By Max Musson:
At a time when many Europeans despair of any hope of our peoples regrouping and reorganising in time to secure our future survival, radical thinkers of our race have increasingly begun to think in terms of the creation of a homeland for exclusively White occupation and one man stands out as a pioneer of this idea and one who is not just a theoretician but someone who has been involved in the creation of an existing White homeland. That man is historian, writer and White nationalist activist, Arthur Kemp.
Mr Kemp has recently published a book he has written calling for the creation of further White homelands that will be needed, even if only a fraction of our current European population is to survive long-term.
The book is entitled, ‘Nova Europa – European Survival Strategy in a Darkening World’ and is published by Ostara Publications, ISBN 978-1-291-26360-2.
Although frequently dismissed by the mass media as a ‘white supremacist’, the author deliberately argues his case from a somewhat pro-diversity, politically correct stance so that none but the most nakedly anti-White racist can attempt to counter his logic.
In his introduction, Kemp begins by clearly identifying his target audience and by succinctly setting out his rationale in arguing in favour of the creation of a White homelands, he states: “This work is meant for those people of goodwill who can see, understand, and support the idea that it is worthwhile to preserve racial diversity on earth. Furthermore, it is directed to those people who can see and understand that, of all the different races on earth, only the European people are facing imminent extinction.
“The liberal establishment likes to talk about the ‘mass movement of peoples’ as some sort of modern universal phenomena, as if it is happening everywhere to everyone. Yet those observers who are honest, will concede that this ‘mass movement’ of people is exclusively one way: from nonwhite countries to white countries.”
“Given current demographic trends, European people will first become an outright minority in their own lands within the next thirty years. Thereafter, they will become a tiny minority, and shortly after that, will vanish completely under a flood of further immigration and miscegenation.”
Disarming those who might attempt to disparage the notion of a White homeland as ‘racist’, Kemp points out that because of the one-way nature of mass migration, “The European people are the ONLY ones who are threatened with extinction …
“There is no danger that the Indian people are going to disappear.
“There is no danger that the African people are going to disappear.
“There is no danger that the Chinese people are going to disappear.”
And the reason for this is that, “all the other people of the earth have homelands, or heartlands, where they can maintain their racial integrity and identity, no matter what else happens elsewhere in the world.”
“No matter how much the miscegenation process continues elsewhere, China will always be Chinese.
“Japan will always be Japanese.
“Africa will always be African.
“Why therefore, is there no European heartland, in which European people are a majority, and in which they have the inalienable right to maintain their racial identity and integrity?”
Kemp begins the first chapter of his book by re-asserting the ‘politically correct’ basis of his argument, stating “All nations, peoples, and cultures have an absolute right to existence … [and] … No one has the right to deny any other individual, people, race, or culture, the right to be who they are, and to maintain their distinct identity. The European people have a right to existence, just like any other people on earth.”
Kemp quite rightly concludes, “Anything less is simply anti-white racism.”
Continuing with his justification for the premise of his book and the need for a White homeland, Kemp sets out ‘What the Modern World Owes European Man’, stating, “Europe and European man is well worth preserving. In fact, without their collective contributions to science, art, technology, literature, and culture, much of the modern world would not even exist.
“European people gave the names by which most of the world is known. Africa, Asia, America, and Europe (of course) are all names which were first applied to those regions by Europeans, dating back to Roman times in the case of Africa and Asia. European people gave the modern world its form and appearance.
“It is no coincidence that the clothes which most of the world’s population wears, or to which they aspire, are European dress.
“Very few Africans, if they can help it, wear “traditional” African dress attire (which was either naked or basic animal skins); and very few Asians wear traditional Asian attire (kimonos and so on).
“Very few American Indians wear their traditional dress (which was also, certainly at the beginning of the Age of Exploration, naked or basic animal skins).
“All people on earth dress like Europeans, and not under order of any law or injunction: they do so out of a universal sense of aesthetics which is peculiarly European in origin.
“It is also no coincidence that most of the world uses the technology gifted to it by European people.
