Tuesday, 17 November 2009

Nationalismus

Nationalism-The term was coined by Johann Gottfried Herder (nationalismus)
during the late 1770s.] Precisely where and when it emerged is
difficult to determine, but its development is closely related to that
of the modern state and the push for popular sovereignty that came to a
head with the French Revolution in the late 18th century. Since that
time, nationalism has become one of the most significant political and
social forces in history, perhaps most notably as a major influence or
cause of World War I and especially World War II with the rise of
fascism, a radical and authoritarian nationalist ideology.


So there we have it according to wikipaedia a philosophy that is just over two hundred years old and is largely responsible for some of our more recent explosions of internecine bloodletting.

In British Isles we have many different cultures, the Scots,Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Londoners, Southerners, West Country, East Anglians, Midlanders, Geordies, Yorkshire etc. The Aenglisc
have been English for about a thousand years, the linguistic divide brought about by the Danelaw is still there, the difference between bath and barrth. My parents were born twenty miles apart, yet speak in completely different ways.

We have been British for only 302 years politically ! France did not have a common language until just before the 1st world war, Bretons and Normans are as different again as to the Provencales. Germany did not exist until 1870, Italy was another nineteenth century construct.

Nationalism is a bizarre philosophy based on the assumption that your 'team' is
better than the other team. It needs to create Chauvinism and Stereotypes. I would probably have more in common with a middle class Frenchman or Italian, that I would a working class Welshman or a member of the Scottish Landed Aristocracy, who are supposedly in my team.

A year ago Brown was banging on about British Jobs for British Workers, every other word was British. That has now been dropped as another failed Labour project.

National Identity is a fascinating study, if only for the myths it needs to sustain it.



“The Invention of the Jewish People" is a very serious study written by Professor Shlomo Sand, an Israeli historian. It is the most serious study of Jewish nationalism and by far, the most courageous elaboration on the Jewish historical narrative.

In his book, Sand manages to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jewish people never existed as a 'nation-race', they never shared a common origin. Instead they are a colourful mix of groups that at various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion.

In case you follow Sand’s line of thinking and happen to ask yourself, 'when was the Jewish People invented?' Sand’s answer is rather simple. “At a certain stage in the 19th century, intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people ‘retrospectively,’ out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people.”

Accordingly, the ‘Jewish people’ is a ‘made up’ notion consisting of a fictional and imaginary past with very little to back it up forensically, historically or textually. Furthermore, Sand - who elaborated on early sources of antiquity - comes to the conclusion that Jewish exile is also a myth, and that the present-day Palestinians are far more likely to be the descendants of the ancient Semitic people in Judea/Canaan than the current predominantly Khazarian-origin Ashkenazi crowd to which he himself admittedly belongs.

Astonishingly enough, in spite of the fact that Sand manages to dismantle the notion of ‘Jewish people’, crush the notion of ‘Jewish collective past’ and ridicule the Jewish chauvinist national impetus, his book is a best seller in Israel. This fact alone may suggest that those who call themselves ‘people of the book’ are now starting to learn about the misleading and devastating philosophies and ideologies that made them into what Khalid Amayreh and many others regard as the “Nazis of our time”.

Gilad Atzmon

Sand's book is a best seller in Israel, even though it largely demolishes the myth of the People of the Book, the diaspora and the Exile by the Romans never happened. Judaism was largely not a racial movement but an evangelical one. Sand advocates the Hispanics and Slavs 'converted' to Judaism.

The foundation of the Jewish State is predicated on a nationalist movement that was founded in Germany in the nineteenth century.



When you take a critical look at Nationalism it is a bankrupt notion. I have no desire to kill anybody that is of a different Nation, only the Leaders of Nations have a desire to do this because they have a vested interest to do so. Then again they do not get shot,mutilated or maimed. When the whole edifice is pulled down as in Germany in May 1945, the Nationalist myth is exposed for what it always was- a mad fraud.

Strip away the myths of Nationalism, and we are left with the basics, our individuality and our humanity. It is really difficult to hate a foreigner that you know and like personally, it is surprisingly easy to hate and kill a foreigner that you have never met before and has never caused you any personal grief.

62 comments:

Ampers said...

