EU: Pros and Cons

I am a firm believer in Wilsonian self determination. I think a homogeneous country is the best country, and I would be willing to shrink a country down to 10,000 members just for the sake of homogeneity. A country where everyone feels and thinks alike, will have a sense of community, identity, and purpose completely absent from the modern state. It would be easier to make friends and families, it would be easier to get laws passed and followed, and it would be easier to embark on grand projects that span decades or centuries -- like the ancient Cathedrals of Europe. Unity is strength. Aside from intelligence, it is the most fundamental factor in the strength or decay of your people. It is better to reduce your numbers to 1/1,000,000th what they were, if in return you can gain an all-precious unity of purpose and ideals.

If one million atoms are thrown together with differing vectors such that all of their momentum cancels each other, no movement occurs, no work is done.

If a single atom simply floats forward in empty space without opposition, things move and work is done. In this case it's obvious numbers do not translate into power. True power comes from a single vector being force multiplied by a gigantic mass, smashing everything in its way. That is what a country, a community should be like. Debate and dissent about how best to achieve a community's goals are valuable, the best method of deciding these questions would just be experimentation. Implement both policies in separate areas and see what happens. In any case, at some point the authorities must decide on the course and the debate and dissent should end. Even if it wasn't the best idea, people should support it and chip in their effort to make it succeed, because we are all on the same side and we all wish to see the method succeed, wise or foolish as it was. If we put in a good faith effort and the method still fails, we should be willing to revisit the issue and listen to the people who predicted it would fail in the first place, and reform or end the policy. Dissent in this case helped us avoid falling into a bad rut, or losing our way -- it got us to our objective. But debate and dissent over what goals we should achieve are not valuable -- they are pernicious. They destroy a country and render it ineffective and weak, because now half the people are pushing on one side of a rock, and half the people on another, and no work is achieved by either. If people feel their goals cannot be fulfilled in the country they were born and raised in, they should leave. If there are millions of them who feel the same way, they should be allowed to peacefully secede. It is better to lose land and citizens, than to lose unity and purpose.

A white homeland in America, however few people there are, even if it were only a single state in size, would be the greatest blessing on Earth. It would secure the existence of our people, which is currently in doubt given every white country on earth is being flooded with non-white immigrants. Preserving the white race, the pinnacle of evolution and the source of all human progress, is worth any price. Secession is the root to progress. Not only would it give us freedom from alien invaders, but it would give us a chance to set up a new law code meant only for us, a new law code adjusted to the reality of the technological age, a new law code that promotes our goals, not Jesus's, Muhammed's, Marx's or Aynd Rand's. In this cocoon of a white homeland, we could restore the nuclear family, virtue, honor, identity and community. We could give everyone a wholesome family, good rulers, good education, a minimum standard of living, peace, and security -- it will be a crime free country, period. Eventually, being the white intelligent and science-minded people we are, we would gift our country with tremendous innovations the world cannot match, as they degenerate and decay all around us into the dark ages: genetic engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Fusion Power, Space Flight.

Because America is hopelessly fragmented and infested with jews whose hyper-intelligence and hyper-liberalism makes them the most dangerous destroyers on earth, ditching 90% of our population and 90% (if necessary) of our territory would be the first step towards righting our ship of state.

I don't think the same is true of Europe, though. Europe has a ton of advantages America lacks. For one thing, they have a claim to their land that goes back tens of thousands of years, not just centuries like us. Even though the true 'right' to one's land is the ability to make something good out of it, the commonly accepted morality is 'whoever got their first deserves it for all time.' This plays against us in America, but is a huge bonus for whites in Europe. Furthermore, America's minorities are our own fault. Hispanics wouldn't have existed if we didn't invade the Indians lands and interbreed with them. They are the natural heirs to America, not us, according to the prevailing morality. Blacks wouldn't be here if we hadn't enslaved them, shipped them across an ocean, and forced them to work for us in the most degrading of circumstances. Americans have a very hard time making a moral argument for why they can deport their minorities or claim this is a 'white' country. With a sufficiently muscular ideology, a Nietzschean will to power, we could just say it's ours because we are the chosen people and God help anyone who gets in our way. Absent that, the best we can hope for a is a small successor state that is ours because we have a right to self determination just like everyone else, neither harmed nor harming anyone else on Earth. Europe however, can rightfully say that Europe has always been white, that they've never forced anyone to become a minority in Europe, and that the same people who immigrated here, can be told its time to emigrate again. They have no roots in the land, are mere migrant guest workers, and when Europe feels like it, can tell them to go make money elsewhere because the deal was not as mutually beneficial as they had imagined it would be. It's not as though immigrants to Europe have suffered for their stay in Europe. They are vastly richer and freer than they ever could have been staying in their native land. Therefore the balance on the ledger is on the side of the immigrants, and Europe, by simply refusing to give yet more to non-Europeans, is not exploiting or harming them in any way.

Obviously, it takes moral fortitude to deport millions of immigrants. But far less than it takes to deport millions of former slaves who have been here for 500 years, or the native inhabitants of the land before we even got here, who have been here for 10,000 years. Europe could still take back all of its land for Europe, without Nietschean willpower, but just a tiny bit of backbone.

Europe has other advantages, there are far fewer jews in Europe than America. This from the very start gives them a freer atmosphere where white intellectuals can actually discuss things between each other and forge their own path. Where all the highest status jobs and all the highest income jobs have not already been monopolized by jews, a white nobility and a white ethos can emerge -- unlike in America where all whites can ever be is the sycophants and servants of jews. Our presidency and our congress has been at the beck and call of their jewish handlers for nearly a century now, it is embarrassing, it is humiliating how little control whites have over their own lives. Nixon even said in secret, that the jews had complete control of our country, but that he could never say that in public. It's probable a lot of other white 'elites' feel the same way, but duck and bow to keep their positions too. Our entire culture is distorted and servile due to the presence of jews. Recently, a study was done called the 'Atlantic 50,' showing the 50 most important columnists and media men who shape politics and public discourse in America. Over half of them were jews. With statistics like that, it is completely impossible to make America into a racialist state. A jew free successor state is all we can hope for. But Europe is already free of jews, and if it would ever just throw out its American influence (thus jewish influence), it really could be a continent for, of, and by whites.

Europe also has, at least currently, straight fewer non-whites in their country than America. Ignoring their origins and sob stories entirely, 5% non-white is a lot more manageable than 40% non-white.

There are still many European countries that are 100% white. Some are even so well sorted, that they are 95% of their own tiny ethnicity. Not that this sort of hyper-homogeneity translates to economic or cultural success. Most of these countries are in Eastern Europe and are remarkable for their poverty and corruption. Even though unity is a great strength, it doesn't seem to be doing these countries much good. Why is that? The lingering effects of communism? The lower IQ of southeast Europe in general? Southeastern Europe is dying. The median age of some of these countries is 41. The birth rate is like 1.2 per woman. The GDP is around 10,000 per capita. Even though they have what whites in America so desperately need, they have squandered it all with nothing to show for it. Without the proper ideology and laws motivating your people, and without the proper IQ to power them, unity is just so much cheap cloth. Eastern Europe would do better to trade their unity for connection to a much healthier, stronger partner. Rich people willing to invest in their economy, willing to hire their workers all across Europe, willing to buy all of their exports, is a godsend for Eastern Europe. It is the only way they can get out of the mess they are in. Expansion into the EU was the best thing that ever happened to communist-dominated Eastern Europe. A responsible currency like the Euro watched over by hawk-eyed German bankers is just the sort of economic stability you need in emerging countries. Furthermore, the larger the population and economy, the more stable your currency is. Business is always better off with a stable currency. Size creates stability. A small market can have rapid and inexplicable swings when say, no one wants fish that year, or the price of oil has tanked. A basket of nations like the EU helps neutralize all these swings by averaging the worth of European production in general. This moderating force is good for everyone. The Euro was a great idea. Iceland learned its mistakes last year when its currency suddenly tanked to near worthlessness: 300,000 people cannot maintain a stable currency, they are entirely at the mercy of their trading partners and the outside world. Iceland issuing its own unique currency simply cannot support Icelandic business and trade as well as the Euro could. Iceland, with a per capita GDP of 42,000 a piece, is hardly a banana republic. But over the course of a year, all of their banks collapsed and suddenly Iceland owed 10 times its GDP in debt overnight. Only a massive economy like the EU can prevent these sorts of ridiculous economic perturbations. Iceland would be wise to join it.

