The Failure of Multiculturalism in Polish Ukraine

Also posted at The Occidental Observer



Mykola Pymonenko – To War!

We are often told today that multiculturalism, that is to say a state made up of a diversity of peoples, is a great strength. No, it is in fact our greatest strength! To state any concerns or criticisms, no matter how mild, is seen as sacrilegious.

However, the opposite is true and throughout history where there are many examples of diverse and multicultural societies falling into discord and strife. The focus of this piece will be on a place that has been praised in hindsight for its liberalism and tolerance: the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania.

Poland-Lithuania came into being after the 1569 Treaty of Lublin when the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were unified and made into one country. Prior to this, in the 1385 Union of Krewo, the two were linked in a personal union under the reigning Lithuanian monarch. Before 1569 what are now Belarus and the bulk of Ukraine[i] were also part of the Grand Duchy, which was the largest European country at the time. As per the 1569 treaty, however, Ukraine was handed over to Poland, thus setting the stage for a violent future of ethnic conflict.

The Polish nobility or szlachta was used to a high degree of autonomy which only became greater after the old Lithuanian Jagellonian dynasty died out. After this occurred, the monarchy was elected and became increasingly subservient to the nobles. The szlachta, it should be noted, was not entirely ethnically Polish. It would come to include Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other non-Polish noble houses that Polonized to such an extent that they may as well have been ethnically Polish. Examples of the power to which the nobility held include their ability to bring back serfdom (so-called neo-serfdom) and a 1518 law which stated that the king could not accept in his royal courts complaints of subjects on noble land, giving the nobility a free hand. Nobles eventually gave themselves power to introduce corvée labour, seize peasant land and the peasants working it.[ii]

Yet all was not well with the nobility during the years leading up to the tumultuous seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,

 Perceptive foreigners… saw, for instance, that the much vaunted freedom of the szlachta, which gave Poland the reputation of being one of the freest states in the world, rested on the complete deprivation of rights and enslavement of all the other classes of the population, that along with the unlimited freedom of the nobles, the burgesses were deprived of all participation in political life, hampered in their economic development, and shut within the walls of the towns. Parliamentarianism was flourishing in Poland, but alongside it, the executive was powerless to function. … The royal power was rigidly limited, and all decisions were made by the powerful ruling classes of nobles. This class, moreover, was degenerating. The Polish nobles had lost their former chivalrous and fighting spirit. They were corrupted by wealth and had lost their former energy which could now be aroused only to fight for privileges against real or imaginary attacks by the royal power.[iii]

Not only were they corrupted by vice and power, but the szlachta had ceased to see themselves as having any relation to the people they ruled over. The nobility had developed, from the sixteenth century on, an ideology known as Sarmatianism, which erroneously said szlachta were the descendants of Sarmatians, a steppe people originating in what is now southern Russia. Importantly, szlachta saw themselves as ethnically distinct from even the Polish peasants.[iv] It also came to view Roman Catholicism as the only true form of Christianity. Such an ideology was bound to create sharp social divisions but especially with their Ukrainian subjects. This was to have a great and terrible impact on the Commonwealth in the mid-late seventeenth century.

Poland-Lithuania was by the standards of the time, incredibly tolerant and liberal towards religious matters. However, in practice Orthodox Christianity was generally not afforded the same rights and privileges as other Christian sects or even the Jews, who of course, are not a purely religious group but an ethnic one as well. For example, Jesuits managed to push through an Act of Union in 1596 which made the Orthodox church (which was almost exclusively the church of Ukrainians) part of the Catholic Church, thus creating the Uniate Church. However, most Orthodox priests refused to adhere to this.[v] It was only in 1632 that Orthodoxy was legally recognized, but by then the Ukrainian population had been split between Uniate and Orthodox and a great number had fled to Russia.

The role of Jewry in society was an important factor in the mass violence of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries so it is worth briefly explaining their situation in society.

Jews first came en masse into Poland at the behest of king Bolesław III in the 1090s. Jews were given the freedom to form their own self-government as well as privileges concerning religious festivals, restrictions, et al. Poland was for centuries the home to the largest Jewish community in Europe and was even called a Jewish Paradise —paradisus Iudaeorum. Much economic competition existed between them and Christians, but competition also existed between native Christians and foreign Christians who had also been allowed to settle in Poland-Lithuania. The countryside was largely homogenous but the towns and cities hosted a bewildering array of nationalities from as far afield as Scotland to the west and Armenia to the east.

The city dwellers, divided amongst themselves and politically impotent, were the major bearers of anti-Jewish animus. However, as long as there were also a bewildering variety of other national groups pursuing occupations similar to those of the Jews, this animus was somewhat diffused.[vi]

Multiculturalism, then as now, diluted any major outbreaks of anti-Semitism. However, conflicts did arise as a result of economic competition and attempts were made by individual townships to restrict Jews. But on the whole Poland-Lithuania was incredibly welcoming to and tolerant of Jews and this remained so even after the nobles had usurped all powers from the monarchy. In fact, they were to enhance Jewish power and privilege in Polish Ukraine.

Landowners wanted to exploit resources, but had little interest in administrating their lands or developing commercial skills. Instead they preferred to “cultivate their luxurious habits and cultural pursuits.”[vii] Thus they turned to Jews who had both the money and experience. The Jews acted as intermediaries and agents on the vast estates of the nobility and they rented and leased flour mills, breweries, markets, inns and ferries (among other services), “exacting heavy duties, and exhibiting great ingenuity in inventing ever-new methods of squeezing fresh tolls and taxes out of the population.”[viii] Not only were Jews looked upon with contempt for their professions but for how they acted in these professions; they readily exploited the masses for their own gain as much as for the aloof szlachta.

There was one group, however, that sided with the Ukrainian masses. This group were the Cossacks. Cossacks were people who had a semi-nomadic lifestyle and were ruled by a Sich or commune of elected elders. They responded to Tatar and Turkish raids with raiding of their own; including naval assaults upon Anatolia.



Jozef Brandt – Cossack Wedding

The Polish nobles detested the Cossacks who answered only to the king and therefore wished to curb the power of the Cossacks, to make them as readily pliable as serfs. The Ukrainians were ruled over by an elite that was foreign to the masses; they had their religion attacked; had their defenders, the Cossacks, condemned; and of course had to put up with a nepotistic ethno-religious group that eagerly exploited them with full support of the nobility. It was only a matter of time before violence erupted.

In 1648 Bohdan Khmelnytsky, a leading Cossack, had his estate plundered, his son killed and his mistress abducted by a neighbouring noble. This event led to Khmelnytsky and his fellow Cossacks to launch a rebellion against the Poles. Khmelnytsky is not believed to have wanted independence, but that is clearly how many Ukrainians saw the rebellion. The revolt was highly popular throughout Ukraine — for example, “the whole of the province of Kyiv rose to a man.”[ix] The revolt quickly led to ethnic cleansing, as the largely Ukrainian peasantry burned down the landowners’ manors and plundered their possessions, killing them and those associated with them; of course the nobles weren’t Ukrainian; they were all Poles or Ukrainians who were so Polonized that they may as well have been Poles. Catholic clergy were also killed and so too were Jews.

The Jews in particular were targeted by the rebels who finally felt able to release their pent-up hatred and frustration at Jewish oppression. It is believed that upwards to one million people were killed or forced to flee the region because of the violence. Thousands of them were Jews.


