pop little white pills containing a chemical cocktail that makes them sterile. Men were sold on the idea that surgically cutting and sealing the tubes that are supposed to send their seed into infinity through the body of a woman, surgery that’s usually irreversible, was a great and freedom-enhancing thing to do, too. So White men and women did these things — by the millions.

Could any enemy that hated us — that wanted us dead and off this planet permanently — have done anything more effective than this? — than planting the idea in the minds of the current generation, the generation in its prime childbearing years, to put chemicals or wires or sharp scalpels inside themselves to prevent conception of the next generation?

And all that extra “love” we were supposed to get now that we were freed from “worries” about pregnancy — how did that work out? People, decent people, still have the idea and the instinct to be faithful. But they don’t really know why they have that instinct. They’ve either never been taught, or they’ve been told the reason to be faithful is “because God said so” or something equally unconvincing, or they’ve actually been taught the opposite by degenerate condom-dispensing parents. They might “kind of feel” that sex “ought to be meaningful” and they “ought to be faithful,” but they couldn’t really tell you why.

With all the so-called sexual “freedom” and temptations we have surrounding us today, a weak feeling like that is not going to have much effect. It’s not going to do much to hold couples and families together, and show us that our sexual and romantic feelings are sacred — are the most important and significant things in the universe, really. Men and women are going to drift from partner to partner, hoping that one day the “feeling will be right,” and all the while getting harder and more cynical with each transitory bedmate. And love? That divine amalgam of the highest emotion known to man and the highest devotion known to man gets rarer and rarer with each passing day, with each passing decade, with each passing generation. Don’t talk of love in the degraded, degenerate West. Talk of hookups. Talk of Jewish-owned OKCupid and cheating sites and porn sites and whatever perversion you can think of and some you can’t. But don’t talk of love.

When sex stopped being something that you are, deep in your soul as well as in your body, and became just something that you do, it lost its significance. It lost its connection to our hearts and souls. And it lost its connection to the infinite. And losing that connection to the infinite will be fatal for us if we let it go on long enough.

Of course, it’s not just contraception that’s the problem. It was just the beginning of a process that has decoupled sex and romance from love and permanence and family and conception of the next generation. Today, led by the Jews in the academy and the media and the government, almost every kind of perverse and self-indulgent sexual behavior is encouraged, as long as it doesn’t lead to the birth of White children. And our generation, and even more so the younger generation, have been severely damaged. A few more generations of this and we won’t even exist anymore — which is exactly the goal of our enemies.

Now I don’t think White racialists have any chance of outbreeding the millions of invaders of our White homelands, but a pro-natal attitude (and practice) in our subculture is still a good thing. It helps ensure the passing on of memes as well as genes. It’s no panacea or substitute, of course, for the hard work of winning the minds and hearts of our folk so people like us will be in decision-making positions one day. And a sane immigration policy is needed yesterday. How about this: Only Whites can immigrate; non-Whites must emigrate. Sound workable? Cost? Whatever the cost, our people’s future is worth it.

Our vision of a future society should include programs to counter the tendency for bright, successful White people to have fewer children, on average, than the dull and irresponsible. That’s a serious problem: It leads to a lowering of the genetic quality of our people with each passing generation. It causes the culture-bearing and leadership strata of society to wither away.

When Margaret Sanger (who was sympathetic to the survival of Whites as a higher race, by the way) and other birth control pioneers made their push for contraception early in the last century, they actually thought that the lower-quality women for whom motherhood was such a burden (and whose offspring were a burden on society) would embrace birth control with open arms as a solution to their personal problems.

It didn’t work out that way. The dull and the non-White continued to proliferate madly, while contraception mainly reduced the birth rate of the intelligent and responsible and White — those whom we would prefer to have more children than anyone.

Part of the solution to that will be a cultural change that will make parenthood a more important, highly honored, and dare I say fashionable aspect of elite White life — both motherhood and fatherhood included.

We will also need measures to reward (and celebrate, and finance) parenthood for normal and above-normal persons whose increased fertility would benefit the race.

Now, we stupidly use the tax and social benefits system to reward the worst among us for reproducing. We can use those same systems, and other voluntary and non-coercive incentives, to encourage the best to have a larger proportion of the children in each generation — and the unfit to have few or none. At the same time, we can manage our population so it doesn’t outrun the ecosystem or crash to levels where others will take our lands. Racial progress — upbreeding, eugenics — is the most important precursor to progress in every field. The race that implements it in earnest will inherit the Earth.

Our social policies — which greatly reward the childless career woman who spends her life, say, overseeing the making of landfill-destined widgets in a Chinese factory, and which also reward the borderline-retarded semi-savage who can increase her tax-money handout by having a seventh child — are dysgenic in the extreme. The same policies essentially punish the intelligent White woman who has Tommy and Sally and Jenny instead of having a position on the board of the widget company — or having a cot in the corner of the crack house that she shares with Jamal and DeKwan and their friends. That has got to stop.

By essentially killing off and sterilizing ourselves, especially our best, and relentlessly multiplying our worst enemies, we are killing the future and killing ourselves. We are doing the exact opposite of what Nature is urging us to do.

I hope that I’ve inspired some of you to see things in a new light. I hope that you will choose to devote your life and your fortune and your very soul itself to this fight to ensure the continuance of our beautiful and creative White race in this Universe. I hope you will join my organization, the National Alliance.

And to you who have the means and the possibility of bringing new White souls into this Universe, I hope and pray that you do so — and that you do so with all good speed. Do not do too much waiting. The time and the moment will never be perfect. Have faith in your self and your mate and your love, and plunge ahead. And where deep love and devotion and White children are possible — make it happen. Work hard to make it happen. Do not let monetary considerations, or an age gap, or some unimportant hobby or “career goal” or some minor injury or hardship or personal preference stand in the way. Work with what you have that is good, and do not wait for the “perfect.” The perfect, which you’ll never find, is the enemy of the good. Choose your mate wisely. Love your mate well. And let devotion, kindness, and eternal divine partnership be your watchwords. Keep your line alive and teach your precious children well so that they will do likewise.

This land is barren because we have been misled into wrong thinking and wrong behavior. But our bodies are not barren; they are as ripe as ever if we allow them to be. Our minds also are ripe — ripe for hearing the truth, which resonates deeply in our folk, if only you will help me spread it. Our gene-patterns still contain the same cosmic spiral staircase to the stars that they always did. We only need to activate it — and together we can do that.

The Meditative Paradigms of Seiðr

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

I wish to draw my readers' attention to a mysterious Odinist esoteric text which appears as an appendix to the The Asatru Edda (2009) as The Hugrunar and as The Hugrunes in The Odinist Edda (2014) which is basically an anglicisation of the earlier work. I have referred to this particular work before in http://aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/hitler-reborn-sigurd.html .

