Stopping Mass Migration is Not Enough: a View from Germany

Manuel Ochsenreiter is a German journalist, editor-in-chief of Germany-first ZUERST! magazine and the director of an independent geopolitical think tank German Center for Eurasian Studies. He is affiliated with Free West Media, a much-needed news site from a realist European perspective challenging the Liberal-globalist narrative of the mainstream media. Manuel is well known for his coverage of conflict zones from Syria to Nagorno-Karabakh and Donbass. He served as an observer in various referenda, such as the one in Crimea in 2014. His insight about mass migration, color revolutions, NATO, and the EU, as well as the way in which domestic European politics relate to the current geopolitical order is invaluable. 

Follow German Center for Eurasian Studies on Twitter: @EurasianStudies. Please introduce yourself to the audience of

Manuel Ochsenreiter: Manuel Ochsenreiter, German, editor-in-chief of a monthly German news magazine ZUERST! and director of a Berlin-based NGO German Center for Eurasian Studies which was founded in 2016. You spend much of your time covering geopolitics, geostrategy, and international relations. At times, these subjects do not seem to receive adequate attention from activists and organizations in self-described Identitarian and right-wing circles. Please explain their relevance to the domestic situation in Germany and the West at large.

Manuel Ochsenreiter: A key problem with this lack of attention is not simply the underestimation of geopolitical subjects. And it is not only a problem of “Identitarian” or “right-wing” circles. In the West, there generally is a total lack of understanding of geopolitics, unfortunately. The result of this misunderstanding is often a type of political confusion that makes someone, who believes to be acting for good causes—such as patriotism, independence, and sovereignty—support the complete opposite of these beliefs. In that context, defining oneself as “Left” or “Right” plays no role.

I remember very well how some “patriots” in Europe were cheering for the so-called “Arab Spring” in 2011, believing it was an “uprising of the people,” while those who had at least a general idea about geopolitical developments emphasized Western interference and the arming of Islamist terrorists by the West and the Gulf monarchies. The same applies—even more dramatically—to the Ukrainian crisis in 2013-2014. Political activists with an allegedly “anti-globalist” agenda started supporting what they called “Ukrainian nationalism” and ranting against Russia, while ignoring the fact that this mutation of “nationalism” was in full support of NATO, EU, and the so-called “Western catalogue of values,” i.e., globalism in its purest form. Some notorious anti-Islam activists are also ranting against the government and system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, even proposing Soros-styled regime-change methods without recognizing that Tehran is actually defending the type of independence and sovereignty that their critics want so much for their European states.

Kiev regime change, 2014. Source: Sputnik. By Andrei Stenin.

If we define international relations as a way to defend and pursue national or continental interests, then there is little space for romantic sentiment such as “But they love the same philosophers of the early 19th century” or “they use similar symbols” and so on. This is—if we want to put it this way—the Right counterpart to Liberal LGBT globalism. A serious geopolitical approach accepts and appreciates the differences between various cultures of the world and global political-cultural zones. It recognizes the existence of different civilizational models without any notions of supremacy. What was the most dangerous situation you’ve been in while engaging in investigative journalism abroad? The most memorable one?


Manuel Ochsenreiter: There were two situations I will never forget. Both happened in the Syrian war. One was the battle of Damascus when I was with an army unit in a city quarter that they were clearing of terrorists – at that time the entire Western media still called them “freedom fighters.” And the second was in the summer 2014 when I went to besieged Aleppo, where I had to cross sniper zones several times, and the terrorists were randomly shelling the government-controlled part of the city. How do you handle concerted efforts by establishment media and activists to smear you as a “Nazi” as a way of censoring a dissenting voice?

Manuel Ochsenreiter: One gets used to that. For sure, some Liberal idiots will even use this interview as evidence of my “Nazi ties” without reading its content. As you correctly said, it is not about debate, but about a smear campaign. In the U.S., the establishment generally does not throw dissidents in jail preferring to engage in character assassinations and making them unemployable. How does the European Union treat its own dissidents—from anti-NATO activists to Identitarians?

Manuel Ochsenreiter: We have different examples of how political activities and even thoughts are criminalized in Europe. Character assassination, defaming, and smear campaigns are very normal here. But the most shocking example might be the one of my good friend and colleague Mateusz Piskorski from Poland. He is the Vice Director of the German Center for Eurasian Studies. Mateusz was literally kidnapped by special police in Warsaw on May 18 of last year and has been imprisoned since—without a trial. They accuse him of espionage [for Russia AND Iraq simultaneously—Ed.], call him an “agent,” but up until now there is still no evidence presented about any of these claims. Mateusz, a dedicated Polish patriot and anti-NATO activist, is none other than a political prisoner who was kidnapped and jailed because of his ideas and thoughts.

Mateusz Piskorski, Europe’s political prisoner. Source: You have visited Russia on a number of occasions and, at times, appear as a pundit in the Russian media. Why do you view that country as important to Europe and the West at large?

Manuel Ochsenreiter: The recent conflict between Europe and Russia is an artificial conflict. The tensions are neither in the interest of the European states nor of the Russian Federation. After all, Russia is also a European country, a European culture. A solid European-Russian alliance based on mutual interests in economy and security and on mutual respect for the diversity of cultures and traditions is, in my opinion, a model for the future.

And that is exactly the reason why the “Liberal swamp” in Washington, which now moved to Berlin, is so scared of the fusion of German industrial know-how with Russian resources—this would create a superpower. This is exactly the reason why NATO has existed until today: to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. The latter was said by General Secretary of NATO, Lord Ismay, in the early 1950s, but it is still valid today. What do you see as the greatest problem with Identitarian movements in the United States and Europe?

Manuel Ochsenreiter: I don’t know that much about the situation in the United States. I think they have specific challenges based on their very different history and society. When it comes to Europe and, in particular, Germany, there always seems to be the temptation of “Western supremacism” to be present and a lack of understanding of multipolarity. In other words, the sentiment that the West with its “Liberal values” is the greatest offspring of humanity automatically misleads us right into a neocon psychocomplex.

