The First World War was caused by the repression of nationalism


The anniversary of WW1 Armistice Day has again brought to light the standard falsification of history in our ruling class: they blame it on nationalism.

This belief forms the intellectual underpinning for the genocidal catastrophe they are inflicting on their own peoples through immigration and enforced diversity.

It is, however, the absolute opposite of the truth. The First World War was not caused by nationalism. It was caused by the repression of nationalism. Nationalism, the wish to live in secure territory of your own with others of your own kind, is not an ideology or political philosophy. It is a core human instinct, fundamentally the same instinct that causes immigrants to congregate in ghettoes with others of the same faith, skin colour or national origin; and the same instinct that causes us to “white flight” away from them.

The First World War arose from tensions that emerged from within transnational empires through repression of the subject people’s patriotic instincts. No matter how hard rulers tried to instil an artificial patriotism based around the empire or royal house, it could never be an acceptable substitute for the magnetic forces of genetic empathy.

No entity embodied the folly of this transnational dream more perfectly than the Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian empire. A cockpit of resentful nationalities compelled to endure an unwanted togetherness, it provided the spark that lit the flames in Sarajevo. It also inspired the ethno-nationalist visions of Hitler and Theodor Herzl. Their experience of growing up in this failed experiment in diversity convinced them that anti-nationalism could never work and that each people needed a land of its own.

What an irony it is then that our rulers have responded to this catastrophic failure by attempting to recreate the conditions that led up to it. The European Union is the Habsburg Empire reborn. The pseudo-patriotism of “muh values,” “muh citizenship,” and “muh economy” is just a modern incarnation of the scorned imperial attachments of old.

It is perhaps the supreme tragedy of European history that our rulers responded to the twin catastrophes of the World Wars by completely misinterpreting what gave birth to them, misjudging their policies accordingly.

History, distilled down to its essentials, is simply this. People want to live, secure and free, in a land of their own with others of their own kind. Outsiders come in and attempt to take their resources from them, whether of land or of movable wealth. Imperial overlords, ambitious to control as many resources as possible, develop ideologies that justify this intrusion into the natural order of people living freely and securely in their own land. They impose these ideologies by force on a trans-national basis, beyond the natural ethnic limits of patriotism. Patriots resist these ideologies and their forceful imposition and attempt to regain control of a physical space for their own kind.

Almost all of history can be made to fit within this simple paradigm. The only thing that changes significantly is the nature of the ideology used to justify disruption of the natural ethnic order. And, unfortunately, we have not escaped history. We are still living through it, forced to wrestle with the latest mad justification from the powerful for forcing people to live with others they don’t want to live with and having their noses rubbed in diversity.



11 thoughts on “The First World War was caused by the repression of nationalism

  1. Fits to a 2017 lecture by Dutch-Italian philosopher & Sloterdijk disciple Marc Jongen (AfD) entitled “Migration and Thumos-training”.

    I can’t not find a text version. The left-wing pseudo-intellectuals, of course, immediately attacked him with the “fascism”-club.



        Greg Johnson:

        We got that out there, yeah. In case you were wondering about that . . . Really there are all sorts of things that Marxists are zeroing in on that are bad about capitalism and modernity. But I just don’t think that the Marxist framework is true or adequate. I don’t believe in historical materialism. I’m really a kind of historical idealist.

        I think, honestly, as a political philosophy and as an account of history, Hegel is disturbingly close to the truth for me. The great thing about Hegel, I think, is he rediscovers something that’s central to classical political philosophy, which is the concept of thumos, the middle part of the soul, the spirited part of the soul. Which is what? It’s attachment to one’s own, including one’s own identity ultimately. Not just one’s personal identity, one’s sense of honor, but also one’s place, one’s roots, one’s homeland, one’s people. That was, for all the classical Greek thinkers, the essentially political emotion.

        Desire. Well, that leads to the global marketplace. Reason. That leads to the cosmopolis, the republic of letters. But the distinctly political part of the soul that leads to diversity of political orders is thumos.

        Hegel believes that really thumos is the driving force of history. The master-slave dialectic is all about a struggle to the death over honor, which is the thumotic part of the soul.

        One of the things that I’ve been working on just recently is a review of Peter Sloterdijk’s book Rage and Time, because I found out that actually one of the strategists for Alternative für Deutschland is a student of his, and in Rage and Time Sloterdijk is arguing for the inadequacy of modern liberalism, and I would also say Marxism too, and psychoanalysis to understand the distinctly political emotions and passions which are connected with thumos. This fellow, whose name escapes me now [Marc Jongen], the Sloterdijk student, basically has come up with an argument for German nationalism that’s very, very simple and bypasses all of the events from 1933 to 1945.

        He simply says, “Look, it’s natural, normal, and right for people to love their own, to have a love of one’s own, a preference for people who are closer to them over strangers.” And that’s really the basis for ethnic nationalism. I think it’s a very powerful argument, actually.

        If you look at Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political, really the hidden assumption there is the power of thumos, because he says there will never be a global polity. Politics is always plural for him. What does that mean? It means that inherent in the political is a particularizing force that always will posit an “us vs. them.”

        And that, I think, is a dimension that for me really opened up the book of history. I don’t think that people really understand history by looking back at it from materialist lenses. I think that most of the cultural realm is based on an economy of, if you will, thumos rather than desire. Human beings are articulating their distinctness as a species by creating artificial worlds that are not governed by the economy of desire.

        And so, I look at someone like Bataille in his Nietzsche-influenced writings about culture as having something essential that he’s saying that fits in with the Hegelian and Platonic notion of thumos, because we create culture precisely by negating materialism. We raise ourselves above the realm of necessity by creating luxury. And so I think that history has to be understood not through materialism but primarily as a negation of materialism, which creates this realm of culture.

        That’s why I’m not a historical materialist.


  2. What an idiot Macron is. Nationalism is the opposite of patriotism? What are patriots patriotic about or for in the first place? Their country or nation! Without nations, there is NO patriotism. It’s no-borders globalism that’s the opposite of patriotism (aka, nationalism). There is no such thing as a “patriot of the world”. Just nonsensical doublespeak.

    As a side note, Herzl’s zionism movement to create Israel had nothing to do with jewish patriotism (a complete oxymoron) or making a home state for the jews. Even today, the vast majority of the world’s jews don’t live in Israel, and they never will. Zionism and Israel were just components of the jews’ plan for global domination. jews are only loyal to other jews, regardless of where they exist, including Israel.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Before allowing the turd world hordes in, the leaders of Australia and Europe should have researched the impact of blacks in America over the centuries. They’ve been in America since, what, the 1600’s, but yet are still different and still troublesome. America was the canary in the coalmine, whome the wider West should have used as an example of what not to do, but yet, let them in anyway without the consent of the people.
    The left argues that the Irish and Italians were once seen as different too, but yet went on to fit in and be productive citizens, and that the same will happen with Africans. The difference is the earlier groups were intelligent, Christian and had a culture and way of life simular to our own. In contrast, Africans will always be different, as indeed they still are in America.


  4. Our utterly useless and treacherous ‘leaders’ endlessly let in the dark hordes on ‘human rights’ grounds with no regard for the human rights of their OWN people-who will be victims of these invaders down track with their terrorism, gang activity, general disregard for law and order and disrespect of women. Other than more crime, traffic jams, pollution, welfare expense and housing developments, these people have nothing to offer.
    We’re told they’re fleeing poverty. Well what if the poverty NEVER end? Do we keep accepting them until we become their old country, at great expense to ourselves? They should remain in their country to help rebuild and contribute to it, not run off to whitey expecting us to babysit them, whilst also telling us how racist we are. They are not our problem.
    Our leaders were elected to serve us, not the third world.


    1. and it was less than 30 years ago when nobody locked their doors, kids weren’t autistic, there were only 2 sexes and everything wasn’t pc. we need a return of the white australia policy, as does every other white nation before its too late, and of course a juice free diet 😉


      1. @Jewbanker
        Whitlam scrapped the white Australia policy without taking it to a referendum. How dare he do that to us. Then Fraser did nothing to reverse it, and indeed went on to import Lebanese Muslims and Vietnamese war refugees. We all all know how their decendants now carry on.
        When politicians want your vote, they never say in the ads that they will….increase immigration, crime, taxes and foreign aid-but yet thats what they always give us.


  5. The First World War was planned by the Enemy Within who had been working on immigration policy changes within Britain and the US in the 19th century which introduced thousands of subversive, politically active Jews into those countries and then, starting in 1905, financial support for the Japanese against the Russians with the Russo-Japanese War (former Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Cameron, is the grandson and great grandson of the two men, both Jewish, who arranged loans for the Japanese Government through their Singapore bank, to finance the war which destabilised Russia and assured that Russia’s tentative moves towards a more democratic system would be halted). Then, in 1913, in blackmailing President Wilson over an extramarital affair, Jews succeeded in the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank and their fiat currency (an extension of ursury to the nth degree) and, in the same year, the provision of Income Tax via the US Federal Government, thus assuring the US population would be tied to debt slavery forever. Supporting various extreme ‘nationalist’ groups (such as the Black Hand which used Princip to assassinate the heir, Franz Ferdinand, to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was another way of their simply “covering all bases” (political and financial) and also supporting, financially, politicians such as Winston Churchill (possible Jewish mother) and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (whose grandfather, Warren Delano was Jewish of Venetian ancestry and whose firm supplied the ships for the Jewish Sassoon family which brought opium (and social disintegration with the habit) to China. Churchill, by the way, is also linked clearly to the Lusitania sinking which helped to bring the US into the First World War and, again, bringing the US into the Second World War with the knowledge of Franklin Roosevelt of the actual date of the attack on Pearl Harbor (the US Government having ordered its aircraft carriers out of PH into the open seas some days before the attack, thus ensuring there would be no protection for the planes and and ships left in PH (Freedom of Information Act 2012 revealed this “day of infamy” by FDR).

    I am not attempting to discredit the argument made for nationalism amongst peoples within European empires but it is a far larger picture than our enemies are ever prepared to admit to, which is why “full disclosure” of all aspects and players prior to the outbreak of each World War is a way to bring them down.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s