European or Ethnic Identity?

From Sydney Traditionalist Forum

In light of the mass migrations of non-Europeans to Europe we must redefine the notion of the political. The notion of the political is eternal, although its wording, alongside its political conceptualization, takes on different names in different time periods. We must also clarify the meaning of political concepts, such as the concept of “multicuturalism”, “identity”, “nationality”, as well as the meaning of the more atavistic communal concepts of “race” Or “ethnicity”. My main point is that various European national identities should from now on play a secondary role. I argue that our first priority should be to what is sometimes conveniently referred to as our common biocultural identity, or to put it in different words, the salvaging of our common and collective heredity as represented by the broader family of interrelated European peoples.

A Few Starting Points…

In our so-called “multicultural system”, where millions of people from hundreds of different nationalities live side by side, we should clearly draw the line between individual or particular national identity and this broader “familial” identity as described above, or better yet, between our national awareness and our European awareness. These two concepts are not always synonymous, although they often overlap. For example a Flemish national cannot be a Walloon national – just as a South Tyrolean nationalist must not be denied freedom to show his German roots to his Italian nationalist colleague.

In America, during the period of the state building process, the role of a generalized ethno-religious identity (often referred to by the abbreviated term: WASP) played a much stronger role than in Europe. By way of contrast, still very popular among the American fringe right is the expression “White Nationalist”, although the term “nationalist” has a different meaning in America than in Europe. The genesis of White American nationalism has had little in common with traditional ethnic and culture-bound nationalism of diverse European peoples living in Europe. In the English language there is also no corresponding word for the German word “Volk” or “völkisch” or the word “narod” in Slavic languages — words which are awkwardly translated with the noun “nation” or by the adjective “national” or “ethnic” into the standard modern English language. This national consciousness, or better yet national awareness in the traditional European sense, has played a minor role in America. Until recently national consciousness in Europe was built primarily on the basis of a common language, a common sense of history and a common destiny, i.e. preconditions that had taken a different turn among early European descended Americans of the early eighteenth century.


Contemporary stewards of the multicultural experiment in Europe: Germany’s Chancellor Merkel and France’s President Holland.

Even the ambiguous word “ethnic”, having become today a trendy word in some circles, carries a rather abstract and imprecise significance which, while sounding politically correct or heretical (depending of course on the audience’s perspective), has also become a substitute word for the more value-loaded words “racial” and “völkisch“. However, the contemporary usage of the words “ethnic” or “ethnicity” is often misplaced. The “classical” interpretation of the difference between the two terms was that there may be ethnic or national differences between kin White Europeans and Americans, although one can hardly talk about significant racial differences among them.

In Germany a very specific and by now a value-loaded and hissing word “race” (rasse) or “racial adherence” has – for obvious historical reasons – acquired by now a quasi criminalizing significance, only used by the liberal mainstream press in depicting and deploring “racial disturbances” or social “tensions”. Subsequently, this “problem” individual, i.e. one who dissents from the regime endorsed identity of universalized multiculturalism, is either legally branded or labeled by the media as a “racist.” Taking a strict application of this idea, it follows that if there are no races, as the System-friendly media and intellectuals often allege, there cannot be “racists” in Germany or elsewhere in Europe either. Yet, many theoreticians of modern identity and many System- friendly intellectuals keep resorting to the word “racist” in order to criminalize their opponents. The term “racist” therefore ammounts to a rhetorical vehicle intended to punish dissent and enforce ideological conformity.

Following the work of social scientists such as Frank Salter, there is no doubt our physical heredity plays implicitly a significant role in our behavior, although all of us, including our local politicians, often do not want to acknowledge this fact. For instance, I can change the makeup on my face, I can change my passport, I can also relinquish my present residence or my nationality. Moreover, I can change my cultural awareness and also leave for good my homeland. But there is no way whatsoever to remove my heredity, or to put it in politically incorrect form, to replace my involuntary and inherent traits by someone else’s. My character strengths or my character weaknesses may indeed be shaped by environmental factors and influences, but what is there to be shaped by that environment existed in the form of inborn traits long before those traits were exposed to those external influences. Surely, I can control them, tame them, enhance them, but the inherent germ will always be part of my identity and part of my Self.

Until recently, the concept of national identity played for all of us here in Europe an important role. Today, however, we must redefine our national identity. Following the massive influx of migrants who do not share our civilizational patrimony, the need arises to reformulate or reconceptualise the meaning of European identity. What has become of the old meaning “national identity” in today’s Europe, in which over 10 per cent of citizens are of non-European extraction? Presently I feel I have much more in common with the abovementioned “WASP” from North America, a Slav living in the Far East of the Russian Federation, or a native of any of the Baltic States, who may know nothing about the culture of my particular homeland of Croatia, but who, nonetheless, belongs to the same or similar bio-cultural pool and to the same extended geographic area. My particular national consciousness, in light of the current non-European mass migrations, must take on, therefore, a different meaning. Having this in mind it is outdated for the Croats and Serbs, or for the Poles and Germans to wage war with each other or to dwell endlessly on their mutually exclusive historical grievances.