You wrote:

When you take a critical look at Nationalism it is a bankrupt notion. I have no desire to kill anybody that is of a different Nation, only the Leaders of Nations have a desire to do this because they have a vested interest to do so. Then again they do not get shot,mutilated or maimed. When the whole edifice is pulled down as in Germany in May 1945, the Nationalist myth is exposed for what it always was- a mad fraud.

I beg to differ, I do have a desire to kill the leaders of a certain nation

If I were forty years younger I would do it.

You won't have to far to find those national leaders!

Ampers

Steve Libertine said...

Surely being forty years older is more reason to do it? Less time inside.

Martin said...

When discussing nationalism (specifically, the ethnic variety) with an old teacher, we came to the same conclusion: Ethnic nationalism is to political philosophy what creationism is to science.

Yep. sounds about right.

Captain Haddock said...

A very thought provoking post OH ..

Ampers,

I know exactly to whom & what you allude .. and agree totally ..

Anonymous said...

So just because people have differing dialects there's no such thing as the English, Irish, Scots or Welsh.

Guthrum you're welcome to the mosques, temples, ethnic street and criminal gangs, bhangra, bollywood, honour killings, kebabs and all the other wonders of diversity. I hope you and your Fabian, Marxist and Globalist chums will be happy together. I wish you well.

Please leave those of us who want no part of it alone and spare us the pontifications on 'nationalismus'.

Nationalism does not require authoritarianism. Indeed I wonder how well your ideal 'diverse' society would operate without an authoritarian state holding it together? It's held together by lies, hypocrisy, double standards, political correctness and innumerable race laws at the moment.

I look forward to the day when the area you live in has become predominantly Muslim and your writing articles on how much better it is than having to live surrounded by those folk who mistakenly thought they were English.

Revolution Harry said...

I should have added, nationalism does not result in a desire to kill anybody. Quite the reverse.

GCooper said...

Well, that's Act III Scene I of Henry V put in historical perspective, isn't it?

JerryD said...

Its interesting - if you apply the word Anglo-Saxon to the countries settled by them, that is, the Anglo-Saxon world, you do see that Nationalism is a limited word.

A Nation based on race is contradictory - a tribe based on race - good, a culture on race - yes, good - a geographic area, hmm now thats interesting...

thelunaticarms said...

Weird way of looking at Nationalism OH and an eye opener for myself.

I'm a British-loving Patriot who believes the best chance for the Home Nations is Nationalism and then localism (keeping power as close to the people as possible - although one step at a time).

It really shouldn't matter in Blighty anyway. We're a bunch of Kingdoms under the heel of Her Majesty.

sickofit said...

The only answer is to unite Europe under beautiful Islam otherwise known as Sharia Law!

polaris said...

Excellent post Guthrum, I salute you...

Revolution Harry said...

Destroy nationalism and and this is what you get

"The new front-runner to be the first EU President is committed to a European national anthem and the replacement of a range of nationalistic symbols."

Guthrum said...

'Destroy nationalism and and this is what you get'

Uber Nationalism ?

North Northwester said...

Nationality, in the broader sense of a people with common institutions and beliefs tied to a particular place is an excellent way to organise collective security and provides the confident self-composure that people need if they are to to live peacefully together over along periods of time. It's not the be-all and end-all, there's liberty and property and family and lots of other yummy Y's, but it is one of the essential ingredients of civilised life. 'This is us, and we do things this way. Fit in, or not, but let us be.'
It defines part of what we are.

Atomised world citizens are likely to be precisely that, if they put all or most of their trust in 'multinational' institutions for theri safety. Coincidentaly this is the subject of my pompous sermon for today.

Nationality is just one part of what it takes to arrange lasting security and peace in a given place amongst identifiably similar people, (and I'm not referring to genetic racialism here, but to shared culture) but like pretty much anything good it can also be abused to do great harm. That tragic fact doesn't disprove the utility or pleasure of some kind of collective belonging and modest unity.

JerryD said...

collective belonging and modest unity

I love the modest bit...BUT are you equating Nationalism to collective belonging and modest unity

As this is not the same thing. Nationalism is the same thing as worshipping Jedward...think about it...

Tarquin said...

Nationalism is just playground tribalism

BUT don't we have to put up with the concept? - if you believe in any sort of state (so, unless you're an anarchist) then what do you want to use to define that state - self-determination leading to the nation-state, the globalist/collectivist super state (ie the EU) or Imperialism?