It is no wonder that even some European “Right” groups started praising gay rights as a civilizational effort, which has to be defended “against Islam.” And sooner or later—also against Putin? A strong and clear definition of our own identity doesn’t need to degrade other identities even if we don’t like or don’t understand them. And when it comes to Germany, this country was never “part of the West” historically and culturally. To define the identity of Germany as “Western” is already a bit of cultural transgenderism. [Historically, German-speaking lands considered Britain and France to be the West.—Ed.] I would even go so far as to say this: a strong Europe can and should exist perfectly without any reminiscence to “Western values” with that embarrassing chumming to North America. Don’t get me wrong: American identity is a great thing. But it is simply something other than a European identity. I don’t see any need for ideological -isms or exports.

Another point is the criticism of mass migration. Simply to dislike and to protest against mass migration without highlighting the destructive Western policy towards Middle East and North Africa doesn’t go far enough. The vast majority of Syrians and Africans who came to Europe since 2011 would be in their homelands if the West had not killed Colonel Gaddafi and attacked the Syrian Arab Republic. And when some activists or theorists of the Right daydream in their ivory towers about a “regime-change” operation in Iran, we can only wonder what is going wrong in their heads. Do they want more failed states? More refugees? More chaos?

Source: National Geographic, The New Europeans, October 2016. What are the most promising political parties in Europe?

Manuel Ochsenreiter: Generally, the whole alliance of Eurosceptic parties and organizations in Europe is quite promising—all European patriots and sovereigntists are fighting the Brussels superstate. This struggle unites all European patriots.

But what will happen after Brussels is once again only the capital of Belgium? It will still be the headquarters of NATO. What will the “New Europe” do about that? Will we have a “European Army” with or without the American hegemon? Will we replace the U.S. extra-territorial power by the part-European power Russia? And what will the “New Europe” do when it has regained control over its borders and enabled a functioning and well-organized defense system against illegal mass migration? Will it still be a destabilizing power in Africa and the Middle East? Or will the “New Europe” make a geopolitical U-turn and stop funding and supporting terrorism, as the EU does in Syria or Libya today? Will the “New Europe” cooperate with the Syrian government to develop a solid plan for a good and peaceful repatriation of Syrian refugees from Europe? Will the “New Europe” immediately lift sanctions and embargoes against Syria—the real reason to flee their country for many Syrians?

These are important questions because sooner or later a “New Europe” with an “EU” foreign-policy agenda will have to realize that fences and walls won’t be enough against the constantly rising pressure of migration. Will the “New Europe” develop from the trans-Atlanticist useful idiot (EU) to a geopolitical pole of strong power? How will we define our common European interest when it comes to the other geopolitical poles? And how will we balance the different inner-European interests? How will we act in order to prevent extra-territorial powers and globalist NGOs from taking advantage of the diversity of different national interests on our continent? All these questions are of importance.


The Editors
the authorThe Editors
Founded on January 16, 2017, brings together the best writers and analysts from Alt Right, in North America, Europe, and around the world.


  • If you mean “occident” in contrast to orient or China,
    sure Europe iwas, is, and will be always “the West”!

  • This time other way round: Not Europeans have to ask if they “belong to the West”,
    but “Americans” have to ask who they really are, which identity has their “nation”?
    If it survived a few hundred years without the conflicts at the European continent,
    it means not a few thousand years as organic grown people, heritage and culture.

  • In my eyes “Western” liberal political system has finished.
    Because it was an artificial construction without no roots.

  • If I can speak as a German: Why Germany has to belong to the “Anglosphere”?
    We are a nation in the center/heart of Europe, “Western” is only our now political
    system. Even now the “Anglification” of our language destroys our clear thinking.

    Which is a joke, cause Angeln, where “English” came from, is a part of Northern
    Germany. Frisian and Dutch (see also Deutsch) are verysimilar to English. Is Be-
    nelux Western or Germanic? A stupid question, they are both.

    Germans are the biggest minority of the USA, Britains are mostly from German
    tribes like Saxons, Angles and Jutes. By the way: Scandinavians are Germanic
    people too.

  • All immigration ends in ethnic cleansing of the natives or the invaders. This a law of human nature.

    It is just a matter of time.

  • “The vast majority of Syrians and Africans who came to Europe since 2011
    would be in their homelands if the West had not killed Colonel Gaddafi
    and attacked the Syrian Arab Republic. And when some activists or
    theorists of the Right daydream in their ivory towers about a
    “regime-change” operation in Iran, we can only wonder what is going
    wrong in their heads. Do they want more failed states? More refugees?
    More chaos?”

    I agree completely. But the interview didn’t discuss the reasons the west supports terrorists and regime change all over the middle east. There is no doubt in my mind, as many others have said (including Mearsheimer and Walt), that Israel has been the main reason for these and every other decision made regarding the middle east, at least since 1967. Oil may be a factor, but it’s secondary. If it isn’t good for Israel it won’t happen and if the Jews want it bad enough, it will happen.

  • Couple of points regarding this article stood out for me.
    Quoting the article:
    “Some notorious anti-Islam activists are also ranting against the government and system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, even proposing Soros-styled regime-change methods without recognizing that Tehran is actually defending the type of independence and sovereignty that their critics want so much for their European states.”

    -I cannot see Iran’s nationalism as some kind of role model for nationalists around the world. Mainly because Iranian style Nationalism includes a “Nuclear armed” nation with the missile tech to deliver a nuclear strike. That means the Arab world will demand the same.
    -(Persian) Iran is the biggest threat to the Arab world and even more so than to Israel
    -The Iranian Revolution stands along with the Russian and Chinese Revolutions of the 20th century, where a centuries old Monarchy was replaced by a full fledged Theocracy.

    I cannot see any benefit to a belligerent, nuclear armed Iran triggering the same response from her Arab neighbors and creating a nuclear armed Middle East for that is one of the byproducts of Iran’s nationalism.

    At the end of the article are a series of questions regarding a “new Europe”. Again I cannot see that. Without the European Union each capital becomes the policy maker of that nation. I see bilateral agreements between European nations and other nations (America China, Russia etc) taking place. Europe “the continent ” returns, hopefully with the many currencies that was part of Europe before the EU.

    Example would be Trump’s decision to go for bilateral agreements over the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership of 40 odd nations). Hopefully Trump will water down or eliminate NAFTA as well.

    I also cannot see any alternative to NATO. Trump is asking more fiscal responsibility from NATO members, not the end of NATO. Within NATO each European nation has her own military.