An example of “identitarian” street art in Western Europe.

In regard to our present and future identity our priority must lie today in a precise recognition of the enemy of our identity, as well as our goal to remove the root causes of non- European migrations. In this sense American nationalists, such as they are in their current historical and social context, deserve credit for attributing a lesser role, to say their German, Irish, or Italian heritage, and focus instead more intensely on the imperative to protect and preserve this common bio-cultural heritage. European small-time nationalisms, with a flurry of national identities of sorts, inherited from the 20th century, must no longer play a crucial role in our new identity building process.

When observed from this perspective, today’s Eastern Europe, in contrast to Western Europe, is more “European” in its identitarian character. Yet in terms of the identity building process the situation in Eastern Europe is far from good. All newly emerged states in Eastern Europe display a high dose of obsolete “negative” or “reactive identity.” This can best be observed in Ukraine and Croatia for instance, where a Croatian or Ukrainian nationalist often continues to frame his national identity on his anti-Serbian or anti-Russian sentiments respectively. Such obsolete and often conflict- prone “negative” identities are no longer acceptable in today’s Europe.

We are all aware that today’s eulogies about the multicultural system, as professed by our hostile elites, represent a real threat to all European peoples, be they Poles, Germans, Serbs, Croats, Corsicans, French, etc. Having this in mind, before we start criticizing the threat of “non-European otherness” (i.e. the threat to our identity by non-European migrants) we must first ask ourselves: who benefits mostly from their arrival to Europe? Vociferous complaints among some European and American nationalist about the collapse of America and Europe is not a good starting point to answer this question. One must strongly denounce the criminal acts of radical elements who set fire to migrant homes or vandalize asylum centers in Europe. Our main enemies are not non-European migrants, but our own politicians and their System-friendly intellectuals residing in posh districts and laying the foundations for social discord, without considering the negative impact of their misguided and utopian policies.

The kind of society they are engineering does not have a long life span. I predict that German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s multicultural experiment, along with her “welcoming culture”, is unsustainable and cannot last long. Sooner or later these Frankenstein social projects are bound to disintegrate and end up in a civil disturbance, and in extreme cases, civil war. As witnessed in the artificial state of Yugoslavia, despite all the former academic paeans about the alleged romantic diversity of its former constituent peoples, this composite state made up of different peoples and religions ended in chaos and brutal civil war.

carl schmitt
Carl Schmitt

The destructive ideology of multiculturalism, as of recently, has adopted another mendacious, albeit a more flowery name, such as “welcoming culture”, although to be sure, the correct name should be the “culture of self-abolition”, or the “culture of guilt” or the “culture of self-hate.” Today’s much lauded welcoming culture in Germany is merely a liberal verbal substitute for the failed communist project. What communists in Eastern Europe had not achieved by bullets, the present System in Western Europe and in the USA, with its substitute ideology of multiculturalism, is achieving through less violent, albeit more insidious means.

From a historical and philosophical perspective, the ideology of multiculturalism is just a belated offshoot of the ideology of hyper-moralism combined with the culture of indigenous European self-hatred and the idol worship on The Other, what Guillaume Faye calls ethnomasochism and xenophilia. There are no signs of self-hatred amidst the peoples of Africa or Asia, and it is impossible to conceive of residents from some African country importing residents from neighboring states into their own state jurisdiction. Oddly, it is only amidst European peoples (or rather, their political and cultural elites) who seem to be tired of politics and ashamed of their history, and where we are observing such suicidal overtures. Carl Schmitt taught us that if a nation tires of politics, this does not mean the end of politics per se, but symbolizes the end of an enfeebled people who are incapable of asserting themselves as a people any longer.

The political roots of this morbid “welcoming culture” (at the core of which is the culture of guilt) are not difficult to trace. The roots of these self-destructive policies are legally embedded in the decades following 1945. It is not difficult to imagine that the policy pursued by German Chancellor Merkel was formulated precisely to exorcise the ghosts of the nightmarish past. As a result, she may find herself compelled to shield herself by pursuing what might be called a destructive extremism going in the opposite direction. The ideology of multiculturalism may have therefore become a model of a kind of “negative identity” that is enforced on all nation states that form part of the progressives’ grand “European project”. Ironically, this project may be equally as destructive to those nations as the hostile and divisive ideologies to which it was a response.

