> While they basically ruled over a united nation (don’t look at the Irish - they don’t count!),
Don’t look at the facts that totally demolish the ideology that is being promoted. If you are going to argue that we Anglos created and exported nationalism then you are going to have to actually have some understanding of what nationalism is and what states are. The British empire was multinational, as is the U.K. neither are nations.
The former disappeared and the latter is on its last legs - and that is something I applaud as an English (but not British) nationalist. If nationalism could be constructed by states then the Irish would be British still.
Spain is a multinational state but not because of the nonsense about visigoths etc but because the basques and Catalans are separate and not assimilated.
Different groups of people can merge into an ethic group over time, in a process this is exactly how we English came to exist from the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. The Scottish and Irish could not be so assimilated, so it goes.
The problem with Zionism is that Israel has no business existing, it’s a fake state with no continuous history pre 1945, which is why it needs to destroy the indigenous Palestinians because unlike the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who made ethnogensis with the celts and each other, Zionism has to expel.
I'm not really sure what you disagree with, since I said that there are limits to how effectively states can create unified national identities, especially when national identities have already been formed, but:
1) Ireland wasn't conquered until the late 12th century, and the lords who conquered it were basically autonomous until the 17th century. After that, the failure to absorb the Irish was almost entirely a function of Ireland's near-universal rejections of the Reformation, including the old Anglo-Irish ruling class. This is a common phenomenon in which religious divides become national ones (e.g. Serbs and Croats). The Scottish were for the most part successfully absorbed, and in 1850 Scottish identity was no stronger than, Cornish or the northeast. Scottish nationalism is a relatively new and essentially fake phenomenon fuelled by outside actors.
2) The problem with Zionism is, if anything, that it wasn't fake enough. Had it been able to draw on a more plastic national identity, it would have had more success incorporating the Arabs.
In its original form as the Common Market there was merit but the founding zealots and their successors never wanted to leave it at that. The" single market "was the lure even for the likes of Thatcher during the 80s. And total free movement followed ie the Schengen Agreement which the UK opted out of but opted in to full access to the labour market for the mainly Eastern European succession states in 2004. Labour government prediction of <70000 immigrants proved wildly (deliberately?)underestimate with almost a million within a couple of years. This turned the UK into a junkie economy relying on trained and healthy adults entering the workforce. But the absence of internal borders created a weakening of external ones too with 100s of thousands of illegals crossing the Med by 2011. However what really ripped up every single EU law ever and should have been seen as a betrayal of its own citizens was Merkels hailing of 2 million Muslim males into the EU all after forcing" austerity "on the blocs electorate for the previous 7 years. But the Brexit debate did reveal the agenda behind it all when Peter Sutherland told the Brits that the destruction of each and every European nations identity through mass immigration and miscegenation was the way to achieve globalism. As for post Brexit Britain the Tories have showed that they never had any intention of even trying to implement an economically successful Brexit as it would upset the globalists project. The Irish border negotiations were a prime example of this as the potential checkmate move on the Irish government over their corporate tax haven status was never brought up. Betraying the Brexit voting cohort by flooding the country with Africans and Asians while also taking in 100s of thousands of illegal channel crossers too guaranteeing the party's election defeat shows that obedience to the globalists of the WEF,EU was all that mattered
> Had his armies not sucked so much, some 19th century theorist would have had to rustle up some theory about the eternal mystical bond of blood uniting the denizens of Nantes and Newcastle, but providence spared us.
Or they would've just remained separate nations -- I think you're overstating the degree to which nationalism is artificial here. Obviously the borders between what today are called nations are blurry and oftentimes historically fake (what's the difference between a Thracian Slav and Greek? A border and a Bulgarian/Greek language education) but that doesn't mean that the borders/concepts of nations are totally made up. The Holy Roman Empire ruled Milan, but the Milanese remained Italian and Milan is today part of Italy; if the Angevin Empire ruled Nantes, the Nantesans would probably have remained French too.
Well, it depends on how successful they would have been in state building, and other factors, with the degree of pre-existing 'Frenchness' certainly being among them. For example, I think if they had taken and held Brittany, we'd now look at it as being something like Wales, maybe even like Cornwall.