    What I do not see is an EU military now in the works by Brussels That would be redundant in the face of NATO and the militaries of each European nation.

  • Good stuff. The lack of geopolitical knowledge spans the ideological spectrum, and it leads otherwise smart people to sound like fucking idiots.

  • “fences and walls won’t be enough against the constantly rising pressure of migration” this is an important question. if you think theres a problem now just wait till theirs billions of unsustainable Africans trying to get out. and there even more dysgenic than the middle easterners. border security can work if you try hard enough. the Berlin wall worked right? Israels walls are working. Hadrians wall, great wall of china etc etc. its much easier today as technology has improved greatly. at the end of the day you have compare border security in the context of the prospects of the other options. some idiot German politician suggested a kind of “marshal plan for africa” this idea is really completely ignorant of the reality of the cant sustain a first world society with a negro population. the biological requirements just are not there. another option is some kind of coercive population control. it has to be coercive. there not going to stop breeding by themselves. so when you look at the prospects of the other options then your left with build the wall!

    • Frankly, our long term survival will likely depend on an “all of the above” strategy.
      -Walls and tight border security
      -Tight and restrictive immigration laws, and very broad/general/”flexible” rules on what can result in deportation

      -An end to the welfare state that attracts so many of them (at least limiting gov. assistance to native whites)
      -A cultural/psychological shift that turns the environment in white countries from welcoming to hostile
      -Maybe in the short to mid-term, foreign aid can be continued to certain regions to improve conditions of life there. But once we have cleaned house, cut off all foreign aid PERMANENTLY.
      -Clearly, our enemies have backed us into a corner and put us in an “us or them” scenario. I don’t think anyone here is entertaining the notion of a peaceful surrender to those who clearly have intent to exterminate us, right?

      The projected population explosion of Africa might or might not be a real threat. It could be a scare tactic by those friendly to our cause, designed to shock us into taking action. It could be a demoralization tactic by our enemies, designed to paint a picture of a bleak and hopeless future for whites. At any rate, I fail to see how the population explosion in Africa continues into the future, unless somebody is funding it. We are going to see to it that white nations cease this asinine, suicidal behavior, right guys? So who is going to keep subsidizing the breeding of the bio-weapon known as the negro? The Chinese? The Jews? The Jews have the money, but I don’t think they have the manpower or the industriousness/constructiveness/creativeness to keep the Africans fed, comfortable, and f***ing. Are the Chinese really that reckless to not have the foresight to see that breeding 4 billion Africans could lead to a problem for them in the future? I think they are more pragmatic than that, plus, they generally don’t have much love for blacks either.

  • Manuel Ochsenreiter have produced fantastic quality throughouth the years, best foreign correspondent alive today.

    • Hello Mickey? Western powers have been fighting to keep german peoples down for the last two to three centuries. After WWII they’ve mostly succeeded but it still is distinct enough that a revolt could occur.

      • This is a bizarre idea. Are you saying the French aren’t Western because during Napoleon most of Europe united against them?

        At any rate, I don’t see how the UK and France are currently “fighting to keep german peoples down.” Germany’s economy is continentally dominant, and whatever afflicts Germany socially seems to be afflicting the UK and France as well.

        This “Germans are the real non-Westerners” turn is the single weirdest thing I’ve encountered on the alt right since “make Persia great again.”

        • That is what I was going to say. Every sub tribe of Europe has tried their hand at empire or conquest, if not both. When for example, the Gauls, or the Germans, Or the Slavs, or the Scandinavians, or the Italians, or the Spanish, or the Greeks, feel enough external and/or internal pressure, they unite with a single purpose of war.

  • Russia is a part of Asia, not Europe, and it has been since 1917. Putin isn’t on our side, he’s an enemy bound up with the descendants of the bolshevik butchers. Russians pride themselves on not being White and in helping Amerikwa destroy White civilization in WW2. The alt right needs to get over its Russophilia and gets it head on straight.

    • I actually agree with you for once lol.

      The tendency of altrighters to ride Russian dick is truly a sight to behold.

    • Russia should be treated with caution, and “Russians” already in the West should be treated with EXTREME distrust, as many of them are jewish golems who are fleeing Putin.

      However, let’s look at what Putin has done:
      -Banned homosexual propaganda directed at minors
      -Dropped a minor red-pill about the ethnic identity of 85% of the Bolshevik revolutionaries
      -Openly criticized the moral degeneracy of contemporary Western culture
      -Made statements about the failure of Western governments to defend the interests of their citizens
      -Moved to promote a rebirth of Christianity in Russia

      -Jailed at least one jewish oligarch
      -Moved to ban Soros and his NGO’s from Russia
      -Moved to change “domestic violence” laws in a way that would restore male authority
      -Jailed and humiliated the Pussy Riot agitators (Cossacks whipped them in public, for Pete’s sake.)
      -Around 2010, there were many videos up on YouTube of Russian “Nazis” gang-attacking immigrants
      -There were also videos up on YouTube of young Russian men ganging up on and “bullying”/humiliating fags
      -Putin outmaneuvered the insane Zio-American warhawks, and put the brakes on the destruction of Syria. He was obviously serving Russian interests first and foremost here, but he did us all a favor by halting the progress of Zio-Globalist hegemony.

      Trump has extended an olive branch to Putin. Marine Le Pen has made overtures in that direction. (Orban too?) I am with Trump in the notion that being friendly with Russia could be a good thing, not a bad thing. Frankly what is needed is a unity of purpose across the whole white world if we are to survive. Now that unity of purpose SHOULD NOT entail further breaking down of national sovereignty, mixing of populations or cultures, etc. Russians are Russians, and I agree, they are not us.

  • This guy reminds us why Germany is a problem for white people and why people who are indignant over WWII need to get a clue. Germans (proudly) resisted the Greco-Roman influence as long as they could, but even I didn’t know Germans considered themselves outside of the West. Germans are bat shiit crazy, and their baseless, psychotic anti-Anglosphere sentiment makes them a liability.

    • Germans have considered themselves – and been considered as – westerners for long enough now. Certainly if Greeks or Poles are western, then Germans assuredly are.