Largely, the ethno-masochistic guilt trips can be traced to a perverted dogma of “Christian equality” and to the concept of the original sin, albeit the sin conceptualized today in its secularized Liberalo-Marxist version. It would be a waste to time trying to disarm the proponents of the welcoming–multi-culture in Europe with arguments based on empirical data. Ideological or religious beliefs cannot be countered by reeling off empirical facts, as thinkers Gustave Le Bon and Vilfredo Pareto warned. The word “gutmensch“, which has entered popular usage in Germany recently, best describes this self-censoring, neurotic, and hyper-moralistic, multi-culture-prone intellectual, who in many ways resembles a Christian zealot preaching universalized “values” and quasi-spiritual ecumenism in the dying days of Rome. Today’s politicians in Germany, but also elsewhere in the European Union, are engaged in similar process of political self-deception and self-denial when displaying more concern for an idealized figure of the “noble savage” than for a native victim of religiously or ethnically motivated violence, as we have recently seen in the Berlin Christmas market attack and the Vienna New Year’s Eve rapes.

Guillaume Faye
Guillaume Faye

Clearly this so-called “welcoming culture” in Europe – and of course, its underlying ideological basis – is not sustainable. It does not lead to mutual understanding but deepens mutual hatred and xenophobia. We’ve seen on countless historical occasions the failure of forcefully created artificial states and communities. For example, the hostility that exists between various groups of “hyphenated Americans” is more than just anecdotal. Hypothetically, if what multicultural progressives perceive as the greatest evil in the world were to completely disappear – European Man and his civilization – it will by no means halt mutual hatred and wars among those who remain. Neither will it inaugurate a perpetual peace among and between all Men. Racism, exclusion and xenophobia are by no means a characteristic of those who are often characterized as “stale, male and pale” in popular culture, the entertainment industry, the press and mainstream political commentators.

We must remember however that it is not the migrant who is responsible for the decline of Europe and her culture; rather it is our System-politicians, their transnational globalist “superclass” and their borderless and materialistic agendas who are doing most of the harm. If it wasn’t for their work, the problems would not be anywhere as serious or severe as we are experiencing on the Continent. In order to restore our identity as a particular people (a claim of right that is granted to all groups but us under the present regime), we must first dismantle the present ideological consensus and place our ancient cultural values at the top of the political process instead. We all know the greatest political wisdom of all times: whoever makes himself a sheep will soon be devoured by wolves. The biggest challenge that faces us is therefore an internal struggle whereby we muster the courage to defend and promote those things that matter to us the most: our history, our heritage and the promise of our future.

What I hope to have put to the reader is that this defence of our people will necessarily require that identitarians (at least in mainland Europe) must stop investing in internal disputes that serve no good collective interest while we are besieged from all sides. This may be ironic, but it is inconceivable to see how we can reclaim our civilization without making a tactical shift of this type to some significant degree. Furthermore, if our identity is to be protected as a people, we must reject, in principle and outright, all social pathologies that undermine and attack us on every level. This is as much a cultural and aesthetic issue as it is political. And of course, lastly, we must remember that what we suffer today is ultimately derived from our own internal problems – blaming external factors or pawns used to weaken us is ultimately a distraction. A confident and spiritually healthy people is never easy to subdue. So ladies and gentlemen, let us stop being sheep. The fight goes on!

Tomislav Sunic
the authorTomislav Sunic
Tomislav Sunić is a Croatian-American writer, translator and academic who taught at the Anglo-American College in Prague. Between 1993 and 201, Dr. Sunić served in the Croatian diplomatic corps in Zagreb, London, Copenhagen and Brussels. He received his doctorate in political science from the University of California, Santa Barbara and is one of the exponents of the Nouvelle Droite movement in Europe. Among his various publications, which have appeared in Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Washington Times, and the New York Times, he is also the author of Homo Americanus – Child of the Postmodern Age (2007) and Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity (2010).


  • I’m all for Europeans uniting to oppose the forces that will steal our ancestor’s lands from our descendants, but I will always see myself as an Anglo-Saxon and a Germanian before a European.

  • What has become of the old meaning “national identity” in today’s Europe, in which over 10 per cent of citizens are of non-European extraction? Presently I feel I have much more in common with the abovementioned “WASP” from North America, a Slav living in the Far East of the Russian Federation, or a native of any of the Baltic States, who may know nothing about the culture of my particular homeland of Croatia, but who, nonetheless, belongs to the same or similar bio-cultural pool and to the same extended geographic area.

    That seems a bit disingenuous to me. Race is not the end all be all. You might have maintained your roots, but i guarantee you that some 2nd or 3rd generation middle class guy in New Jersey with a Croatian last name but who doesn’t know the language and spent his whole life in the States will have very little in common with any given Croatian dude working in a post office in the outskirts of Zagreb.

