The Face of the Union

In yet another delectable blow to the harried Merkel Regime, newly appointed German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer has recently suggested that a temporary suspension of the Schengen Agreement is in order, and a complimentary strengthening of Germany’s national borders, until such a time as Europe is able to secure its own. In his words: “Internal border checks [between EU member states] must be in place so long as the EU fails to effectively control the external border. I don’t see it being able to do this in the near future.” In ours: until the European Union is capable of transforming itself into a political regime, it cannot pretend to dictate the politics of any of its member states.

Seehofer meets Orbán—a new direction for Europe?

Given the nature of the Union today, hardly can we critique the trend of Mr. Seehofer’s suggestions. But his analysis of the reasons for this necessity rings a false note. It gives one the distinct impression that the European Union has long been striving to secure its borders, but has, by some misfortune or handicap, simply been obstructed in this. Be it from excessive bureaucracy, or from the squabbling and incompetency of its various components, etc., this poor awkward beast just doesn’t know how to scratch itself clean of the fleas streaming upon it.

Now, even if this were true, it is surely most telling that the bureaucratic monster of the Union, which has for too long now had its thousand officious fingers in the pettiest details of Europe’s affairs (decrees imposing the kind of light-bulbs that can be utilized, decrees enforcing the use of pesticides by small farmers, and decrees regulating the curvature and size of the bananas and cucumbers sold in local markets, just to name a few gems), cannot pass even provisional measures on one of the most vital issues confronting any emergent state: border control.

These cucumbers don’t make the grade. Thank the gods that Brussels is concerning itself with the essential.

It is also difficult to understand how such a failure is possible. It is obviously not more difficult for the periphery states of Europe to defend that limited portion of their borders adjacent to non-European nations, than it is for them to defend all their borders—those internal and external to Europe both—as they are presently more and more often forced to do. The will to do so is not lacking in certain of these countries; several of them  (Austria and Belgium, for instance) have already suspended Schengen in order to face immigration on their own terms; and several of the major periphery states (e.g., Poland, Hungary, Greece, and Italy) have demonstrated at least a sporadic resolve to protect Europe’s southern gates. But when has Europe ever aided these efforts, in speech, money, or deed?

In point of fact, the European Union has never so much as attempted to defend its borders, and has to the contrary done everything possible to keep them open as a barn door for whatever homeless beasts might care to settle in the straw. It has insisted time and time again on dividing immigrants equitably throughout Europe (doing absolutely nothing, in the meanwhile, to aid those countries which are overwhelmed by their initial arrival), without ever setting forth even the most proposal for staunching the flow in the long run. And most damning of all, on all those occasions that any European country has attempted to unilaterally manage its “migrant crisis” (an intolerable European euphemism for abetted colonization), the Union has been swift to attack them for it.

But a few examples. When Orbán first began to refuse waves on waves of aliens from the South, did the Union ever so much as suggest that Hungary’s protection of European borders might be a boon to anyone involved? Or again, when Italian Prime Minister Gentiloni decided last year to close Italian ports to non-Italian NGO boats, who else was it but the European bureaucrats to call this a breach of European regulation? (Fortunately for everyone, that crisis was tidily resolved when one George Soros flew down for a little chat with Gentiloni, who suddenly and mysteriously changed his mind.) Or finally, when the migrant crisis really hit its stride in Europe some few years ago, where was it that Europe immediately began to allocate its funds? To stronger and more efficient border checks in Italy, in Greece, or in Hungary? But hardly. It funneled all its money into building so-called “refugee centers,” preparing measures for “assimilation” and easing the path for the burdened feet of these swarthy hordes.

The guiding tendency of the European Union really aligns rather nicely with the globalist project of certain extraordinarily powerful, and unfortunately extraordinarily wealthy, men, who are themselves neither bureaucrats nor even politicians, who seek nothing in this world but their own profit, and who most evidently find their profit to lie precisely in the European Union’s borderlessness. It is not an accident that the man whose face heads this article (which man, the reader will ask?) has penned numerous articles promoting open borders and unlimited immigration, and has himself funded many of the same NGO ships which, as is demonstrated again and again, really work as ferry services to African “refugees.” The Union, in all of this, is either incompetent or complicit.