 It is believed that the Jews provoked the special hatred of the population by their petty, mean exploitation as collectors of all sorts of tolls and taxes, and as dishonest vendors of necessities at exorbitant prices.[x]


Khmelnytsky’s Revolt lasted for nine years and was a major reason for the so-called Deluge period of Polish history. Khmelnytsky’s memory is a mixed one in the minds Ukrainians who have both lauded him as a hero and condemned him as a traitor. He is known to have allied with the Crimean Tatars and given them free reign over much of the Ukraine in search of slaves to sell in the Turkish market. Perhaps more importantly, he brought Moscow into Ukrainian affairs after the signing of the Pereyaslav treaty in 1654, which the Russians interpreted as meaning the Cossacks were swearing allegiance to them. In the end, the revolt saw the splitting of Cossack territory between Poland and Moscow, which had used the uprising as a chance to intercede in Polish affairs.

In what remained of Polish Ukraine it was not long before life went back to how it had been prior to 1648. This included the system of governance. Poles resurrected their old system of governance in Ukraine, except this time the number of noble families with true power was limited to a small handful who had survived the trials of the Deluge and were now engaged in internal power struggles.[xi] The flight of Ukrainians eastwards and the end of Cossack influence made it easier to impose Catholicism[xii] and for the nobles to once again act with impunity. This meant, yet again, that Jews were brought in as tax-farmers, agents on noble land, etc., much to the consternation of the locals.

During the eighteenth century another rebellion occurred as a result of the actions of the Polish elite and Jews — the Haidamak rebellion. This rebellion, however, was generally more of a low-level guerrilla-style conflict, although major battles did occur such as the Siege of Uman in 1768, which resulted in the massacre of Poles and Jews by the victorious Haidamaky Cossacks. The Haidamaky used Russian territory as a base of operations to conduct their attacks and this inevitably resulted in a diplomatic row. The Haidamak revolt was put down in 1769 when a group of Haidamaky had raided Ottoman territory. The Turks threatened war with Russia over this, so the Russians decided not only to stop assisting the rebels, but to help the Poles crush them. The reason the Haidamaky had crossed into Turkey? They were chasing a group of Jews.[xiii]

After 1795, Poland-Lithuania ceased to exist, having been partitioned for the third and final time by Prussia, Austria and Russia. Its Ukrainian territories were split between the Russians and the Austrians. Life remained the same as it had for centuries. However, there were to be no major outbreaks of violence involving ethnic cleansing in either Austrian or Russian Ukraine. The reasons for this are as follows:

In the Austrian zone the szlachta’s powers were broken and they were brought under royal control (although Polish nobility continued to rule the area). In 1781 Austrian Emperor Joseph II ended serfdom, although aspects of it were brought back by his successor and peasantry continued to live in poverty, this was seen as a great accomplishment by the peasants.[xiv] The monarchy was shown to be an effective force that could intervene on the behalf of Ukrainians. After 1848 the monarchy even went so far as to actively promote Ukrainian national consciousness as a way of countering Polish nationalism. It helped, too, that most Ukrainians in Austria were Uniate and Joseph II gave Uniate church the same rights as mainstream Catholicism which even the Poles had not done.[xv] However, a short-lived bout of violence did occur in 1846 but it was more akin to the earlier Cossack and Haidamak uprisings in that it largely targeted Poles and not the Austrian government (which reacted to the rebellion by finally abolishing serfdom).

As for the hated Jews, Joseph II wanted to fully assimilate Jewry and so he made them liable for military service, got rid of their separate system of governance, made them pay the same taxes as everyone else and use German instead of Yiddish. Restrictions on movement and ability to serve in certain professions remained, however.[xvi] Thus, it appeared the Jewish problem was being solved by a liberal policy of integration combined with mechanisms to lower competition with Jews.

In the Russian zone the shared Orthodoxy of Russians and Ukrainians greatly helped and so did the destruction of the szlachta system. However, serfdom remained in force until the 1860s and the power of the Cossacks in Russia was destroyed in the Great Northern War (1700–1721). The Russians relied on autocracy to keep everyone in line and increasingly on Russification. Though this caused resentment, it did not lead to outright rebellion. No doubt it helped that the Russians, too, appeared to be solving the Jewish problem. As in Austria, the Jews lost much of their previous power and their separate system of governance. There were also restrictions on where Jews could settle. Under Russian rule, Jewry were largely kept under control at first but eventually the same problems erupted although in a far less violent or dramatic way. The so-called Pale of Settlement (i.e., the area where the vast majority of Jews could legally live) was largely in Ukraine and it was here that the highly exaggerated pogroms of the late nineteenth century would occur.

In both cases it should be noted that foreign rule was tolerated but it was not fully accepted. As soon as the empires began to crumble, Ukrainians were quick to declare independence. Even in the Hapsburg lands where, as explained earlier, there was greater cultural autonomy.

Multiculturalism failed in Poland-Lithuania, just as it did later on in Austria-Hungary and indeed has throughout history. The Polish case is especially interesting as it is often held up today as an example of a great multicultural state where the various disparate groups lived in peace and harmony. Reality, on the other hand, is much different, especially when it comes to the Ukrainian portions.

It is interesting to note the behaviour of the non-Jewish elites. Then, as now, they looked only at what would benefit themselves and completely cut any ties they had with the masses. The major difference between Polish Ukraine and the situation in the Occident today is that the elites were a foreign ethnie. Generally speaking, our (non-Jewish) elites are ethnically the same as the majority.

We can see similar connections today, again to the detriment of the majority. It is also interesting to note that multiculturalism failed for a people who today are its most prominent supporters: Jewry.

Another point to note is how there could be so much slaughter and violence between not only Ukrainians and Jews but Ukrainians and Poles. Both are Slavs, both are White, both are Christian. Advocates of multiracial states are incredibly short-sighted as they ignore the many incidences of intra-racial violence yet expect inter-racial societies to work out just fine.

[i]Crimea and the southern portions of Ukraine were at this time under control of the Turks and Tatars. The Russians eventually wrested these lands away from the Muslims in the 18th century.

[ii]Paul Robert Magocsi, A History of Ukraine. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 1996. Page 143

[iii]Dmytro Doroshenko, A Survey of Ukrainian History. Trident Press Limited. Winnipeg. 1975. Page 214

[iv]Adam Zamoyski, A History of Poland.  HarperPress, London. 2009. Page 94

[v]Ibid. 139

[vi]Gershon Hundert, “The Implications of Jewish Economic Activities for Christian-Jewish Relations in the Polish Commonwealth,” The Jews in Poland ed. By Chimen Abramsky, Maciej Jachimczyck and Anthony Polansky. Page 62

[vii]Paul Robert Magocsi, A History of Ukraine. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 1996. Page 147

[viii]Dmytro Doroshenko. 216

[ix]Ibid. 221

[x]Ibid. 223

[xi]Ibid. 486

[xii]Paul Robert Magocsi. 293

[xiii]Doroshenko. 498

[xiv]Magocsi. 391

[xv]Ibid. 398

[xvi]Ibid. 394

Posted in Europe, History | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Danes Lead the Way?

Also posted at Identity Forum


Dannebrog falling from the sky during the battle of Lyndanisse, Christian August Lorentzen


Sweden has become rather notorious in right-wing circles of late. Their quest to become the progressive jewel in the crown of the EU has led them to become a joke in the eyes of many, with the ‘Captain Sweden and ‘Sweden Yes’ memes being good examples. It is a shame that a country which could produce men like Gustav II Adolf could become a nation ruled by people who become upset when they realise they can only play host to so many Somali and Arab migrants. Sweden is much like Canada or Germany in this regard. Although, in all fairness, the dynamics are quite different. Germany is in a stranglehold, supposedly indebted, endlessly apologetic, and crumbling under the weight of the greatest guilt complex in Europe. Canada, meanwhile, anxious to atone for its own colonial origins, finds solace in PR campaigns designed to promote itself as niceness and humility incarnate. Indeed, Justin Trudeau, a man with maple syrup for blood, makes the job a fair bit easier. Sweden carries a much lighter load. Pure as its own driven snow, this is a nation at the bottom of the list for finger pointers, and yet it insists on outdoing everyone else in the competition of self-destructive tolerance.