    In fact, he would have far more connection with any given Americanized “white washed” Asian, Latino, Arab, Indian etc who grew up in NJ, speaks the same English, watches the same sportsball etc. In fact i would venture that if this hypothetical Croatian-American were to find himself a tourist or expat in a Zagreb pub he would light up upon hearing the accent of his non-European compatriot next to him at the bar, as opposed to the natives around him who would seem alien and unwelcoming despite sharing much more of his DNA.

  • let us make this the ‘Summer of Freedom’…..let us drag out every fuckin’ traitor in every white nation and deal with them. then let us drive out every invader who dared pollute our lands. simply WILL it, and it will be done.

    • Well, the first step is to stop posting here under a pseudonym. If you believe in this cause of yours, then do it in the open. It’s so easy to be a tough guy here.

  • Americans who push immigration are really being supremacist.


    If Pakistanis should come to the US, the Immigration-Logic goes “Pakistanis are better off living with Americans as fellow countrymen than with fellow Pakistanis.”

    If Pakistanis are just as good as Americans, then Pakistanis should be happy to live in Pakistan with fellow Pakistanis. If they are just as good as Americans, why should they depart from thei own kind to go live with ANOTHER people? (It’s like, if all sports teams are equal, why should some guy leave one team to play for another?)

    But the Immigration-Logic says Pakistanis should flee from fellow Pakistanis(who are presumably not as good) and come with with Americans who’d be better countrymen to Pakistanis.

    Just think. Suppose there is Domain A and Domain B. If both domains are equally good and worthy, there is no need for those in Domain A to go to Domain B in huge numbers and vice versa.

    If people in Domain A tell people in Domain B to LEAVE YOUR OWN PLACE AND COME OVER HERE, it assumes that Domain A is better and its people make better fellow countrymen.

    It argues that people of Domain B should rush to Domain A to be with better people.

    So, this is the moral paradox of immigration. On the one hand, it argues that US should take in all these immigrants because all of us are equally human and equally worthy in every respect, but on the other hand, it implies that people in other nations should come to America because it’s better to live with Americans(and eventually become Americans) than to live with their own kind(and stick with their ancestral identity).

    Now, one could make a conditional argument for immigration: Americans are not innately better but have devised a better system based on better ideas. So, when people come to America and assimilate to American norms, they will become just as worthy as fellow Americans. (On the other hand, there is the counter-argument for immigration that implies that we need immigrants because they are superior to Americans, i.e. those born and raised in America have grown fat, lazy, and spoiled whereas immigrants come with zeal, gratitude, will to work, and good ole solid family values. But then, the US takes pride in smashing those patriarchal values. I get so confused. Immigrants are valuable because they have old-time values, but the pride of America is to instill kids of immigrants with libertarian values that turn them into whiny spoiled brats… which is why we need more immigration for people with old time values… whose children must be enlightened into libertine values… and so on and on). The weakness of conditional argument is this: If America is better because of its IDEAS, why can’t other nations take those ideas and make them work? After all, ideas are easily shared and transferable, esp in the age of the internet and universal cellphone usage.

    Anyway, even though the conditional argument has some validity — anyone can become conditioned to become a good American by assimilation — , what if the biological argument is more compelling? What if some peoples in some nations are backward and barbaric not due to lack of good ideas but ‘good’ genes? What if their arrival in the US won’t turn them into good Americans but turn parts of America into something like little Somalia or little Guatemala?

    In that case, the Immigration-Argument can only be supremacist. Inferior morons in other nations should flee from fellow inferior morons and have better lives with superior Americans who will guide, lead, and use them better. It is Compassionate Supremacism. “We take pity on you. Your own kind can’t do much of anything. If you want a half-decent life, you have to live under us and with us.” It is ‘inclusive’ but not on the premise of equality but dependency of the inferior on the superior(who is compassionate like humans over dogs).

    Now, if there a small number of inferiors who leech off superiors, the system can be maintained. But if more and more inferiors arrive, then the superiors won’t be able to maintain a world of superiors that can be compassionate toward inferiors. The superior world will come under the strain of TOO MANY inferiors, in which case society will eventually turn inferior by and large…. which is what is happening to Sweden… which is going from Compassionate Supremacism to Desperate Inferioritism(as Third Worlders may outnumber the superior natives).

  • I think this is a bigger problem in eastern Europe. In my country feeling goodwill towards other nationalists is very easy, without compromizing with our own identity. Actually, I think this is possible for all europeans, its simply a matter of informing oneself of the threat we all face. And to inform oneself, just look at my country sweden. This is the fate of all europeans if you do not unite in an alliance against this menace.

