Friday, 12 September 2014



How should someone concerned about the Genocide of the European Peoples respond to the question of Scottish independence? I have seen a range of views expressed, including many from those who see the world broadly as I do yet oppose Scottish independence because they view it as furthering the EU agenda of disempowering “nation states” and moving towards a Europe of regions presided over by the Brussels superstate.

That, in my view, is not the right way to see it. The arguments against the United Kingdom are the same as those against the European Union. Transnational governmental structures don’t work. Democracy needs a demos, a people. In transnational governmental constructs, the people lack empathy with one another, based on our genetically programmed tendencies to empathise with those who share our genes. Most of the world’s problems, historically and in the present day, are caused by the lack of empathy between distinct peoples force to live together in the same physical space or under the same governmental authority. This tendency towards differential empathy is so strong that it tends to overpower any other consideration. As a consequence, ethnically divided countries find themselves caught up in endless conflict between the distinct peoples.

This, incidentally, is why Judaism and Islam cause havoc wherever they spread. Because Judaism and Islam are deterritorialised forms of nationalism. Deterritorialised nationalism doesn’t fit within the mental paradigm of our modern ruling class (although the concept was generally recognised prior to the French revolution). They therefore cannot process or react rationally to the problems that Judaism and Islam cause.

The key question of course is: what is a people? What divides one people from another? Most of history can be explained by rulers attempting to impose their preferred, artificial definition of peoplehood on the one that people actually felt. It seems to me that the sense of identity is irreducibly subjective. If a set of individuals mutually feel themselves to belong to a distinct “tribe”, then they are a distinct “tribe”. Their self-definition should simply be respected. The Scots see themselves as fundamentally distinct from the English. Virtually ALL Scots see it that way, including those who, for pragmatic reasons, will vote NO in the upcoming referendum. It makes no sense to argue about whether they OUGHT to see themselves as being distinct or not. If they do, they do. That’s it.

Ethno-nationalism is the optimal organising principle for the world because it maximises the sense of empathy between people. And empathy is a precious commodity. What we have seen throughout history is that ambitious rulers create an artificial definition of who “their people” ought to be and use their power to terrorise others into accepting it. This applies to historical empires like the Habsburg one and to constructs in the present day, like the European Union, which in many ways is a recreation of it. The Habsburg empire is what gave birth to Hitler, Zionism, the First World War and therefore also the Second World War. The ethno-nationalism of Hitler and Theodor Herzl (the founder of Zionism) was shaped by their experience of growing up in the Habsburg imperium. They could see the different ethnic factions at one another’s throats, making the “country” ungovernable. They drew the correct lesson from that experience, namely that ethno-nationalism should be the vital organising principle for any healthy state. Of course, this is not to say that their attempts to realise this principle in practice were without flaws.

The elites of modern Europe have completely misread history. They blame nationalism for the catastrophes of the First and Second World Wars when the truth is that they were caused by the artificial repression of nationalism. Since nationalism cannot be successfully suppressed over the long term, attempting to repress it means only that it gathers its strength in subterranean bitterness. When it eventually breaks out, it will do so all the more cataclysmically for having been repressed. In response to two apocalyptic wars caused by the repression of nationalism, Europe’s ruling class decided that the proper response to it was to repress nationalism some more, thus sowing the seeds of more misery and death to be inevitably harvested by future generations.  

Everywhere we look in the world, from the Ukraine, to Iraq, to Nigeria, to Israel/Palestine, we problems caused by individuals who see themselves as belonging to distinct peoples yet are forced to live together, against their will, in the same physical space or under the same government. The proper response to this is to recognise that nationalism, instead of being repressed, must be rationally accommodated. Ethno-nationalism must be valorised intellectually and then implemented in practice by redrawing the borders of the world and, in some cases, simply moving people from one place to another to form homogeneous ethno-blocks.

This is the first argument in favour of Scottish independence: that it would represent the specific realisation of a more general, desirable organising principle: ethno-nationalism. I will explore other arguments in Part 2.