In Norway, another nation subject to only a small measure historical grievances, constitutional monarch Harald V recently decided to (perhaps, under duress) declare his support for the usual policies of multiculturalism, endless mass immigration, feminism, LGBT pandering, so on and so forth.

However, not everything is so bleak in Scandinavia, as Sweden’s historical rival and Norway’s former master, Denmark, appear to have taken some positive steps forward.

Unlike her Norwegian counterpart, Queen Margrethe of Denmark has made attempts to stand against the tide with an air of skepticism. Among other comments, she has stated that not all immigrants are capable of integration, that attitudes regarding integration had been naive, and that merely living in Denmark does not make one a Dane. Despite the factual nature of these of statements, such views are nonetheless considered radical in the current political-cultural climate. And now, this past week, the Danish parliament has done something that neighbouring nations would consider blasphemous. The Folketing (Denmark’s unicameral parliament) has just passed a resolution against the prospect of Danes becoming minorities in their own neighbourhoods.


Proposal to adopt

The Parliament notes with concern that today there are areas in Denmark, where the proportion of immigrants and descendants from non-Western countries is over 50 per cent. The Folketing believes that Danes should not become a minority in their neighbourhoods.

The government and parliament have implemented a number of austerity measures that have limited asylum flows significantly, and which prevents parallel societies.

Parliament calls on the government to proceed with a political objective to reduce the number of asylum seekers and the number of family reunification, coming to Denmark.

Adopted 55 votes for the proposal (DF, V, LA, KF) 54 votes against the proposal (S, EL, ALT, RV, SF) 0 votes either for or against the proposal.

Denmark, much like Sweden and its other neighbours, has borne the brunt of the failed multiracial and multicultural project. Back in 2010, over half of all rape convictions in the country were handed to individuals of foreign origin (immigrants or the descendants of), with Iraqis, Iranians, Turks and Somalis represented in high numbers. Denmark has also claimed a podium alongside Sweden as one of Europe’s top rape capitals. A recent Copenhagen police report show that out of 2,633 criminals who went before a judge, 2,049 were foreign (roughly four-fifths). Another 2016 report indicates that where welfare is concerned, 84% of all claimants were reported to be migrants of “non-Western origin”, representing around 8% of the population and claiming one-third of all benefits).

This recent declaration, of course, should be seen as rather mundane. That is, something to be expected. However, given our current situation, such a resolution becomes radical. We are told that there are no differences between native and foreigner and that anyone can be a Dane, a German, or a European in general, regardless of one’s racial, cultural and religious backgrounds. Humanity is just one mass of fungible elements. Indeed, this resolution has proven controversial with leftists and liberals in Denmark who detest the thought of a distinction being made between those whose ancestors have been in Denmark for thousands of years and recent arrivals from half a world away.

The word ‘nation’ comes from the Latin, meaning “… birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe…”, and it is high time we remembered this definition. There is much more in belong to a particular nation than legal status, language spoken, transient cultural and political attitudes, or a mere declaration of membership. By definition, the most unifying and obligatory of all factors is that of common ancestry. Of course, while blood inheritance is not an attribute that can be acquired, some outgroups may be able to adapt and operate with relative harmony depending on racial, cultural and religious backgrounds. However, this is not what our liberal-left overseers believe. It’s more than apparent that such truth evokes the worst of their hostilities, as such a thought threatens the very essence of their ideology. Many other ethnic groups receive respect and recognition as indigenous peoples, and such a status grants them a right to protect and conserve both themselves and their specific interests. Europeans, however, are not included under such a term.

One can only hope that Denmark, the same country that enraged both Muslims and Jews (not to mention terminally confused leftists) by banning Halal and Kosher slaughter, will succeed in many more pro-Danish endeavours. The Danes have made a small but vital step in the right direction. Perhaps they can serve as an example to the rest of us.

Posted in Denmark, Immigration | Tagged , , | Leave a comment


This past month I decided to see a film in theaters. I think the last time I did this was when I went to see Spectre. This time around I watched a far better film: Martin Scorsese’s Silence. I left the theater with much to contemplate and have been inspired by reviews from Counter Currents and E. Michael Jones to write this piece.

Some mainstream reviewers were critical of pacing and length but I do not fully agree. The movie did seem a little long and I feel would have been just as powerful if it had been cut down by maybe 10-20 minutes. For the most part, however, the pacing was fine. I certainly have no issues with the cinematography or writing. The acting, too, was mostly without fault. I still question the casting of Adam Driver but Andrew Garfield actually did a great job. I was skeptical at first of having him in this film but he pulled off his role.

Driver and Garfield play two 17th century Portuguese Jesuit priests (Francisco Garupe and Sebastião Rodrigues, respectively) who go to Japan in order to discover what happened to their mentor Cristóvão Ferreira (played by Liam Neeson). Ferreira had previously been sending secret reports concerning the persecution of Japanese Christians and his fellow Jesuits by the Japanese authorities.

This movie is in many ways quite a depressing one – although that hardly makes it a bad film, in fact I quite enjoyed it – and is not about reaffirming faith, Catholic or otherwise. I don’t think it is meant to be anti-Christian but unlike Johnson I wouldn’t call it pro-Christian either. I suppose it could be called Zen in that it just is. I don’t know much about Scorsese’s political beliefs but I don’t think this movie was meant to be overly political. Although his film The Last Temptation of Christ could be considered an anti-Christian movie (although Jones suggests this decision was largely done to get back in the graces of Hollywood which as everyone knows is overwhelmingly Jewish) I feel as if Scorsese is grappling with his true feelings towards Christianity and belief in general with Silence and ultimately goes for a heterodox spiritualist way of looking at belief and Christianity more specifically.

One wonders what a perennialist like Coomaraswamy or Eliade or Guénon would have thought of this film?

E. Michael Jones has a lot of interesting things to say concerning the context of the film and the novel it was based on. The novel was written by Shūsaku Endō, a Japanese Catholic and it was written in 1966, after Vatican II when the Church was facing a spiritual crisis and this impacted missionary work as well. As Jones states, “is there any logos here [outside the Occident]?…. is Christ basically a European phenomenon? Is he the White man’s god?” This is more or less what was going through the author’s mind when writing the novel. Was Scorsese thinking the same when making his film version?

An interesting question Silence brings up in relation to missionary work, is the issue of how missionaries view themselves. Rodrigues at one point looks at his reflection and sees instead an image of Christ and later when talking to Ferreira, Rodrigues is told of how the suffering of the converts is due to his greed and ambition. One wonders, then, to what extent many missionaries are truly doing their work for the correct spiritual reasons?

Although, arguably, Rodrigues seeing himself as Christ could be seen as Rodrigues failing to understand his true mission in Japan and thus questioning and undermining it. There are several parts where it does seem as if Rodrigues believes he has made a mistake in attempting to spread the faith and this could all be a divine test of Rodrigues’ faith. A test I believe Jones would say Rodrigues ultimately fails, as Jones believes the voice which compels Rodrigues to apostatize is not that of Christ but of Satan.

I am no expert on the Jesuit order but from what I hear they have had an impact on development of “liberation theology” and other progressive liberal dogmas dressed up as religion. Indeed, in this film they come across as liberal, one-world types whereas the Japanese are clearly nationalists. Most of the common folk have disdain for priests as much as the ruling samurai.

And going back to the questions Jones brought up concerning race and religion, in Silence we are witness to how the faith of the Japanese converts diverted markedly from mainstream Catholicism. For example, the character Kijichiro constantly blasphemes and commits acts of treachery towards his co-religionists but then asks for forgiveness. He doesn’t seem to understand how confession works or how to act as a Christian. One couple thinks baptism means that from there on out this life will be like the heavenly abode. Ferreira states many thought Jesus was actually the sun and that he dies and rises every day. Throughout the film some of the captions are not translated (kirishtian, paraiso) to show how converts weren’t fully able to grasp Christian concepts.