    Something I think is important is to denegrade and villify those that ally themselves with the USA against fellow europeans. For example, Ukrainians and Poles that borrow power from the globalists to put the squeeze on Russia. This will end in misery since those that control the US have no goodwill to any european. If you are neighbour with Russia, that is a problem. But a problem that you need to deal with with your own power and that of your neighbours, not by bringing in globalists from the other side of the world, globalists with nefarious motives.

    For example, look at Finland during the cold war. The USSR was alot more powerful and expansionist than the Russian Federation of today. And yes, Finlands position was precarious. But it worked. And Finland today, under the influence of the globalists, is in a much more precarious situation than ever it was during the cold war. Since the globalists strive to exchange the very people of Finland with totally alien people.

    • I only can have a founded opinion about Poland, and to my dismay – you’re absolutely right, Martin A. Poland’s government is a bunch of lackeys: some veritable traitors while others joined the unholy alliance with overseas globalists because they got fooled by the nowadays to Whites openly hostile top Catholics. What unites them is hatred for Russia, disguised under a veneer of patriotism. The Polish nation (the Slavic word “narod” is more adequate) will pay dearly for this ignorance.

    • Right. The Finnish miracle of the Winter War is well known but other countries weren’t so lucky.. poland, estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc. Im sure they might have appreciated some more help rather than dealing with the Soviets “on their own” as you espouse. Which is of course easy for you to say as a Swede, since your country remained comfortably neutral and separated from all the conflicts of that century.

      • Go down that route and you will all perish. The russians are much more closely related to the Poles, Estonians, Ltvians, Lithuanians than the people the globalists will replace them with. Or even than the americans themselves. Do. Not. Ally. WIth. The. Globalists. Against. Fellow. Europeans. Or I will name you what you are. Traitor.

        • The globalists aren’t exterminating anyone. First of all the blacks and arabs dont want go to eastern Europe because these countries are poor and have no benefits and welfare compared to w. Europe.

          Secondly, the soviets starved 5 million Ukranians to death in ONE YEAR in the 1930s. That is ACTUAL extermination. Do you think those Ukrainians felt happy, as their bodies digested themselves in the final stages, that at least they were being culled by fellow slavs??? Lol

          • If there were a mass of migrants in eastern Europe there would be welfare for them, it just wouldn’t be paid for by eastern Europeans. Which is why Hungary and others are forcibly keeping them out. They know well that western NGOs will foot the bill for the maintenance of these groups.

          • Im not so sure about that. As an EU member state you have certain responsibilities and have to play ball. These former eastern block countries have received, and continued to receive, hundreds of millions of euros in EU Development Funds – they didn’t complain about that part. You can understand how these western nations might be a bit pissed off when parties in Poland/Hungary/Czech turn around and refuse to take a share of the migrants in order to score points with their nationalist voters – hence the threat to make them pay for each refugee they dont take.

            I think if Soros or some other diabolical (((globalist))) NGOs were offering to open up their check books to pay up for these refugees they wouldn’t make nearly as big of a deal of it – if only in the hope that some of this money might mysteriously disappear:)

  • The debate is over as far as I’m concerned: we have both our racial European Identity and Ethnic identity.

    The people who only promote Ethnic nationalism miss the bigger picture. Our enemies are out to destroy us, we need to join forces, not squabble because we eat different meals at Christmas.

    • You make the classic shitlib fallacy of confusing nations with territories. Sure, brown people have lived on the dirt. But the idea that they were considered part of the American nation is ludicrous until around the 1960s.

      It’s ours. We built it. Blacks picking cotton as an argument for them being part of the nation is laughable. They are parasites. As are the Siberians who call themselves natives.

      Come kill us now. Because we’ll be ethnically cleansing you in a few decades.

      • Wow you really are a shitty person. First of all not a liberal. Secondly, do you think I am black because of my response? Black people are just as human as you are. Finally, you almost exactly proved my point. There were people here before us. It was NOT our land first,never was and never will be.

        • Lol, by that logic, it was not the land of the SIberians either. So if you are running with the autochthony argument, you have no argument whatsoever. What’s more, that different people live on different lands undermines every single nation on the planet, though you only focus on the white ones, naturally (self-loathing degenerate that you are).

          • No. I just understand history and know that just because we raped murder and fucked over the people that were originally there, doesn’t make it our land from the dawn of time as you stupidly claim. If I am a degenerate because I actually understand history, what does that make you?

          • You clearly didn’t read my posts because you’re still running with the same idiotic appeal to autochthony. Go back and re-read. Spit the cum out and pay attention.

