Nationalist Coalition Forms in Europe

Manuel Ochsenreiter is the director of German Center for Eurasian Studies and Editor in Chief of the German news magazine ZUERST!

The most important question is this: Will this new coaition explicitly recognize the racial nature of the current struggle? Without that, the battle is already lost.

NO BIRTH COMES without birth pangs. Prior to the huge Koblenz convention held by the “Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom” (ENF), the liberal mainstream media in Germany was attacking the press policy of the organisers, especially German MEP Marcus Pretzell. Because the organisers had decided to blacklist some notorious anti-right journalists and media outlets, not allowing them to attend the conference, crocodile tears of the excluded journalists flooded German mainstream media for many days — but the AfD party didn’t change its stance and kept the blacklist despite harsh criticism.

The ENF is the most influential and powerful pan-European group of patriots and sovereignists. The spotlight in Koblenz was on Marcus Pretzell (AfD, Germany), Frauke Petry (AfD), Marine Le Pen (Front National, France), Matteo Salvini (Lega Nord, Italy), Geert Wilders (PVV, Netherlands) and Harald Vilimsky (FPÖ, Austria). All the messages were clear: The Brussels Frankenstein monster called the “European Union” is the enemy, illegal mass migration has be to stopped, European values and our diverse national identities have to be defended.

But the ENF-convention in Koblenz was also the stage for other, less well known politicians from the Euroskeptic sphere such as MEP Laurentiu Rebega from Romania, who delivered an important speech. Rebega understands that fighting the common enemy is only one side of the coin. He also spoke about how this “New Europe” should take shape. How will the different European nation states organise their relations? How will we negotiate conflicts? There is no doubt that there are different national interests, also within Europe.

Rebega said in his speech:

“Each and every country has to make its own choices based on its values, its own history and its own particular interests. All within a Europe of Nations where we all belong.

We need a Europe of traditions and authentic freedom, a Europe with a multipolar policy that respects the idea of stability and security shared by all Member States.

The reform has to be initiated from the bottom to the top, starting from the will of the people and the communities in Europe and not the other way around, from hidden groups of interests that take decisions behind closed doors.

We want a Europe of national states that cooperate with each other based on those principles. I believe that Europe cannot be strong if its components are weak. Let’s strengthen the states and then Europe will be strong.”

Laurentiu Rebega

Why is it so important to have a vision of what happens the “day after” Brussels is no longer the centre of a supranational organisation called “EU”? What happens the day Angela Merkel is no longer chancellor anymore, and even — let us be optimistic — when AfD leader Frauke Petry becomes German chancellor? Germany will still be the dominating industrial and economic power in Europe. Other European countries such as France might see a threat in that fact. We shouldn’t forget why the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) — the “ancestor” of today’s EU — was created in the early 1950’s: to keep an eye and control on the German steel and coal industry. The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further wars between France and Germany.

All European patriots and sovereignists are today fighting the Brussels superstate. Of course that struggle unites all European patriots. But what will happen after Brussels is yet again only the capital of Belgium? It will still be the headquarters of NATO. What will the “New Europe” do about that? Will we have a “European Army” with or without the American hegemon? Will we replace the US extra-territorial power by the part-European power Russia?

And what will the “New Europe” do when it has regained control over its borders and enabled a functioning and well organised defence system against illegal mass migration? Will it still be a destabilising power in Africa and the Middle East? Or will the “New Europe” make a geopolitical U-turn and stop funding and supporting terrorism, as the EU does in Syria or Libya today? Will the “New Europe” cooperate with the Syrian government to develop a solid plan for a good and peaceful repatriation of Syrian refugees in Europe? Will the “New Europe” immediately lift the sanctions and embargos against Syria — for many Syrians the real reason to run away from their country? These are important questions: Because sooner or later a “New Europe” with an “EU” foreign policy agenda will have to realise that fences and walls won’t be enough against a constantly rising migration pressure.

And — this is also important — what about Ukraine? There is still a war raging in Donbass. Will the “New Europe” give a clear signal to Kiev to stop its aggression against civilians in Donbass? Will the “New Europe”, as a geopolitical pole, act as a power for peace in support of sovereignty and independence for the Donbass people?

Will the “New Europe” develop from the transatlanticist useful idiot (EU) to a geopolitical pole of strong power? How will we define our common European interest when it comes to the other geopolitical poles? And how will we balance the different inner-European interests? How will we act in order to prevent extra territorial powers and globalist NGO’s from taking advantage of the diversity of different national interests on our continent?