A great line which is uttered several times by Japanese characters is that not all seeds can be planted in all soils. Whether utopian, liberal minded people like it or not we are not all the same and it is ridiculous to think we can all be made to believe and act the same. Different people have differing faiths or when they do share the same religion, it is often differing conceptions of it. The faith is suited to fit the people who practice it. Foreign faiths and cultures only bring discord and dissent.

The review at Counter Currents concludes with this,

“From an Identitarian point of view, Silence is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, it is a story about the heroism and suffering of European Christians and their Japanese converts. And for all the film’s fair-mindedness toward the Japanese Inquisitor — itself a very white thing — Silence remains an essentially Christian film dedicated, at the end, to the greater glory of God. On the other hand, all my sympathies ultimately were with the Japanese, not because white is bad and non-white is good, but because their cunning and ruthless struggle against a colonizing universalism is the struggle of all white men today.”

Though the point about Silence being an ultimately Christian movie is debatable (Jones certainly thinks it isn’t) the rest is very true. No doubt Scorsese did not mean for this film to be taken from a pro-White angle as Johnson has done (and I am doing here) and would probably identify more with an anti-colonial, third wordlist angle if racial conflict were to have been an issue for him.

Earlier I stated that Silence is quite bleak, but it is also fulfilling in a way too, for if there is a positive message for those of us on the right it is how it affirms the fact that humanity is not one united, undifferentiated mass as mainstream films so often do. Whether Scorsese wanted it to or not, Silence justifies the struggle of all those who stand against internationalism.

Posted in Films/TV | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Justin Trudeau’s Two Best Friends: Aga Khan and Ahmed Hussen

Also published at the Council of European Canadians

Aga Kahn
Aga Kahn, or “The Magnificent Aga Kahn” as he self-identifies, or “His Highness” as Ismaili Muslims call him, is now close liaison and financial secret supporter of Justin’s mass immigration agenda

Recently at a town hall meeting in Calgary, our fearless leader, Mr. Current Year himself, was booed and met with hostile questions from the audience. Now granted this was in Calgary a city located in a province frequently condemned by the liberal elite in other provinces for supposedly being “far-right” and is often ridiculed for being filled with stupid, uneducated rednecks. Gosh I mean they are like Americans! Like oh my gaaawwd! However, Trudeau has been facing criticism from Canadians in general and even sympathetic sections more specifically.

He received some flak last spring after a strange incident in the House of Commons where he refused to let go of a Tory minister and pushed aside some NDP woman. Of course all the criticism was concerning the supposed pushing which was deemed sexist. However, a great many people came out in support of Trudeau and this incident was largely forgotten. But recently a whole new crop of controversies has sprung up to pester Trudeau. Then this past November Trudeau got himself in hot-water again when he praised recently deceased communist dictator Fidel Castro. That same month also saw criticism of Trudeau for his ties with wealthy Chinese.

Aga Khan

And now there is a new scandal. Apparently, this past Christmas holiday, Trudeau flew on a private jet to the Aga Khan’s — religious leader of the Ismail’i sect of Shia Islam — personal island in the Caribbean. This is scandalous as

  1. he received a free gift (in this case a vacation) from the founder and a director of an organization that is a federally registered lobbyist — as the Aga Khan is more than just a religious leader, he also has extensive charity and business interests and
  2. it is illegal for a minister to fly in a private aircraft. He is now under investigation by the ethics commissioner.

But one recent event I’m not seeing much criticism of is Trudeau’s cabinet shake-up. Well, some perhaps are questioning why he is making a woman who is blacklisted from visiting Russia as foreign minister; a woman who arguably isn’t emotionally stable and who also has a history of dubious trips abroad.

Ahmed Hussen

But we won’t see Trudeau getting attacked for his new Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. The new immigration minister is one Ahmed Hussen, a Somali refugee. Evidently, Hussen previously worked to push unwanted refugees on inhabitants of Toronto before becoming an MP. According to one Ben Cohen, Hussen has also worked to tackle extremism in Islamic community, but of course one wonders why bother importing people who have such predilection for extremism? Especially when second and third generations are more likely to become radicalised.

Ahmed Hussen
As Statistics Canada announces the country will be majority non-White before 2040, Justin Trudeau selects a Somali to advance the process and bring as many Africans as possible to replace Eurocanadians.

Now granted immigration is already bad and the previous minister of immigration was hardly competent despite being of founding stock. Given Trudeau’s support for mass migration and multiculturalism it is hardly as if Hussen will be going against the grain here; no doubt his views and Trudeau’s are the same so not as if he will go rouge here. However, Hussen is a symbol. He is supposed to show that Muslims, and more specifically Somalis, are just like us when in fact this is not so. It’s already well known how violent and uncompromising Islam is (though even if it weren’t we shouldn’t need to import Muslims, there is no reason to bring in masses of people so culturally different from founding peoples), but Somalis are particularly problematic. Somalis have a problem with gang violence and rape. Oh, and the women are complacent in Somali’s actual rape culture.

Well I suppose there has been criticism of Trudeau over his immigration policy from the mainstream, but it is that he isn’t doing enough! Although maybe that will be changing now that Trudeau is desperately signalling against Trump. Prior to Trump’s brilliant banning of “refugees” from Syria and travel restrictions from a series of countries well known as producers of violent Islamism, Canada was set to take in 300,000 immigrants (including 40,000 “refugees”). That number was no doubt always meant to be increased but now it certainly will be. Fun fact, Somalia is one of those seven countries Trump’s new executive order impacts.

Few if any journalists, politicians and others in the public eye seem too concerned with this development or news that by 2036 half of the population will likely be immigrants or children of immigrants if current immigration levels continue. And of course immigrants in this case overwhelmingly refers to Asians and Africans. Indeed, many are reveling in the fact that if current trends continue Euro-Canadians will be a minority in their own homeland. They know but simply don’t care that no one wanted multiculturalism or mass non-White immigration.

Hussen is a symbol of a new Canada that is primarily non-White and which our elites are so desperate to create to the detriment of the nation. It is also symbolic that Hussen was placed in this role, but then again perhaps it is positive that he is new immigration minister. It will show to the masses how immigration minister is not a gatekeeper, which of course, sadly, they haven’t been in a while.

Posted in Canada, Immigration, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Political Violence For Me But Not For Thee

On Friday the 20th Trump was sworn in as President of the United States and almost immediately we saw a return to political violence from the anti-Trump faction. Nothing new here they did this back in November when he won the election. In this most recent act of political violence more than 200 were arrested after starting fires, attacking private property (interestingly enough of companies and banks that had given money to Trump’s opponents! Hah way to bite the hand that feeds!) and insulted Trump supporters,

Families from flyover country were greeted to the nation’s capital with chants of “No Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA.” When short of breath, protestors opted for the more succinct, “Fuck Trump!” One activist even decided to lecture a young Republican, screaming “don’t grow up and grab women by the pussies!” before his father covered his ears.

Trump supporters were also attacked and indeed so too were members of the media! Again way to bite the hand that feeds! One of the victims of leftist violence was Richard Spencer. Attack on Spencer was a dirty move; the idiot caught Spencer off guard and immediately ran away after hitting him. Of course, this is justified by left. Riots also occurred at the University of Washington against Milo Yiannopoulos who is not in any way a nationalist let alone a “nazi.” The violence that erupted here included a shooting by a 50-year-old Asian male. Milo’s friends at the Deploraball were also attacked and harassed and again these people are hardly far-right. Same goes for the average Trump supporter at the inauguration.