          • I have 4 times now and I see the same thing. You’re the illiterate one here you idiotic piece of shit

          • 1. Not actually autistic
            2. So what if I was
            3. Autistic people are not stupid, they are actually extremely intelligent and just don’t know how to communicate how they are feeling or what they are thinking and that is the frustrating part
            4. You really shouldn’t use that as an insult it makes you sound stupid

          • Bzzt – sorry. Most autistic people have below average IQs. The handful of savants are just that.

            Your “theory” about Europe is ahistorical and about at the level of Black Hebrews and other such nonsense.

          • I never said Black Hebrews, that is you projecting. And the “fact”you gave about autism is actually not true. Again, they don’t know how to communicate but are very smart. Due to the disability they are not able to express how they are feeling

        • That is an imbecile’s comment on a par with ‘we are all immigrants/human beings’. Europeans have an ancient right to Europe by conquest, continuous occupation and development for thousands of years and by virtue of an extraordinarily rich inherited culture. The only place this kind of adolescent reductionism has any currency is in humanities faculties.

          • According to Zeman, Fico, Orban, Poland, Denmark and the future President of France Marine Le Pen that is exactly how it works 🙂

          • Loyalty. Pride. Patriotism. Affection for their heritage. Genuine compassion for their women, children and elderly. Strength and Courage.

          • I forgot Self-Respect. They would never mutilate themselves racially, culturally, legally or socially. Or surgically.

            Trans are very abusive, grumpy lot I have to say.

            Btw ethnic homogenity produces genuine social cohesion and cultural continuity. The blatant contempt SJWs like you display to your ethnic and cultural inheritance is proof diversity ideology is inherently destructive.

          • You do know that 1. Vomiting out a slew of large words in whatever the fuck order you want doesn’t make you sound smart, it’s quite the opposite really. and 2. There is a massive difference between a purposeful and well-meaning (and successful) surgery versus mutilation. Mutilation would be female genital mutilation, such is as practiced in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and rarely but there are a few cases in the US.
            I would also like to know your definition of abusive and then please explain how trans people are abusive. Or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass?

          • FTM or vice versa it is still genital mutilation based on a mental disorder. And a hole that needs regular surgical opening is still a wound. You don’t have arguments on the identity and migration issue, just verbal sprays. Your last 2 lines prove my point. Not sure why you’re trolling here, traditionalists don’t indulge gender theory and all its perversions. Take your ranting to Huffpo, youre not doing your kind any favours.

          • Actually I am here to have a decent discussion with people who have differing opinions and gauging and judging both sides as I am not on either and never will be. Transitioning is not mutilation because it has a purpose in which the act upon preforming it causes healthy benefits to the person. Also being transgender is not a mental disorder anymore, gender dysphoria is still, which is something most trans people suffer, but overall trans is not. I have plenty of comments on the migration “issue” it is just a long conversation I was seeing if I wanted to get into based on who I was discussing it with. I would love to have a civil opinion but wanted to see if you were one of those people that build strawmen, lied, twisted words, and just ignored everything I took forever to type out just to repeat the same straw man over and over, which I have gotten a lot especially talking to people on here.

        • It’s our land. The few Indios left have basically assimilated into our people and the ones that haven’t have their sovereign nations. Besides, the Indios weren’t the “first” here either – they came from Asia, remember?

          You anti-whites don’t do history very well.

          • I’m not anti=-white you retard I am just smart enough to know white people were not the first people here.

        • So , for example, the Chinese should be free to invade Egypt because the Arabs that live there today aren’t native to the region? Or to Morocco, or Syria, or Lebanon?
          anti white logic

          • No one should be invading. Go touch yourself in front of your straw man and shout your trigger words somewhere else.

          • lol. You literally just said that Europeans dont have rights for their lands because they werent the first one there (who was, btw?). Therefore virtually any country on Earth doesn’t have the right to control their borders because if you go back far enough, some other group lived there before them. This is your logic. But what you really mean is that only white countries should be held to this standard, because they’re evil and deserve it rofl

          • You’re just an idiot who is purposely spinning what I say and “not understanding” Not my problem you’re an idiot

          • Are you retarded? The drug resistant STDs addle your brain?

            In an article about fighting for common European identity against external invaders, you reply:

            It was never “yours” or all white to begin with, just FYI

            There were people here before us. It was NOT our land first,never was and never will be.

            First of all, its very unclear if you’re talking about Europe or America, that’s why no one understands your bullshit. All you say is how good in history you apparently are, so please tell us who was in Europe before the Europeans, and thus invalidates their claim to their own countries?

          • I’m actually clean because, unlike you I am actually careful who I fuck. I don;t just run around sticking my dick in everything and anything. I believe in having fun and all but am at least careful about who I do it with

          • LOL. I assume you’re having sex with gay men? You know it doesn’t matter if they “seem clean” ?