Most of us are, in technical terms, nationalists

Guthrum said...

'Nationality, in the broader sense of a people with common institutions and beliefs tied to a particular place is an excellent way to organise collective security and provides the confident self-composure that people need if they are to to live peacefully together over along periods of time'.

It is if you have the biggest guns ! you biggest allegiance was to your family

For centuries you biggest allegiance was to your family,later on it was to you clan/tribe, later on it was to your nation. The bigger the unit the more lethal it becomes, and the security of the individual then diminishes in the face of the interests of the State.

You become dispensible in relation to the 'greater good'.

scunnert said...

I'm a Scottish nationalist. I don't think Scots are superior to anyone. I don't hate anyone because of their nationality - even the bastard English - honest. I see nationalism as the most efficient political form for maximizing individual freedoms, ensuring local sovereignty, and minimizing corruption in politics.

The further away the seat of political power is from the governed the less representative it will be. Just look at the EU.

Revolution Harry said...

Nationality is just one part of what it takes to arrange lasting security and peace in a given place amongst identifiably similar people, (and I'm not referring to genetic racialism here, but to shared culture) but like pretty much anything good it can also be abused to do great harm.

I agree with almost all of your comment NNW. My only quibble is that although it may not necessarily be restricted to 'genetic racialism' it often does form part of the 'collective' you refer to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Nobody would scorn any other ethnic group that *wanted* to retain their culture and shared history. Why should they? However if English people express a desire to do so it automatically assumes they're 'extreme', xenophobic' etc etc.

The problem with Guthrum's stance is that he has no sympathy for these desires whatsoever. I somehow doubt that the area he lives in has been transformed into an Islamic enclave and yet his policies will ensure that many other settled communities will be changed beyond recognition. Fine, if he loathes the English so much he prefers to live amongst Somalis, Pakistanis, Albanians and Iraqis then, in true libertarian style, he should be allowed to do so. Those of us who do not, who place a value on the culture of this country and those who create and created it, should be allowed to live in communities of their choice. Not those forced upon them by the policies of the Marxists, Globalists and Libertarians.

Revolution Harry said...

'Destroy nationalism and and this is what you get'

Uber Nationalism ?

No, you destroy any resistance to the whims of the Marxist and Globalist wet dream that is the EU.

JerryD said...

Guthrum - nail, head, hit.

Allegiance, blind allegiance, will get us all killed. The only solution to Nationalism is to withdraw your consent from the Nation.

Revolution Harry said...

llegiance, blind allegiance, will get us all killed.

Rubbish. Nobody's talking about blind allegiance. True nationalism is about living peaceably within one's own borders and leaving others well alone.

Withdraw your consent from the Nation.

And then what. No nation? Open borders free for all?

I'll say it again. If you libertarian types loathe the English and England so much then the only honourable thing to do is relocate to your nearest Islamic enclave and live the libertarian dream.

JerryD said...

And then what. No nation? Open borders free for all?

Bingo. Look around...

Road_Hog said...

It's barth not bath, definitely.

thelunaticarms said...

A Nation is only as Good or as Evil as it's ruler.

The Nation cannot be inherently evil therefore (although after centuries of warfare and turmoil, areas can produce tyrant after tyrant).

So all this hate towards the perceived actions of the Nation should be diverted towards the State that runs it.

And soon, those who wish to see Britain destroyed may see it sooner rather than later, as the EU finally prepares to become a Superstate.

Lastly, I hate to write this but this is the problem with allowing 'foreign minded' communities to settle here in Blighty as it dilutes the loyalty for the Nation and Her boundaries.

Brown's wonky pen. said...

Even in a Libertarian state, you would still have to work out who has ultimate power over what.

In terms of defence, Britain would make a better amalgamation than having different regions each having their own foreign policy.

Britain though is largely an irrelevance, as most people consider themselves English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh.

People like to stick with their own, however they choose to define that. It is a fact of humanity. Nationalism is just an extension of that. Protectionism is a much better idea though, as ultimately, that is the biggest plus point for Nationalism.

Keeping the EU together is going to be harder than herding cats if they try to do the whole 'ruled from Brussels' bollocks.

If Us, France, or Germany tell the EU to bugger off, it is over faster than Michael Barrymore's career.

caesars wife said...