Its correct title is The Meditative Paradigms of Seiðr and information about them and the text itself can also be found on http://www.gambanreidistatement.com/PreparingMeditations.html 

Whilst I have read through the text several times I have yet to meditate upon them but full instructions on how to do so may be found on the afore-mentioned web page which is part of a most interesting website http://www.gambanreidistatement.com/index.html

Whilst most of us involved in folkish Wodenism are familar with working with runes some people tend to lack the same familiarity with  meditation. The system outlined on the above-mentioned links will ground the meditation in a folkish text as this clearly is and I would encourage my readers to give this a go. Any information as to the origins of the text (other than what is already given on the website) would be very welcome.

Strategies of Competition in Western Politics

via The Occidental Observer

It’s a mystery worthy of the Twilight Zone. Government inspectors in the British city of Birmingham have discovered “unregistered schools” where children are being taught “misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic material” in “unhygienic and filthy” conditions by unscreened and unqualified teachers. The Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, says that far more children may be at risk and that the promotion of British values is being “undermined by the growth of these unregistered schools.”

Clearly those schools are like something from the Third World. How could they exist in a First World nation like Britain? Why are British children being force-fed these ideological poisons? Well, the liberal media are very coy about giving full details, but they do speak of a “narrow Islam-focused curriculum” at these dismayingly un-British schools. They also say that the schools have been found most often in “Muslim communities.”

The Boys from the Burger Bar

It seems then — brace yourself — that these schools are run by Muslims. And remember that Birmingham was also the scene of the so-called Trojan horse scandal, in which Muslim-dominated official schools were caught exposing vulnerable children to similar misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism. In other words, Muslim immigrants from the Third World have set up schools in Britain just like those back home. Who could have foreseen it? The mystery gets bigger when we reflect that Muslim immigrants rape children here just as they do back home. And Muslim immigrants mutilate their daughters here just as they do back home.

But it’s not just Muslims. At the same time as the White folk of Birmingham learnt about the anti-Semitic schools, they were reading about the jailing of a notorious gang called the Burger Bar Boys, who dealt drugs, sold guns and kept the city humming with murder, rape and robbery. If you examine this photo of the B.B. Boys, you’ll see that although they are all male, they are far from stale or pale:

Burger Bar Boys
B.B. Kings (with asymmetric faces)

So Black immigrants from the Third World tend toward violent criminal behavior in Britain just as they do back home. These demographic patterns involving Muslims and Blacks are deeply puzzling to liberals, who greet each new scandal with bafflement and dismay. Why do Third-World people create Third-World problems? It’s an enigma that won’t be cracked without much more research and much more funding for think-tanks and community groups. And while liberals are working on it, they ensure that the Third-World population of the West continues to grow. This lunacy isn’t found just in Britain, but in America, France, Sweden, Australia and every other First World nation that has been enriched by the Third World. Liberals are horrified by pathologies that their own policies have created.

Good for Goyim, Bad for Jews

How have Jews been so successful in promoting their pro-immigration agenda on the West despite the opposition of the White majority in every enriched nation? In scientific and mathematical terms, this is a problem in game theory, or the study of strategies for maximizing gain and minimizing loss in competition. These strategies don’t have to be consciously designed: game theory is just as applicable to bacteria or plants as it is to chess, poker and politics.

And bacteria prove a very important point: physical strength and size are not essential for strategic success. Medical fields like embryology and parasitology offer many examples of small and weak organisms manipulating much larger and stronger organisms for their own advantage. In politics, the majority does not automatically win and impose its preferences on official policy, even in self-professed democracies. As Guillaume Durocher has pointed out on the Occidental Observer, the statistician and game-theorist Naseem Taleb “has written insightfully on the apparent paradox of ‘stubborn minorities’ having more agency, influence, and power among political elites than apathetic majorities.”

So we should put aside questions of morality and examine the “double standards” of Jews as strategies in competition between Jews and the White gentile majority. Prima facie, it might seem disadvantageous for Jews to encourage mass immigration by Muslims, who are much more anti-Semitic on average than White Europeans. But Muslim anti-Semitism can strengthen Jewish power. When Muslims murder Jews in France, Jews like Moshe Kantor don’t demand an end to Muslim immigration, but more state surveillance and less free speech.

Fooled by Gould

Furthermore, the criminality and social failure of Muslims and Blacks can be useful tools of psychological warfare against the White majority. If all human groups possess the same intellectual potential, as we are so loudly told by pseudo-scientists like Stephen Jay Gould, then non-White failure can only be explained by White discrimination and malice. In other words, Whites are eternal villains, non-Whites are eternal victims.

After all, they’re minorities and oligolatry, or the worship of minorities, is now the official religion of the West. If the White heterosexual majority suffered from AIDS at higher rates than Blacks and homosexuals, that would clearly be an indictment of the White heterosexual majority. As it is, the reverse is true, which is just as clearly an indictment of the White heterosexual majority. Like water, wickedness runs only downhill: from the White majority onto the minorities whom that majority oppresses.

This explains the apparent paradox of the staunchly feminist Labour party not merely concealing but collaborating with the gang-rape of under-aged girls in Rotherham and other British towns and cities. And feminists don’t benefit from pointing out that Muslims and other non-Whites commit sex-crimes at much higher rates than Whites. With rare exceptions, feminists are interested in power and personal prestige, not in helping ordinary women. Muslims are not susceptible to emotional blackmail and wouldn’t be remunerative targets if they were. Indeed, more sex crime and sexual harassment mean more opportunity for feminist propaganda and moralizing — so long as the perpetrators are identified only as men, not as non-White men.

Majority Malice

But minorities have another highly important function in Jewish and liberal strategy. They serve as a buffer-zone against self-assertion by the majority, rather as the occupied Eastern European states did for the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War. The Western powers could not launch an invasion of the Soviet Union without first invading Eastern Europe, and Stalin’s paranoia was undoubtedly assuaged by this simple fact of geography.

Similarly, minorities like Muslims and homosexuals are cultural buffer-zones for Jews. In Jewish understanding, European history has been blackened again and again by outbreaks of irrational gentile malice against blameless Jews. When Jews are the only or most highly visible minority in a gentile society, this irrational malice can erupt without warning at any moment. After all, how could Jews know it is coming when they are doing nothing to provoke it?

But when other and more visible minorities are present, hostility towards those minorities by the White majority is a clear warning that trouble may also be on the way for Jews. Conversely, majority tolerance of the minorities is a reassurance that Jewish power will not be challenged. Indeed, the more the majority tolerates bad behaviour by minorities, the greater that reassurance is. Whites are undoubtedly suffering serious harm from the presence of non-Whites in Western nations. When Donald Trump suggests limiting this harm by ending Muslim immigration, Jews are horrified by the threat to Muslims. In reality, they are horrified by the idea that the White majority might assert itself and act in its own defence. The harm done by non-Whites is a feature, not a bug, of mass immigration and minority worship. This is the state inquisitor O’Brien in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948):
He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: “How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?”
Winston thought. “By making him suffer,” he said.
“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part III, chapter 3)