            Anyway, go on, Whats the name of these original european peoples that modern europeans “rape fucked killed” and stole their land?

          • That is not what I said, learn to fucking read. I said unlike YOU I don’t just fuck people if they seem clean, I make sure they are first. And by the way gay men are certainly NOT the only people who can ave STI’s.

          • No they’re not, but they’re by far the most likely

            Come on, get back to who Europe really belongs to :p

          • Native Americans who had pretty much all of the land before white people murdered, raped, and pillaged. Sure it is our land now, but I am talking about who had it first. If I take a cookie from you by force, it is my cookie now, but it was yours in the beginning, yours first.
            I know it is a shitty example but I have no other way to make an analogy for it.
            It also frustrates me to no end for anyone who is part of a country (Whether Europe, the U.S, wherever) says that it needs to be all white, that is a different conversation for a different day and I would love to politely debate that with you at some point if you would like to to continue the conversation. That is not the point though. I have answered your question now it is you turn.

          • well, I think it’s been mentioned here before – “Native Americans” are actually Siberians, who crossed over the frozen Bering Land Bridge and slowly migrated south. There is some evidence, based on genetic studies, that there were already other indigenous people in the Americas before, of Pacific Islander extraction. Its hard to tell since there’s obviously no written records, but these pre-Siberians presumably got killed, displaced, or assimilated into this new wave of people. So what do you think about that? Assuming this is true, do the Siberian-origin native peoples of the Americas not have any say any more, because they weren’t the first ones there?

            PS: im glad you specified its America and not Europe, and agree that Europeans have a right to tell migrants to fuck off, since its their land, and they didn’t hurt any poor natives and thus deserve displacement 🙂

          • Wow. You are really good at lying and spinning people’s words. I NEVER said that Europe has the right to tell migrants to fuck off. Again that is another conversation I would be happy to have. No one deserves displacement.

          • You started attacking people in the comments, saying “you don’t get to say who comes here, since there were other people here before you”. Now that we are clear you were actually talking about the New World and the original Native Americans, and the article spoke mainly about Europe (and white Europeans were there “first” as we know), then it follows that Europeans, do, indeed, get to decide who comes to Europe. So you agree ..

      • Black people have been part of the American nation since its start from Phyllis Wheatley, a Boston slave and poet visited by George Washington for her laudatory versus about him, to Benjamin Banneker who finished the design of Washington DC. In addition, the Continental Army was the most integrated American fighting force until Vietnam. The difference is that the people in authority decided not to make blacks full partners in America for fear of losing their personal property. When you say, “we built it,” I am left to wonder when your family first appeared on our shores.

        • In the 1600s, you dumb nigger faggot. If you want to LARP about being am American, go ahead. Better yet do it in your own ethnostate with other blacks.

      • I don’t hate them. I am just smart enough to know that white people pillaged to get the land, but it was not theirs from the start .

    • enjoy your hate, trans. enjoy………………but remember. there was a moment when you could have sided with your brothers and sister, but you didn’t.

      • I will never side with people who are against any other race that isn’t white. and by the way, no one is fully 100% white anymore. We may be 98% but there is still a 2% of something else. If you really think your ancestors didn’t copulate with someone who was of another race you are truly ignorant.

  • There was an article in “the Local” across many European nations which generally revolved around “what makes a (fill in the blank). In Denmark “What makes a Dane” was placed before some Danes and they put language as the main issue. Same with Italy as I recall.
    In Germany the question included faith.

    Unfortunately only some forums one could comment. I commented that for Germany having been formed in the late 1880’s not only language but faith since Martin Luther help create the Protestant movement and the break from the Roman Catholic faith. My conclusion was that ethnicity plays a stronger role in Europe than a sense of being European.

    Having said that I believe one good aspect of the EU (if one can even find a good aspect) is that this entity has strengthened a sense of being “European”.

    In the US Europeans married one another. The White American is different from his European counterpart in the aspect of homogenizing many ethic Europeans into a family tree. Even American white features stand out to the ethnic aspects of a Scottish, German, Italian, Bulgarian etc.

  • Haven’t finished reading it, but this whole: “Leftists say there’s no race but call us racists” line is just weak (it’s used a lot, not picking on Dr Sunic). It’s weak because righties could be responding to /apparent/ race, while that could be just skin deep and not really matter – which is what lefties say. So this argument sounds good to we the choir but it would gain no traction with a lefty. One should at least bring up ‘race is real’ in the argument, and if they challenge that, take your opening.

  • excellent article. My only point of disagreement – however slight – is that Muslim migrants, whether they are the root cause or not, still must be held accountable and ultimately removed from Europe.