Many on twitter – such as media personality Patton Oswalt – came out in support of political violence such as the attack on Spencer because it is against “nazis.” Still others have claimed they are against all forms of violence but that Spencer and even Trump and other tepid civic nationalists have it coming. Many were vindicating support for attack on Spencer by referencing WWII propaganda featuring Captain America and other superheroes beating up Germans. First off, that is hardly compelling evidence in their favour and secondly, given how wide a term “nazi” is to them fighting “nazis” cannot be called an American tradition. What is a “nazi” to these people? Richard Spencer certainly isn’t one. Being White Nationalist doesn’t mean being a national socialist necessarily; let alone a Hitlerite.

I have seen and heard libertarians and even bloody neocons called “nazis” and Bush, Romney and Harper were all compared to Hitler back when they were relevant. If you don’t share leftist views on gender or sexuality you are a “nazi” if you don’t share their political programme you are a “nazi” and if you are in any way pro-White, even implicitly than you are a “nazi.” And of course libertarianism and conservativism are implicitly White given that they grew out of the European political tradition and unlike other political theories have never until now cared about promoting third worldism or the like. The term has been so overused that is it meaningless now.

Essentially all they want is to use political violence for their own gain. Labeling their opponents as “nazis” is just a way of justifying to themselves the use of violence.


Richard Spencer moments before being sucker punched by cowardly tool. Notice the sign behind him. The left hates Whites


Left has always used violence or intimidation of some kind to get its way, going all the way back to the Jacobins and as it happens the left today is more violent than the right. This political violence is especially prominent in European countries like Sweden where ANTIFA and other such organizations have been far and away more extreme than their North American counterparts. And of course egalitarianism has lead to the most destructive and violent movement on earth: communism.

Funny how the left loves to talk of peace, love, tolerance, etc., given how more violent it is. It is especially humorous from mainstream moderate left which constantly moans about how rightists’ critiques and condemnations of their various pet insanities (transgenderism, open borders, et al.) are verbal acts of violence; only to pretend to be real hardcore when it comes to being part of some resistance to Trump. Hateful Heretic was right: they really do base their entire lives off of Hollywood. Well that and children’s books which are treated as great works of literature by mostly effete and infantilised liberals. I suppose they really are just big children. They act tough when they know there is some great paternal power behind them and cry and play the victim when they don’t get their way.

There is a silver lining to what has happened and no doubt will only continue to occur. I think most regular people will look upon anti-Trump violence and hysteria with disdain. Especially as the left continues to spiral out of control with its ideology and become ever more insane and ever more openly anti-White. Libertarians, conservatives, mainstream Trump supporters and others who formerly never bothered about race will be forced to come to terms with it and either continue to cuck to the left to the point of just joining them, or stand for their own people and fight against their displacement and replacement. In the end the left will be its own worst enemy.

Posted in Cultural Struggle, Politics, United States | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Merkel Muss Weg

As we are all painfully aware – and Germans and other continental Europeans more than most – in 2015 the German chancellor Merkel opened the floodgates to “refugees” from across Islamic world and increasingly from sub-Saharan Africa. Greece, Italy and all the various countries between the Med and Germany have been swamped with these invaders, many of whom stay but most of whom dream of making it to Germany where there is more gibsmedat. As you can imagine this has not gone over well with the indigenous inhabitants of Germany and Europe as a whole.

Crime has increased dramatically thanks to the recent influx with some being particularly prominent. Take for example, the Cologne rapes that occurred on December 31st 2015 or the church fire that occurred this past new year’s in Dortmund. Interestingly, the Cologne rapes were so extensive because local security were “refugees”; this was not the case this time around. Similar incidences have occurred to a greater or lesser degree across Germany and also in Italy, France and elsewhere. Media drags its feet at every opportunity to comment on racial backgrounds of criminals because what is terrible is not the crime but that it makes people question the obviously false liberal worldview. Similarly, the police have at times been pressured by government officials to change reports, for example erase any mention of rape in the infamous Cologne attacks.

Do we really expect Merkel or the other leaders of Europe to truly care about doing something to stop the problems caused by immigration? Clearly they don’t care about their own people because if they did then there would have been no opening of borders, no promotion of anti-White hatred in the media and academia, etc. and etc.

Well evidently Merkel does think that the people she has betrayed should still trust her and vote her in for a fourth term! These past few months have seen her busily trying to convince people to actually trust her for a fourth term by making statements which are clearly meant to defuse growing rightist populism and trick the German people into being so stupid as to give her yet another chance.

Merkel has stated she will enact a partial ban of the niqab. It is a hollow superficial gesture on her part. She has also called for deporting migrants. This is all just for show; she just wants to get re-elected this summer. This was the same woman who said that multiculturalism was a failure only a few years prior to the current invasion crisis. Clearly, she has absolutely no qualms flip-flopping on issues in order to win votes, but once in power nothing of any substance is done.

The government had no idea what kind of people they were allowing in and they don’t seem to have cared to find out. Already the government has been deporting people, there have been some but the numbers are incredibly low. Obviously German government is not taking this issue seriously. According to recent statistics, officially there are only 1.17 million “refugees”, but of course the actual number is probably far higher. And of course this stat doesn’t include the millions of other foreigners living in Germany who came by plane instead of by foot and boat. Legal migrants have been a hassle to the German state for decades now and even before the current crisis the low German birth rate coupled with the high number of migrants and their higher birth rates, has meant the future of the German nation is in serious question. Germany has been abolishing itself since well before 2015. Merkel’s actions this past year regarding “refugees” makes it clear to me she certainly won’t do anything about the more established form of immigration even if she makes some token gestures at stemming the “refugee” tide.

Merkel has also shown she cares not for her own folk in another way. Recently, she stated that people do not have the right to question mass migration. Moreover, her attempts to seem tough on dealing with “refugees” is being undermined by others in the government who are to Merkel’s left. For example, in Brandenburg leftist MPs has called for letting potential deportees stay so long as they claim to have experienced violence from far-right activists. Hah, yeah I’m sure such a scheme won’t be completely taken advantage of!

Come election day one wonders will Merkel still be in power? It is hard to imagine the Alternative for Germany (AfD) let alone any other immigrant skeptic party coming to power given Germany’s situation. Guilt for the last world war and heavy Americanisation which has come with their occupation post-1945 has made the German people deracinated and susceptible to insane and suicidal policies. Then of course there are possible attempts at subversion of rightist parties from more established ones, similar to what happened this past year in neighbouring Austria. It is too early to say what will happen – although speculation is perhaps unwarranted given how terrible most were for multitude of last year’s elections – but if things keep going this way and the demographic situation gets even more dire, then the conclusion could be very destructive indeed.

Posted in Europe, Germany, Immigration, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Media Hubris

Recently the strangely popular cultural marxist site Buzzfeed, which is better known for making listicles and videos attacking White people or promoting this or that form of poz, published a completely unsubstantiated story on Trump. It wasn’t long before everyone from major media figures to lowly boomer trash began re-tweeting the story. CNN evidently was also part of this fakenews plot. Basically the story went that Trump was a Russian agent since way back and that Trump hired prostitutes to partake in urination fetish acts in the bed at the Ritz Carlton where Obama had slept in. No evidence exists to back up any of these claims. Its like with earlier attempts to discredit Trump as some Russian tool: make vague remarks about “sources” and state this is an old story. There is a cuck connection here as John McCain handed the document to the FBI.

As Michael Tracey asks, however,

Are we really supposed to believe that the scores of anti-Trump journalists and operatives who were privy to this information declined to run with it prior to the election out of the goodness of their hearts? It would’ve been the story of a lifetime: the scoop that finally brought down Trump. The reason that no one ran with it was because it looked like obvious BS.