City of Sanctuary

The passivity of Whites in the face of non-White pathologies is proof that Western societies are obeying the will of Jews, not of Whites. This is why organizations like the English Defence League and PEGIDA cannot appease Jews by insisting that they are philo-Semitic and fully support Israel. By expressing hostility to Muslims, the EDL and PEGIDA are moving into the buffer-zone between Jews and the gentile majority and exposing themselves as a potential threat. As we’ve seen above, Birmingham’s enrichment by non-Whites has been extremely bad for Birmingham’s Whites (see also the murders of Lucy Lowe and Christina Edkins). But when PEGIDA plan to hold a rally in the city in opposition to that enrichment, the traitorous Labour party and its allies respond with all the clichés of cultural Marxism:
Birmingham’s political leaders have united to condemn plans for a far-right rally in the city involving ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson. Pegida UK has announced plans to gather in the city on February 6 as part of a series of protests across Europe. Robinson said in an interview that the aim was to “preserve our culture, save our country and save our future”.
But Birmingham’s Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders issued a joint statement saying the group would not be welcome. Labour council leader [Councillor] John Clancy and Tory and Liberal Democrat group heads, Robert Alden and Paul Tilsley, said the city was no place for “prejudice, intolerance and hate”. They said: “On the day that Birmingham was formally awarded City of Sanctuary status, it was disappointing to hear of the plans for the launch of a new anti-Islamic far-right group. Birmingham is a city that has a proud history of tolerance, cohesion and integration — with people from around the world of all faiths and heritage welcome to make their home here.
“Brummies [people from Birmingham] do not subscribe to ideas based on prejudice, intolerance and hate. That is why the planned launch of a new group in Birmingham is rejected by the council. The best way to demonstrate this is for everyone to go about their normal business on February 6 as a very public exhibition of what makes Birmingham great.” (Birmingham unites to tell Pegida UK: ‘You’re not welcome here’, The Birmingham Mail, 8th December 2015)
In reality, Birmingham is neither united, cohesive nor integrated. Large numbers of Whites there are horrified by what mass immigration has done to their city. Like similarly industrial Detroit, Whites made the city great and non-Whites are destroying it. The Labour council in Birmingham, like the Labour council in Rotherham, responds to Muslim pathologies by pretending that they aren’t happening. The “Trojan horse” scandal was first exposed twenty years ago and in 2014 the Birmingham Mail reported that “Child sex gangs [have been] a problem in Birmingham for 40 years.” The council knew and did nothing (see also here and here).

Punishing the Goyim

But some people respond to Muslim pathologies in a quite different way: by gloating over them, including rabbis expressing Schadenfreude at what Muslims are doing to Europe: “Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years [we] were in exile there.”

I also wonder at the attitude of feminists like Jenni Murray of the BBC to the mass rape carried out by Muslims in Rotherham, Oxford and elsewhere. Murray, whose autobiography has the “poignant tale of an early 1960s visit to Auschwitz with her half-Jewish father,” is not a slim or attractive woman. Does she genuinely care that shiksas are being raped in such large numbers? One thing is certain: the BBC’s daily Woman’s Hour, which Murray has graced for many years, did not break any of the Muslim rape-gang scandals. Nor did the Guardian, despite the numerous readers it has among the social workers and child-welfare officers who were paid large sums of money to “supervise and safeguard” the victims.

Did those Guardian-readers not have access to email, telephones or postage stamps? Did they not think the Guardian would be interested in what brutal misogynist males were doing to helpless under-aged girls on such a vast scale? Apparently not. The extensive news-gathering apparatus of Guardian, with reporters and sources in every corner of the United Kingdom, failed to notice what the Guardian itself called “grotesque abuse” and a “colossal institutional failure in child protection.”

All the necessary information was available, but it wasn’t being transmitted or processed as it should have been. If British society is likened to a human body, then the media are part of its nervous system. That nervous system is clearly diseased, because it doesn’t work as it should. Oligolatry is a selective neuro-toxin: it interferes with the transmission and processing of information on certain topics. If minorities can’t be criticized for pathological behaviour, that behaviour will worsen, not improve.

Contingent Cuckoos

Game theory is applicable again, because the control and manipulation of information is an essential part of competition. For example, cuckoos lay camouflaged eggs to trick their hosts into raising non-related chicks. If birds used full language, cuckoos would undoubtedly be passionate supporters of universalism. Here’s an imaginary rendition of one of the notorious Stephen Jay Gould’s famous quotes:

Say it five times before breakfast tomorrow; more important, understand it as the center of a network of implication: “Avian equality is a contingent fact of history.” Equality is not given a priori; it is neither an ethical principle (though equal treatment may be) nor a statement about norms of social action. It just worked out that way. A hundred different and plausible scenarios for avian history would have yielded other results (and moral dilemmas of enormous magnitude). They didn’t happen. “Species” does not exist. We are all the same under the feathers. (Adapted from a famous homily by Stephen Jay Gould)

Cuckoos would also support laws against “hate-speech,” denouncing pigeons who claimed that hawks had a tendency to eat pigeons and shouldn’t be allowed to immigrate into pigeon societies. But cuckoos would of course ban immigration by hawks into any cuckoo society.

“Species do not exist!”
“Species do not exist!”

As it is, birds don’t have language and cuckoos manipulate their hosts in non-verbal ways. But whether it’s camouflage or confabulation, the scientific principles of game theory can be applied to identify the strategies used by competing groups. Cuckoos are an avian minority that has flourished for millions of years by exploiting more numerous species of bird. Minorities are not automatically helpless and minorities are not automatically virtuous. That is just as true in the political and cultural zone as it is in the biological zone. In politics, competing groups attempt to extend their zones of control and restrict the zones of their opponents.

Life is always a game of zones. By understanding this, Whites will get better at competing with groups who use mass immigration and minority worship as weapons of psychological and demographic war.

TradYouth Hour: The Conference, the Parliament, and the Parade

via TradYouth

Listen Now

Matthew Heimbach returns to the Traditionalist Youth Hour with an in-depth description of his working trip to Europe networking with German and Greek Nationalist parties.

As well as seeing Germany for the first time he also got a chance to speak at the NPD leadership conference, where the Antifa were out in force throwing molotov cocktails and waving the hammer and sickle flag, clearly unaware of what the Soviets did to their great-grandparents. In the days before the conference the immigrants they love so much committed an atrocity upon a 9-year-old girl, yet still the blind fools were calling for more refugees. As well as putting up with the Antifa, the NPD are also being attacked by the state, who keep trying to ban the party outright while at the same time bleeding them dry through court costs and legal fees.

Creationism Upholds Racial Consciousness

via Faith & Heritage

Charles Darwin
Anti-kinists often claim that racial awareness derives from the inherently atheistic theory of evolution set forth by Charles Darwin in his book, On the Origin of Species. They point out that the full title of his work was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. They further maintain that Darwinism laid the basis for the “master race” ideology of Nazi Germany with its emphasis on an amoral struggle for survival. Thus they associate racial consciousness with atheism and the philosophy that might makes right.

Biblical Christianity, they continue, is entirely different, in that it affirms a benevolent God who created all human beings in His image and taught them to love and respect one another. Therefore, they conclude, all people are essentially the same, and race is a meaningless concept. Some anti-kinists even seem to believe that people in general, and Christians in particular, never even thought of race until the advent of Darwin.