      Reading that remark immediately struck me as an exceedingly dumb point to emphasize in order to shore up some vague and almost certainly exceedingly dumb geopolitical thesis.

      • In the political history of Germany, exactly what qualifies as “Western”? By Western norms, one thinks of ideas like democracy and common law traditions.

        Outside of the Schiessregime Bundesrepublik, Germany is not and never has been in the Anglo-American tradition.

        • But so what? Do you seriously suppose that democratic norms strike Germans today as somehow “foreign”? (And it has nothing to do with common law traditions; by that standard not even France is western.)

          • The Germans have been conditioned by years of Frankfurt School Critical Theory to believe in alien norms like Parliamentary Democracy. The man responsible for setting up the West German education system after World War II was none other than Herbert Marcuse. This conditioning has also led Germans to accept laws imprisoning people for “inciting racial hatred” and Holocaust denial.

            That is Ochsenreiter’s original point, that these values implanted onto Germany are not German at all.

          • Mass democracy is only one component of western culture, and in fact a rather recent one (at least in its contemporary form). Any attempt to define ‘western culture’ will unavoidably find commonality in Germany, to the point that if Germany doesn’t deserve to be called western then the concept has no meaning.

            I see no point whatsoever in going down the road of defining Germany out of western culture except in service to some eccentric geopolitical position that no one but larptastic WNs will ever be impressed by.

          • “Mass democracy is only one component of western culture, and in fact a rather recent one (at least in its contemporary form)”

            Not really. Mass democracy has been the norm in the Anglosphere since the mid 1800s. Germany was never part of this trend until 1990, and was influenced by its own norms, or other foreign ideas like Stalinism in East Germany.

          • Well, against the span of two or three thousand years, I’d say that’s pretty recent.

          • Sure, ignore thousands of years of divergent history. While England had the Magna Carta, Oliver Cromwell, the Glorious Revolution, and Catholic Emancipation, Germany had the Holy Roman Empire, the Thirty Years’ War, Frederick the Great, and the Kulturkampf.

          • Problem is that people in US didn’t liked term European civilization( because they felt excluded) and then they coined term west. And European civilization has many flavors, with Germany being central European and Protestant culture.

          • Wonderful, you’ve done some differences. Now do some similarities and consider what emerges on balance.

            No matter how you cut it, “Germans aren’t westerners” is an eccentric claim. Par for the course, I guess, in a movement not lacking for eccentricity.

          • No, not mass democracy. Giving votes to people like candy was considered insane enough that voicing such ideas before WWI could land you in a mental institution in some states.

          • I agree with this point. What I object to is the use of the term “western” to describe values which were foisted upon Germany post-war. It strikes me as attempt to get the Germans to ignore their own Western/Faustian culture (the culture of Kant, Mozart, von Humboldt, Heisenberg) and start LARPing as steppe-worshipping Eurasianists.

          • This was probably translated. Perhaps Spencer could publish the interview in the original German?

          • Maybe I’m paranoid, but I just sense Spencer no longer has the NW European peoples’ best interests at heart. He seems eager to enable a Eurasianist turn in the alt right. Eurasianism is well designed ideology for Russians, but not for Germans, who need to rediscover their own story.

        • Democracy is not necessarily a “western” concept. The Iroquois Confederation was democratic but clearly not Western; Germany may have come to democracy late compared with Britain and France, but it most certainly is a major hearth of the West over the past millennium.

      • The editor also said Germans don’t consider themselves part of the West. And now that I think about it, I recall my own mother mocking Brits for thinking they were descended from the Romans, and her proudly talking about how Germans militarily kept the Romans out. So there is a discontinuity there on the part of Germans that is self-imposed.

        • The English are German/Nordic, depending on where you are in England and taking into account massive Celtic immigration into the industrial cities.

    • Ochsenreiter is stating that Germany has never historically been influenced by Anglo-French ideas like Parliamentary Democracy.

      This is true in German history until the 20th Century, and Germany wasn’t even united under a liberal democracy until 1990. This isn’t that difficult of a point to grasp.

      • No, it is a reference to Germans always having been outside the Roman Empire, unlike France and England.

        FYI decentralized government came from the early German tribes.

        • This is historically inaccurate. German cities like Cologne were founded as Roman colonies. Also, see the the Editor’s note. In German, “the West” means Britain and France.

          Historically, German-speaking lands considered Britain and France to be the West.—Ed

          • Unless I’m mistaken, “Cologne” comes from Latin “colonia” — the city is named after the fact that it was a Roman colony. As was Frankfurt, Bonn, Augsburg and other German cities.

          • The way I heard the story told, after the romans gave up their plans to make germany into a province they set up Cologne as a model city to project soft power into Germany.

          • Why is this even deemed important within the alt right suddenly? Yes, the Roman occupation of western and southern Germany didn’t last as long as the Roman occupation of Gaul — and this is supposed to justify…what? Russia regaining influence over East Germany? Is that what the alt right’s great dream is now?

            Germans are the real Asiatics!

            Persians are the real whites!

            This site is becoming nutty.

          • “Russia regaining influence over East Germany? Is that what the alt right’s great dream is now?”

            Not the Alt Right’s Dream, but the Alt Right should not exhibit ugly provincial Americanism and ignore the history of other nations.

          • Since nobody was ignoring the fact the Germany has a unique history — this obvious to everybody, even provincial Americans — I question where this push to treat the Rhine as a more important barrier than the Hajnal Line is coming from. I can guess.

          • Read the comments in this thread. Apparently many American Alt Righters believe Germans are wacky doodle for thinking Nietzsche, Marx, Kant, Schopenhauer, Bismarck, Lessing, Herder, Kleist, Frederick the Great, Wagner et al constitute a separate cultural tradition from the French or British.

          • Dissidents in Europe see very clearly how great the US, or rather the US based globalists, domination of Europe is. Since we see how destructive this is we are looking for alternatives.
            As compared to the US, Russia is much much weaker. So no, it would not be “domination”, the relationship would be much much more balanced.

          • Your comment is uneducated. Germany is renowned, or infamous if you will, for having permanently eradicated Roman incursion past the Rhine 2000 years ago. Cologne is on the Rhine and is not the geographic or cultural heartland of Germany. The Battle of Teutoberg Forest was one of the most decisive if not the most decisive battle in history. A few years later, the Romans would try to make incursions into Germany from the south, but the Marcomanni also managed to keep them out. There was zero penetration of Roman power, culture, or economy in what is now Germany east of the Rhine and north of the Danube, which is to say, almost all of Germany.