In any case, my point wasn't that it's easy to assimilate heterogenous groups to nations, it's that it's hard. The English union of nation and state was facilitated by military failure. If they had held on to continental territories, it would have been much harder. Someone would have subsequently *tried* to explain why whatever conglomeration of territories they ended up with were part of the same nation, but they would have failed.
So, this is what I was slowly working my way towards back when I was doing that series on PostKahanism. One of the things I concluded was that, since Zionism is the political formula of the Israeli state, a change of political form requires the abandonment of Zionism, and so I stopped being a Zionist - and then I realised that if I wasn't a Zionist anymore I had to rethink everything from scratch. Once I've made some more progress with that, I can start coming up with realistic suggestions for regime change. So I guess that's a long-winded way of saying get back to me in a year or so.
But what's the alternative?Empires?I guess that the EU is a sort of atheistic foreign troop occupied modern version of the later Roman empire -collapsed birth rates and open borders entity with elites and foreigners given special status at the expense of the declining numbers of natives. It was the massacre of Lebanese christians in the mid 19th century which prompted the French intervention. They were obviously going to take an opportunity to organise politically for self preservation if nothing else. All through the latter half of the 19th century Britain continued to support the Ottoman Empire's borders.
I think the basic idea of the EU is a good one, though expansion eastwards was a mistake, and obviously it's very badly vitiated by leftism. Now we have Brexit as a case study, though, we know that countries are better off in that out.
How exactly was the EU's leftward expansion a bad idea? Sure, the EU needed to subsidize Eastern Europe, but it also acquired valuable human capital from there.
It's a bad idea to have freedom of movement between countries where there is a large disparity between what you can earn doing similar jobs in one and the other. In principle, I suppose, the EU could have expanded without freedom of movement, but freedom of movement is central to the whole concept.
> While they basically ruled over a united nation (don’t look at the Irish - they don’t count!),
Don’t look at the facts that totally demolish the ideology that is being promoted. If you are going to argue that we Anglos created and exported nationalism then you are going to have to actually have some understanding of what nationalism is and what states are. The British empire was multinational, as is the U.K. neither are nations.
The former disappeared and the latter is on its last legs - and that is something I applaud as an English (but not British) nationalist. If nationalism could be constructed by states then the Irish would be British still.
Spain is a multinational state but not because of the nonsense about visigoths etc but because the basques and Catalans are separate and not assimilated.
Different groups of people can merge into an ethic group over time, in a process this is exactly how we English came to exist from the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. The Scottish and Irish could not be so assimilated, so it goes.
The problem with Zionism is that Israel has no business existing, it’s a fake state with no continuous history pre 1945, which is why it needs to destroy the indigenous Palestinians because unlike the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who made ethnogensis with the celts and each other, Zionism has to expel.
I'm not really sure what you disagree with, since I said that there are limits to how effectively states can create unified national identities, especially when national identities have already been formed, but:
1) Ireland wasn't conquered until the late 12th century, and the lords who conquered it were basically autonomous until the 17th century. After that, the failure to absorb the Irish was almost entirely a function of Ireland's near-universal rejections of the Reformation, including the old Anglo-Irish ruling class. This is a common phenomenon in which religious divides become national ones (e.g. Serbs and Croats). The Scottish were for the most part successfully absorbed, and in 1850 Scottish identity was no stronger than, Cornish or the northeast. Scottish nationalism is a relatively new and essentially fake phenomenon fuelled by outside actors.
2) The problem with Zionism is, if anything, that it wasn't fake enough. Had it been able to draw on a more plastic national identity, it would have had more success incorporating the Arabs.