A religion isnt perhaps nationalist so thats a bit of false start .

religions have a habit of describing events in history and also an explanation , most people would know "crucified" in the Uk context is some sort of terrible loss of living or over the top berating that seems unjustified.

Religions have governed all civilisations upto about 1890 when physcoanalysis and philosphy started brewing strange abstract mixes of science, Darwin, experiment and logic , add in modern warfare and you get nationalism , you could argue Napoleon Bonapart was there first with his vison of united europe .

There are a number of flavours each supposoedly an improvement on the previous one .The modern ones are based on control of your choices rather than a rifle, for that is where the socialist sees the battle .

So how do you know which one is right or of any value ??

perhaps we should have a sort of top gear , "top ideaology" we could take them out for road test.

communism :mmm comes in two models the prole and the polit bereau official , prole: you have to cane it to death have to drive it fearfully, polit bereau : very nice esp in dacha mode.

libertarian :huge off road monster truck with dixie land musical air horns , goes where it bloody well pleases , although struggles to explain how you pay for fuel or if you need taxation for a fuel infrastructure.

free markets :mind boggling choice of designs and engines , from gross excess 24ctgold waste bins to down and out intravenious drug use , can go far but cost a fortune if engine mangement systems become weak , sometimes prone to bust and expensive repairs as well as oligarchs and cartels hotwire and theft.
Engine mangement system requires constant vote on cpu upgrade.

Blairism : sold as free markets model based on sexy sleek go anywhere do anything for you , once on the road interior changes constantly into multi interior so you dont get bored , comes with big camera watching your everymove and droneing voice telling you what to do with your time and sat life nav , which after a while starts getting paranoid and accuses of you of not liking it enough before locking you in and taking you to a place you didnt want to go , whilst putting coldplay on every channel and making you feel worthless . Eventually cpu goes meglamaniac and bursts into bankruptacy due to spending more than fuel than it was telling you , useually taking you with it . Nice drive in first 4 years , best sell on though as cpu lies way too much to be safe. second hand values nightmare .

Revolution Harry said...

Bingo. Look around...

And you think that's a good thing?

Nazism os NOT Nationalism said...

What utter shit, strawman arguments based on what nationalism is not and ignoring the differences between peoples, family conection, social and cultural conection.

These things are VERY real and to dismiss them is insane, national bounderies help each group live there lives according to their wishes and not the will of others who may wish then to live their lives as they do, this is where immigration and demographics come into play and where internal struggles begin.

The opposite of nationalism is borderless movement, this sounds fine until it goes into pratice.

then you end up with conflict as each group rubs up against each other and certain groups start to fail.

Nothing wrong with true nationalism, which is acually anti imperialist and anti war unlike the people who follow nationalisms alternatives.

Nationalism is NOT
Nazism

Nationalism is NOT
racism

Nationalism is NOT
Imperialist warmongering

Losing and eroding your sense of nationalism leaves you open to outside takeovers where you no longer control your destiny according to your will.

EUSSR

Anonymous said...

"Losing and eroding your sense of nationalism leaves you open to outside takeovers where you no longer control your destiny according to your will" - Yes, that`s well put.

No ethnic group can survive in the long run if it does not remain a majority and have its own territory to produce itself in.

Guthrum, I can`t understand at all how you can identify with a frenchman more than an Englishman, presumably it`s because you see your fellow man as Homo Economicus. That`s the stupid side of Libertarianism imo.

Rudyard Kipling - The Stranger

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk--
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

Conan the Librarian™ said...

There usually have to be at least two distinct groupings for Nationalism to surface, one to conquer/enslave/hold in contempt/ gas/etc. And another to say: You started it, and get their revenge in.
Being a member of the one of the most sucessful Imperialist Nations on Earth, I look down on you puny English and laugh.
Touchpaper lit, I retire.

godefroi said...

There's no reason why nationalism has to mean xenophobia or racism - it's usually just a means of defining boundaries for the purpose of self-determination. Do you think that people seeking independence from various empires for what they regarded as their nation were just being, I dunno, unreasonable? That they should gratefully have accept membership of the much bigger club of, say, the British Empire or the Soviet Union or the Third Reich?

Human beings keep trying to weld themselves into large unwieldy unions and it works for a while, under duress, but sooner or later they want to go their separate ways, and usually it seems to be along the lines of shared history, kinship and culture. We are a tribal and territorial species underneath the veneer of civilisation.