Most conveniently for the “drowning refugees” of the Mediterranean, this ONG recently arranged an appointment with a vessel of African immigrants in Libyan waters. Soon they will not even bother to pretend they are anything but taxis.

We therefore cannot help but be pleased that Germany has even mentioned the possibility of suspending Schengen. Germany in everything it does makes a strong precedent, one that in this case might serve as a powerful tool in the hands of the growing nationalist currents throughout Europe. Euroskeptics would also be happy to see the European behemoth take another, and in this case very bitter, blow; and those who believe that the European Union must not be obliterated so much as remade, might perceive certain possibilities opening thanks to this temporary rupture in the European fabric.

Yet caution is warranted: there was even an article published by a certain, to our eyes thoroughly disreputable, organization known as the “Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,” (a saccharine mouthful, to be sure), which argued that a Union-wide suspension of the Schengen Agreement is actually a means for salvaging Europe and forcing its member states to “work together to deal with the migration crisis.” It is not hard to see why. Immigration is at present the major engine of populist dissatisfaction. Taking the edges off that dissatisfaction now in order to preserve and continue its hidden causes, is no doubt at the top of the priorities for those who really rule in this world.

This is a danger I have mentioned before in the context of the Italian elections, and it is one I will surely mention again: namely, the danger that we succeed a quarter of the way in attaining our vision—just enough to dull the populist spur, and to bring the smothering blanket of blind complacency back down upon our people, thereby guaranteeing the long-term victory precisely of those who would destroy us.

Needless to say, this is hardly a call to cease fighting; it is merely a reminder that our own arms, if we are not wakeful in their use, can be turned against us. We must hone our instinct for where the true center of gravity lies in today’s politics, which is not often easy to uncover in the moralistic pomposity and misleading pretensions to transparency which characterize the democratic regime. We must hone this instinct, I say, both in ourselves and in each other; for only as we understand the true “order” of today’s political regime, can we ever succeed in bringing reasonable opposition against it, or preparing ourselves for any opportunities that might arise for us on occasions like the present.

Simple advice toward that end: read your Machiavelli.

John Bruce Leonard
John Bruce Leonard, Editor-in-Chief of Arktos, studied philosophy, letters, and languages in a university curriculum based exclusively on the great books of the Western Tradition. After taking his degree in Liberal Arts he moved permanently to Italy, where he nourishes his ever-living preoccupation with the heritage and the future of Europe.


    • I cannot find such an error in the present article… Perhaps you have misread “But hardly”?

  • More great work by J.B. Leonard, thank you. A quote from Machiavelli, which resonates with Richard’s recent videos/interviews: “Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times.”

    • Basically have no honor and be a hypocrite who goes by what is socially acceptable and forgets a virtue when it isn’t convenient ?

      • “Going by what is socially acceptable” is a novel criticism to make of the Alt-Right.

        If only we had some people rebelling against the mainstream.

        Alas, the true nonconformists are the ruling class — those bald, homosexual, jewish, totalitarian billionaires fightin’ The Man! The courage to get AIDS and take your meds is the last stand of implicit revolutionary zeal. Remember this.

      • Rather: do not permit fanciful and moralistic idealism to blind you to the harsh realities of political life—a precept which, to judge by your posts, you yourself most readily adhere to, North African.

        As for honor, it is a principle of honor itself to treat scoundrels as scoundrels—and the “men” who rule us are by and large scoundrels. That is easier and better done from a position of power; we must make do with the means at our disposal.

        To be sure, you identify the principal danger in Machiavellianism: it can degenerate into hollow pragmatism and virtueless realpolitik. We should take Machiavelli in a “Machiavellian” spirit—employing that part of him which is of service to us, rejecting that which compromises us.