To be sure there is truth in what the anti-kinist Christians say, but by no means the full truth, and indeed their position has significant error. Yes, the Bible speaks of common humanity and spiritual unity in Christ, but nowhere does it suggest that God ignores all distinctions of lineage, ethnicity, and race. Indeed, the Bible reveals that God is the author of distinct peoples (Deut. 32:8). Most specifically He blessed a chosen people, the Israelites, and directed them to war against the tribes of Canaan.

In the New Testament, Paul affirms that God divided “nations” so that they would seek after Him (Acts 17:26-27). The word “nation,” derived from Latin, means having a common lineage. It, in turn, came from the Greek word “ethnos,” from which we derive our English word “ethnic.” Definitions of ethnos include the concept of race.1 As our word “ethnic” today, it also expresses a broader meaning than simple biological race. Among other characteristics are religion, culture, customs, and shared history. Even so, the biological similarity of race, usually, is an essential characteristic underlying all the others. Try as we may, it’s difficult to imagine a black Irishman or a white Chinese.

Given the divine origin of nationhood, it is reasonable to conclude that biological race is a creation of God to serve His purposes. Indeed, the only other possible option is to assume that it is the outcome of blind chance, which is another way of describing atheistic evolution.

Thus it hardly would be sinful or immoral to be conscious of race as a part of God’s created order and to give it significance and legitimacy. Of course it is possible to conceive of race in a sinful way, such as racial idolatry. But the same possibility applies to any other entity of the created order. Man’s perversions of God’s intentions in no way detract from those intentions.

Thus the anti-kinists must struggle with logic to maintain that race has noting to do with God and everything to do with evolution. Indeed, it is patently clear from history that Christians recognized race and gave it significance long before Darwin. One example was the theory that black people descended from Ham and thereby derived the status of servants. Few believe this today, but it was a widespread belief.

One way anti-kinists try to maintain the link between evolution and race, it seems, is to maintain that natural selection, the essential mechanism of evolution, creates changes within species, but does not change one species into another. Specifically with human beings, they believe that Adam possessed all the genetic potential of all existing races today. As his descendants spread out over the globe, climate and other factors naturally selected for different racial characteristics in different areas. These writers seem to suggest that these characteristics came about by chance alone.

Is this likely or possible? Those who disagree argue that many of the genes associated with Caucasians, for example, are recessive, and it is not likely that they would have come out on top in random selection. To illustrate, one writer notes that while white buffalo (bison) occasionally appeared on the U.S. prairies, their recessive genes never allowed any herds of them to form.2

In any case, the anti-kinists use this argument of natural selection within a species to bolster their general view that race is an accident and not particularly important. Actually, however, it would seem quite the opposite. If the climate and other factors of a geographic area so strongly selected for a particular race, it follows that all people of that type should consider moving to, or remaining in, such areas where they are in fact best adapted to live. The logic of the anti-kinists would tend to support racial separation!

If, however, they want to claim that the selection was not purely natural, thus allowing for greater adaptability of people to live in different places, they must come to grips, once more, with the supernatural origin of the different races. Indeed, anti-kinists never really had any other option. While it is possible that God worked through natural means to create the races, they were still His design as He divided the nations. Once again, to deny this action of providence in dividing mankind is to embrace the naturalism and atheism of the Darwinists.

What then about the anti-kinist charge associating racial consciousness with Nazism? Certainly it is true that the Nazis based many of their beliefs on Darwin. But for that matter, all the secular advocates of racial denial—liberals, humanists, communists—are staunch supporters of Darwin as well. And in truth, these leftists are more consistent than Nazis in basing their worldviews on evolution.

With evolution, one race may be superior to another, a thought appealing to National Socialists. But they might reflect that such a distinction only lasts for a relative instant in the relentless march of time. Properly understood, evolution means endless flux. Nothing is fixed or permanent; races and perhaps genders too will change, and the human race itself may evolve into something as far from us as we are from bacteria.

This is a view most congenial to the humanist left. They rebel against any permanent and—most particularly—God-ordained standards. They aim to ride the flux, and, as much as possible, guide it in god-like fashion themselves. Races and genders won’t evolve away anytime soon, but why have any respect for them? Indeed, disrespect for these attributes, as supposed creations of God, is all the more appealing to humanist rebels.

God is the great I AM, with eternal and unchanging characteristics, and His created order reflects this character. Race, as a providential facet of that order, has reality and importance that evolution can never justify nor sustain.

  1. The Free Dictionary, “ethnos”: “people of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture” 
  2. Blanchard, Lawrence. Did All Races Come from Adam?, New Covenant Bible Church, Port Orchard, Washington. While this author disagrees with Blanchard’s polygenism, he makes a strong case that natural selection alone can’t account for the different races. (See Chapter 5.)

Remembering J. R. R. Tolkien: January 3, 1892 to September 2, 1973

via Counter-Currents

I am in fact a Hobbit.”—J. R. R. Tolkien

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien is a favorite author of New Left “hippies” and New Right nationalists, and for pretty much the same reasons. Tolkien deeply distrusted modernization and industrialization, which replace organic reciprocity between man and nature with technological dominion of man over nature, a relationship that deforms and devalues both poles.

But philosophically and politically, Tolkien was much closer to the New Right than the New Left. Tolkien was a conservative and a race realist. His preferences ran toward non-constitutional monarchy in the capital and de facto anarchy in the provinces, but he recognized that state control can be minimized only in a society with a deep reverence for tradition and a high regard for individual honor and self-restraint.

Many of Tolkien’s most fervent New Right admirers are neo-pagans. But Tolkien himself was a devout Roman Catholic traditionalist, albeit one with a deep love of pre-Christian myth, epic, and tradition. And although The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, with their many themes from Norse and Celtic mythology, resonate especially with pagans, the ultimate mythological framework of Middle Earth, particularly as expressed in the posthumous work The Silmarillion, is biblical in inspiration, with a creator God (Eru Ilúvatar), a devil (Melkor), a fall, and even a hint of the necessity of a divine incarnation to save creation.

In honor of Tolkien’s birthday, I wish first to draw your attention to several works on this website:
For more background on Tolkien’s life and work, I recommend two introductory books, which are accessible even to teenagers: Leslie Ellen Jones’ Myth and Middle-Earth: Exploring the Medieval Legends Behind J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and Bradley Birzer’s J. R. R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-Earth. The most thorough and serious biography and overall interpretation of Tolkien is Joseph Pearce’s Tolkien: Man and Myth.

For those who need no introduction, there is no better commemoration than to spend a winter evening snug in one’s own Hobbit hole reading the works of the man himself (or watching Peter Jackson’s masterly and inspiring movies of The Lord of the Rings).

European & Asian Regional Alliance?

via Majority Rights

While I am adamant about the right and oughtness of fighting when one’s own borders and EGI are being infringed upon, I am not a hawk. Geopolitical warfare has never been something that appealed to me, let alone with any sort of passion.

I’m very averse to the idea of going beyond my national boundaries to fight, particularly when my own nation is totally screwed-up, needs tending and where innovative thinking might solve problems as opposed to trying to solve them by resorting to warring abroad.