  • A common justification for immigration to Europe is economic. The birth rate is flat in many Euro nations and declining in Russia and most of the former Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe. Europe is also an “old” continent demographically. Immigrants bring needed labor and youth and keep these economies from becoming less competitive. This benefits the “elite” corporate interests but also the retiree receiving benefits being paid to the state by an integrated immigrant.

    • Agree that birth rates are inadequate to repopulate most of native European nationalities. But why no work is done to stimulate birth rates? No REAL economic stimulus to have more children for native Europeans? No government promotion of healthy lifestyles to have more children. Reversely, fake governments promote homosexual lifestyle, feminism, individualism and other common known evils. That does not help increasing native birthrates. But it works! Look at the Israeli settlers birth rate! Government financial stimulus, religious angle and healthy lifestyle promotion.

      Merkel and Hollande need to know that opening borders for more Black & Brown will lead to the Civil War (the best case) or enslavement of White people.

        • In the State of Israel which has the religious philosophy underlying the very nature of the state and where religious leaders command a significant presence in Knesset and influence on ANY government, homosexualism exists mostly on paper. I have not known or heard of any gay settler, for instance. Maybe a small cluster in Tel Aviv, but no gay marriages or anything of this nature.

          • Israel recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, making it the first and only country in Asia to do so. Gay people are everywhere. Even in the alt-right movement.

      • There’s no easy fix for low birth rates. Its a complicated issue that only idiots reduce to jewish or gay influence. Eastern Europe has little (or less) of both yet many countries have lower birth rates than western Europe (even accounting for non whites in the latter i imagine) because people dont have good economic prospects and many young people leave because of this – where’s your solution?

        The more developed the country the lower the birth rate, it’s a natural process and not a conspiracy. There’s no counter examples. Japan is certainly completely alien to western culture, and far more traditional in many respects, but their births are also far below replacement levels. Educated people know how to control their reproduction (vs Africa), and people living in wealthy high trust societies don’t need to spawn offspring as a future investment so that they dont starve on the street when they’re old. You can’t avoid it.

        • This is inaccurate. African births were more or less stagnant as far as we can tell for centuries. The issue is stagnancy in general. Africans breed a lot because they are upwardly mobile. Their increased access to resources translates to more children. All people can clearly control their fertility as can animals otherwise they would all breed uncontrollably leaving behind starved biomass in their wake. Nature is more efficient than this.

          The issue in the west is that virtually everyone is downwardly mobile. They have less than their parents in real terms without paying for children. The TFR of blacks in America isn’t very high either. It is only high among mestizo peasants who are experiencing a real and drastic increase in standard of living. They are nowhere near as fecund in their home countries so again clearly they can control their fertility to some degree.

          The situation wasn’t inevitable and there are plenty of counter examples. By your metric eastern Europe should have a much higher TFR than the US, but they don’t.
          We’ve also seen plenty of examples of undeveloped countries with low TFR populations historically. Your thesis would have abbos and eskimos as the most populous groups on the planet. Lack of development historically meant low fertility and your view is the opposite of true. Undeveloped people can’t afford to have a lot of children. They can now because we are paying for them and are downwardly mobile because of the negative externality of this entire scheme.

          • Firstly, you bring up some additional points but bear in mind that i was responding to “Fred” saying that the gov’t is actively engaged in a conspiracy to kill white birth rates by promoting homosexuality, for instance. In other words, shit tier rhetoric

            Secondly , what i say still rings true. Lets put aside historical periods with their dowries and lack of effective birth control.

            Educated people, especially women, are more wary about unprotected sex. My point about Eastern Europe, again, was that people there have similar agency to western europeans but face poor economic prospects and thus have less children than the West, despite being more traditional in terms of culture. And of course east Asia, along with every advanced area of the world, also sees lower birth rates – whether its boom or recession – compared to before.

            If you wanna bring TFR into this…

            Total Fertility Rate
            The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is the average number of children that would be born per female if all females lived to the end of their childbearing years and bore children according to the age-specific fertility rates for that area and period. Without immigration, population size declines when the TFR is less than 2.1 children per female.

            Decreased fertility rates have been associated with increased urbanization, higher levels of education in females, higher participation rates in the labour force for females, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, greater access to abortion, unstable employment, and economic instability.

            So its like i said. Do you really believe tribal Africans were “controlling their fertility” before? No, they fucked and whatever happened happened. Their population boom is due to the introduction of mass food production – increased access to resources like you said. This isn’t exactly the same as being “upwardly mobile” since city people make more money, and urbanization is increasing in Africa, but is also associated with lower TFR. Also, African TFR is dropping and projected to continue to do so thru 2020 and 2030

Leave a Reply