            Thank you for confirming my claim that the editor indicated that Germans do not consider themselves Westerners (by not including themselves with Britain and France). Germans never learned Roman ways because the Roman Empire never established there. England and France were occupied, and the English benefitted the most from it.

    • Germans have defined Western Civilization for the past 2,000 years. The English were merely a financial-pirate state and the French were just kind of wacky. Germany produced all the great composers, philosophers, architects, explorers, engineers, etc.

      • Germans were tribal until the spread of Roman Empire/Christianity. Their cultural influence didn’t begin until after that period and by then the main European regions (England, France, Italy) had fluidly been influencing each other. Btw- Don’t forget those “nasty” Vikings who have more influence on the genetic Anglo-sphere than polite people like to discuss…
        Also Riopel, Italy and England both have many historical high achieving engineers, artists, and scientists. Are you here to divide or unite our peoples? Otherwise by your post you are either ignorant of European history or a troll.

  • If Africans Africanized Africa, why wouldn’t they Africanize Europe?

    Africans Africanize because they are Africans.

    It’s like, since Europeans Europeanized Europe, they also Europeanized other parts of the world.

    Europeans Europeanize. Africans Africanize.

    If there is an deserted island and if Europeans were to go there, they would Europeanize it because they are European. The New World isn’t part of Europe, but Europeans who arrived there Europeanized much of it.

    If Africans were placed on the island, they would Africanize it. Haiti and Detroit are not part of Africa, but they’ve been Africanized(after having once been Europeanized) by African-Americans.

    There is Europe and Africa as geographical areas.

    But there is also Europeanization and Africanization as socio-economic-cultural processes.

    So, if all Africans were sent to Europe and if all Europeans were sent to Africa, Africans in Europe will go about Africanizing Europe while Europeans in Africa will go about Europeanizing it.

    Consider what Anglos and Dutch did with South Africa. They Europeanized it… but now that Africans took over, they are Africanizing it(just like Zimbabweans Africanized Zimbabwe after kicking out the whites).

    The dynamics between Europeanization and Africanization has been a major theme in US history.

    There was a time when Detroit was nearly all white. It had been Europeanized. But then, blacks took over and they Africanized it. And these processes are largely driven by genetics, especially since the 60s when blacks decided to stop emulating white standards and do their own ‘thang’.

    Can a people be ‘Africanized’ or ‘Europeanized’. Yes, whites can imitate blacks and become ‘Africanized’: uninhibited, loud, abrasive, aggressive, quarrelsome, and cantankerous like rappers. And blacks can imitate whites and become ‘Europeanized’, like Obama and others.

    When there are just few blacks among whites, they come under pressure to imitate Europeanization. But as black numbers swell, they feel more natural being ‘Africanic’ and begin to shift into Africanization mode and act more more disorderly than orderly, especially since they don’t fear the white man who is deemed weaker and slower.

    While it is true that dirt and climate affected genetics over 10,000s of years, the racial genetics in their current state remain constant across different landscapes. So, European genetics will make Europeans Europeanize even none-European places, and African genetics will make Africans Africanize even non-African areas.

    Upon contemplating the state of Africa and Africanized parts of the world, is it a good idea to open your world to Africanization? Having Africans in your nation isn’t just a case of Africans-in-your-nation. What you get is the process of Africanization of your nation.

    Look at St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Chicago. Compare the Europeanized areas and Africanized areas.

    Maybe blacks should be called Africanizers. All lifeforms are active and transformative. Their genes energize them to alter the environment in accordance to genetic tendencies.

    The kind of pressure depends on genes. Different genes apply pressure on their holders to act differently.

    Europeanization-genetics is constructive. Even when Europeans destroy things, they are getting rid of old thing to create new things(often of higher value). It is creative destruction.

    Africanization-genetics is destructive. When blacks destroy something, it is gone and nothing new or better replaces what had been. It is destructive destruction.

    So, blacks in America should be called Africanizers or Africanizing-Americans.

    Europeanization is positive, but its positive comes with a negative. One aspect is high-trust culture and congeniality. This ‘niceness’ makes for conscience and cooperation among whites. But it can also lead to excessive pangs of guilt and doubt, a need for penance. Conscience is good, but it can turn cancerous and become suicidal. And we are seeing that cancerous side of Europeanization today. It must be treated with cultural chemo.

        • Propably would from your point of view, considering you’d hardly ever meet any standard of behaviour acceptable to society.

          • How dare you? I’ll have you know I am a perfectly acceptable member of society. Fascism sucks…still.

          • Ok lets presume that. Now I’ll give you four choices, Republic with limited franchise (only landowners who live on that land have a vote, Mass democracy and socialism, Fascism (state directed society with private property but limited by state actions), Monarchy open oligarchy with no or limited voting and free enterprise. Which one would you live under?

          • Interesting how you’ve framed the choices (appears to be five choices) but I can choose: Republic. While it will begin as a “limited franchise”, I know it has the ability to be reshape over time AND, those who experience it will never choose fascism, monarchy or socialism (the whole.) Mass democracy? Good in theory but does not work in practice (no mechanisms to protect the minority’s from the majority.

          • Today, we need mechanisms to protect the majority from the minorities. They seem to have somehow been inculcated with the notion that they have the “right” to become the majority, even if it means flagrantly disregarding the laws of the nation. And when the majority obtains a democratic victory that they perceive to be against their interests, they declare it a “threat to democracy”.

            Well, we can start to play that game too. “Democracy”, only when it works in OUR favor.

          • Becoming the majority has never been of great interest to native born blacks. The crime issue is unfortunate, but you people also tend to be hyperbolic when talking about it as well. It’s been thirty years and you guys lose your mind. All this insane talk about red pills, blue pills, Kek and cucks….get use to fringes of society. Democracy is still in your favor (asking worth all of the wealth and knowledge) but somehow you still find a way to blame the brown people. Detroit will be back soon enough with no help from you.