        • ” We are pragmatic , we are men of action , we don’t let ourselves be chained by some perfectionist , unattainable ideal “.
          Benito Mussolini

  • This is unrelated…

    I am a musician. I went to school for a while as a music major. I am an exceedingly good bass player. Here is an example of my playing:

    I want to start a music group with alt-right minded musicians. I know enough about music theory to play anything you would write. I want to be challenged , though; I am technically skilled and knowledgeable enough to play basically whatever I want, so I don’t want to spend too much time playing boring quarter note rhythms in 4/4 while staring at my shoes. E-mail me or dm me through SoundCloud if you’re interested.

    • Although I admire jermand’s ability to pluck on a bass player, I still don’t find this masterpiece a virtuosity. The problem with this kind of music is that it is not based on European roots. The so-called Blues scale originates from the Negro culture, supported by Jewish record producers. “Freejazz”, for example, stands out for its, chaos, lack of structure, disharmony and atonality. Whether the concern for a white identity is reflected by and expressed in it is rather questionable. White European aesthetic should therefore be based more on classical music or traditional folk music.

    • I am always amazed at how artists of the right spectrum confuse their listening habits with reality. There are Alt-Right-Hip-Hoppers, whose expression is the same as that of black rappers from the ghetto. Only the content of the words is different. For whites who don’t understand English, it’s not even clear that they are not Negroes or Negro imitators.

    • Whenever Jared Taylor claims Negroes are “musically superior” to Europeans
      (as he did recently in an interview with the Israeli) I think: “Are you fooling me?”

    • Genealogy with DNA test: all nonsense?

      Genetic research is booming. Since the very emotional viral video of a large travel search engine, more and more people want to find out where they come from. But what are the real benefits of these tests?

      It sounds amazingly simple: Simply wipe the mouth with a cotton swab, insert the cotton swab into a tube and send it to one of the many companies that offer DNA genealogy as a service.

      For example, they are called “My Heritage”, “23andMe”, “ancestry” or “iGENA”. Their promise: to discover their own history. Prices vary between 69 and 1279 euros.

      The result in the viral video: A nationally proud Briton who doesn’t like Germans is 5 percent German. A Kurd that Turkey does not like has ancestors in the Caucasus. Surprising. But what exactly does that mean?

      DNA tests have no scientific value

      It doesn’t sound so difficult to determine a person’s origin. In laboratories, the personal genome in saliva is broken down and compared with a huge DNA database around the world. By finding commonalities in the DNA sequence, you can find out where your ancestors lived.

      This is exactly the point Mark Stoneking takes a critical view. He is professor at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in the Department of Evolutionary Genetics: “These data are not realistic, but model-based. You have a certain number of reference DNA and the allocation of the origin is then done according to the principle:’We allocate as it is most likely’. The percentages are only an approximate estimate and should not be taken too seriously,” he explains in an interview with our editorial staff.

      A good example of this inaccuracy is the beginning of DNA genealogy, shortly after the human genome was completely sequenced in 2001.

      “When the first of these tests were carried out 15 years ago, it was found that about ten percent of Europeans were descended from Native Americans. That’s actually impossible. Later it was discovered that these ancestors were of Asian origin. You didn’t have all the data back then, so you took the one that fits you best. This is inaccurate,” says Prof. Stoneking.

      He himself has never taken such a test because it is not of scientific value to him.

      Of course, the number of reference persons and thus the accuracy increases with each person who has such a test done. According to the company, “iGENA” is the largest company for DNA analysis and now has 850,000 customer profiles. Most of them come from Europe. The more exotic the own origin is, the less accurate the results become.

      Knowledge of only a fraction of our ancestors

      The number of our ancestors increases exponentially the longer you go back. Everyone has two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents and so on. DNA genealogists offer to go back thousands of years in their own history. If you go back only 500 years, i.e. about 30 generations, you already have a billion ancestors.

      But one does not learn about everyone, but only about two lines: that of the mother and that of the father. That leaves out just under a billion people.

      Afterwards just as clever as before

      Of course, it is surprising when a German finds out that 20 percent of you come from Scandinavia or the Mediterranean. On closer inspection, however, this is logical.

      People have always enjoyed wandering around, conquering foreign worlds and, of course, reproducing in the distance.

