nationalism europe resurgence
The past few weeks have proven rather interesting for European geopolitics. This comes following the success of various Italian conservative politicians, the increased rhetoric surrounding Russia, and the outrage surrounding the supposed US involvement in the destruction of a Nord Stream pipeline (supposedly under Germany's control). Both are not isolated incidents, but rather play into the growing agitation among average Europeans who are beginning to see the fruit of globalism, neo-Marxism, and foreign interference, which, up until this point, had little impact on everyday life. Now with all of that changing, people across the continent are beginning to change the way that they think, vote, and live.


Let me start by saying that the precursor to much of what is happening right now is the push towards globalism and away from national concerns. This has been happening in Europe for the better part of 30 years. During the initial decade (throughout the 1990s) globalism proved somewhat beneficial to the first world in an era of naive optimism. With the fall of the Soviet Union, no major threats were on the horizon, and with China growing as a manufacturing power there was ample benefit to being interconnected on a global scale. Since then, these ideas have indeed been proven naive at best, and wilfully destructive at worst. The past decade has proven that globalism fails on the economic front thanks to cultural differences, and fails on the societal front for the exact same reason. Now, looking forward, it appears as if Europe is on the verge of major change in the face of these same issues.

For roughly a decade there has been a push by the United States to force Europe into a state of conformity to the so-called 'liberal world order'. That is, a subservience to an Americanised form of Critical Theory so unhinged from reality that only resentful socialist academics could have formulated it. Initially met with little criticism in the mainstream, the 'woke' ideology seeped into Europe with almost immediate repercussions, including the 2014 terrorist attacks across France and Germany. Now to give the United States academics their due, many of these ideas originated in Germany over a century ago, were radically altered in French universities, and then exported to America in the early 1970s, before returning as a modernised destructive force to Europe.

This coincided with a push for a 'green revolution' across Europe in order to save humanity from global warming. With practically zero scientific backing, the radical assumption was swallowed hook, line, and sinker as the truth; that carbon is correlated with increased terrestrial temperature, and of that carbon, man made emissions are the primary causal factor. During a 2009 cost-benefit analysis of the situation, it was found that human carbon emissions accounted for roughly 0.3% of 1% of all carbon released into the atmosphere, and that no link could be found between the release of this trace element and any increase in global average temperature (although 'regional temperature' would be more accurate, since a "global weather system" is a bit of a misnomer). Not only this, but it was also forecasted that 'net zero' policies would cost roughly $500 trillion USD by 2040, and would - possibly - decrease the average terrestrial temperature by a fraction of a degree centigrade. It was fruitless from the start. Two statements perfectly summarise the Marxist undertones of the climate change movement; one made in 1988 by the Canadian Minister of the Environment, stating that "regardless of whether the science is phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world" and one by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1996, in which he says that "the threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the new world order". These policies and their politically charged intentions are becoming more evident to the average person by the day, as the impacts of said climate policies are beginning to corrode any hopes of a normal future.

This push towards the ideological left fits hand-in-hand with a general trend of anti-nationalism amplified by the media. Initially the demonisation of nationalism was done under the guise of 'historical inadequacy', as the media highlighted how historically nationalism resulted in war and genocide. However, as the rise of anti-communism across Europe has shown, the distrust of nationalism is slowly eroding, partially because many are seeing the benefits of nationalism over internationalism, whilst many are also noticing the historical trend of unmatched destruction created by Marxist ideologies. In response, criticism of nationalism has shifted again, with the idea now often labelled as 'selfish', as it seeks the best interest of a select group rather than the hypothetical global collective. Thus, nations in Europe have been increasingly judged, not by how well they manage their own nations but, on their subservience to the 'global sovereignty' (run by unelected bureaucrats). Any political party or politician who has refused to fall in line has been labelled 'fascist', 'nazi', 'far right', and so forth. I believe this has had a numbing effect on those forced to listen to this barrage of non-stop media blacklisting for the past decade. The words - which have been coopted by Critical Theorists - have lost their actual depth and meaning in the eyes of many. Again, this was somewhat inevitable. Overuse the term 'Nazi', and there is a high likelihood that eventually no one will care.