          • Ultimately, I am not blaming brown people. No, no, not at all. And I think I speak for most around these parts on that as well. We know quite well who is at the root of our troubles, and they tend to not be brown at all. And yet strangely, not exactly White either…

            And I don’t harbor any “hatred” for black, brown, yellow or red people. It is a simple question of incompatibility, destructiveness/damage to our society and culture, and competition for resources.

            As for “kek and cucks”, “kek” is just for the kids. You’re in the grown up room here. However, “cuck” or “cuckservative” has proven to be a very effective turn of phrase to take the wind out of the sails of those who would like to do harm to their own kith and kin.

          • The problem with your choice (would be mine aswell) is the normalcy bias, it’ll deviate with time into a shadow government of oligarchs or a mass democracy or even both at the same time (current US). Constitutions are powerless to stop a tyranny or create it as such they fail by themselves. This is what American founding fathers were talking about needing to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots. And the way you constitute such a state is by force, US didn’t just magically come into existence it was a group of right wing elites who agitated enough armed support to engage in a violent rebellion to establish a new government, they could have made something else out of it aswell, infact many wanted a new American monarchy. There is also the problem of perverse incentives, the state having the power to legislate and tax creates incentives for tge unscrupulous to co-opt it for their own ends and a state that is “By the people” the manufactured consent of the governed can get away with a lot of shit a monarch never could. This is the essence of the cycle between leftist dystopias and red pilled enforcement of a just society.

            The name is much less important than the facts on the ground. And most democracies and republics today are anything but democratic or just.

          • Blacks were savage and primitive to begin with. How can you destroy a people living in mudhuts, beating on bongo drums, and chucking spears?

            If anything, it was under white rule that blacks got all the good stuff like books, cars, airplanes, college education, air conditioning, TV, and etc.

            If the black African world had never met the white world, blacks would be a bunch of savages without written language chucking spears at hippos.


          • Are you off your meds? Blacks in Detroit, last I hear, did not live in mud huts or throw spears. Guns work much better at killing whites. Regarding the bongo, I don’t think playing them implies one is savage. Regarding the “good stuff”, thanks I do appreciate the kinder whites that realize caring is sharing. Don’t be mad you can’t take it all back.

          • What “destroyed” blacks (or rather, allowed them to revert to a state closer to their natural condition) was going from White rule to jewish rule. Look at the quality of black culture and entertainment in America in the 1940’s, 1950’s, and early 1960’s. That was back when Whites still had firm control of the cultural standards, and there were decency and obscenity laws. Since jews really began to consolidate their control of the culture, the condition of both Whites and blacks has deteriorated. If we take the music industry for example, they did this by slowly, incrementally promoting progressively more degenerate “artists” over the course of about 60-70 years.

            Blacks won’t be happy as long as they have to live among Whites, or Asians, or Latinos, or Arabs. Blacks will be happy again once they are in their own countries, cut off from the rest of the world. After a few generations of isolation and living up to their own set of standards, they will forget what the rest of the world is like, and they won’t have anything to be jealous or envious of. Without the White devil oppressing them, they can quickly re-engineer all that technology that the Afrocentrists insist we stole from them, and go on to colonize the galaxy.

            Sounds like a sweet deal, right?

          • I’ll Start by saying I actually appreciate the amount of time you put into this dissertation as it shows you have given a lot of thought to the subject. The anti-Semitic tinge of your effort requires the deduction of more than a few points. The Jews did not construct the welfare state. Additionally, you assert we’ve reverted to some “natural condition” but there were no air Jordans or iPhones in Africa a few millennia past, No knockout games and no type two diabetes. Our condition is uniquely American. Africa would not accept us back, nor do we wish to go back ( at least not anyone I know) Your assertion that we live amongs whites is pure fiction as 90% of blacks in this country live amongst blacks… and you know it. This is all about money, and whites desire to NOT share it… it’s why whites in England voted out, why swedes are all of a sudden reconsidering fascism, and why you, for some reasons believe in an America… or post America without blacks. Not gonna happen. What I don’t understand is where white magnanimity went? Why are you people so self aware, yet so unaware? Believing that blacks going somewhere will make you better than you are.. like you didn’t invent gun crime, cocaine addiction or world war. Colonizing the galaxy will prove what? Nothing! So we have no interest. I am more interested in preventing you from leaving so that you might experience a few hundred years of torture the way we have… that would be a sweet deal.

          • “Anti-Semitic tinge”

            Anti-Semitic!!?!?!?!?! How dare you!!! Why, Jews have never done anything wrong in all of human history, don’t you know that? Only an absolute raving, irrational lunatic could have any quarrel with the Jews. They’re God’s Chosen People! Just ask them, they’ll tell you. (That is absolutely not sarcasm. Sarcasm about one’s love for the Jewish people can land you in serious trouble in many countries. I SINCERELY love Jews with all my heart. And I SINCERELY want to keep my job and stay out of jail.)

            No, I’m not “anti” anything. What I am is an unashamed, unapologetic White man who woke up to the fact that my people have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

            As for your claim that the Jews did not construct the welfare state… Well, there are certainly somebody’s fingerprints all over it. I haven’t looked into the specific history of the beginnings of the welfare state, but I’ll say this: Its genesis was related to the banking crashes of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. I believe it was created as a response to the Great Depression which started with the crash of 1929 or 1930. Those banking crashes were the result of *somebody’s* unscrupulous speculative financial activities. Also, see the founding of the “Federal Reserve” bank in 1913.

            Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, written in 1848, lists as one of its requirements:

            5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

            There’s your Federal Reserve. And Karl Marx “just happened to be” Jewish.

            It’s not a direct, linear, cause and effect relationship I’m pointing out here, mind you. But when one starts to make sense of history, and notices certain recurring themes, patterns of behavior, and driving “spirits” behind certain developments, it becomes hard to ignore the coincidences. I mean, the welfare state is OBVIOUSLY a form of socialism (which is simply nicey-nice talk for communism, or an early stage of communism).