“Even the black supremacists, who openly abuse white people, use the Internet, electricity, and computer technology, given them by European people, to carry out their propaganda campaigns.
“They read and write books, using European script, and European printing, and use European-invented reading glasses when their eyes fail. They use European-invented microphones and electricity in their meetings, and gather in buildings only made possible because of European-invented building methods and materials.
“From the vast sweeps of Asia through to central Africa and South America, all peoples of the earth rely on European developed technology for many of their day-to-day living needs.
“If the objective reader considers all the modern conveniences with which the world is blessed—be they household electrical appliances, building materials, books, printing, clothing material making techniques, medicine, modern farming irrigation methods or indeed, almost anything one can think of which is needed in modern-day life—then it will be seen that all these things are European in origin.”
Having established the premise for White survival and the need for a White homeland in order to enable the European peoples to survive, Kemp goes on in the later chapters to examine two ‘case studies’, describing the principles employed in the creation of the Afrikaner nationalist Orania Project in South Africa (in which Kemp was at one time intimately involved) and also the modern state of Israel, and the tactics that were employed in making these ‘ethno-states’ a reality.
Returning to the matter of establishing a homeland for White survival, Kemp states, “The most difficult step in creating a European ethnostate is not the physical establishment of such a state; it is the gathering together of the political will to achieve that ideal.” To this end therefore, I would urge all readers and followers of Western Spring to avail themselves of a copy of Arthur Kemp’s book as the arguments set out are both compelling and incontrovertible.
In his conclusion, Kemp states, “There will, naturally, be the naysayers who argue that it is an impossible dream to create a European ethnostate. However, before anyone dismisses the concept out of hand, they would do well to come up with any real alternative.
“Given current political and demographic trends, it is clear that the democratic election option has already passed its racial tipping point in America, and many western European nations are not far behind.
“This means there is a tiny window, at best, for a democratically-driven reversal of the suicide of the West – and a wise man would do best to try and cover all the options, rather than putting all the eggs into one basket.
“It contributes little, and is easy, to shoot an idea down. It is less easy, however, to produce a viable alternative. Naysayers should bear this in mind, and even the most cynical will be forced to agree that there are no alternatives to geographic consolidation.
“The historical record is clear: those people who do not possess a territory in which they form the majority population, are doomed to extinction.
“Before dismissing the concept of a European ethnostate out of hand, one should rather consider the alternative: the total destruction of the European people, their civilization, and culture.
“Posited against that scenario of endless night, the idea of a European homeland seems quite viable, and indeed, the only alternative.”
Copies of Nova Europa are available from Ostara Publications at the very reasonable price of £6.95 per copy (plus shipping).
By Max Musson © 2013
# # # #
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
It can be no exaggeration to say that the idea of a European ethnostate is absolutely essential if our folk are to survive. Furthermore, in view of the evidence of European genius supplied in his book, “Nova Europa…”, Mr. Kemp has shown how without European survival the World will continue to spin further on its downward journey.
However, we must do more than nod our heads in agreement; there’s no political party we can lazily vote for which will implement the work that needs to be done. As racial loyalists we have to roll up our sleeves and start building the organisation which will bring Nova Europa into reality.
We must start by forming a nucleus of trusted men and women prepared to work together in a new spirit of self-sacrifice and comradeship.
Because we’re not primarily a political party at this stage, we don’t need to appeal to an electorate through lies and half-truths. Whilst diplomacy has an essential place in promoting our cause we can remain true to our principles of racial fidelity.
Once formed our next step is to acquire land and property to give us a toe hold whereby we will build new communities for our folk. This is something that’s already being planned. Therefore, we must call on all those who can’t fault Mr. Kemp’s logic to join a struggle which might take generations to fulfil . Nevertheless, when the history of the 21st Century is written and how it’s related that the European folk were brought back from the brink of extinction it will be us few, known and unknown, sung and unsung heroes who will be honoured.
frederickdixon
- Edit
One of the interesting things about Orania is that it does not set out to save the entire Afrikaner people, many of whom were first corrupted, then abandoned, by apartheid and the job reservation system which it created.