UPDATE: This article, which was published yesterday in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, provides an interesting counterpoint to what I wrote above.

For much of the summer, Europe has been gripped by a fear of violence wafting from the Middle East and settling in the continent. For the public, the threat is the spectre of hundreds of homegrown jihadis, returning from fighting in the ranks of radical Islamic movements in Syria and Iraq and carrying out terror attacks in their countries of birth. Jewish communities have felt a double threat. First, there are the European jihadis who have succeeded mainly in carrying out attacks against Jewish targets: Mohammed Merah at the Otzar Hatorah school in Tolouse two years ago and Mehdi Nemmouche at the Jewish Museum in Brussels in May. In addition, there has been the concern over the way protests against Israel’s operation in Gaza have prompted hundreds of anti-Jewish attacks and incidents throughout Europe. 
These are very real threats – to Europeans and Jews in particular. All 16 people killed over the last decade in anti-Jewish attacks (including theBurgas bombing and the Ilan Halimi murder in France) were murdered by Muslims acting out of hatred of Jews. Dozens of similar plans were uncovered by European and Israeli intelligence services before they could be carried out. 
But as bad as the threat posed by the European jihadis is to the continent’s security and to its Jewish communities, it is not an existential one. Even if radical Islamist cells succeed in carrying out major acts of terror, it won’t be the first time Europe has weathered similar attacks. It will be difficult and there will be casualties but there is no reason to suppose that the Jews of Europe, protected as they are both by the authorities and well-organized communal security bodies, cannot withstand these attacks. 
No matter what some people tell you, Europe is not about to succumb to a wave of radical Muslim hordes. The numbers are simply not there. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe want to integrate and are in no way represented by a few thousand jihadis. And besides, a backlash is already taking place, and in some cases it is taking the form of an old form of European nationalism that contains within it elements that could be just as dangerous, if not more so, to Europe’s minority groups, including the Jews. 
There is a feeling among some Jews, particularly on the right, that for the time being it would make more sense to find allies among the various brands of nationalists and “patriots” in Europe and North America, who see the spread of Islam through Europe as a threat. They are willing to overlook or excuse the racist components of these movements in the belief that Islamism is the mortal enemy. 
This is a self-defeating approach, similar to the “pragmatic” attitude that sees the murderous and anti-Western regimes in Iran and Syria as allies of the West in fighting ISIS.
Neither should this be about left or right. The far-left has historically led the fight against some forms of racism in Europe, but at the same time has tried to whitewash other racist brands that were on the good side in their dichotomic worldview. The right may not have such a good record in combating racism in the past but it can argue that the vision of open markets, open borders and globalization, which are all right-wing ideals, offer the best antidotes to xenophobia. Fighting nationalism must not be about politics, but rather about decency and tolerance. 
Nationalism is this season’s inescapable fashion in Europe. It comes in many shapes and sizes, but it was an almost uniform trend across the continent in the last European Parliament elections where anti-EU parties made significant gains. The latest polls in France put Front National leader Marine Le Pen ahead of President Francois Hollande and next week, in Scotland, European nationalism may achieve its greatest post-war victory when the Scots, as some polls indicate, could vote in favor of breaking away from the United Kingdom. 
Scottish nationalists claim with a certain degree of justification that their nationalism is a tolerant and benign strain, untainted by racism (though the sectarian hatred between Protestants and Catholics has not been totally eradicated). As far as the Jewish experience in Scotland goes, this is certainly true. Scotland prides itself as being the only country in Europe never to have any form of discriminatory laws against Jews, a land where not one Jew has ever been killed because of his or her ethnic identity.
Long before there were Jews in Scotland, the 14th-century Declaration of Arbroath, a text much beloved by today’s Scottish nationalists, proclaimed, “There is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek, Scotsman or Englishman.” 
If the Scots Nationalists win next Thursday in the independence referendum, the new Scotland may well prove to be an enlightened nation where diverse minorities live at peace. But there have already been ugly undertones to the independence campaign, including verbal abuse and even some violence directed toward supporters of staying in the United Kingdom. 
Meanwhile, in England the anti-immigration UKIP party has been making significant gains, jeopardizing the Conservative party’s chances of remaining in power. UKIP disavows racism and even has a few Jewish members, but xenophobic, racist and misogynist candidates have a knack of constantly turning up in its ranks. 
Just as Front National claims to have changed, and a few French Jews even want to take it at its word and join it in fighting the Muslim menace, it has yet to repudiate Le Pen Sr.’s anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. 
There is no question that, historically, Jews have never been safer and better integrated than they are in the English-speaking nations that were either founded by immigrant groups (United States, Canada, Australia) or that, as in Britain, absorbed large influxes of immigrants over the centuries. None of these societies were perfect – they harbored racism and slavery, severely mistreated native populations and are still dealing with difficult historical legacies to this day. But no other countries in the world can match their level of tolerance and the freedom enjoyed by their minorities; the success of the Jewish communities in these countries is a testament to that. 
Growing Muslim minorities are not threatening Jewish integration and success, but separatism and nationalist xenophobia might. It is no coincidence that the only openly anti-Semitic mainstream party in Europe today is Jobbick in Hungary, a country gripped in nationalism that has hardly any Muslims. 
Open anti-Semitism is, of course, unthinkable in today’s politics in North America, but there is one party with representatives who periodically get away with what at best can be described as borderline anti-Jewish remarks – and that is the Parti Québécois, the movement which desires to break up Canada into Francophone and English-speaking parts. Once again, it is hardly a coincidence that this throwback to European nationalism in the New World falls foul time and again. 
The venal corruption of some of the inane bureaucrats of the European Union has obscured this body's unique achievement. For the last six decades, it built a European society that turned back the tides of separatism and nationalism that had drenched the continent in so much bloodshed over the centuries, afflicting none more than the Jews. A return of these twin evils to Europe has the power to unleash destruction and hatred that Islamic jihadism could only dream of.