And of course it is complete shit. Hell even the New York Times is admitting that Buzzfeed and CNN are peddling lies. Basically McCain, Buzzfeed and CNN all got trolled hard; possibly by 4chan or perhaps from anti-Trump personnel within the US government. Who knows. Either way it is completely unsubstantiated, salacious material. Some on the left/cuck side of the political spectrum have as well; but still others are just doubling-down or are trying their best to downplay this incident and shill for lying press.

This is hardly the first example of outright lying from the press about Trump – or anything else the liberal establishment despises – and it will not be the last. We can see media lying and manipulation with regards to the anti-Russian hysteria which has been going on since the summer, especially in regards to supposed hacks of DNC and Podesta’s email. Media personnel want to blame anything but the incompetence of their political allies and also to get people to ignore content of said emails which is quite damning.

The media is as a whole nothing but political activists. This is especially evident in the entertainment media: actors, musicians, directors, et al. are all meant to entertain but instead it is painfully obvious that they have become activists (or perhaps always were). A great recent example is Meryl Streep’s sickening display of liberal signalling at the Golden Globes, in which (((Hollywood))) and press labelled as victims despite all evidence to the contrary. How brave to continue to attack and condemn your own people and promote anti-national claptrap which is official doctrine. How easy it is to pretend to be brave when one has the power of the media behind them; or better still is part of the media industrial complex. If only people with actually rebellious views, like vlogger Millennial Woes had such protection. On a side note watch this video if you want to know how to help him out.

Journalists too, are activists. Indeed, their profession has always been partisan. For example, one of the longest running newspapers in Canada is the Globe and Mail which is an amalgamation of The Mail and Empire and The Globe. The latter of which was created by George Brown who later became leader of the Grits; the predecessor to the Liberal Party. His paper began as an outlet for his liberal politics.

Moreover, newspapers were always at behest of the interests of those who fund them,

Printed news [began] as an efficient way to expand the scope and range of word of mouth communication.  Replacing the town gossip with a newspaper also standardizes, formalizes and narrows the scope of what is considered news.  While every village may have its own noteworthy events, suddenly the opinions of the populace matter less than that of a single editor, who can have the entire countryside talking about the one story he finds most interesting.  As the cost of printing news increases, editors find themselves at the mercy of advertisers, and advertisers soon realize that owning the source of news is infinitely more effective than the quaint expedient of taking out an ad. The power of the Press is eventually controlled by a small clique of advertiser-owners like our current overlords Zuckerberg, Bezos and Slim. The modern Cathedral takes shape as Finance funds the State, Capitalism fund the Press, and the Press shapes public opinion in favor of Finance and Capitalism.

Those in charge of the media decide what they want to report on, what they want to condemn and ridicule, what they want the world to know. They influence people and increasingly are doing so in less than subtle ways. People always make disparaging comments about the media, but now suddenly many are becoming little fan-boys because of other institutions which have worked in tandem with the media in subverting Western cultures; namely the education system. And as Gaius Marius notes, there are powerful financial interests behind mainstream media ensuring its continued survival and legitimacy. However, this is beginning to change and stories like the one Buzzfeed and CNN reported are the reason why.

For too long have media personnel, and those in the news media especially, held sway over the public shaping our view of the world. What is so great about their actions over the past couple of years is how they have gone completely hysterical. They have absolutely no hubris and will keep doubling-down and pushing ridiculous narratives until finally they collapse entirely. Reactionary Tree calls for helping to push the media off the cliff; maybe that isn’t such a bad idea?

Posted in Politics, United States | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

End of the Year

2016 is coming to an end and soon 2017 will be upon us. And what a year 2016 has been! 2014 and 2015 seemed like exceptionally long years whereas 2016 was far too short, but I suppose that is to be expected when things go far better than one could have expected. I’m sure I am not the only one who can think of a few people who have openly stated how much they hated this year because of just how illiberal it was. Glorious!

Elections and referendums in New Zealand, the Netherlands, Britain, Bulgaria, Moldova, the United States and Italy all went against what the global liberal elite wanted. Similarly, in Slovakia the government has moved in an anti-liberal manner by saying Islam will not be recognized. And of course Hungary and Poland have stood up to the ongoing non-White invasion of Europe. Assad has managed to take back Aleppo and he looks to make further gains now that an anti-interventionist is president-elect in the United States. Why even the Turks are admitting that the US, Gulf States and Israel are supporting Islamist radicals. And in the US and Europe, at least, there is a growing sense of newfound appreciate for White identity politics. Many are awakening to the double-standards; why even Rush Limbaugh asked why Whites can’t have their own voting bloc if others can!

However, the Austrian election ended up being taken away from us. The EU doesn’t seem to care much for the Dutch result and the Walloons had their victory over CETA taken away from them. Attempts are also underway to scuttle Brexit. Journalists, pundits et al aren’t what they claim to be: they are political activists and they are doing everything they can to stop the rise of right-wing populism and White identity politics in the Occident. Meanwhile, the establishment is once again trying to blame Russia for a whole host of malicious acts. Of course no evidence of this being true, just sounds more legit because it comes from CIA  — although they’ve been known to lie just as much as other organs of US government. Of course no talk of how US actually routinely gets involved in foreign elections nor of how countries other than Russia have tried to influence US election (Saudis and Israel being most obvious examples). Of course no talk of why Russia is evil (because they don’t bow down to tranny agenda? Because they don’t like NATO encroachment? Why is it so necessary to be anti-Russian?).

I’m sure some hope this can be used to stop him becoming president but I think for the powers that be it is about getting leverage over Trump and making him follow their neocon foreign policy. Indeed, it might already be happening to some extent as Trump has protested the latest decision by the UN to condemn Israeli settlements in Palestine. Although this could just be a ntural reaction from Trump; he is a known pro-Israeli. There is no reason for the US or any Occidental country to concern itself with this matter.

And sadly this past Christmas Prince Charles made an absurd speech complete with NAxALT and condemnations of the right, the only group that may still care for monarchy as liberals and hard left certainly don’t. Neither do foreigners. Oh well, I suppose royals just as likely to be poisoned by internationalism as the rest of us.

Media is of course stoking fears and anti-White rhetoric. We are meant to fear the far right even though it is peaceful, unlike the centre left (to say nothing of far left) who go around committing riots and making violent statements. They are getting more and more hysterical. Jewish and self-hating White liberals are showing just how privileged and entitled they are; media is showing just how biased it is.

The enemy isn’t defeated yet.

This next year I predict that the media and other liberal organs like the universities, and the political and corporate elites themselves, will push back as hard as they can. Instead of trying to understand where the resentments are coming from they double down and become even more hostile, which will only help us as it wakes normies up to what is truly happening.

And if in the United States and Europe we can see increased gains for righist populism than soon we should see the same in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These countries are all Whiter than America (well at least in terms of percentage of population) and if White populism can be harnessed as a political force in the US then so can it become a force in these countries as well. Of course there is still issue of civic v. ethnic nationalism and already this year has seen a growth of arguments between the two sides. It may still be ok to speak out against illegal immigration but legal if by far the greater threat. Work is still needed to kill this sacred cow once and for all. However, civic nationalism is a bland ideology which ultimately means nothing. In time I see it disappearing completely from the political scene.

After so many seemingly long and drawn out years of liberal, globalist victories the tide is finally starting to turn. 2016 was hardly perfect but there were too many white pills for me to be depressed about it. This past year provides the groundwork for many more victories to come. So farewell 2016 its been great fun, but now its time to say hello to 2017, a year which offers even greater potential!