      “If you go back a few thousand years, we all have relatives together. Man is only 350,000 years old. We don’t have a long history as a species. And although we all look different, we are genetically closely related,” explains Prof. Stoneking in conversation with our editorial staff.

      I am descended from the Vikings. And now?

      Mark Thomas, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics at the University Collage in London, has dismissed DNA genealogy in the “Guardian” as “genetic astrology”. But it’s not that simple. Sebastian Markett, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the Humboldt University in Berlin, believes that one should not downplay the influence of such results on people:

      “We want to explain why we are the way we are. This is an emotional need of man. We compare ourselves to friends and often see what we make worse. We want to explain why I’m more scared, less athletic. And although the genetic tests are inaccurate, I can make up a nice story about it. Whether it’s true is different. But that can also do you good and give you strength,” he explains in conversation with our editorial staff.

      Human beings are shaped 50 percent by genes

      It is sometimes even true that people seek their identity in genes. The question of whether we are more influenced by our environment or our genes is a very old one in psychological research.

      “There is no denying that genetics has any influence on us. Psychology has long argued about how much influence genes and how much influence environmental factors have. Now we know: Genetic factors influence our behaviour and our personality to about 50 percent,” explains Professor Markett.

      However, the results of a DNA test should also be considered with caution. In the viral video, one participant says that racism doesn’t really make sense because we are all somehow genetically connected. That sounds very romantic at first, but according to Professor Markett it can also turn around.

      “If I do a DNA test and it says I’m five percent Scandinavian, then I don’t know exactly what genes I got. And we don’t know exactly what that means either. You’re quickly confronted with stereotypes that you associate with an ethnic group, and that’s already dangerous,” he explains.

      So these tests have their justification and can help in personality development, but you should accept them calmly and not over-interpret them.

    • Give all your personal data to Facebook, and all your genetic data to 23andme.

      Never mind that Facebook is Zuckerberg, and that 23andme was cofounded by the wife of Sergei Brin. They only want to help you to have fun and feel good. Here, have a refugee with your cheeseburger.

  • Action that is not aligned with the goals of the ruling class is impossible in the indirect democracies of the West. The liberal world order is simply a hypocritical dictatorship. It’s a machine designed to tame the will of the people and delay actions against the regime. I remember Merkel herself stating that migration policies had failed many times during her rule, only to let in millions of antagonistic invaders a few months later. We need immediate action and should be regarding anyone issuing vague claims, promises and flatteries as defacto enemies.

    • Very true. There is little to be hoped for from democratic politics, and to sit about twiddling our thumbs in wait for the next election is simply suicidal. You make an excellent point in this connection, that the system at present encourages, and feeds off of, our deferring action to the next day, or month, or year; we must not fall into this trap.

      The problem, of course, is that “immediate action,” despite its pleasant ring, is inherently unclear. The question is always—what kind of action? Organized how? And toward what concrete end? For we all agree that certain kinds of action are simply destructive to our cause, or wasteful of our energies.

      It seems to me that for the present we can do no better than unite our forces: action in the sense of organization, consolidation, and preparation. Action like that carried out by Identity Evropa and similar associations is also indispensible at present, as well as action toward encouraging as many people as possible to move, both ideologically and practically, in our direction.

      But perhaps you have some other idea regarding what action we might take?

      • Activism is certainly invaluable as a way to rally as many people as we can. The problem we face further down the road is that democratic power is reduced to how many potential votes one can muster in order to obtain or keep the reins of government. Crude demographics make it so our prospects of making it into positions of power via this system are already minimal and dwindle further every day. As you say, without direction or plausible results, any action is more or less pointless.

        Without numbers I believe we only have two other realistic ways to accomplish our goals from within our existing geopolitical structures. Power through money or power through force. In the short term that would mean either attracting parties with resources large enough to create our own lobbies to enact policies from behind the scenes or having loyal members positioned in military and intelligence organizations. Or preferably both. That would no doubt require a high degree of secrecy and centralization in the movement but I think it’s very much necessary. In other words, I think we need to be very jewish indeed.

        • Could not agree more, RestoreSanity. As many clandestine elements as we can arrange in the upper reaches, and a solid, resistant, heirarchical structure below, powerful enough to resist should the sky fall, and surrounded by as wide a cushion of popular support as we can muster.

          We should work simultaneously from the “bottom up and the top down,” as the good Mr. Soros (who would know a thing or two about such matters) likes to do.

          • Insightful post, John Bruce Leonard — enough food for thought to give one acid reflux, ha.

            You’ve pinpointed the general raison d’être for these types of half-hearted attempts at half measures. The complacency blanket could use a good wash as it’s been in constant use over the years, sometimes intentionally but often inadvertently — the political reality provides its own unique wet blanket; it breeds complacency by smoothing out the edges enough to placate while extinguishing hopes for ‘reasonable’ solutions.

            Complacency paired with a sound bite sized collective attention span creates a malleable middle too weak to organize and act in any meaningful way, and, really, too distracted to care. This is a generalization, obviously. You took the words out of my mouth — “top down and bottom up.”

            RestoreSanity hits the nail on the head by mentioning the need for resources, behind the scenes action, infiltration, etc. All of the above plus a range of things at the tactical level that we probably aren’t thinking about are needed. It boils down to resources. My best guess, though, is that some of these things implicitly and, certainly, explicitly take time to workout in even the most ideal situations.

            Populism isn’t going away in spite of token measures. Much of the damage has been done…the funny thing about protectionism and anti-immmigration measures is that they will incentivize more automation, which will incentivize the government and Silicon Valley to get out of the human import trade — and that can work in reverse as well, starting with automation. That’s a tangent….

            To your point on the center of gravity — this is a radical/spiritual organization that IMO (not that my opinion matters) can only be radical/spiritual. Yes, spiritual — the cultural/spiritual dimensions are much more important than differentiating IQ, etc.

            Great article.

  • Stephen Pinker….another ROOTLESS COSMOPOLITAN KHARZAR BLOODSUCKING TAPEWORM PARASITE who expresses GENOCIDAL INTENT towards The Historic Native Born White American Majority Working Class…..

    • Denis why so you always post the same stuff about the historic native born white working class men of America and shit ?
      It’s getting redundant.

      • Agreed, this is preaching to the choir. If one wants to stand on a soapbox and spread copypasta about White Genocide (i.e. Bob Whitaker’s “The Mantra”), they should do it on the front-lines at Twitter, Facebook and Gab. Not to discredit such proclamations, but you really should know your audience, this one here has heard it plenty but the ones out there haven’t!

        • Keep the public Alt Right rap simple…lean… mean….easy to process….to win this battle we don’t need ponderous…plodding…”deep” analysis…

          Do you want to give up your favorite rock you stand on at the shoreline in October fishing for stripped bass….to 100 Korean “Americans” who have discovered the joy of stripped bass fishing under the moonlight at Montauk…

          NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS INTERESTS are they only thing that matters……this is how you expose in full public view the GENOCIDAL INTENT of the Antifa…Steven Pinker….Noam Chomsky…and the majority nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc…..And this is the fear of our enemy…and the only reason for the social media deplatforming…and the collusion of ANTIFA and University Presidents to use violence against the Alt Right at Michigan State and Charlottesville….The enemy fears the mobilization of millions of young NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS MALES….

          • Because a convoluted argument about Koreans, moonlight, and Montauk is clear. Just as clear as long phrases such as “American Born Native White Working Class Chinese Immigrant Exclusion Act” and “majority nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc.”

            In any case, this site is not principally for the general public; it’s for the vanguard. As Based_WHITE_Man suggested, please address normies on,, Facebook, Twitter, and Breitbart.

            You were already permabanned from Steve Sailer’s sites (all three of them), and others, for spamming your Kindergarten-tier junk. Spencer is extraordinarily tolerant, but you might be pushing your luck again. I advise you to concentrate on the more popular websites I listed.

  • Yes Europe can change it’s face, the new face shall be black. Since dumb leftist women welcome them with open arms ( fuck you Sweden ) and Europe will take the You + Rope option and commit suicide. ( Get it ? Eu ( you ) + rope ) unless Soros and his Jewish thugs are stopped.

Leave a Reply