The problem is that there are valid arguments that there are vital requirements along the Silk Road, in the Middle East and in Africa - resource and population management that is indispensably necessary even to the most innovative and independent peoples. In these concerns, I’m going to invite the reader to consider with me the possibility of re-drawing ethno-nationalist and regional lines on this map.

As you can guess, conversations with Kumiko have got me taking these matters under consideration, and I hope that she will soon put up an article discussing issues that the neo-cons have failed to make in clear and persuasive terms.

Tangential to neo-con issues is an interesting philosophical question for another day: how, in detailed form, to set up a rule structure which will sort out and punish the genetic legacy of criminals; and facilitate the rebirth of those genetic components that have suffered unjustly at the hands of criminals in previous generations. In this case, I am thinking more in terms of those who have historical grievances with Russians - while it is true that I don’t feel this grievance as do some others that I’ve known, it is nevertheless only practical to set the question aside for the time being - though it is a question that can apply to any people who have benefited or suffered from historical atrocities.

Europeans, now, are asked even more fundamental questions than relative guilt and merit, but are asked to address the matter of our identity, period - that we are a people (different from Jews and others), to establish who we are, what the nature of our common moral order is, to understand that the obfuscation of that would-be peoplehood is a part of a war against us - and that there is, indeed, a war against us; finally, we are asked what is the nature of that war and what it consists over?

When considering these matters from a White Nationalist perspective, Russian people are not conceived as inherent enemies, nor, even, is the humongous expanse of their nation high on the list, if on the list at all, of things intolerable to allow to remain. I can imagine living with it - it’s always been that way in my lifetime; its reach contracted after the fall of The U.S.S.R., but still remains bigger than Pluto.

Nevertheless, we ought to reconsider this from an Asian perspective, and from a perspective of acute European interests.

I didn’t expect to have occasion at this point to consider aloud the possibility of attempting to align formal industrial military objectives with ours as White Nationalists. Oil, resources, even absurd and brutal regimes in the Middle East and Africa inflicting harm upon their own do not stir any passion in me to fight. The function of Asian countries and Western countries do, however, have requirements and rationale to get these nations under compliance. And in hopes of facilitating the human resource of Kumiko’s military perspective, I am going to imagine empathic military geo-political objectives, so that we might envisage a grand chess board result in our victory.

From that standpoint I attend to the fact that as nationalists and as White people in particular, fighting for the survival and sovereignty of our nations, that militarization and the geopolitics of resource and population management will ultimately be necessary.

Asia and the West have things that we need from one another, including cooperation against antagonisms from the Middle East and Africa.

Not only do we need resources from these places but we need mutual help in border control and repatriation projects.

What about Russia? It is so big. Why not just work with them and allow its vast space to become a place for White people to grow into?

While it is true that another traditional passion for some war mongers is hating Russians and maybe I should hate them, I don’t hate them. Nor do I care if people want to move there; furthermore, I completely understand not wanting to fight them. I don’t want to fight Russians; the war in Ukraine has been instigated by Judaized and neo-liberal means and motives and it disgusts me.

Even so, WN tendencies to look upon Russia as the great White hope ignore the propositional, neo-liberal, mercantile and Judaized aspects of Russia - as if its political class has no corruptions analogous to The US that will wreak havoc with such projects to connect with Russia as a partner in White Nationalism.

Nevertheless, while I favor Ukrainian and Belarusian sovereignty, as I favor all ethnonational sovereignty, I am opposed to a hot war approach with Russia to increase their sovereignty.

But neither am I in favor of a hot war approach to defending Russia’s humongous eastern stretch and southern conflicts.

Rather than abandon to foreign invaders the natural ethnonationalist homelands of our European evolution and engage in White flight to move into lands that apparently represent imperialist aggrandizement - beyond ethnonational mandate - on the part of Russia, to reiterate, neither am I particularly interested in fighting to protect Russia’s imperial overreach.

In a word, defending what is apparently an imperial over-reach is Russia’s problem and an issue that can be turned to our advantage as Europeans in order to gain cooperation with our EGI, its borders and vital resources.

We need Chinese, Japanese and other Asian cooperation more than we need Russia’s imperialist headaches; and China and Japan are not about to start loving Russia more than their own interests which are impacted by Russia’s Eastern and Southern interference.

We need cooperation with Asia to compel compliance with regard to resource, EGI and border management. And we might compel Russia’s compliance as well with those needs by means of the West’s regional alliance with Asia.

Thus, while we might not engage a war of maneuver in either Russia’s west nor east, we might well consider lending approval to Asian positioning in Russia’s east and south.

That is, allowing the “stick” (as opposed to “carrot”) of some of these lands as potentially sovereign Asian places: with enclaves Russian and enclaves Asian, the farther east you go, the more the general area would be Asian with fewer Russian enclaves and vis a versa - the farther West, the fewer Asian enclaves until you reach a point where it would be a Russian only ethnostate. And the carrot to Russia would be less contentious relations with its neighbors and more secure borders itself as it cooperates. That is not necessarily a bad deal.

Toward an Asian-Atlantic regional cooperation.

1. The genetic-make-up and territorial boundaries of the European ethno-states shall be restored, maintained and protected.
2. To achieve this end we propose alignment with the Asian ethno-states and region.
3. Something like the E.U. and North Atlantic would be necessary to achieve that alliance and its success.

However, it will also involve some quid pro quo.
4. First, we see it as being in both of our interests to secure our peoples against impositions of Middle-Eastern and African populations; against imposition of the Abrahamic religions; and against interference of these peoples and religions in our vital resources.
5. Toward that end, it is in the interest of both Asians and Europeans to remove these populations to the greatest extent possible from our geo-political territories; and, again, to remove significant imposition/interference upon our mutual vital resource interests.
6.  Sacrosanct European territories in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand will likely need to become smaller at any rate in order to be maintained and defended. But with the increased manageability of defense will come an opportunity to offer cooperation to Asians to have some sacrosanct territories of their own in these places. We will respect and cooperate with one another toward the defense of our territories in diaspora, seeing African and Middle-Eastern (saliently Jewish and Muslim) populations as those who must be guarded against and compelled to as great a distance from our people as possible, removed from civic nationalization and its proximity.
7. Russia/ns will be seen as having an analogous situation to White Americans. In order to have a safer, more manageable ethno-state and something to offer in exchange with the Euro-Asian regional alliance, they will be required to contract in size considerably, particularly from its expanse eastward into Asia and its geo-political interference there and to its south, unilaterally along the Silk Road. Russia’s ethno-state will be more secure as it will be forced into a more cooperative and less antagonistic relation with the rest of the geo-polity.

The key deal is this: we will compel Russia to relinquish parts of its territory (leaving it no good choice but to comply). In exchange we will require Asian assistance in cleansing and defending our territories from imposition by non-natives - particularly Africans, Middle Easterners, Muslims and Jews. And we will require compliance in securing our vital resources and transportation routes.

The advantages to European peoples and Asians in this alliance is clear.

But what regional and national lines might you imagine and what advantages to Russia and others do you see for compliance? Discuss.