The continuous amplification of hypothetical 'issues' onto regular people has had a net-negative effect on them. As mentioned previously, everything from climate alarmism to policy making has gone along relatively impact-free for so long. In the past many were onboard with such things, as they were purely hypothetical projections made from an ivory tower. However, with the real life effects being felt, people will quickly re-evaluate their support for any of the given 'current issues'.

All of this has lead to an increasing agitation amongst the average citizens of Europe who are beginning to feel the heat of corruption. All claims made in the name of anti-nationalism, such as curbing extremism, have slowly revealed themselves to be nothing more than scare tactics used to dismantle national sovereignty and destroy the continent. On top of this, an increasing number of everyday people are waking up to the harsh reality that many world leaders pushing for globalism are no longer doing so in the name of expanding capitalism (as was the case in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union) but rather as a method of cultural destruction in the name of nihilism and Critical Marxism.

The latter point is also important in gauging how people will respond in the future. It is one thing to have incompetent politicians making ridiculous decisions - that maybe somewhat understandable. In fact, it is even understandable to have money-hungry corporate sell-outs use power to maximise profit. However, neither of these compare to the realisation that many world leaders are actively and deliberately making bad decisions with the aim of destroying the world. If this sounds unbelievable, it shouldn't, since this is the explicit goal of almost all neo-Marxist ideologies since Critical Theory, which are often pushed by nihilistic individuals who inevitably come to the conclusion (in their fight for 'equality') that reality itself is unfair and thus unworthy of continuing. The result? Insane individuals under the spell of a death drive with the intent of destroying themselves (no more suffering, unfairness) while taking as many people as they can with them (revenge against God and reality). This particular level of insanity is certainly not held by the majority of 'globalist' politicians, but it nevertheless exists in some degrees.

Why now?

As I wrote in an earlier letter, I believe that woke ideology will eventually destroy itself as it reveals its true nature. As with any idea spawned from Critical Theory, it is fundamentally disgusting to the average person when fully revealed, since it calls for the destruction of any socially established norms (such as beauty, currency, family, etc.). As if by chance, it seems to be that the recent events in Eastern Europe have coincided with the rise of anti-Marxist rhetoric across the European Union thanks to a more open revelation of woke ideology. The war in Ukraine and its coming consequences have highlighted major issues in the thinking behind western governments. How, for example, can any government claim to care about their citizens when they close down power plants causing people to freeze for the sake of the planet? The answer is simple; they don't. And people are beginning to wake up to this.

In response, those behind these neo-Marxist movements appear to be freaking out in a last minute attempt to solidify their position before people push back en masse. A particularly strong and openly hostile anti-nationalist rhetoric has come from unelected bureaucrats, such as those within the European Union. I think the reason for this response is simple; the ideology of woke will be wiped away in the near future unless they can take hold within governing bodies and suppress dissent. This has been made evident in recent weeks with the European Unions attitude towards Italy, Sweden, and Poland's rise in nationalism at the polls. Despite the average citizen's change in political opinion, EU politicians have stated that they will use 'tools' to push back against these movements. The message couldn't be clearer, and the EU - as with most international governing bodies - does not care about the rights or opinions of everyday people, going so far as to simply label a democratically chosen government that doesn't adhere to its ideology as illegitimate.

The blatant carelessness of the media over the past year has likely killed off any last remnant of legitimacy it held in the public eye. A great example is the continuous attack on Italian politicians lately for stating that they will put Italians - not WEF and EU agendas - first. What was the media's point of criticism in labelling them 'far right'? That they stated they will pursue 'ending illegal immigration', they will 'put Italians first', and they will 'focus on family and lessening living difficulties'. At this point it is all so tiring to so many people. Why would anyone continue working against their best interest when things get hard?