BTW, you've got the anthropology the wrong way round; the tribe preceded the family, though it also allowed it to develop, nurtured and protected it. But that didn't mean the tribe was self-sufficient; most were exogamic and most admitted new members, the point being loyalty to the same totem once in rather than membership by birthright.

And that's all that most people who call themselves nationalists still want: self-determination for a geographical area where the inhabitants have a common history (or at least an imagined one) and a basic agreement about the way to run things and the way to treat each other. I think it's possible to have that without necessarily waving the Hakenkreuz around and singing the Horst Wessel.

GCooper said...

Bugger the anthropology! What about the history?

Anyone who thinks nationalism is a recent phenomenon needs to go back to their Ladybird history books.

bofl said...

so what are you saying guthrum?

the english should just accept every tom ,dick and mustapha?

open door?
yes.come on in and get whatever you want-no need to pay in like all the other slaves have?

the english have a lot to be aggrieved about..millions of our grandfathers died only for a corrupt bunch of champagne commies to give it all away........
a social experiment-that none of us voted for.......

why do they hate us so much????

is it because some of us have spirit and imagination?
or that some of us want to rise above the mundane?

or are they just pathetic insecure imbeciles who have found a way to throw their weight around like they could never ever do in civvy street?

JerryD said...

a social experiment-that none of us voted for.......
Lots did - indeed enough did. They were hoodwinked by Nationalism. Its funny isn't it. 1945, June. Oh yes and 1997, 1964, 1966, 1974....gosh may be 2010 too!

why do they hate us so much????
Err...independent thought - at a guess.

caesars wife said...

enjoyed that anon 0:57 I like his bramley apple pies !

One of my favourite thoughts was that I was just being reactionary to an oppresive government , in having nationalist thoughts , i mean thats how communism fell .

when you chat to lefties they just tell you your too hooked on history and lack imagination .

all I can say is I voted for Blair and regrett it for degrading my life into EU waste of time ,is perhaps my current definition of nationalism .

Anonymous said...

Interesting, so the Egyptians (the guys who built the Pyramids) were just an unorganised rabble who didn't care about their cultural identity at all, likewise, the Romans congregated at random and spontaneously invented the empire for no particular reason at all; in Peru, the Incas wondered why everyone has so much in common; and the Chinese called themselves the Han for thousands of years, just because well, why not?

What do you dream at night?

Dan Brown said...

I just saw Shlomo Sand interviewed on BBCs HardTalk programme, which does NOT seem to be available in iplayer. I wacthed it on BBC News 24.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p1l9q

"Shlomo Sand's latest book has unleashed a storm of controversy far beyond his homeland. His subject is the history of the Jews, and his conclusions reject the orthodoxies of Jewish history and modern day Zionism. If Sand is right then today's Israeli state has been built on the foundations of myth and falsehood; but is he?

He talks to Stephen Sackur."

----
I'm a lay person on this topic, meaning that I couldn't care less one way or other. I thought that Shlomo came across very badly, even taking into account that his spoken English is poor, to me he seemed to being trying to present a Dan Brown version of history. He was unconvincing. Just about every answer he gave either didn't directly answer the question or was a piss poor and unconvincing answer. Sort of like Gordon Brown at PMQs.

If you can watch the relevant BBC HardTalk interview, judge for yourselves.

Dan Brown said...

I think that this is the audio of the very same BBC HardTalk programme. Sounds the same to me. The youtube uploader has been "a very naughty boy" and not acknowledged the source of the interview. Perhaps this is to lessen the likelihood of being removed due to copyright by the BBC.

BBC Radio also broadcast things that are shown on TV, though of course, audio only and re-branded.

Part 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdRjochckms

Part 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic7vHSryjEs


Also if you are interested check out

http://www.wikio.co.uk/news/Shlomo+Sand

Anonymous said...

Imagine you are a member of a decent golf club,paid your subs and respected the rules and traditions of the club.And then the membership comittee suddenly let in a bunch of cunts, who didn't want to socialise with the existing membership, didn't pay their dues,hacked up the greens, took a dump on the fairways,and wanted to change the rules you'd be pretty pissed of,I imagine.
In fact,you'd probably want the new arrivals,and the membership comittee,thrown out PDQ.
This is what our immigration policy has been like.
Urban11

defender said...