            One thing I can tell you for sure is that the welfare state was absolutely not envisioned or intended by the Founders, and no sane, honest White American man before or since could ever be in favor of such a thing. You see, we take pride in earning our keep, and we accept that failure is part of life. The weak, stupid, and unfit must be allowed to fail, lest the whole society fail while perpetually trying to prop them up. Some will fail and never recover. But some will learn from their failure, and persevere, growing stronger in the process. That is how you create healthy people, not by coddling them and allowing them to wallow in abject dependency. That being said, I am not a complete “social Darwinist”, or advocate of unbridled capitalism. While I don’t support redistribution of wealth, I do support placing limits on the growth and accumulation of corporate and financial power. Sort of “checks and balances” just as the Founders built into our system of government. They should have had the foresight to explicitly put chains on corporate and financial power as well.

            “Your assertion that we live amongs whites is pure fiction”

            Really? So forced integration is not a thing, huh? Whites have complete freedom of association, do they? No busing of school children to “diversify” the schools, no HUD and Section 8 housing setting up “affordable housing” for Blacks and other POC’s in formerly white neighborhoods, no affirmative action and diversity quotas in the workplace…

            “…and why you, for some reasons believe in an America… or post America without blacks.”

            Funny, the thought never entered my mind until fairly recently (within the last decade), as many people started to very publicly talk about a “post America” without Whites. And a “post Europe” without Whites, and a “post Canada” without Whites, and a “post Australia” without Whites. I will echo your sentiment emphatically on this one, NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

            “I am more interested in preventing you from leaving so that you might
            experience a few hundred years of torture the way we have… that would
            be a sweet deal.”

            So now you show your true face. You’re vindictive and resentful, and you don’t even know why. Look at the condition of Black life all around the world, and tell me you don’t have it better in America than any of your people have it elsewhere. You’ve probably heard this before, but a thank you is in order, instead of resentfully lashing out and biting the hand that feeds you. And it really sounds like your ambition here is to enslave Whites. “Preventing us from leaving”? That would at least be one component of slavery. Think you can pull it off now that we’re waking up all across the world and have figured out what’s going on? Remember, the Romans conquered almost all of Europe and North Africa with only swords, spears, shields and chariots. Then under Christendom, Europe conquered all of North America, much of South America, the islands of the Caribbean, South Africa, and Australia with what, single shot muskets? Then we invented the steam engine, harnessed electricity, invented the lightbulb, the telephone, the automobile, the airplane, steel ocean liners and battle ships, aircraft carriers, split the atom, created nuclear powered submarines, ICBM’s, the internet…

            What do you think we’ll come up with when facing a global existential threat?

            Long response. My apologies.

  • I dislike Ochsenreiter’s overly critical tone. In my experience, claims amounting to “the refugees are here ‘cos we’re over there” are almost always a prelude to some form of cuckery. How or why they’ve come is a distant second to addressing the liberal mental frailties which prevent us from taking even minimal action to stopping and reversing the flow. (And please, as if there’s any serious need to go much beyond “we rich/they poor.” If only we hadn’t taken out Gaddafi, they’d never have come – hah, yeah right.) The idea that the alt right needs answers to every distant geopolitical contingency before focusing on more immediate issues is frankly ludicrous. And I notice the big thinker didn’t exactly provide any concrete answers of his own, which is another red flag in my experience.

    • It is a plain fact that refugees started pouring into Europe once Gaddafi was overthrown and Syria was destabilized. All Ochsenreither is saying is that we would do well to leave stable regimes like Iran alone, lest their people start coming to the West as a safety valve, as happened with Syria and Libya.

      • I guess you’re right. They would never, ever have come if not for that. After all, Europe was 100% white until 2011 or so.

        • Millions of migrants weren’t streaming into Europe in a single year like they did in 2015, before the Syrian Civil War. Most of the Muslim immigrants like French Algerians and Turkish Gastarbeiter came legally. That is a different issue. But destabilizing Middle Eastern countries does not do anything to deter migration to Europe.

      • Wasn’t Germany being flooded with Turks well before that? Turkey by the way is not at war and has never been invaded by the US or any western power. While the regime changes in Libya, Iraq and Syria have certainly not helped we need to also recognize that it is not the sole reason for mass immigration. Some of it is their own doing. There already have been plenty of Iranian migrants come over into Europe through Greece and this is without any kind of western interference. They flee the country because they find their government oppressive.

        Here are some Iranians and Moroccans staging protest at the Macedonian boarder. Neither Iran or Morocco are at war.

        • Yes, some of it is their own doing. The Turks were originally brought in as Gastarbeiter in the 1960s because there was a labor shortage in Germany, the demographics of 8 million men dying in World War II coming home to roost.

          • Another example is in the US we get flooded by lots of people from Mexico. Mexico is not at war and the US is not performing any military operations there. There is violence by the drug cartels but that is mainly the fault of criminal elements within Mexico and not because of anything the US is doing. Liberals will blame “the war” on drugs but are we suppose to legalize cocaine and sit back and do nothing while they import the shit into the US?

          • Cheap labor doesn’t fully answer the question either. While it generally makes sense for Mexicans in the US (they do tend to work many jobs at very low wages) but if you look at other groups it doesn’t hold water. Asians tend not to work for very cheap; in fact they earn more than whites do on average but that hasn’t stopped them from flooding in through hb1 visas. Or look at the 162k migrants Sweden took in last year, only a very small portion of them even have jobs, all they do is put strain on the welfare system.

            This is not all about cheap labor; I doubt it is even the main driving force behind it. It’s about white genocide.

          • I think all European countries are being under pressure by the globalists. Some of this pressure is motivated by racial hatered, some might be motivated by geopolitics or economic reasons. The reason sweden is crumbling faster than other places is because sweden has less defences. Socialdemocracy and wealth destroyed swedens culture. And not having a war for a long time and never having been invaded makes sweden even more vulnerable.

          • If drugs were legalized, cartel revenue would dry up.

            Now granted, cartel members are all violent criminal sociopaths so most of them would remain in the criminal lifestyle, but the extent of the destruction they wreak on Mexico would obviously be greatly reduced.

  • “A serious geopolitical approach accepts and appreciates the differences between various cultures of the world and global political-cultural zones. It recognizes the existence of different civilizational models without any notions of supremacy.”

    Interesting. How does Herr Ochsenreiter resolve his view against Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, that there are competing “world civilizations” which inevitably come into conflict with each other? I would state that Huntington, for political reasons, did not add Judaic society to his groupings of World Civilizations.

    “The entire Western media still called them “freedom fighters.” ”

    God Bless Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin for calling out this propagandistic portrayal of Saudi funded Jihadists as “Freedom loving rebels.”