Posted in Cultural Struggle, Politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Vanished Kingdoms


It is easy to think that the countries we know of that we live in and grew up in, will always be here. Our lives are so short that it is often hard for we humans to grasp. This seems especially so now with many acting as if the EU were some ancient institution when its only decades old, or that Canada’s values and culture date back to the creation of the charter of rights and freedoms in the 1980s. In the age of television and mass media our memory has been reduced even further. In the introduction to his book, Davies mentions how the teaching of history (and the classics) has become ever more marginalized and the young are increasingly growing up “with very little sense of the pitiless passage of time.” (p. 8). Instead they are met with increasing materialism and consumerism. Of course this means an ever reduced understanding of their own history and heritage.

Vanished Kingdoms (2011) by Norman Davies seeks to examine several now defunct countries within Europe. There are many, many examples of ‘vanished kingdoms’ in Europe alone so there is almost no need to look elsewhere but of course as a historian of Poland, Davies field of expertise is Europe, so it makes sense for him to limit his discussion to this one continent. Each chapter is on a different defunct state and is split into three parts: the first is a brief sketch of the area in question today; the second is a history of the state in question; and the third part of each chapter supposed to be about how the dead state is remembered or not. In reality, however, this is not always the case. For example, the end of the chapters on Alt Clut and Ireland he basically just goes on about his views on the future of the UK.

This book covers a mere fifteen of the countless vanished and largely forgotten kingdoms, duchies, republics, et al. that have existed on the European continent. These are:

  1. Tolosa
  2. Strathclyde
  3. Burgundy (a series of monarchical entities that existed in what is now France and Switzerland)
  4. Aragon
  5. Grand Duchy of Lithuania (from here on referred to as GDL)
  6. Byzantine Empire
  7. Prussia
  8. Savoy
  9. Galicia-Lodomeria
  10. Etruria
  11. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
  12. Montenegro (original royal incarnation; not modern republic)
  13. Carpatho-Ukraine
  14. Ireland
  15. USSR

Why does he have Ireland, Byzantium and the USSR? These are well known and Ireland is still here. Why not have had Volga Bulgaria or Great Bulgaria or the Crusader states of the Balkans or the Gepid Kingdom or the Avar Khanate or the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles; or one of the various Cossack, Finnic and other anti-Bolshevik republics that sprang up in Russia during the Russian Civil War instead?

If it makes sense for GDL, Prussia and Aragon to be included than why not the Genoese and Pisano Empires? These last two entities are, I would say, less known in the Anglosphere than the preceding three.  I suppose the issue here is that vanished does not necessarily mean forgotten, although I believe it would have been better to have focused entirely on forgotten states (or at least ones that are virtually unknown in the Anglosphere) instead of including well known entities like the USSR, Byzantium and Ireland.

He mentions Gabriele D’Annunzio’s Italian Regency of Carnaro but states he couldn’t fit it in; he should have. It would make far more sense to have Fiume than many of the entities that did make it in. Then again if he had included Fiume Davies would no doubt have been very critical and scornful given D’Annunzio’s proto-fascist politics.

And why does he have the ‘Kingdom of Tolosa?’ As interesting as it is to learn about the Visigothic presence in Southern France the fact is it was not a separate entity, but part of a larger Visigothic Kingdom which stretched south into Iberia. Similarly, his chapter on Burgundy could have done without his revised list of how many Burgundies there have been, as 13 (a royal province) and 15 (region of the French Republic) are not sovereign states.

His inclusion of the USSR it should be noted, is almost entirely about the Estonian portion. In fact, it is essentially a history of Estonia up until the fall of the USSR; including its short lived republic of 1919-1939. Similarly, his chapter on Lithuania is more about the Belorussian portions it controlled. The Byzantine chapter is essentially a jumping off point for Davies to discuss how long dead entities are remembered. He makes a good point that liberal thinkers of the 18th century portrayed it in a very negative light and simply used it as a foil to promote their own ideologies. Though of course as a liberal Davies doesn’t actually condemn liberalism, he just happens to disagree with early liberal thinkers’ views on Byzantium.

The Ireland chapter seems to be more of a way for him to muse about the possible breakup of the UK. If he really wanted to include Ireland than why not have the Irish Catholic Confederation? Of course the main reason for his inclusion of Ireland is to discuss the breakup of the UK. This book was written just before the failed Scottish independence referendum of 2014 and as such the thought of what could happen must have been at the forefront of his mind and so, as previously stated, he used this chapter to put his thoughts to paper and consider what could be. His view on how the UK will dissolve is interesting, as he felt that Brexit would come before an independence referendum and the Scots would vote to leave. As we know this did not happen.[i]

It would have been better to have discussed aspects of the USSR, Ireland and Byzantine portions in the conclusion where he discusses how states die. He could have used the conclusion to have talked about how dead states are remembered (using Byzantine example) and what could happen with the UK (using the Irish example).

Throughout the book he provides interesting tidbits that most are unaware of, like how the King of Rheged (Urien) formed a union of Brythonic kingdoms in Hen Ogledd (the Old North) that nearly drove the Angles out of England, but at the moment of victory King Morcant had Urien assassinated out of jealousy over Urien’s success and possibly also fear of Urien’s ambitions. The union fell apart and the Angles went back on the offensive.[ii] Interestingly, he also notes how the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (what he calls Rosenau) was the first to give the National Socialists a majority, no doubt because of how it had essentially been taken over by communists after the First World War (p. 568). Davies also goes on to note the mistreatment of the last duke by the Americans after the Second World War; he was malnourished and left to rot in a prison camp for his pro-Hitlerist views until 1947 when his family secured his release (p. 569). He ended up dying alone and destitute. But just before he passed away he was able to see, thanks to a showing at a local cinema, the coronation of his cousin’s granddaughter: Queen Elizabeth II.

As stated before some of these chapters are not so much about the state in question but are jumping off points for his musings on other issues. This tends to give the book a somewhat schizophrenic quality.

Of course this is the work of a liberal historian and this is not always a terrible thing. There are plenty of texts out there written by liberal or liberal-conservative or even further leftist historians where the political message is generally kept down. In such cases one can read a book without be overwhelmed by an obvious political message. I don’t know of Davies’ other work, but this one was certainly quite obviously political.

Primarily it was political in the sense of its anti-Russian narrative. As I mentioned earlier the USSR chapter largely a history of Estonia, however it also seems like more of an excuse for him to condemn Russians. I sympathize with Estonia and its struggles for independence and agree that Soviet rule was crushing in all SSRs (including Russia), but this chapter just seems unnecessary. If he had wanted to talk about the USSR, then why only focus on Estonia? He says in this chapter that there is a difference between Russia and the Soviet Union, but then he does what many Russian patriots worry Westerners do and conflates the two (p. 698). Similarly, in the chapters on Lithuania, Prussia and Galicia we see anti-Russian sentiment shine through.

He never mentions Polish mistreatment of their Orthodox subjects in the Lithuanian or Galician chapters which he could have if he were trying to be balanced. His chapter on Lithuania is full of condemnations of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, Russia and russification, but little to none about Polonization, and he does not go into further details about mass Ukrainian uprising against Polish rule in the 17th century. Nor does he seem to care too greatly about Polish expansionism. My take-away from Vanished Kingdoms is that Davies’ texts on Polish history would go out of the way to promote Polish expansionism and apologize for it.

I would say that in many ways this book is a great example of a great problem with historians. Those who are experts on a particular people can often develop biases against said people’s enemies. In this case Davies is an expert on Poland and one of Poland’s greatest enemies historically was Russia. Of course Russia is not some innocent little lamb and the Kremlin puts out propaganda like everyone else, but nor is it some terrible pariah that needs to be constantly signaled against.