As there are few Russian cities larger than 500,000 east of lake Baikal (near the city of Irkutsk, centrally to the north of Mongolia), one way of arranging the pockets, enclaves, ethno-state outposts as it were, would be to have a symmetrical “M.C. Escher-like” arrangement (as in the image called “Day and Night” above) entering of these enclaves into the others general regional sphere - enclaves which would, nevertheless, represent sovereign states.

Note: I can see how this could create incentive for Eastern European nations to cooperate - from a position of strength and in cooperation with White diaspora (note the interview of Tomasz Szczepański under the fold).

The plan would emphasize deportation and re-doing citizenship in favor of native lines, viz., on the basis of ethnostates. That is unlike the Moscow - Berlin - Paris axis, which apparently seeks to reconstruct the same old right-wing, propositional/objectivist oil interests.

The Eastern European nations may agree to cooperation despite history of disputes (sometimes serious), and facilitate this ethno-nationalist and regional cooperation if their borders and native populations are guaranteed. If they are a part of a plan that guarantees that and necessary resources from the Silk Road - accomplished by increased cooperation with Asia and a Russia dealing from a cooperative position; then perhaps ethnonational and regional alliance with Asia can work. I.e, Russia has to offer more than trade in natural resources garnered through its vast expanse and fist waving at anybody who doesn’t see their interests being secured inasmuch.

The area that is to be reserved as sacrosanct to the Russian ethnostate would be contracted from imperial dimensions and more in line with ethno-national proportions.

It is a contraction in concession to cooperation with other ethno-European nations that WN America will likely need to undergo as well.

This will make Russia more defensible and more worth cooperating with for the rest of Europe and Asia - as they will be required to join this Euro-Asian regional cooperation against middle eastern interference - whether Arab, Islamic or Jewish, they will be beholden to our terms and we will have the necessary resources of the Silk Road.

The other side of the deal for compliance and cooperation to garner vital resources, is that our vital EGI will be cooperated with in protection as well - including not only in border defense, repatriation and de-nationalization of the majority of non-natives from European and Asian countries, but most strictly the border defense, de-nationalization and removal of non-natives from European nations; while allowing for some accountable quota of Asians and Europeans in one another’s nations and regions.