    “And when some activists or theorists of the Right daydream in their ivory towers about a “regime-change” operation in Iran”

    A subtle dig at Jason Jorjani? Excellent interview.

      • Jorjani can go fly a kite. He needs to decide whether he is Iranian or European, or maybe we will eventually have to decide for him. He looks hhhwhite enough to pass in most settings, but clearly, he is a shining example of the problem of people with mixed ancestry. The notion that white patriots anywhere in the world right now should be wasting precious time, energy, and brain power worrying about the internal affairs of Iran and his Zoroastrian revival (or whatever it is he is advocating) is ludicrous.

        And I would be highly suspicious of any other Iranians or lighter skinned Indians who try to pull that “hello, fellow Aryans” nonsense. They just want to keep the opportunity for a genetic upgrade open to their offspring. Once we have regained political control of our nations, expelled most or all of the invaders, stabilized or increased our birthrates, and restored our people to psychological and spiritual health, then we can think about the benefits (or lack thereof) of some kind of dialog with the better elements of Iran and India, and protecting Yazidis and such.

        • They just want to keep the opportunity for a genetic upgrade open to their offspring.

          Yeah man, I’m sure it’s that rather than wanting to be able to keep living in white societies that motivates them.

          • Wanting to fuck white women (who are usually way better looking) is not the same as wanting to have kids with them. Obviously some do, but they’re the ones who are much more likely to either be assimilated or who have a genuine desire to assimilate, so again it’s more a question wanting to live among whites rather than some desire for genetic upgrades that motivates them.

          • Nope, try again. They want to reproduce with white women but are not competitive with white men. They do also want to live among whites though. It’s not either/or.

          • Open your eyes dude, they can easily compete with whites for the affections of anti-racist shitlib females – of whom there are, sadly, plenty to go around. Stop deluding yourself. When it comes time to have kids, though, the unassimilated ones tend to stick to their own kind.

          • I rarely see anti-racist shitlib females (who are an extreme minority) with non-white boyfriends. Considering the level of effort put in by nonwhites on macking on white women if the competition were easy most young white women would be dating non-whites in diverse areas.

            I see scenarios in certain places where well put together women date non-whites. They are dating co-workers because they are working in a climate where their offices contain essentially no white males and so their day to day lives are devoid of whites unless they put active effort into finding one which most women won’t do. The results are still meager however.

          • I said they can “easily compete” – meaning you win some, you lose some – not “easily outcompete.”

          • Sexual selection is probably mostly subconscious and the majority of conscious thought on the subject is rationalization of a biological impulse. Our bodies don’t really know the difference between desire for sexual gratification and procreation. Their bodies know to maximize their numbers and reduce the numbers of competitors. Male desire for foreign women is ubiquitous as is rape as a tool of war and both are almost certainly a selfish gene phenomena. Basically you are positing that sexual desire of non-whites arises from their rational mind and they have no genetic drive to impregnate the enemies females. Seems pretty unlikely.

          • On the topic of rape in wartime conditions… Any racially conscious white man should absolutely not be raping “colored” women. Creating the potential for more mixed race children to be brought into the world is only going to exacerbate our problems. It is blurring the lines of race further and creating more potential enemies in the future. Plus, I am of the opinion that:

            A) Fornication is spiritually degrading to both parties (unfortunately I know from experience growing up in our degenerate culture).

            B) Fornication with non-white women is DOUBLY spiritually degrading to white men.

            C) The conflation of sex and violence is not psychologically healthy. It is a regressive, primitive urge that should not be indulged in.

            Now, as this all plays out, I think one group of people should most certainly receive the most dreaded punishment from their darkest nightmares. A “hellish” scenario should be the poetic justice for these people. The liberal/SJW/cat-lady/anti-white/career woman/feminist types, if they are of age and have good genetics, should be forced to bear white children.

          • No, I am positing the opposite, that their rational minds (or cultural preferences) incline them to choose their own for actually having children, while their genetic drives incline them towards desiring white girls.

          • I’m sure it’s both. The two are part and parcel of the same desire for a boost in status and quality of life. However, in both cases their gain is our loss, so while we can understand their desire to better themselves, we should not entertain their “right” to do so at our expense.

        • His talks are fascinating. How many people knew the Persian Empire was a Caucasian empire? How many Americans (or Europeans?) even know Iranians and Arabs are a different people? A very high percentage know nothing. He discusses real history and the ancient connection between Persia, India and Europe and the Jews probably hate it.

          The Germans were interested in the connection between Europe, Persia and Iran and I recall the Jews using this in their propaganda on TV in or around the 1970’s. Under National Socialism there was interest in the connection, I seem to recall Himmler being interested in it, but it was presented in such a hateful way, if you were really interested in it you would be afraid to touch the subject and the TV programs presented the connection as mythology. And now I’ve learned it’s true. And of course the Jews hated the word “Aryan”, symbolized by the hated blonde haired, blue eyed European.

          And I’ve even met Iranians and Indians (imbued with the anti-German hatred Jews have spread around the world) distancing themselves from the German / “Aryan” connection, one even distinguishing Aryans in India from German or European “Aryans” because Jews have instructed the whole world Germans are “evil”. Thanks to Jason Jorjani I know the “Aryan” is directly connected to Europe and Persia. I would love to see the word become popular again and see how the hateful Jews react to that.

          • “…ancient connection between Persia, India, and Europe…”

            Maybe. But it’s buried under several thousand years of “brown-out”, so don’t expect to find much accurate info, truth, or spiritual wisdom coming from those regions.

            *Current* connection between Persia, India, and Europe…

            Yeah, not so much. In fact, not really at all. Many Iranians are more culturally European than they are Arab or Muslim, but they are still a far, far, far cry from being people we want mixing into our gene pool. And I hope you are getting wise to the game by now, that is what all this “cultural exchange” is really all about. It is about breaking down psychological barriers as a primer for the destruction of physical barriers (borders, biologically distinct races).

          • Mr. Jorjani explicitly said he is opposed to massive immigration to Europe from Iran. Yes, he explicitly said that in a speech. That is not the point of any of this and I am 100% opposed to the slow genocide taking place in Europe. Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with his presentations.

Leave a Reply