Given the ever looming spectre of the Holocaust on European history and Eastern European history in particular, Davies of course mentions the status of Jewry in several chapters. He doesn’t spend too much time on them, mind you, outside of the chapter on Galicia. In that kingdom Jews were 10% of the population with the rest more or less evenly split between Catholics and Orthodox; former of which could be split between Byzantine Rite Ukrainians and Latin Rite Poles. Despite them being a minority it sounds like, from Davies, their part of Galician history is being remembered. On page 486 Davies states that he worries about historical memory of Galicia-Lodomeria and says little is being done to preserve it, before then noting that in fact the Jewish aspect is. Speaking of Jews, Davies claims Bundists were about building “a better world for all.” (p. 299).[iii] I don’t know of how familiar Davies is or isn’t with Coundenhove-Kalergi, but this respect for Jewish socialists is reminiscent of Coudenhove-Kalergi, who believed they alone were trying to save the world. As such Coundenhove-Kalergi believed the Jews alone should thus be spared miscegenation.

And clearly Davies is all for multiculturalism. When it comes to Galicia-Lodomeria, one gets the impression that Davies wants to revive multicultural nature of the former kingdom, just like he does a multicultural GDL. Given Davies is writing about ‘vanished kingdoms’ and how states die, he more than anyone should understand this simple truth: multiculturalism is a great way to kill a state.

When trying to attack official Russian narrative of history he states that none of Europe’s nations are truly native (p. 240); but why would that be? Because humanity evolved elsewhere? Would he say the same about Asians or Amerindians? I doubt it. There was no need to have included that; it is simply about signalling. At one point he also notes how the enslavement of 40,000 Muslims by Aragon a milestone in the “grim history” of European slavery (p. 199). Why such dour and serious expressions for European slavery but not Muslim? Where is the mentioning of Islamic slavery? Perhaps I am being overly sensitive here but it is quite common for historians to ignore or downplay Arab and other non-White slave trades whilst endlessly condemning European variants.

All states come to an end and maybe this would be a good thing for the US and Canada. Greg Johnson has written positively about Calexit, for example, and I often wonder if such break-ups wouldn’t be better for us in the long run. In the case of California if it seceded then with any luck it would become a beacon for self-hating Whites, mestizos and others to self-deport to. In the case of Canada, I think it would have been best if Quebec had never been part of confederation to begin with. Certainly the English-French divide has proven an easy avenue for cultural Marxists to use to promote the “post-national” society the country now finds itself in.

The extraordinary change in the demographics of the US, Canada and most other White countries means that secessionism and complete breakdown of central order may be a foregone conclusion. Why even ancient entities like the Kingdom of England may disappear off the map; to be replaced by a hodgepodge of smaller entities. But then again even without the terrible and unprecedented demographic changes afflicting the wider Occidental world, there is no reason to suggest our various kingdoms, republics and the like would last forever. As Davies notes, no state does.

One wonders what memories will remain of our present states when they eventually disappear. Some of the examples given are of entities which are almost completely forgotten; will the same be true of the US or Canada? For all its problems, Vanished Kingdoms at least offers a glimpse into the lives of a few such entities which have come and gone and with any luck will spur the reader into pondering the fate of all states, including their own.




[i]Although the possibility of there being a second referendum still exists even if it is unlikely for the time being.

[ii]For more information on the English portions of the ‘Old North’ check out my take on Max Adams’ history of Northumbria.

[iii]In the past Jewish historians have apparently condemned Davies for not spending enough time talking about muh shoah and daring to look at the suffering of others. I don’t think this book will have assuaged such criticism. No amount of cucking is ever enough.

Posted in Books, History | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Mixed Results in Austria and Italy

On December 4th two nations went to the polls: Austria held a re-run of its May presidential election and Italy had a referendum. Both were expected to be massive victories for the populist factions but the results were rather mixed. In Austria the establishment backed candidate won whilst in Italy the electorate did in fact overwhelmingly vote the way the polls said they would.


As previously mentioned the Austrian election was a re-run of the presidential election that occurred in May. There were some “irregularities” which were evidently obvious enough that it was decided the election should be held again. The populist, rightist candidate Norbert Hofer, lost by less than 1% in the first go around. Sadly, on December 4th he lost again and while it wasn’t the crushing defeat the media is portraying it as, it was not as close; he lost by 7%.

After the failure to stop Brexit and Trump it is no wonder that the system has had enough. Internationalists of all stripes are feverously gathering together in a bid to stop nationalists anywhere and everywhere. They seem to have succeeded in increasing their voter turnout but who knows? Maybe they cheated and lied a second time.

His opponent, Alexander Van der Bellen, is a former green politician but he has since shirked these views in favour of a more mainstream liberalism. Van der Bellen had the entire political establishment behind him but even if he had remained a social democrat style environmentalist he still would have had this support, and he would have welcomed it. Greens in the end care more about the liberal narrative (internationalism, mixing of peoples, shitting on our ancestors’ achievements, etc.) than they do about the environment. Just as liberals and “conservatives” care more about these issues than economics. And speaking of conservatives: one will note how they united behind the leftist Van der Bellen instead of an actual rightist candidate. Of COURSH! I can only assume that in German speaking lands there will be greater difficulty throwing off the shackles of liberalism due to the Nazi bogeyman that has been created in wake of WWII. The democratic regime moulded by liberals so they still know how to use it to their advantage.

While White women voted well in the recent American election they did not Austria. And as was the case in the US, in Austria the damn urbanite was strongly in favour of the liberal candidate.

Global elite is celebrating the Austrian result now with Germany’s treacherous vice chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, claimed this was “a clear victory for reason against right-wing populism.” But in the end their victory celebrations are premature. Hofer’s party, the Freedom Party, is still the third largest party and though there is a major symbolic aspect behind winning a presidential election in Austria in the end the president holds a ceremonial position with little real power. The potential problem, however, is that as president Van der Bellen can decide whether or not party that wins most votes in the parliamentary elections will actually get to form a government. Van der Bellen has made it clear he would not accept the Freedom party as governing party.

Thankfully, Austria is rather minor compared to other European countries which have elections looming like France and Netherlands. The Austrian result is a set back but nothing to become depressed about, especially given what happened south of the border that very same day.

President elect of Austria. You can tell just by looking at him that he is a total tool.jpg

President-elect of Austria. You can tell just by looking at him that he is a total tool


Prime Minister Matteo Renzi put forward a bill, in April, to change the constitution something which legally could only be achieved via a referendum. The law would have called for altering the composition of powers in the Italian government, reducing the power of the senate and regional bodies. Supposedly these changes would have made governing the notoriously difficult to govern country far easier. This all sounds rather mundane and unexciting, but in the lead up to the referendum, eurocrats and other liberals made a big deal about just how awful a no vote would be. This is because Renzi promised to resign if his referendum failed and because the result is believed to help buoy the populist Five Star Movement. Five Star wants an election early in 2017 and referendums on the euro and wider EU project. Five Star is not right-wing but it is eurosceptic and its populism means it could be used to promote nationalist goals in future.


Note popularity of the yes vote in German majority region of South Tyrol

Opinions are mixed as to whether this result will be a major blow to EU but given the rise of Five Star in Italy those claiming this is no big deal may just be engaging in wishful thinking . Either way the third most powerful member of the EU has been shown to have a massive number of anti-elitists; people who have had enough with the reigning internationalist system. Importantly, many of parties supporting the no side are immigration skeptics . This result further shakes the Eurozone and EU as a whole and with any luck will further embolden populist movements elsewhere. Interestingly, many on the left were against the government and even the EU as a whole because even they realize that these institutions do not care about them. Italy suffers from high unemployment and yet is being flooded with migrants who are then put on an overburdened welfare system.


Certainly if the Austrian election had gone the other way than the combined results would have greatly weakened the resolve of global-minded establishment. In the end December 4th was hardly as glorious as I assumed it was going to be, but we have to take the bad with the good and keep pressing on.

Posted in Europe, Politics | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment