british cosmopolitan

Robert Carlyle - the world’s most loveable man in 1998

The Bafta award winning Scot saw off Hollywood heartthrobs like Brad Pitt and Leonardo di Caprio to clinch the passion prize.

100 Men We Love: British Cosmopolitan Magazine 1998

  1. Robert Carlyle
  2. Robbie Williams
  3. George Clooney
  4. David Ginola
  5. John Travolta
  6. Alan Shearer
  7. David Duchovny
  8. Michael Owen
  9. Tom Hanks
  10. Ronan Keating 

   15.  Brad Pitt

   22.  Chris Evans

   35.  Leonardo di Caprio

Right page: Number 1 - Robert Carlyle; Age 37; We love him because: He can convince us he’s a cosy cop like Hamish Macbeth or a nutter drug addict in Trainspotting. Whatever, Cosmo readers have fallen in love with every character he’s played. He says he chooses a script for its ‘social comment’ and you can’t help being impressed. But you ain’t seen nothing yet–just wait until you get a load of his frilly shirt and knee-high boots playing a highwayman in this autumn’s swashbuckler, Plunkett and Macleane. No work-shy fop, he’s just finished filming Angela’s Ashes with Emily Watson in Dublin and is starring in a film called Ravenous in the new year. Man we’d most love to: Strip for us in our own private version of The Full Monty.

Against Pan-Europeanism

I have not seen the argument made before but I think it is logical that losing your local ethno-cultural identity is a step toward losing your broader racial identity. Regional sub-categories of White nationalism be they British, Polish or Swedish act as barriers to multiracialism and ethno-cultural destruction. There is a larger distance between identity and universalism when we are dealing with “nation - continent - world” or “British - European - cosmopolitan” than when we think just in terms “continent - world” or “Europeanism - globalism”. After your regional ethno-cultural traditions have been torn up, the jump between a relatively hollow continental identity and a totally hollow global identity is far smaller.

Richard Spencer has claimed that Polish immigration into Britain was an example of “cultural enrichment”. As admirable as Poles are, very few British people who live in a neighborhood racked with Polish immigration (or virtually any foreign immigration) would agree. It is fallacious to claim that immigration is in any way necessary for us economically, as I’m sure the hard-headed Chinese would agree. Large-scale permanent European immigration into Britain prevents migrants from building their own nations and separates them from their own historical regional identities. If they do not attempt to assimilate and retain their foreign European identity as many do, we have a problem with an emergent ethnic lobby that we created through our inaction.

National identity is clearly important to most of us, as the pan-Europeanists are often fond of pointing out with derision. They scorn “petty nationalism” as a source of wars, seemingly oblivious to the fact that this is identical to the false leftist critique of nationalism generally. We do not require the abolition of borders or the annihilation of all competing loyalties to co-operate in our mutual interests, especially in the information age and with numerous alien enemies in our respective midst’s. Putting all of our eggs in one political basket runs the risk of breaking them all if we had an incompetent or treasonous central European government. It’s doubtful that European politicians will serve their respective constituencies as well as national politicians because local ethno-cultural ties will have been severed but even if they did, they may be accused of regional favouritism which would just create more racial division.

Constantin Von Hoffmeister and Richard Spencer support globalist-lite intra-European mixing on a European scale, rather than a world scale as favoured by anti-White globalists. Spencer’s Russian/Mongol/Turkic wife and daughter may play a role in his calculations. For all his professed anti-Americanism, Spencer wishes to enforce the 1865-1965 U.S. ethnic model on the whole White world with some kind of “global European Imperium”. The vast majority of Whites feel a connection to their national identities first, so such an empire would create bitter resentment, as we have seen with the EU. There’s a reason why the vast majority of self-professed cosmopolitans are anti-nation state, pro-EU, while the vast majority of even vaguely conservative or nationalistic people are anti-EU, pro-nation state. Any European empire would have to ban secession and maybe even compel entry; artificial political entities always have to employ authoritarianism, as we have learned in modern Britain. A tyrannical, anti-British, pro-White state may be preferable to a tyrannical, anti-British, anti-White state but the former is hardly ideal. Maintaining distinct but harmonious British, Italian, Swedish and Polish identities is in the best interests of us all.