Not only that, but someday, America will stop protecting the world. Countries like Iceland, Bulgaria, and Luxembourg, can't possibly defend themselves. Wilsonian self-determination was all well and good, but after WWI Europe had been given a map of dozens of tiny countries that could never be defended against a major power. Sure enough, in just three decades, Russia had conquered half of them and Germany the other half. Small countries have no right to exist, because they cannot defend their borders. They exist at the sufferance of their neighbors, or due to the charity of some world power far away. Just like a country that survives only due to endless foreign aid, a small nation which has no means to defend itself, is a parasite. Peace is maintained via strength, strength comes from large numbers of people, lots of money, and a lot of land that is hard to conquer all at once. Only the EU can offer this to its member nations. Countries the size of Conneticut and smaller, all clutching to their 100% ethnic homogeneity, all with populations below a million, are not real countries. They would work fine as members of the EU though. As members of a common defense, as states of a union, they are part of the united strength of Europe -- a force not to be trifled with.

There is another advantage to the EU concerning peace. How many wars have been fought over whether this region, or this city, should belong to one empire or another? One nation or another? All of these senseless bloody wars can be solved if every region and every city in Europe belongs to both. Hungary, for instance, belongs to the Austrian Empire, the Polish Empire, the German Empire, the French Empire, and the British Empire now. Because it's a part of the EU, as is every other nation listed. If there are ethnic Hungarians living in Poland, they're free to move to Hungary now, and vice versa. The irredentism that sparked World War II is meaningless now. There are no Germans being abused outside the protection of Germany's borders, because Germans are free to move anywhere in Europe, including back to Germany -- and besides: 'Germany's' borders, its power and protection, as a member of the EU, extend to the four corners of Europe. All wars in Europe cease to make any sense in the EU. Irish seek to be free of the brutal hand of the UK? Nonsense, Ireland and the UK are equals in the EU, one can't brutalize the other.

This would be a godsend for the most troubled region on earth, the balkans. In the balkans you have a hopeless mix of quarreling parties -- albanians, serbs, bosnians, croats, Macedonians. None of them are safe or comfortable when ruled by another ethnicity, all of them feel legitimately threatened or oppressed when they are not united to their ethnic kin, who will protect them. War after war, secession after secession, keeps occurring in the balkans due to this problem. But if the EU were to equally rule over all of them, if no ethnic group had any advantage over any other, if the borders were opened up between the balkan states so that everyone could self-migrate and self-sort to their preferred location, if peace were maintained by the overwhelming strength of the EU, the balkans could quickly be sorted out. Yugoslavia was an artificial state where peace was maintained by force, but the EU is not quite the same. The EU does not suppress the native cultures of its constituent members, or attempt to amalgamate all the various ethnicities of Europe. What it does do, is create a peaceful alliance between all the members, where no group has an ethnic advantage over any other, and thus the causes of disturbance and war are soaked away.

Another benefit of the EU would be if everyone in Europe shared a common language. It doesn't have to be their native tongue, just a lingua franca. How many wars were fought in Europe simply because they didn't speak the same language, and thus couldn't understood how close they really were? Genetically, there is little difference between all Europeans, their dots are scattered all over each other. Artificial barriers like language and religion were the cause of all our problems. With religion in Europe waning to an agreed upon atheism, and language all settling on hopefully English, trade, cultural exchanges, and peace are much more possible than before the EU.

No one can dispute the economic benefits of free trade within Europe, or the peace the EU has brought to the most warlike corner of the world for the last 50 years. I don't think there is a single time in history where such a large area of Europe has gone without any intra-European war. At long last, the bloodshed is over, and people can seek a meaning in life other than hating, looting, or destroying their neighbors. There is also a great deal of pride Europe should feel in its expansion. In my experience, any Empire that is expanding, is healthy. America expanded all the way to 1950 or so, when it incorporated Alaska and Hawaii into states. We've been in decline ever since, precisely the same time we stopped expanding. The British Empire was the same. When it stopped expanding, it started shrinking, and its fortunes declined right alongside its landmass. The EU has steadily expanded for the last 50 years, until an aura of manifest destiny has surrounded it. Holdouts like Norway and Switzerland, nevertheless largely participate in the EU through other means, and the balkans are completely surrounded by EU territories now, which from any economic or military perspective makes it clear they must join the EU too. Europeans can take a lot of pride in surpassing America in terms of population, economy, and military strength, by pointing at how vast the EU has become. Who doesn't like to point at their nation on the globe and not get out a magnifying glass? Who doesn't want a third of the earth to belong to them, like the USA, China, and Russia can claim? Europe is better this way, it is healthier, as an enormous empire, than as a hundred squabbling states.

The greatest danger with the EU is twofold -- it allows in immigrants from abroad, and it might centralize government so far that small nations, that would have passed better laws, are prevented from doing so. As to the first problem, this is a non-issue. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland aren't part of the EU, but they let in immigrants too. Letting in immigrants is part of the zeitgeist, it isn't the EU's fault. The people want the immigrants, they clamor for them, the EU simply provides.

As for the fear of centralized government performing worse than smaller nations, the EU as it stands permits any nation that wants to secede. So long as that is true, there is no danger in joining with the EU. You can always leave again if you find it going against your interest -- so far it has always been in the interest of Europe to be in the EU. Like I say, its free trade, free movement of people, and intra-European peace, its continental currency and economic standardization, have been a boon to everyone living in it. But one must also point out a small country in Europe that isn't in the EU, out performing it so much. Who? Albania? Kosovo? Moldova? Belarus? Absurd. All the non-EU countries in Europe are losers and couldn't run a Burger King, much less their own countries. Norway and Switzerland aside -- one has oil, the other has all the banks of the world, and both have free trade agreements with the EU! Let's see some puny 3 million man nation break off from the EU and double its economy in five years, get rid of all illegitimacy and divorce, flush out all their immigrants, and create a new scientific invention on the level of the CERN lab. Then I might admit the EU is 'holding small nations back' through bureaucratic centralization. Until then, I'm skeptical.

If the EU could be convinced to treasure its European heritage and, as a block, cease importing immigrants, it would save all of Europe. If Croatia decides to become ultra-nationalist and ban all immigrants and stay homogeneous, while the rest of Europe goes on importing immigrants for the next fifty years, what do you think will happen? Would Croatia really be able to defend itself against the rest of Islamic Europe? Would their nationalism, their petty small scale state, mean anything once the rest of Europe has fallen? Europe stands or falls together. Turning into a little xenophobic enclave in Europe does not save Europe, it only delays the inevitable. Europe needs to stay Europe, so that every European has the benefits of a strong economy, a strong military, and a stable future. The EU is as good a vehicle to set up a true European empire as any other. The Lisbon treaty makes the EU more effective, it does not make the EU more evil, or more destructive. That is up to the European people and the European zeitgeist. If they wanted to use the EU to save the world and advance mankind, the Lisbon treaty would be a great progress towards that goal. If they want to use the EU to inundate Europe with non-whites and genocide its people, then the Lisbon treaty will help accomplish THAT. It is not the EU's fault how it is used. It is the people who keep voting for these choices to be made. If the people continuously clamor for and vote for death, then that is what they will receive. Don't blame it on the organization that has delivered peace and prosperity to Europe for the last 50 years. Don't blame it on the vehicle that more than anything else, has the chance to protect and serve the white race in the future. A united, white Europe, with wholesome universal goals -- who could ask for better? Unity is strength -- the EU has helped forge unity in Europe. Therefore, the EU is strength.

Europe and Russia have a much better shot at the future, than America does. While all we can shoot for is a tiny ethno-state, they can shoot for entire continents and billions of white children supported by enormous economies and half the landmass of the world. Let's not resent them their success, and try to tear them down to a bunch of petty, squabbling ethnic rivalries. I wish them well. I loved the united America from sea to shining sea -- I would love a united Europe too. It was our blessing to be large, powerful, and united. It could be theirs too. So, keep expanding, EU! Devour the whole continent -- incorporate Russia and spread to the Pacific! How amazing would that be? And when you're done, declare that Europe is the ancient homeland of the white race, and every other race has their lands already, and thus Europe-Russia is closed to immigration. With that most peaceful and reasonable of claims, the crisis of the white race is averted -- whatever happens in America.

Any country whose national anthem is Beethoven's Ode to Joy can't be bad.