Now on a side note, I believe the war in Ukraine is becoming something akin to an extension of the social issues plaguing Europe and the west. The confusion many people have experienced when confronted with the reality of the situation has proven this. Hence the continuous mental gymnastics made by the media to justify support for a military who proudly proclaims its descent from the SS Galicia, whilst tirelessly demonising Russia NOT simply because of the invasion (which would make sense) but because of their stated ideological goal of fighting against Western European globalism. Now add to that the fact that the media was regularly reporting on Ukrainian corruption before the war followed by a complete flip in the opposite direction, and now even in the supposed 'support of Ukraine' (pulling every trick out of the hat to demonise Russia) the media still refuses to acknowledge the Soviet-made 'Holodomor' famine that killed roughly 8 million Ukrainians in 1933.

All of the reasons combined make for a general geist of suspicion and distrust. Returning to an earlier point, the Nord Stream 2 incident serves as a perfect example of a growing indifference within the west. Was it sabotaged by US forces? Who knows. What is for certain is that it wouldn't matter, because - as Hegel would put it - the spirit of the time dictates that such global entities as the US are to be distrusted regardless. Whether Russia, the US, China, or any other competing power does or does not do something is beyond the point in this broad cultural shift. All that matters is that no one can be trusted any more. I should mention that this shouldn't necessarily be the case if things were working as they should be (which they are currently not), in which case an individualist America - one that actually sticks to its founding doctrine - would be a more trustworthy global partner than a collectivist state such as China. But since no one is actually able to discern whether or not the US has become a collectivist state, nor whether collectivism is a good idea or not (some advice: it isn't), the whole situation is made far more confusing.

The return of European warfare?

To tangent slightly, I also see this splintering of trust between nations as a possible precursor to increases in regional conflict. This is the exact same issue which plagues Africa and the Middle East. Both regions suffer from radical political and economic differences, much of which began to return in force following the 'fall' of imperialism. I am not making the case for such global entities as the European Union or such, however I am saying that such systems initially worked in keeping large groups of nations unified in their goals. European nations have lived in relative peace for the better part of a century, having 'overcome' the long history of continuous intra-national conflict following it's apparent culmination in the First World War. However, it is naive to think this will continue. Germany's territorial retribution culminating in the Second World War resulted in many nations - such as Latvia, Finland, Polish Galicia, Azerbaijan, and Croatia - taking the conflict as opportunity to settle either territorial, ideological, or racial disputes, and thus it is naive to assume that World War I 'put an end' to Europe's history of regional warfare. It merely suppressed it for a time.

For this exact reason, I see many nations - particularly the Balkan states and the Caucasus region - diving back into conflict in the near future. With a general distrust towards both Russia and the United States growing, it is not evident that either side will be able to contain the aims of any particular nation if things turn south. For those nations looking to expand, then a fractured Europe is necessary to mitigate the possibility of border disputes, international intervention, and so forth. In this same manner, I believe any return to regional conflict will likely be isolated to said region and it's neighbours. I do not necessarily believe that any individual conflict will directly lead to global war, since such a global conflict usually assumes clear indicators of 'right' and 'wrong'. In the past, this was utopian collectivism (Nazis, Imperial Japanese, Soviets) against individualism (United States, UK, and the rest). Now however, it is not so clear who stands for what any more. Instead, it is more likely that regional conflict will open the door for other nations to take advantage of the situation. This is what I believe Azerbaijan, Kazakstan, and most worryingly Turkey are doing as the Russia-Ukraine problem takes centre stage - each positioning themselves either internally or, in the case of Turkey, externally for expansion and change.

Again, it is not a certainty that such hostility will arise in the case of rapid change, but historically there is precedent for it. The preferable outcome to the changes we are witnessing as of late would be a moderate move away from negative foreign influence, with a recommitment to national interests rather than international agendas. I mention this because war and conflict can occur in the case of a power vacuum - such as distrust of the United States leading to a military withdrawal from Germany - thus leaving the nations in Europe relying on America in various states of military disarray. If all goes well, then a nation-oriented focus will not result in expansionist regimes emerging, but rather an increased stability within Europe as each nation better equips itself in offence and defence capability, mitigating the threat of conflict.