On the contrary, Orania is so constituted that it attracts only the most committed, those willing to do any work, to work hard, to be law abiding and co-operative. It thus acts as a Darwinian filter, accumulating only the “right stuff” from which, in time, a new and better Afrikaner nation can be regrown. Out of little acorns….
Our circumstances in Britain are superficially different as we are still very much the majority, but in fact our majority status is diminishing at a frightening rate further exacerbated by high levels of miscegenation. I believe that the existence of an Orania-type settlement in Britain (hopefully only the first of many) will be so controversial – so scandalous – that it will reinvigorate the entire nationalist movement and reawaken debate about the fundamental ideas of racial separation and identity.
jackdaw
- Edit
I am warming to the PLE project. I quite like the idea of forming discreet landlord/tenant relationships in well thought out locations.This not only enables a functional networking to take place, but can help to remedy the rift caused by the ‘class war’ and perhaps be the method to reconnect the working classes with our people with a slightly better off social background.
Max Musson
- Edit
When you feel ready to take the next step, email me [email protected] and begin to make such dreams a reality.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
I certainly like Kemp’s idea, but there is no such thing as an “inalienable right to maintain [one’s] racial identity and integrity». There’s a duty to do so, a duty that can be fulfilled only by said people. Like I said elsewhere a few months ago:
https://altright-archive.net/main/blogs/euro-centric/remaking-a-people
Venutios Brigantes
- Edit
What you say about historical events is true – BUT you are forgetting one very important fact. This is that we are no longer living in 10,000 BC< or even of the 1400s, 1500s, 1700s etc Age of Exploration. Times, morals, attitudes and value-systems have changed. To try and pretend that colonialism of any sort is justified "because it happened in the past" is to lose track of where society is today. Think about it.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
I’m not forgetting this fact, and if you had bothered clicking on the link I put above, I have thought a great deal about it. What I’m saying is that it doesn’t apply to Europeans, rendering useless the David-Dukesque stance of “every people has a right to a country of their own.”
If you read the rest of the article, here’s what I wrote about it:
“[The Identitarians] have to know (and this applies to all New Rightists) that it will never prevent them from being depicted as evil “racists” by their enemies. As fair-minded as Alain de Benoist is in his “heterogeneous world of homogenous peoples” doctrine, he is nevertheless still viewed as a beyond-the-pale extremist by the mainstream in France. The reasonable and peaceful nature of the action of Génération Identitaire in Poitiers did not deter the radical Left from demanding the dissolution of the movement on the ground of “racial hatred.” As of this writing, four of the 73 militants who were on the roof of Poitiers’s future mosque face jail time and high fines on the same absurd ground of “racial hatred.””
Venutios Brigantes
- Edit
No need to get nasty, I am not arguing with you.
The real issue here is that the Darwinian struggle which accompanied early historical developments was always based on a position of strength. During the Great Migrations, those powerful enough to force others into submission won the day, and this was repeated during the Age of Exploration.
Nowadays, we are not in a position of strength. In fact we are in a position of extreme weakness, bordering on extinction. Unrealistic demands of power serve no purpose, and we must tailor our strategy according to those resources which we can realistically deploy.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
“Nowadays, we are not in a position of strength.”
I don’t dispute that point, but weak or strong, our enemies want us dead. And their predictable reaction when they fall upon New Rightist writings is: “They’re hypocrites.”
They’re right, in a way.
If we could rule again, we would do it overnight. And I think this dream will appeal much more to people than the “Just leave us alone” stance. After all, Muslims after the end of the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate were in a very weak position too. Turkey and Iran had become enlightened dictatorships foisting Western liberal ideas upon people.
The Muslim reaction to that was to call for a new caliphate, reborn out of a religious revival. So far, their plan has achieved tremedous progress compared to where they were.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I think you’re right. Our duty is remain what we are and to keep what we have, and that is all that matters. Talk of “rights” is rather beside the point. ,That duty is a Darwinian imperative and such imperatives must lie at the root of all “rights” and all “morals” if they are to be worth anything.
Max Musson
- Edit
In Nova Europa Arthur Kemp shows us how we can use the arguments of the liberal-left and turn them back upon those enemies of our race, and in our attempts to win the support of as yet uncommitted Whites, or Whites who are less hard line than we, these techniques of ‘verbal judo’ are very useful. They are often effective also in disarming the less ruthlessly committed and more naïve and altruistic of our enemies.
.
In the final analysis, no one individual, nor any group of people have any rights other than those they are prepared to fight in order to assert – ‘ex gladio libertas’, as they say.
.
Furthermore, while I’m sure that Arthur Kemp understands this, if we are to win over to the cause of Nova Europa as many of our people as possible, including many who have still to shed the last vestiges of liberalism, we must proceed in a manner that gains impetuous from the prevailing universalist humanitarian zeitgeist and in so doing, be seen to give our enemies the opportunity at least, to play fairly by their own rules.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
Leftists always adopt a moral attitude and like to talk about “rights” especially of minorities. Well, Whites are globally a minority (14% of the world’s population) and as such have every right to take all measures to ensure their own survival. If Leftists refuse to allow them that, then they go against their own principles and lose their moral highground in the eyes of the public. So talking about rights makes eminently sense in this debate (whether in a Darwinian world rights ultimately exist or not).
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
In my earlier comment on this most important article, about Arthur Kemps’s ground breaking book, I endorsed the need for a diplomatic approach to achieving our ends. This may well involve ‘verbal judo’. However, it’s equally important that we remain absolutely true to our vision. To ally ourselves with “the prevailing universalist zeitgeist” would be like fighting the enemy by throwing excrement at our friends, just so that we might win a debating point. Above all we need to win the moral argument and that argument will be won when we have the courage to be honest. Truth not subterfuge will win the day.
Max Musson
- Edit
Mike, you misinterpret my words. I did not say that we should ‘ally’ ourselves with the prevailing universalist zeitgeist, I said that we should “proceed in a manner that gains impetuous from the prevailing universalist humanitarian zeitgeist”.
.
To ‘ally’ ourselves with that zeitgeist would be to give aid and succour to our enemy, and this is definitely not something that I would advocate, whereas to “gain impetuous” from that zeitgeist is to exploit the momentum already created by our enemy and use it for our own ends.
.
The difference in terms of wording is admittedly subtle, but the difference in terms of meaning is massive.
Venutios Brigantes
- Edit
It has nothing to do with abandoning any value system or belief. All it has to do is simply recognising reality and escaping from the fantasy world in which many “right wingers” live.
The harsh reality is that in terms of the broader moral debate in society, the “right wing” (what an awful word) world view of racial supremacism has been utterly defeated and is shunned.
The arguments which the anti-humans (a much better word for the “far left”) have used to win this moral debate have been the rights of all people not to be suppressed or exploited.
This is a natural feeling which appeals to all rational people, hence the racial supremacist argument has lost out.
Rather than paddling against the current, why not use the very arguments which the anti-humans use to justify European survival?
This has many advantages: mostly because it is absolutely true (all people have a right etc.) and requires no “watering down” of principles; but also equally importantly, one is taking an argument/thought process that is ALREADY ENDORSED by mainstream society and instead of trying to argue against it, agrees with it.
It is far simpler to win an argument with anyone by simply asking if they agree that the Tibetans should rule Tibet, free from the Chinese, or if the Amazonian Indians should rule themselves, or that Africans should rule themselves free of White colonial bosses–and then once they have (of course) whole-heartedly agreed with all that, ask for the same rights for white European people.
This is, to repeat again, nothing to do with “backing down”, merely using common sense.
To demand, as some do, that all we have to do is simply “stand our ground” is unrealistic. Currently, we don’t have the numbers to “stand our ground” or even get a councillor elected!
The erroneous belief that all we have to do is “make our demands” and “we will win” is equally flawed. “We” have been “making our demands” for 50 years, and the end result is that we are on the point of extinction.
It’s time for new tactics: the old tactics have failed, and failed miserably. We live their consequences.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
Well, the prevailing tactics since 1945 have been to use human rights to our purposes. It is what has failed miserably.
There must be a third way between advocating outright domination of other peoples and trying — in vain — to use multiculturalism as a judo trick.
Venutios Brigantes
- Edit
@ Roman Bernard: “Well, the prevailing tactics since 1945 have been to use human rights to our purposes. It is what has failed miserably.”
Sorry, you are 100% wrong, on two accounts:
1. The “prevailing tactics since 1945”, from “our” side, has NOT been to use human rights to our purposes. In fact, the very opposite. “Our” position, as expressed in countless parties, books, propaganda pieces, has ALWAYS been predicated upon racial supremacy. The demand for Segregation (in the US South), for Apartheid (in South Africa) and so on, has always been based upon white racial supremacy, as two pertinent examples.
All of these tactics have ultimately failed, precisely because they were regarded as morally corrupt and because they were, in practical terms, unenforceable.
2.Thus because “our side” has NOT used the right of all people to be free and independent of foreign rule as a moralistic argument, we have effectively lost the moral debate. We therefore need to re-position ourselves and our arguments so that we can win the moral debate, which is the precursor to motivating our people to act.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
Well, that depends on what “side of ours” we’re talking about. I’m not talking about the fringe radical Right, but the nationalist Right. Front National, to take an example I’m familiar with, has always couched its discourse in republican (in the French sense) terms, even when it was racialist. And it has failed, because it induced a leftward drift that is very noticeable in nationalist as well as in New Right’s discourses.
I mentioned Front National but I could mention Vlaams Belang, BNP…
Again, a third path has to be taken.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
What Venutios Brigantes and Max Musson say makes infinite sense. Arthur Kemp has undergone the trauma of losing his country of South Africa and therefore needs to be listened to very closely because the dynamics which destroyed South Africa are also destroying us. As Venutios Brigantes says,
“We” have been “making our demands” for 50 years, and the end result is that we are on the point of extinction. It’s time for new tactics: the old tactics have failed, and failed miserably.”
What we’re developing through Western Spring is a consensus whereby the Whiteman, I would say Aryan Man, can reclaim his place in the sun. To do this we can and must emulate the tactics of Orania by building local communities of racial patriots. These communities will eventually spread a network throughout the world.
This is no different to what the Jews have done historically. After the Diaspora the Jews lived in separate communities on every continent until they were able to claim the Zionist state of Israel. Even once in Israel the Jews still built local socialist farming communities known as kibbutzim. The Kibbutzim have become a model of Jewish enterprise and stand out in contrast to the cut throat capitalism usually associated with Jewish endeavour. The success of these socialist communities can be measured by the fact that the majority of leading Israeli military personnel are recruited from the Kibbutzim.
As to whether the Jewish people are some sort of eternal enemy of Aryan Mankind or whether they have been brought into conflict with our folk due to purely historical reasons, reasons which might equally be smoothed out by historical events, is another matter. What’s important is that we realize that we can often learn best from our traditional enemies.
The reason the Jews have been so successful,apart from any skulduggery on their part, is that they have always been a self identifying racial religion. Their bible is the mythology of their people.
The greatest weakness of the Aryan is that he has been conditioned to adopt Jewish culture through Christianity. Christianity has become our Achilles heel. As an inspiration for our art and culture Christianity took us a long way towards the stars but it failed ultimately because it was intrinsically false, false because of its universalism.
Many racial patriots criticise the Jews for their exclusivity but that’s a good example of using “verbal judo” to our own disadvantage. As Roman Bernard rightly said, in his earlier post,.such tactics leave us open to charges of hypocrisy. Aryan man has always been distinguished by his guilelessness and if we’re to inspire our folk to take an interest in their own salvation, ultimately we have to remain true to our own morality. As Alex Kurtagic has said, Western Man will only act when he thinks he has the moral right to do so.
Pingback: Reviews. Nova Europa – European Survival Strategy in a Darkening World (2013) | EVROPA WIDERSTAND