Add caption
The Intermarium Projec                                                              
First introduced as a part of ideology of the Polish state by the Chief of State Józef Piłsudski in 1918-1922
Counter-Currents, ‘The Other Europe: An Interview on Intermarium’, 18 Nov 2015:
The Other Europe: An Interview on Intermarium with Tomasz Szczepański. Interview and translation by Jarosław Ostrogniew
Tomasz Szczepański (Barnim Regalica) was born in 1964 in Szczecin (Poland). He is a historian (Ph.D. in humanities), writer, essayist, and activist. An advocate of Zadruga (Polish pagan nationalism) and indigenous Slavic faith.
He was an anti-communist activist beginning in 1984, a member of the illegal Polish Socialist Party, and a member of the Confederation of Independent Poland since 1987. From 1987 to 1989 he edited the underground bulletin Intermarium.
After the collapse of communism he became an opponent of the democratic-liberal establishment. He was an organizer and participant in numerous anti-communist and anti-establishment patriotic and nationalist demonstrations. He taught history for 11 years and is currently an employee of the Polish Army Museum in Warsaw.
Tomasz Szczepański has advocated the idea of Intermarium and worked for its realization since the 1980s. He is the founder and leader of the Association for Tradition and Culture “Niklot” (active since 1998) and the metapolitical quarterly Trygław.
What are the theoretical foundations and origins of the Intermarium project?
The foundation of the Intermarium project is the aim of creating in Eastern Europe (or East-Central Europe), understood as the area between Russia and Germany, a pole of power able to counterbalance the power of either of these two neighbors. The aim of creating such a pole is to secure the area from imperial attempts by Russia and Germany and to create conditions for unconstrained development of the nations of the region.
The countries of the area are often divided into two sub-regions, the Carpathian Mountains being the borderline: the proper Baltic-Black Seas Intermarium (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine) and the Danube-Balkan segment. Both sub-regions are collectively called the ABC area after the Adriatic, Baltic, and Black (Czarne in Slavic languages) Seas.
In addition to geographical, economic, and cultural factors, the basic element creating unity in the area is the fact that it has been and still is an object of constant expansion by Russia and Germany, and historically also of Sweden and Turkey. And the political elites – and probably large parts, or even the vast majority, of the Russian and German nations – treat expansion into this area as legitimate, the evidence of which are their geopolitical doctrines: “Mitteleuropa,” “Lebensraum,” “the Brezhnev doctrine,” and the “near abroad.”
Attempts to realize the Intermarium project after 1918 were connected with two waves of democratization in Middle Europe (1918-1921 and 1989-1991), hence the common association of this concept with the idea of exporting the democratic state model to the East. This is not precise. It used to be this way, but it does not need to be this way, as the aim of the Intermarium project is independence, and democracy is a secondary issue. We can imagine that, for instance, a democratic counter-candidate of Aleksandr Lukashenko in Belarus could be simultaneously a pro-Moscow agent, thus in this case the advocates of Intermarium would support Lukashenko as the candidate securing – in his own interest – the separation of Belarus from Russia.
Intermarium should be also considered as a political expression of cultural distinctiveness of Central (Eastern) Europe from both its neighbors. Although politically it is a project countering primarily Russian imperialism, culturally it is rather an anti-occidentalist project.
I do not agree with the thesis that this area is a transition between the East (Eurasia) and the West, as this perspective considers the main feature of the region as simply the “attenuation” of occidental traits. Thus the uniqueness of the Intermarium is constituted only by the lack of its own features. Let us focus on what is culturally unique in this area. First, there is a powerful agrarian element in the national cultures of the area. Almost all of the nations have reconstructed their elites after a long period of time on the basis of the peasantry, or in the case of the Poles and Hungarians, and partly the Romanians, their elites consist of a nobility connected with the rural culture. However, in all of these nations the local bourgeoisie was weak, consisting mostly of ethnically alien elements.
Thus, except for the Czechs, bourgeois cultural traits are very weak in the nations of this region.
Second, this is Slavic Europe. The examples of the Baltic countries, Hungary, and Romania only apparently deny this fact. Their strong connection with Slavic cultures, as well as the absorption of Slavic elements by the Hungarian and Romanian ethnos in the process of their development, is well-known.
Third, in the 20th century all countries of the region were subject to communism – the most destructive social experiment known in human history. This has unified social experience of these nations, enabling common understanding among them.
Finally, the concept of the nation understood in ethnic (anthropological) categories dominates in the whole region, contrary to Western Europe, where mere civic nationalism is more common. A member of a nation is a person who is connected with the nation by origin, language, and common culture (often also by religion); citizenship plays a much more minor role.
How was the idea of Intermarium developed in Poland and in Europe?
Although there were historical precedents, the Intermarium project was first introduced as a part of ideology of the Polish state by the Chief of State Józef Piłsudski in 1918-1922.
It is commonly identified with Polish federalism, which is not completely true. Polish federalism aimed at creating a common federal state from all the countries of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the idea of Intermarium aims to create an alliance of independent states.
The Peace Treaty of Riga between Second Polish Republic and the USSR in 1921 meant the resignation to the political impossibility of this concept – not a complete resignation, as it remained both in the political thought and in the semi-unofficial practices of certain institutions of Second Polish Republic. The Polish army, during preparations for a war with the USSR, created the so-called “contract officers”: these were military-men from the nations conquered by the USSR, who were not Polish citizens, but who served on the terms of a contract. It was anticipated that in the case of a war with the USSR, soldiers of the Red Army who were willing to fight against Bolshevism would contact Polish Army units. The leadership of army units consisting of such soldiers (which could form the nucleus of future allied armies) would be entrusted to these contract officers. Due to their nationality and lack of Polish citizenship they would be considered more credible. Also émigré periodicals fom the USSR were supported, not only in the case of Intermarium nations, but also peoples of the Caucasus, Urals, and even the Kalmyks. Of course, Polish intelligence services cooperated with pro-independence organizations among these nations.
The concept of Intermarium was taken up by the young generation of Polish conservatives during the Interwar period. We often associate the idea of Intermarium with the Piłsudski’s political camp, and although this association is true, it is noteworthy that the Polish nationalist political camp has also embraced this concept, with one of the versions elaborated by Adam Doboszyński.
Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that up to 1939, Intermarium was on the margins of the Polish political mainstream, which rather aimed at defending the Versailles status quo. After the beginning of the Second World War, however, various concepts of a Central European federation had many influential proponents among Polish emigres.
The project has been revivified in political thought in Poland with the foundation of Confederation of Independent Poland (Konfederacja Polski Niepodległej – KPN, the first oppositional political party since the incapacitation of the Polish People’s Party in 1947 by the Communists). The KPN harkened back to the Piłsudski’s pro-independence movement, so it could not remain indifferent to its geopolitical thought. After 1980, when the collapse of the USSR and of the broader “socialist camp” seemed more and more inevitable, some of the other oppositional circles began to more or less openly refer to the Intermarium project. It must nevertheless be emphasized that this agenda was embraced by only a minority of the opposition.
In July of 1994 a League of Parties of Intermarium Countries was proclaimed in Kiev. The League consisted of pro-independence parties from six countries (Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Ukraine). The Confederation of Independent Poland, the Third Republic Movement, and the marginal Polish Republican Party–Third Power represented Poland in the League. Congresses of the League took place in 1995 (Jarosław nad Sanem, Poland), 1996 (Minsk, Belarus) and 1997 (Kiev, Ukraine). There was also an attempt to create a common bulletin, two issues of which were published. This initiative died by the end of ‘90s as a result of political changes in the countries involved – including marginalization of the main advocates of the project. It is noteworthy that some non-political social initiatives, undertaking the questions of Central Europe, have referred to this idea. These initiatives usually died after a few years, due to the lack of state support and inability to find other sponsors.
Although the Intermarium idea has been promoted by circles which have never exercised real state power, it must nevertheless be emphasized that some of the official policies of the Third Polish Republic (in 1989-2004) can be considered as more or less direct references to this idea. I consider the Central European Initiative (Hexagonale) and Central European Free Trade Agreement to be examples of this. The Visegrad Group is also an example to a lesser extent – mainly due to its limited potential and the declared aim of the group, which is the support of the countries of the group on the path to European Union membership, thus de facto cooperation in liquidating the sovereignty of the region. However, Polish policy after the collapse of communism was essentially aimed at entering the main structures of the Western world, that is NATO and the European Union. All alternatives to this aim – and Intermarium is such an alternative, especially in regard to EU – were fundamentally rejected by the establishment. If certain elements of the project were used, it was rather as a medium of realizing the idea of the occidentalizaton of Central-Eastern Europe. After the Third Polish Republic entered the European Union, elements of the Intermarium agenda were visible in the policy of President Lech Kaczyński.
Nevertheless, realization of the Intermarium project appears the most effective way of securing the independence of Poland.
What possibilites for and obstacles to the realization of the Intermarium project do you see?
The entrance of most of the countries of the area into the EU has basically undone the possibility of realizing this project in the conceivable future. Although we must remember that it does not rule out creation of a regional bloc inside the Union; there are still institutional frameworks enabling cooperation in the spirit of Intermarium, created before entrance into the EU, such as the Visegrad Group, which can be filled with a new content in a new political configuration.
Discussion of the Intermarium idea makes sense, especially if we assume the collapse of the European superstate project.
The main opponents of the realization of the Intermarium project are Russian and German imperialists as well as advocates of the European superstate.