Guthrum rides again,
I bet you dont have a front door on your house Guthrum, everyone welcome to stay, never mind your kids room filled with strangers from far off lands.
You do not even mind paying for the whole lot.

Tomrat said...

*sighs*,

So many people have tried undermining Jewish nationhood through the centuries; personally I thought we had got past this!

The Jewish peoples claim to be a people up defined first by their belief in the Hebraic God, then by their religion (admittedly a strange mix of eastern mysticism and mosaic doctrine; one of the reasons Jesus came to correct them!) and finally by their shared common heritage; the last point is the least important considering there are several points in the Old Testament where tribes from outside the twelve are folded into it as they join the nation of Israel, daughters and sons intermarrying etc., changing the fabric of the tribes through centuries.

However, it would not surprise me if mitochondrial DNA studies of the people who define themselves as "Jewish", in both contexts -I.e. Who have maintained a life in their homeland despite the diaspora (which did happen, as is made testament by records in both Jewish tradition and history and the Roman empires own records; not to mention their well documented use of this policy elsewhere in history) and those who emigrated (forced or not) shared a common trait; one thing Jewish families and their religion are good at tracking their own geneology. Likewise those same studies would almost certainly show that the current "Palestinian" populace actually hail from Arabic lands, the majority of which were immigrants between the twilight of the Ottoman empire and the beginnings of the 6 day war.

As for Nationalism I take the Nozick view on policing as applying here; individuals would naturally form nations as a means of mutual protection of liberty, trade and security- when we invert this meaning, that our liberty, trade and security are doled out at the discretion of the nation then we get the type of problems we see. This inversion is more to do with the coalescing nature of power when rights are ignored and individualism undermined, something I would agree that certain policies of Israel do; significantly less so than those of their surrounding nations however.

FM said...

Codswallop.

I usually agree with this blog but this is oversimplified cack.

Nationalism is a loyalty to the nation state system, insofar it represents a common set of laws that the people agree to abide by. Self-determination is protected within it by legal means and from outsides with military means.

Those who wish to enter must abide by the local laws, or piss off back to where ever you came from. This has added benefits. A truly free nation would be an envious place for people in tyrannies around the world, possibly encouraging them to overthrow their own regimes to achieve it.

Ethnic nationalism is irrelevant because it has no basis in law, so who gives a shit. Occam's Razor.

There has been however, a concerted effort for decades to convince us peasants that the nation state is the creator of all problems, purely because they want to replace it with a global government of their perpetual control;

"The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991."

In an ideal world, comprised of purely free nations with similar policies, open borders is logical. But we do not have that so again, Occam's Razor says forget it. So let's deal with our immediate reality.

Anonymous said...

OT but does anyone know anything about this?

Massive Protest to Demand Referendum on EU in London 28 November
Published: Tuesday November 17,2009 by light2

Saturday - 28 November 2009

Time:
14:00 - 17:00

Location:

Parliament Square
London

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/comments/view/316860

I am Stan said...

Interesting post Guthrum..

Nationalism eh!...well for what it is worth I think Nationalism in small doses is a good thing,love your country,its traditions,your families part in it and being proud to contribute to its development as a citizen..

Where it goes wrong I think is when Nationalism is all an individual or group focus on or believe thats all they have left to give themselves an identity.

When they see anything outside of what they believe their country to be as inferior or a threat not only reduces the individual/groups wider experience of the world but makes it easier for the state etc to manipulate them to their own ends,also too much Nationalism i think leads to a distorted view of history seeing everything with rose tinted specs and fearing future change so putting the Nationalist at a disadvantage,stuck in the past often bitter,spiteful and raging, while the rest move on make changes or adapt.

Dave H said...

You're quite right of course, Guthrum. We should never be nationalistic. The essential problem with London is that it's not enough like Mogadishu, Karachi or Kingston.

When I look around my native SW Cambs, I often sigh and think 'if only it were more like Waziristan'. We need to eliminate nationalism because it's a source of a visceral reaction against the mass third-world immigration necessary to improve this country.

To turn off the sarcasm, we have (had) the good fortune to live in a relatively stable, prosperous, law-abiding, tolerant and peaceful country. Even our cunting politicians are probably more honest than most of the rest of the world puts up with.

Our tragedy is that we were not nationalistic enough to realise just how lucky we are (were), and therefore aren't (weren't) bothered enough to maintain the society that made the place this way.

(BTW how on earth have other commenters have mistaken you for OH, when English doesn't seem to be your first language?)

Anonymous said...

O/T
Take a look at the eric pickles video at conseravyive home. The f**king fat shite.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/

Guthrum said...

I have read all of the above comments with interest, and the vast majority seem to conflate a fairly modern concept of Nationalism as the only bulwark against the horrors of mass immigration. Most it appears are quite happy to go along with the myths that sustain Nationalism rather that deal with reality.

Mass immigration is a direct result of welfarism.Given the choice of starving in one country and being looked after cradle to grave by the State in another, it is a perfectly rational economic decision.

The one comment that did make me laugh was the comment that the Nation is compromised of a group of people who agree to live by a set of rules. The State is coercive, in fifty odd years the State has never asked me my opinion on any of the rules it has imposed on me.

Old Holborn said...

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is it's justice; that is its morality

Anonymous said...

Imagine you are a member of a decent golf club,paid your subs and respected the rules and traditions of the club.And then the membership comittee suddenly let in a bunch of cunts, who didn't want to socialise with the existing membership, didn't pay their dues,hacked up the greens, took a dump on the fairways,and wanted to change the rules you'd be pretty pissed off" For a minute I thought you were talking about Rhodesia oops Zimbabwe because thats what happened there by the way if you want to be a billionaire you can buy the money on e bay 100 trillion (100,000,000,000,000) dollar notes an excellent example of fucking people who know hat they are doing and handing it over to people who don't well done.

Anonymous said...

Yo fucker juat wait till we have sharia law then let me show you nationalism

Anonymous said...

Whichever way you turn it, there is always some form of government (read some European history, if not large kingdoms then there are small fiefdoms...nature abhors a vacuum so does the local gangster) and whoever rules decides how much they want to oppress the weaker people in their grasp.

Ergo, the only way to ensure that we don't have a bad government is to do join up with the Charlemange's of this world and to hold a timely revolution when the Browns, Stalins, Mugabes and other miscreants cheat their way into power.

Nationalism also means that people attempt to do what is best for their national group (which is almost always formed along ethnic and linguistic lines) for the greater good, and not for their personal gain or that of their closed clique.

Of course nationalism can go badly wrong(there is a range of success), but it does not invalidate the idea that a group of people who look out for each others welfare and rights should not form a nation and celebrate that fact.

It is important that that the people have enough solidarity that they can do that -- and in the UK, because we no longer connect or have common values/believes, we have turned from people into sheeple -- we are not a nation anymore but a rabble without identity and solidarity.

So, maybe it's rabblism that OH detests and nationalism that he mourns!

libertyscott said...

The idea of a nation is a psychological one, it isn't based on objective facts. I have more in common with someone who shares my philosophy, business and cultural interests who may live in another country, and speak other languages, than I have with some barely articulate yob who hasn't picked up a book since school.

It is one thing for the people within an area to share a philosophy of individual freedom, capitalism and free enterprise, and to establish government to protect themselves from invasion or from internal criminals, it is another to say where you are born
automatically means you must have some mythical affinity with others born there too.

What is tragic is that successive governments have turned on the population itself, have refused to state categorically the values which the state should exist to protect. It has subsidised those who wish to undermine it, and supported those who are a drain on it to breed.

Scan said...

OH, one of the best posts you've ever offered. I have nothing to say.

Field Marshall Watkins said...

What I said wasn't meant to be some sort of defence of the current nation-state. I hate it, it's a corrupt tyrannical zoo, they haven't asked my opinion on anything ever either.

My point that is the way is it supposed to be. Hence the logic of a limited central government, with as little power as possible. It is mathematically impossible for a large state to serve the interests a population of individuals.

Now, if only that population were brainwashed to think the same way, act the same way...

Revolution Harry said...

".... and the vast majority seem to conflate a fairly modern concept of Nationalism as the only bulwark against the horrors of mass immigration. Most it appears are quite happy to go along with the myths that sustain Nationalism rather that deal with reality."

