The Case for Continentalism

The Case for Continentalism, by Steve Sailer.

Remarkably, European solidarity, once the progressive cause par excellence, is increasingly viewed as hateful racism, as suggested by the conventional wisdom’s berserk reaction to President Trump’s speech last week in Warsaw in praise of the people of Poland and of the Western civilization of which they are a part.

For example, Slate, The Atlantic, The New Republic, and Salon all declared Trump’s Poland speech to be white nationalist.

Once again, Trump’s historical role appears to be to act as a catalyst accelerating existing trends, inciting his enemies to declare what’s really been on their minds all along. Thus, even cohesion in Western Europe, which is favored by Trump’s Polish hosts, is now viewed as a racist plot against People of Color, denying them their rightful right to migrate en masse to Europe. …

While the PC left control what’s permissible to say, they win — except when survival itself is at stake:

It’s widely assumed that nationalism is the driving force in this newly dominant dichotomy [of globalism versus nationalism], but the contortions of nationalist Brexit advocates to fit their arguments within the narrow parameters of acceptableness to the media suggest instead that the globalists hold the ideological whip hand.

For example, the United Kingdom Independence Party made the argument that Britain is plagued by too much immigration from Poland and should instead turn for immigrants to the old Commonwealth countries, such as, well, Pakistan, which had already brought them the Rotherham pimps.

But with such a huge advantage in the terms of discourse, why do the globalists ever lose, as they did in Britain and America in 2016?

One big reason: As the strident reaction of mainstream pundits in the West to Trump’s speech makes clear, the globalist dogma has become increasingly extreme. Antinationalist ideology is in the grips of a purity spiral resembling Salem in 1692.

For example, the new golden boy of globalism, blank-screen French president Emmanuel Macron, dismayed his American enthusiasts this week by merely mentioning the extremely high fertility in some African countries. …

Population 1950-2010 Africa, ME, Europe

Of course, overpopulation in Africa and the Middle East would lead to ever more tens or hundreds or thousands of millions of migrants attempting to penetrate Europe.

At present, however, Europeans are sending out ships to tow the huddled masses across the Mediterranean. How can Europe avoid winding up like Detroit writ large without organizing a perimeter defense? But Europeans can’t muster the will for self-preservation without developing some continental self-respect: the idea, now largely forbidden, that they deserve their own continent.

In the days of decolonization of African and Asia, in the 1950 and 60s, the left said “Africa for Africans and Asia for Asians” but now add “white countries for everybody”.


Europe’s not my continent, so I don’t have particularly strong views on how Europeans ought to arrange their affairs. But what is interesting is how unthinkable the arguments for Europeans favoring Europeans have become.

The basic idea behind concentric degrees of territorial neighborliness is that you have more to gain from trade with those close to you and more to lose from violent conflict with them simply because, for good or bad, you can get at your neighbors more easily than you can the people on other continents.

Similarly, you are probably better able to get along politically with those nearby than with those on the far side of the world because you have more in common with your neighbors. …

The logic of concentricism is so obvious that it’s almost never articulated anymore. If you look at people in Peru, Manchuria, or Chad, you’ll notice that they tend to feel the most duties and allegiances toward those whom they consider most like themselves, moderate amounts toward those moderately close to them, and so forth outward and onward.

Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.

The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other.


Poland is increasingly viewed by the American media as deplorable because the Law and Justice Party that won an outright majority of parliamentary seats in late 2015 has resisted Chancellor Merkel’s demand that the rest of Europe bail her out of her error of authorizing an immense hegira of a million or so military-age non-European males. The elected Polish government has refused to allow Merkel’s Muslims to form chain-migration beachheads in their nation-state.

To the American media, therefore, the Poles now embody the cardinal sin of Islamophobia. For example, veteran American journalist Walter Shapiro scoffed in The Guardian: “… About all that was missing from Trump’s Warsaw war cry was a rousing chorus of Onward Christian Soldiers.”

Today, of course, we know that we ought to be singing “Onward, Muslim Migrants.”

Poland is extremely nondiverse. Thus, it has suffered no terrorism in recent years.

To goodthinkers, there’s something about Poland’s recent good fortune that just seems wrong. Poland’s not broken, the feeling grows, so let’s break it.

The Polish state having no Muslim refugees, no terrorism, and no desire to replicate the mistakes of France and Germany is, actually, not all that ironic when you stop and think about it. But thinking is out of fashion.