Why are the Russian imperialists? This is obvious and does not need a detailed elaboration. However, we must notice that despite the evident successes of Vladimir Putin in overcoming domestic troubles and in international relations, the systematic demographic tendency to a decreasing Russian population has not changed. Taking into consideration neighboring China and the already existing presence of not only Chinese capital, but also of a few million Chinese in Siberia (with a tendency to increase in number), the loss of a part of Siberia in favor of China, in one form or another, seems quite probable within a generation. Finally, the Russian economy, based mainly on natural resources, is dependent on the international prices of these raw materials.
Furthermore, after departing from communism, Russia has not found an alternative ideological foundation for the reconstruction of the empire. Despite official support, Orthodox Christianity has not come out of the post-communist crisis. Eurasianism could be such a foundation, but it would mean breaking with the hopes of parts of Russian elite for the occidentalization of Russia.
That Intermarium is obsolete from the perspective of German policy is also a point that probably does not need much elaboration. Let us focus on the convergence of German and Russian interests, apart from certain economic complementarity (on the one hand a developed and energy-consuming economy, on the other a provider of almost inexhaustible energy resources). If we assume that the aim of German policy is the regaining of losses – including immaterial ones, such as international position – which the country suffered after the defeat in the Second World War, it is difficult to conceive Germany regaining territory in Central Europe if the region creates a strong political structure. And such a structure would also not be in favor of Russia, thus the German-Russian cooperation against the countries of Intermarium (especially against Poland as a potential leader of the region) is completely natural.
Thus we arrive at the last group of opponents of the Intermarium project: the advocates of the EU as a superstate. Contrary to the previous ones, they do not represent interests of a certain state or nation, but a certain ideological project, for the EU is also an ideological project. It is a democratic-liberal scheme, aimed against all strong national and religious identities, striving to create a “European” identity by uprooting national identities. The Intermarium project must provoke dislike in these circles for at least two reasons.
First, are “cultural” reasons: nations inhabiting the region, due to the common experience of communism, are more attached to their identities which have so often been threatened. Thus, they are unwilling to renounce these identities for the sake of a European mirage, especially when they see that it is often a tool hiding national interests of the old members of the EU. Second, the Intermarium nations have also the experience of Russian hegemony. It induces them to cooperate with the United States, which – even if the US provokes some objections – is nevertheless appreciated as an ally possessing not only real strength but also the will to use it. And the EU as a geopolitical project aims at pushing Americans out of Europe.
What possibilities do you see of persuading the closest neighbors of Poland to become involved in realization of the Intermarium Project?
The alliance of two of the strongest countries of the region, Poland and Ukraine, is the spine of the geopolitical concept of Intermarium. One needs only to take a look at any map and calculate the potentials to know the reasons.
Ukraine — or rather a large part of the Ukrainian elite arising from the anti-communist tradition — never had to be strongly persuaded to get involved in this project. The prejudice against Poles is very weak, as Ukraine is simply a large country and will remain such, even without Crimea. And a new generation has already grown up for whom an independent Ukrainian state is something obvious. Furthermore, the war in Donbass has strengthened Ukrainian distinctiveness (including the Russian-speaking Ukraine). Simply put: war favors clear self-definitions.
Belarus – here, when it comes to anti-communist elites, the situation is similar, despite larger fears of Polish revisionism. The problem however is that these elites are sparse, which is connected with the weakness of Belorussian state traditions. Furthermore, the “pro-Western” elites supported by the grant system have a tendency to support the cultural postulates of the sponsors, which will not bring success in the Belorussian society. (There is some analogy to the supposedly anti-Putinist actions of Femen, which have done far more to help than harm Putin.) It seems that some hope may be pinned on the evolution of the “Lukashenkian” elites, which are rather willing to rule their own state, not to be functionaries of the Muscovite empire. This of course applies also to Lukashenko himself.
Lithuania is the most difficult element of the puzzle, because the Lithuanian elites have defined Poland and Poles as the worst threat, and the Lithuanization of Poles of the Vilnius Region is a demand of the Lithuanian raison d’etat. We cannot consent to this, and this has nothing to do with Polish revisionism. Besides, participation in the EU and NATO gives them a sense of security, which makes it easier to quarrel with Poland.
We surely share a fear of German revisionism with the Czechs. The question is: how much have the Czech elites made their peace with German domination? If they go much further, it would almost constitute consent to becoming some kind of a new Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia – with a similar territory. Acceding to the demands of Sudetenland Landmaschafts can lead to this. I cannot answer this question. But the reaction of our elites on the issue of German demands toward the Czech Republic was surely petty-minded, if not even cowardly. After all, in this issue we are in the same boat.
The question is whether Polish policy can influence and moderate the relationship of Hungary with her neighbors, which is a key issue for the peace in the region. Hungarians have the right to defend their minorities in other countries, but it must be clearly stated that one glance at the ethnic map proves that Transylvania just cannot be regained by Hungary. Anyway, Poland should act in an mitigating way as much as we can, as the quarrels in our region will be used by external factors.
It is even possible to establish positive relations between the Intermarium and Russia – but with a Russia which is reconstructed mentally, not only politically and socially.
This would be (speaking in certain mental shortcuts) a Russia of Boris Savinkov or Alexiey Shiropayev. By the way, the latter should be promoted in Poland. It is noteworthy that nobody is doing it, perhaps because of Shiropayev’s opinion on the role of Jews in the history of Russia.
The problem with Russian imperialism is that it is not only a geopolitical concept, something serving the national interests and thus something which can be rejected if it does not serve them anymore. It is an effect of mentality shaped by Orthodoxy synthesized with the Mongol tradition and German bureaucracy: “the Knouto-Germanic Empire” as it was once brilliantly stated by Mikhail Bakunin. If Russia is the “Third Rome” (and this was the official doctrine of Muscovite Orthodoxy, to which Russia is now returning), then it even has an obligation to be an empire. Preventing this means the breaking of not only the physical (which is currently already taking place in Russia through its demographic crisis), but also the spiritual foundations of Russian imperialism.
And that is why with great fondness I welcome the current renaissance of Slavic religion, which does not have a “Weltmacht” aspect. Some hope lies in the rebirth of the tradition of Novgorod as an alternative model of Russian development to Moscow. But all those anti-imperial currents of Russian thought are marginal, at least at the moment.
However, all hopes that this problem can be dealt with through the officially proclaimed reconciliation of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland with the Moscow Patriarchy of the Orthodox Church, which is one of the pillars of imperialism, are in my opinion without sense.
Let us add that dealing with the Königsberg question must be a certain element of the normalization of Polish-Russian relations. This geopolitical absurdity threatens us by its mere existence, not only as a base for possible aggression. It also creates a field for Russian-German cooperation, which is always a lethal threat for Poland. Nobody can guarantee that Moscow would not be willing to give it back to Germany, for instance by simply selling it. Thus, we must search for such a solution for this Oblast, which will not be connected with its belonging either to Russia or to Germany.
What is your view of the possibility of realizing the Intermarium project in light of recent events: armed conflict in Ukraine, the immigration crisis in Europe, or the recent Presidential and Parliamentary elections in Poland?
Russian aggression in Ukraine has proven to all interested parties the durability of Russian imperialism, and it is far less significant whether the leaders in Moscow honestly wish to rebuild the empire or if it only uses imperialism as a tool of internal politics. For if it is only an example of the latter, it speaks a lot about Russian society itself. Without a doubt the ruling Law and Justice party and President Andrzej Duda are better prepared for this imperialist recidivism of Moscow, about which they have actually warned others before. From this point of view the last elections in Poland are a good change.
Regarding Ukraine, the war has strengthened Ukrainian identity; an enemy easily cements a community and defines the political horizon, which we already know from Carl Schmitt.
The war has also been an alarm bell for other states of the post-Soviet area, which is also useful.
It has also hampered the actions of the pro-Moscow lobby in Western countries, especially in Germany, Italy, and France, although I have no illusions regarding position of these countries; they want to do business with Russia, and they are ready to sell our independence for this business, just as Roosevelt and Churchill sold us out in Teheran and Yalta.
Regardless of that, they had to do something; hence the sanctions.
The immigration crisis weakens Europe, but from our perspective this is good, as the contingent pressure which can be put on us – especially by Germany – will be weaker. Please remember that Intermarium is supposed to secure us not only from Russia but also from Germany, and the German constitution still states that the legal borders of Germany are those from 1937. From our perspective it is good that our historical enemies have internal problems.
The annexation of Crimea had a side-effect: it has complicated relations of Russia with the Muslim world (the issue of Crimean Tatars), and the Russian involvement in Syria has complicated them even more.
In Russia: Russian opposition against imperialism has emerged, this time of a nationalist, not demo-liberal character (for instance: Russians from the Russian Federation, who are volunteers fighting on the Ukrainian side, and I am not speaking about mercenaries). Although the information about this is, due to various reasons, unclear in regard to the number and extent, it is still an interesting phenomenon.
I don’t want to play a prophet here, but the initial successes of Moscow in the Crimea and Donbass (although the latter is quite limited) might be a beginning of very serious problems.
Majority Rights Editor's Note: There are a few mistakes in Szczepański’s analysis - e.g., the idea that it would be “good for Poland and East Europe if Western Europe were to suffer greatly with floods of immigration; secondly, the supposition that Germany has never officially given up its claim” to the Western third of Poland; finally, even I wonder about his position with regard to what is now called Kaliningrad. However, as a geopolitical argument, in many other respects it is commendable.