All these questions are of importance. There will be only one chance for a complete “re-boot” of Europe. If we fail, the cause is lost. Why? Because time is running out for our continent. There won’t be time to for long-term transitions, long debates about reforms or a slow dismantling of the EU bureaucracy. We already need the concepts of the “New Europe” now, the new “operating system” after we formatted the European hard drive.

Koblenz was a starting signal. Now we all have to run as fast as we can. It is a historical chance for Europe — and most probably the very last one.

* * *

Source: Free West Media

Previous post

The BBC Lies About Greeks and Trojans

Next post

Hundreds of Sicilians March Against Migrant Flood as Terror Hits


  1. 7 January, 2018 at 6:30 pm — Reply

    Yes, it’s interesting, but not surprising that this otherwise seemingly exciting speech made no mention of race, which immediately calls the true intention of its speaker and the ENF into question. At this very late stage of the game, anyone who does not recognize the core issue of race at the center of all these secondary concerns is either too naive to be a leader in any movement or actively involved in subverting the movement itself. The last thing Europe or the U.S. needs is a civic nationalist movement based on “culture” and borders. Perhaps because the meeting happened in Europe is why they didn’t mention jewish supremacy as the catalyst for all their current social / political problems, but the fact that they didn’t mention race at all says to me that they perhaps don’t see jews as an issue at all,either. That’s unfortunate.

    Lastly, it’s essential for race-aware Whites in the U.S. and elsewhere to have this kind of dialogue, too. Some think we need to have our own lands first before we decide what to do in them and that discussing socio-political infrastructure is putting the cart before the horse. I disagree. History shows that a new dictator always replaces the old one after most revolutions because there was no plan at the outset of what to do the day after victory. Thus, we must come to a relative consensus on some very difficult question now such as:

    1. How do we define who is “White” and quantify it scientifically to protect the future of our race?
    2. Are we strong enough to have a NO exceptions policy to rule #1, even if it means excluding the mixed-race relatives of other Whites…perhaps your own?
    3. What are the primary tenets of our society, and how do men and women support those ideals in different ways?
    4. What do we do about Whites who are red-pilled but still cling to Christianity?
    5. What to we do about gays? They do not reproduce themselves but are, in fact, produced entirely by heterosexual couples. If homosexuality isn’t a choice (and no evidence as of yet proves that it is so), heterosexual couples will still have gay children in a White society. This is an even tougher question than what to do with mixed-race relatives at the outset, because these children will have been born inside the society. Perhaps in a clean society free of the wrong influences, gays won’t be weaponized by politicizing their sexuality the same way women won’t be weaponized by politicizing their biology. Of course, all this depends on whether homosexuality is a choice or not, something we can’t scientifically prove as of yet, and what if it’s not? They’re still White people. What would be their role or function? I don’t know. I’d love to see National Alliance address these issues, but especially the last one. We really have to know what we stand for now and iron these things out or our new society will certainly devolve into fighting factions that destroy all we worked for.

    • JM/Iowa
      11 January, 2018 at 11:36 pm — Reply

      1. How do we define who is “White” and quantify it scientifically to protect the future of our race? White parents, 7 generations back is a decent baseline.
      2. Are we strong enough to have a NO exceptions policy to rule #1, even if it means excluding the mixed-race relatives of other Whites…perhaps your own? This is a function of the will of those who are ordained to lead our institutions. The answer is “yes” so long as those who lead are tested and selected according to rigorous standards which WE will write.
      3. What are the primary tenets of our society, and how do men and women support those ideals in different ways? Are you familiar with Cosmotheism? If yes, review the publications which pertain to this life philosophy. If not, contact me and I’ll help you find what you’re looking for here.
      4. What do we do about Whites who are red-pilled but still cling to Christianity? They can join us, follow us, or get out of the way.
      5. What to we do about gays? They might want to think twice about flouting their sexuality to a public that considers their behavior a public danger. The humane way to treat them (once identified as homosexuals) is to separate them from the main body of society and give them an opportunity to make their life useful in a setting that poses no danger to the rest of a healthy, White society.

      • 12 January, 2018 at 2:32 pm — Reply

        JM/IOWA: Sounds like a good place to start. In all I’ve read, I’ve never heard anyone address these issues specifically. There is much talk about an ideal White society, but mostly in an abstract sense with terms like “family values” and “culture”. There is often so much focus on what we don’t want in such a society (multiculturalism, jews, etc.), that we almost never talk about the finer details that would affect us on a day-to-day basis. These are good ideas.

  2. 11 January, 2018 at 1:26 pm — Reply

    The League of the South, the premier Southern/white nationalist organization in North America, stands ready to give whatever assistance is possible to a Europe of sovereign historic nation-states. Like you, we oppose the Global Elite who are trying to destroy our own historic culture and civilization.–Michael Hill, Chief

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.