UPDATE: Mohammad Sarwar, the Governor of the Punjab, says Scotland must vote No! This Paki was a Labour MP in Glasgow. In true Asiatic fashion, his son inherited his parliamentary seat from him when he moved back to the Punjab to become its governor. The Sarwar faction is still said to dominate the Scottish Labour party.

 
PunjabSarwarForNo by V1683


8 comments:

  1. "Deterritorialised nationalism"

    I kept wracking my brain to think of a concise way of describing the idea of citizenship from the muslim perspective in regards to the question of how muslims are not citizens of any non-muslim created territorial nation.

    Thanks for that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. THREE IMPORTANT RIGHTS


    Three Rights which, in my opinion, should be preserved:
    .
    1 - The right to monoparenthood in traditionally monogamous societies: see the blog "The Origin Of Sex-Taboo". [English]
    .
    2 - The right to veto who pays (the taxpayer) - Semi-Direct Democracy: see the blog "Fim-da-Cidadania-Infantil". [Portuguese]
    .
    3 - The right to survival of indigenous identities: see the blog "50-SEPARATISM-50." [English]
    .
    .
    .
    P.S.
    The separatists-50-50 doesn't seek pretexts to deny the Right to survival of others one... the separatists-50-50 only claim the Right to survival of Indigenous Identities (read: the 'globalization-lovers' must respect the rights of others one... and vice versa!)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you. Cheradenine, for your interesting article on the Scottish referendum. I would like to comment on some paragraphs:
    Transnational governmental structures don’t work. Democracy needs a demos, a people. In transnational governmental constructs, the people lack empathy with one another: Not only a democracy! Every empire consisting of multi cultures and ethnic group is falling apart. See the Soviet Union. Many people in South American countries do not refer to the country they are living in but to their ethnic group they belong too as Italians, Spaniards etc.
    people lack empathy with one another, based on our genetically programmed tendencies to empathise with those who share our genes …. This is correct. If you take the Muslim community in The Netherlands they share one Allah and the general hatred against the indigenous Dutch ..The “Dhimmies”. For the rest, different Muslim communities are segregating themselves in their own community. Turks and Moroccans are not socializing. They don’t want to live in the same apartments block, they don’t visit the same mosques etc. A Turk would never let his daughter marry a Moroccan even if the Moroccan is Muslim and otherwise. People who are living or had lived in the back neighbourhoods of The Hague know there is a silent concurrence between ethnic Muslim groups; each one of them wants to have a majority; especially when the groups are involved in criminal activities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what is a people? What divides one people from another? Every folk in Europe is different from it’s neighbouring folks even if they share the same border or even the same language. The Flemish people are different from the Dutch in mentality, sense of humour, traditions and way of living; even if they share the same language. There is no way to compare the Calvinist Dutch with the Flemish Catholic who loves lot of joyful life. The same can be said on Germany, Austria and Switzerland (the German part of it) In Germany are the people different from region to region; despite the fact that every one wants to see them as collective krauts. Even if you are Dutch that is born and raised up abroad, coming to The Netherlands means encountering familiar things. ...starting by the language and finish by the wind meals and Sinterklaas (St. Nicolaas celebration on 5th December). With love you encounter things that you had grown up with them. When my son had visited France, he was, on one occasion, asked to his family name. The person who had asked it, smiled and said : Français? That meant a kind of recognition: you are not French but you are of French origin. My son loved France because he had seen there something that was a part of himself. Even if he doesn’t speak the language.