Where to now?

At this point in time I am unsure of just where Europe is heading. It is highly possible that nationalism will reemerge even amongst the Germans and French, although the latter must be pushed into a position of catastrophe before turning to such a political worldview.

Immigration has proven - to the surprise of no one - catastrophic to various cultures across Europe. In the name of 'acceptance' and 'equality' this was simply tolerated. With a rising crime rate across the continent, combined with growing hardships in every direction, this mask of compassion will likely be thrown away as a swing towards anti-immigration and closed borders emerges amongst the general population. The immigration problem is something I have foreseen having radical repercussions ever since it took the spotlight in 2014. This long-lingering issue will likely be the first addressed by nationalist Europeans.

As critics would highlight, it is possible that practically all of these issues can have radically violent outcomes if the populations of Europe are pushed into a corner. This happened in Germany during the 1920s, and it can happen again if stupid anti-human policies and ideas continue to be forced onto the population. I am already seeing the younger generation (who have no true historical experience beyond the various attempts by educational systems to brainwash them) push back strongly against socialism, whilst beginning to idolise radical (as in, actual radical) far right dictatorships as 'based' historical groups who had the peoples best interest in mind, unfairly defeated by the evil communists with the support of 'weak' societies such as England and the United States. This keeps in line with the trend away from counterculture leftist ideas such as college Marxism and free love, which were once seen as cool by the younger generation (in 1969), but are now relegated to the garbage bin, alongside other forms of outdated 'cringe' such as Andy Warhol, modern art, and John Lennon.

I foresaw this coming, as this was the inevitable outcome of forcing inhuman garbage onto young people until they eventually found the most radical alternative. As the lead signer of the Sex Pistols recently put it, he never thought conservatism would become the counterculture 'sticking it to the man', but here we are. It is for this reason that people must be allowed to freely express their own opinions without being demonised. Censoring people doesn't simply make them 'go away', it bottles things up and births radicals. Regardless of political leaning, free speech and sensible critique must be allowed if stability is to be kept. This is also why such idiocies as 'hate speech' laws - which inevitably harm young people more than anyone - must be thrown away. In various European countries, police already raid the houses of those accused of 'hate speech' (which, suspiciously enough, usually involves calling out someone in power), search their phones, and broadcast their arrests on the media to demonise them.

In response to all of this, I believe that Europe will see a resurgence of nationalism if the European Union (lead primarily by France and Germany) continue to push absurd utopian socialism on their population. What has thus far happened in the hypothetical hard times (speculation, not actuality) does not reflect what will actually happen if times get hard to the point of negatively effecting the average individuals standard of living. As soon as that happens, voting will change, masks of virtue will fly off, and European politics will drastically change. The general population will likely move towards traditional values, and will either elect conservative leaders or force instability if elections are clearly rigged by external forces. Already Sweden, Italy, Hungary, and Poland are beginning to swing towards conservatism. Most of Eastern Europe and the Balkans will follow (although they didn't change that much to begin with). Turkey will likely break further from the EU as it attempts to solidify itself as its own superpower. The most radioactive nations will likely be the Baltic states, which have been both pro-EU, and vehemently anti-communist, thus I have no idea where they will swing.

The broader picture here can be simplified to this - if you want to avoid catastrophe, let people speak freely about their opinions, and vote how they see fit. An attitude that once would have been so obvious no one would have had to articulate it.

Peace is possible within Europe, but I believe it comes down to stronger individual nations, not a collectivised continental society. The road forward isn't clear yet, but I believe Europe can recover if they reject the utopian socialism being thrust upon them.
Winston Smith is trying to understand and avoid mass psychosis. Musing about freedom, health, psychology, spirituality, and the nature of things. Suffers from totalitariophobia (fear of oppression), extremely curious, and works for The Ministry of Truth.