In its original form as the Common Market there was merit but the founding zealots and their successors never wanted to leave it at that. The" single market "was the lure even for the likes of Thatcher during the 80s. And total free movement followed ie the Schengen Agreement which the UK opted out of but opted in to full access to the labour market for the mainly Eastern European succession states in 2004. Labour government prediction of <70000 immigrants proved wildly (deliberately?)underestimate with almost a million within a couple of years. This turned the UK into a junkie economy relying on trained and healthy adults entering the workforce. But the absence of internal borders created a weakening of external ones too with 100s of thousands of illegals crossing the Med by 2011. However what really ripped up every single EU law ever and should have been seen as a betrayal of its own citizens was Merkels hailing of 2 million Muslim males into the EU all after forcing" austerity "on the blocs electorate for the previous 7 years. But the Brexit debate did reveal the agenda behind it all when Peter Sutherland told the Brits that the destruction of each and every European nations identity through mass immigration and miscegenation was the way to achieve globalism. As for post Brexit Britain the Tories have showed that they never had any intention of even trying to implement an economically successful Brexit as it would upset the globalists project. The Irish border negotiations were a prime example of this as the potential checkmate move on the Irish government over their corporate tax haven status was never brought up. Betraying the Brexit voting cohort by flooding the country with Africans and Asians while also taking in 100s of thousands of illegal channel crossers too guaranteeing the party's election defeat shows that obedience to the globalists of the WEF,EU was all that mattered
I think we basically agree, but I don't see the problem with free movement between white nations with roughly equal income levels.
> Had his armies not sucked so much, some 19th century theorist would have had to rustle up some theory about the eternal mystical bond of blood uniting the denizens of Nantes and Newcastle, but providence spared us.
Or they would've just remained separate nations -- I think you're overstating the degree to which nationalism is artificial here. Obviously the borders between what today are called nations are blurry and oftentimes historically fake (what's the difference between a Thracian Slav and Greek? A border and a Bulgarian/Greek language education) but that doesn't mean that the borders/concepts of nations are totally made up. The Holy Roman Empire ruled Milan, but the Milanese remained Italian and Milan is today part of Italy; if the Angevin Empire ruled Nantes, the Nantesans would probably have remained French too.
Well, it depends on how successful they would have been in state building, and other factors, with the degree of pre-existing 'Frenchness' certainly being among them. For example, I think if they had taken and held Brittany, we'd now look at it as being something like Wales, maybe even like Cornwall.
In any case, my point wasn't that it's easy to assimilate heterogenous groups to nations, it's that it's hard. The English union of nation and state was facilitated by military failure. If they had held on to continental territories, it would have been much harder. Someone would have subsequently *tried* to explain why whatever conglomeration of territories they ended up with were part of the same nation, but they would have failed.
This is like deciding whose nuts are worse, the Sunni's or the Shia's?
It's all Middle East ethno religious bullshit
How are the elites to take power?
I don't follow the question. Which elites?
Any elites who have the best or at better intentions for the nation they would rule. How could this be done in Israel?
So, this is what I was slowly working my way towards back when I was doing that series on PostKahanism. One of the things I concluded was that, since Zionism is the political formula of the Israeli state, a change of political form requires the abandonment of Zionism, and so I stopped being a Zionist - and then I realised that if I wasn't a Zionist anymore I had to rethink everything from scratch. Once I've made some more progress with that, I can start coming up with realistic suggestions for regime change. So I guess that's a long-winded way of saying get back to me in a year or so.
Wait, you're Baruch H? Sorry maybe a retarded question
No, he let me guest post for a bit.
But what's the alternative?Empires?I guess that the EU is a sort of atheistic foreign troop occupied modern version of the later Roman empire -collapsed birth rates and open borders entity with elites and foreigners given special status at the expense of the declining numbers of natives. It was the massacre of Lebanese christians in the mid 19th century which prompted the French intervention. They were obviously going to take an opportunity to organise politically for self preservation if nothing else. All through the latter half of the 19th century Britain continued to support the Ottoman Empire's borders.
I think the basic idea of the EU is a good one, though expansion eastwards was a mistake, and obviously it's very badly vitiated by leftism. Now we have Brexit as a case study, though, we know that countries are better off in that out.
How exactly was the EU's leftward expansion a bad idea? Sure, the EU needed to subsidize Eastern Europe, but it also acquired valuable human capital from there.
It's a bad idea to have freedom of movement between countries where there is a large disparity between what you can earn doing similar jobs in one and the other. In principle, I suppose, the EU could have expanded without freedom of movement, but freedom of movement is central to the whole concept.