      Delete
    2. It is correct that ethno-nationalism is therefore the optimal organising principle. Indeed it maximise the sense of empathy between people and empathy is a precious commodity. This is exactly why the Cultural – Marxists who are hanging the “Frankfurter Schüle” in the EU (the most of them) are so dangerous for us. They are striving to destroy the nation state and build a Soviet-like empire on it’s ruins. They do not only lack any form of empathy for the indigenous people, they had become their most dangerous enemies. In order to achieve their youth dream on multicultural society and the so called “melting pot” they are for more than 40 years importing a whole tsunami waves of immigrants and refugees from Third World countries. They are turning the country, their parents and ancestors had built, into “Jurassic Park’. I am using the book of Michael Crichton as for the upper echelon of Cultural-Marxists and Liberals are still using the poor of their country as guinea pigs in a long-term anthropological experiment where the social rental houses are used as labs.
      The elites of modern Europe have completely misread history. The trouble is that the elites of modern Europe had slept through history lessons during the time they had visited high school. Later on, as politicians, they had tried to give history the perception made at the time of the Flower Power movement. The best British politician of today (to my idea) Paul Weston of Free GB had written three articles on the subject who are necessary to understand our time “How to destroy a country
      http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/5880-how-to-destroy-a-country-part-two

      Delete
    3. There is no question that, historically, Jews have never been safer and better integrated than they are in the English-speaking nations that were either founded by immigrant groups (United States, Canada, Australia) The reason for that is: all the people in these countries are immigrants. The countries themselves had become so successful as for they were founded by people hanging the Protestant Church. The Protestant life philosophy of hard work, team work and achievement are the cornerstones for a successful society. This can explain the difference between US and Canada and the countries in South America.

      Delete
    4. Remark on Theodor Herzl : Theordor Herzl had good experience concerning the Habsburg empire. Vienna of the Habsburgs was in general, a nice place to be. A place where art, science, architecture and (medical)technology came together. Theodor Herzl was a ‘school example’ for the integrated Jew. He was a man of the world who nearly had forgotten he was born as a Jew….till the Dreifuss affaire in France of 1894. When he had heard the mob crying ‘death to the Jews’ - holding violent demonstrations the way ISIS-supporters are doing today – he understood that Jews need like any other nations a country of their own. For Theordor Herzl it didn’t matter where it should be; even Uganda!. Though the Eastern European Jews had insisted upon Palestine. Theodor Herzl was not the one who invent Zionism. He was the one who gave it a political shape. He had grounded so to speak the ‘Sinn Féin’ of the Jews.

      Delete
    5. That is actually a myth about Herzl and the Dreyfus case. I read a recent biography of Herzl that refuted that specific point.

      Delete