You're correct, we didn't need to think in nationalistic terms until the combined forces of global capital and international Marxism decided we stood in the way of their world government (New World Order) dream. Don't you understand, they want to destroy us for ever so we'll never be a threat to them again. Believe me, the full horror of the agenda has yet to unfold. Can't you see that there are extremely dark forces at work here and that in order to defeat them one of the things we need is a semblance of unity? That's exactly what they're trying to destroy. Can't you see that the majority of people do place a value on their culture, people and shared history? Fair enough, you place no value whatsoever on those things, I think you're wrong but that's life we're all different. Surely we have to find a way to accommodate each others views.

More importantly we need to find a way of creating a broad based coalition against the forces railed against us. You appear to agree with their assaults on the nation and its people's national identity but there is much else about their New World Order you won't like. Can you not see how divisive your open borders policy is? Aren't there enough multicultural areas for you to choose to live in? You describe the 'horrors' of mass immigration and yet have policies that would make the situation worse. To me you're part of the problem and nowhere near part of the solution.

"Mass immigration is a direct result of welfarism.Given the choice of starving in one country and being looked after cradle to grave by the State in another, it is a perfectly rational economic decision."

Mass immigration is not just a direct result of welfarism. It's been a deliberate policy and welfare benefits have been one of the many carrots. The cat's out of the bag now and if you think that mass immigration would dry up the instant the welfare stopped you're mistaken. Many immigrants would certainly still decide to take their chances here. Witness the many illegals in the country. How many more of them would there be if ALL border controls were relaxed?

Even if you were to advocate the end of all 'welfarism' surely this needs to be done slowly and with consideration. One of the few libertarians I have time for, Sean Gabb, at least understands this. Welfare reform will take time.



"The one comment that did make me laugh was the comment that the Nation is compromised of a group of people who agree to live by a set of rules. The State is coercive, in fifty odd years the State has never asked me my opinion on any of the rules it has imposed on me."

Common law or Sharia law? What do you agree to live by Guthrum? In an open borders world how do you prevent it being overrun by others who don't subscribe to your world view?

Revolution Harry said...

Oh, that's certainly an exhaustive list of the worst elements of 'government'. The word alone causes problems. It makes MP's think that's what they're their to do and it, sub-conciously, makes (some of) us feel as if we're meant to be 'governed'. There's many things wrong with the present system and that word is one of them. What I'm not so sure about is how that correlates with a sense of nation and national identity.

Sovereignty (and therefore power) should lie with the people. The people's representatives should be there to protect them from the things on the list you made.

Anonymous said...

Nationalism or Global communist coffee colored dumb down bland lowest common denominator equality

Guthrum said...

Witness the many illegals in the country. How many more of them would there be if ALL border controls were relaxed?

The post was about Nationalism, not immigration, you can have nationalism with or without alien immigration. Although it flourishes to a greater extent when there is alien immigration and with an economic downturn.

JerryD said...

Immigration is the outcome of Nationalism - so there is a link Guthrum.

Look - if you believe in the Nation you'll believe in anything.

Because of Nationalism people acquiesced to being displaced by migrants.
Because of Nationalism people acquiesced to their serfdom.
Because of Nationalism they think paying the TV License is a good thing.
Because of Nationalism they think recycling is great.
Because of Nationalism they applaud, lets face it, killers coming back from Afghanistan.

You can get a sheep to do anything by stating its in the Collectivists best interest.

There is a Collective - you better be a part of it buddy - if you don't like it, we'll break you.

Break the concept of the Nation - break the concept of authority in the State - break your own serfdom - and then you'll be free. Perhaps then we can talk about living under a common law - but lets face it folks - it'll always be whitey with whitey. Other peoples are just that - Other.

Revolution Harry said...

I mentioned mass immigration only because you referred to it. I notice you failed to respond to any of my other points.

Like many other things nationalism can be taken to extremes. That should be resisted, of course. A balanced approach is perfectly healthy and necessary in a world run by the collection of freaks who want to impose upon us a globalised system of control.

Anonymous said...

What worries me is the rampant ubernationalism expressed by Lee Barnes, chief legal officer of the BNP who wants to deport all Zionists and jail anyone who does not agree with the party.

If all nationalists are offering in place of the uberliberal, marxist-islamist, globalist, Euroising fascist state we now have in Britian is an intolerant, bigoted, arrogant First British Reich then as far as I am concerned nationalists can fuck off and I will be the first to be placing bombs under their cars.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails