The Ethnic Origins, Source of Power and Current Political Methods of Globalism

July 26, 2016 at 12:19 pm (tWP) (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , )

The first image in this article is that of the English royal family’s coaagincourtt of arms. It is not chosen by accident but it is a powerfully symbolic image for the topic in question. The coat of arms is emblazoned with two repeated heraldic icons: the three fleur-de-lys and the three lions. The former were the arms of French royalty for a millennium, the latter are to this day the arms of the Danish royal family. Why is this relevant? Because it is an especially apt way of defining Britain: a mix of continental Europe and Nordic Europe. It is specifically in Nordic Britain that lies the original sin whose offspring globalism – universalism academically – is today.

Nordics are a very distinct group among the world’s ethnicities. Their geographical circumstance forces them to be highly productive since they have to generate enough resources to survive the winter. Simultaneously, they cannot rely on family ties or resources because the territory, while harvestable, is scarcely populated. This has bred a mentality which is individualistic to an extreme and radically self-reliant and disciplined. Other regions of the planet are too densely populated and too easily farmed for self-reliance to take hold. In the case of aboriginal peoples, their mentality was usually Asian and therefore collectivistic. This meant some level of discipline but not self-reliance and therefore not productivity. Discipline can be a competitive advantage in fertile regions but not in difficult ones since creativity is especially needed when overcoming challenges.

The reason why the Reformation reached almost exclusively Germanic Europe is easily explained by the mentality already in existence there: the self-reliant kind. One who is self-reliant requires a personal relationship with God and eschews collectivistic rituals. Such rituals may be well suited for preserving community ties but not so for allowing a personal interpretation of the good book. In the case of the Reformation phenomenon too, Britain is a rare breed, as its Anglicanism is a clear compromise between protestant principles and catholic ritual.

England in particular is worthy of note because it was there that many Nordics settled during the Middle Ages. We call Britain Anglo-Saxon because of these raids and invasions and what better place demonstrates this History than the tellingly named East Anglia? East Anglia is a very special place for English History: it was one of the main sources of puritanism in Britain and it was also one of the earliest regions to support the Parliamentarian (republican) revolution under the authoritarian Oliver Cromwell.

It is worth understanding that one of the key features of the Nordic mentality is that of political correctness. This is probably due to the higher need for an efficient decision-making process within Nordic settlements. Human resources are scarce and weather is unforgiving which translates into a laconic and simplistic conferential system. The great poets of the world, after all, come from the South: Middle Eastern poetry, Latin novels, etc. And lest we forget, time became a commodity in northern formal cultures, not in southern ones, which means that there was concern in optimising its usefulness in the North, not the South.

Political correctness must be understood in its puerile simplicity before moving to the next link in the chain: New England. As it happens, New England was settled mostly by …you guessed it: East Anglians; and puritan ones at that. Is it then really surprising that the two most important radical anti-hypocrisy revolutionary movements in American History – namely republican separatism and abolitionism – began in New England?

The cause of independence found its earliest and most passionate support in puritan settlements, the ‘tea party’ took place on Boston, Massachusetts. Northern (New England) colonies contributed about as many soldiers for the Revolutionary War as the Southern ones but while the northern fought the English, the southern fought with the English. The contradiction of ‘taxation without representation’ could simply not be tolerated by the puritans’ protestant ethics. Nor could, for that matter, the contradiction between the ‘self-evident truth’ that ‘all men are created equal’ and slavery. The founding fathers, of course, could perfectly tolerate it but then again, most of them were southerners like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or James Madison.

The puritan zeal eventually spread into the Midwest and it is again revealing that it was a Midwesterner that led the abolitionist revolution: Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, most actual Nordic-Americans (those who immigrated directly from Scandinavia to America) still inhabit the Midwest and this fact became very salient during the recent Republican primaries when Donald Trump lost Wisconsin to Ted Cruz. Nordics have precious little tolerance for the antics of eccentric political incorrectness; Trump’s Berlusconism is a competitive disadvantage with Nordics and Puritans. During the civil war, whereas French-Americans and Catholics in general supported the South’s secession, English-Americans and protestants in general, supported the North.

Yet both the Midwest and New England have seen their demographics change: Boston has become progressively catholic – which explains Trump’s appeal in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New Jersey – and the industrialisation of the ‘rust belt’ brought with it labourers from the South – whereas enriched original settlers slowly moved to the vicinities for better living conditions – which allows us to understand Trump’s success there.

9815a31c194e4a99dcc7488a12d6c153This same zeal was in evidence in the baby-boomers political conscience during the protests of the May of 68. The soixante-huitards were extremist in their beliefs, calling for absolute pacifism and social justice with the world’s poor. As soon as they reached power towards the end of the Cold War and at the onset of the ‘new world order’, theirs became the generation of endless indebtedness, overwhelming generosity towards to 3rd world and moralisation of every conflict via the ‘end of History’ paradigm. The EU itself being the ultimate soixante-huitard project of replicating in Europe the utopian extreme idea-state of American exceptionalism – a notion whose germen had been established by the founding fathers in rhetoric and by Lincoln in practice. After the end of the Cold War, America’s East-Anglian exceptionalism has now become for the Atlanticist elites, the foundation for their messianic vision of the “end of History”: a liberal-democratic, and, ultimately, a Nordic individualist, world.

It is this ethnic record that explains why Western universalists periodically do not find it difficult to support neonazi or jihadi movements. At the heart of the matter is the cause of universalism. A normal state would only consider supporting extremist movements if vital existential interests were at stake. In WWII the Allies brought in the USSR because they alone could not beat Nazi Germany, for instance. Yet, Western universalists show much smaller compunction in doing so today because they know a victory of extremist forces would advance the universalist cause. Better to have a jihadi regime in Syria or a neonazi one in Ukraine so long as they subscribe, even if only nominally, to universalist doctrine. In practice of course, a moderate but anti-universalist regime in Syria may be brutal to its citizens but it does not genocide them, and a moderate regime in Ukraine may be incredibly corrupt but it doesn’t launch the army against its citizens nor does it pass discriminatory laws which cause respect for minorities and political opponents to drop.

The world is divided between universalists and those submissive to them, and the ones who resist universalism. The Manichean division tolerates absence of universalist practices only in so far as those who don’t practice are submissive to those who preach it. Thus Saudi Arabia Egypt or Hungary can exist at the margin of universalist practice because they contribute to the cause worldwide and they can even hypocritically call for democracy, human rights and rule of law elsewhere, so long as that fits the interests of the globalist elites.

The problem is not hypocrisy, the problem does not lie in cooperating with ideologically dissimilar regimes, the problem rather consists in the fact that, at the end of the day, what is being advanced is not the interests of the different Western states, what is being advanced is only an ideological cause. Being ruled by activists means the powers of the state are subverted into serving a particular ideology.

Part of the reason why the universalists’ power is slowly eroding is their zealotry, to be sure. However, another factor is the immense contradictions that serving a failed ideology cause since the more it fails, the more excuses one requires to justify it and at some point too many excuses become counter-productive as justification.

AKP Turkey is an excellent example of this very phenomenon. According to most (recep_tayyip_erdogan_by_setobuje-d2rs6grWestern) standards, by now Turkey should be one of the most reviled regimes in the world: it is an authoritarian state where its leader is manipulating parliament to unilaterally alter the constitution in order to reinforce his own powers and remain in office, political adversaries are regularly lustrated, journalists are periodically incarcerated and media outlets brought under governmental/ruling party control, the will exists to restrict the internet, the leader’s family is corrupt and syphons money using its family connection to the leader, the country is restricting individual liberties and reinforcing religious norms, its foreign policy is disastrous since it has deteriorated its relations with most neighbours, geopolitically the government either tolerates or actively supports extremist movements abroad and it is aligned with another illiberal state to accomplish it (Qatar).

Turkey is even better as an example than Saudi Arabia because the Kingdom only seeks to survive and to what extent it changed internally, it did so to become more liberal, not less. Also important is foreign policy orientation since Riyadh has geopolitical reasons to wish to force into power an anti-Iranian regime in Syria and in Yemen. Turkey, on the other hand, has nothing to fear from Iran both because it is equivalent in size and because it can count on NATO.

Apart from totalitarian DPRK, Russia is perhaps the most detested regime in the world as far as the West is concerned but in terms of values, Putin pales in comparison to Erdogan in every respect except one: resistance to universalism. Putin may actually be more democratic, less tolerant of extremism, more accepting of opposing media, his nepotistic corrupt ties less obvious/sizeable, be more respectful of the constitutional order, less restrictive of personal freedoms, his foreign policy more successful, rational, predictable and purveyor of stability. Unlike Erdogan though, Putin is not a team player. Quite to the contrary, the Kremlin actively resists universalist influence and that is a much greater threat to an ideology than herded black sheep.

Why is that so? Because this particular ideology is revisionist to the core. It matters little that individualist universalism is not implemented in actuality. Thanks to a culturally Marxist academia and largely sympathetic media and intellectuals, what is preached today will slowly be practiced tomorrow so long as there is enough critical mass for it. The populace has a short memory and its very language and thoughts can be manipulated by the elites.

The West is often histrionic, and rightly so, when other countries revise their history books so as to gloss over past crimes. The West is not quite so outraged when the same is done in its own turf to promote its own ideology.

So at a time of record ignorance on the part of Westerners, of the role played by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany – according to polls, most Westerners believe Western troops were the ones that made the biggest effort to defeat the III Reich – Western leaders decide they will boycott V Day celebrations in Moscow because of the Kremlin’s intervention in Ukraine… so much for statesmanship and concern for historical accuracy. Similarly, there is outrage and mockery when Russian soldiers are filmed in Ukraine while Russia issues denials, and there is scandal at the breach of international law that the ‘little green men’ represent but when Western troops are found operating in secret in other countries such as Libya or Pakistan, there is no problem, no cartoons, no talk of ‘little green men’. European values are often touted as the unifying factor of the EU’s ‘unity in diversity’ project but when eastern Europeans vote against gay rights or western Europeans vote in xenophobic parties, when the death penalty is praised in one place or corruption keeps a leader in power in another, the narrative of the common values does not go away… the end of the UK’s membership of the EU was supposed to be the harbinger of multiple catastrophes from economic collapse to the erupting of wars across the continent – at least according to BBC’s ‘documentaries’ on the matter – and yet things simply went on as usual. Last but not least, one of the myths propagated by Western historical revisionists is that the EU brought with it peace to the continent: this is an outright lie which ignores that other parts of the world have been at peace without the EU or more simply that without a common security and defence policy until the 90s it was the sheer will of the states that kept Europe at peace, or that indeed, it still does today.

Then again, most citizens don’t study History so if the new truth is not canon now, it will be for the next generation.

Advertisements

Permalink 1 Comment

Realist Despondency

November 1, 2010 at 9:06 pm (tWP) (, , , , , , , , , )

I usually use this weblog to build a critique of universalism and idealism. I do so through articles but also on occasion with specific direct criticism at a given author. I chose this time to confront a preeminent Realist scholar. I do so because more and more I find his positions to be senseless and also because while a hardcore Realist, I admit that Political-Realism is not infallible and absolutes need to be avoided.

Stephen Walt is a self-proclaimed realist, he figures permanently on tWP’s ‘Realist Scholars’ list and I hold some respect for him. He seems however to have fallen under the influence of a foolish leftist narrative. A first indication was his partnering with John Mearsheimer in co-authoring ‘The Israel Lobby’. I shall not belay in a lengthy explanation for it suffices the reader to know that ‘The Israel Lobby’ puts forth the theory that the US foreign policy has been highjacked by pro-Israel Jews and evangelicals who hurt the American national interest by pursuing exclusively millennial objectives. As I have explained before, Walt’s and Mearsheimer’s simplistic economic reasoning leaves much to be desired.

Perhaps in order to defend his legacy, perhaps because he genuinely believes it, Walt has as of late consistently censured Israel’s foreign policy performance, and adapted his rhetoric of the American government to praise or criticise it depending respectively on its conciliatory or confrontational stance regarding Iran. Sadly, these imperatives have been recurrently proven as flawed and worse still, prejudiced.

Take his heavy criticism of Israel’s wars. Last May, Walt wrote ‘This latest escapade [the raid on the ‘Freedom Flotilla’] is as bone-headed as the 2006 war in Lebanon (which killed over a thousand Lebanese and caused billions of dollars worth of damage) or the 2008-2009 onslaught that killed some 1300 Gazans, many of them innocent children. None of these actions achieved its strategic objective‘. Yet, the West Bank now possesses the least Israel antagonising government in its history and there is virtually no terrorism emanating from that territory against the Jewish state. The wars that the world so promptly condemned in fora such as the UN – completely dominated by a true Islamic lobby, this one a verifiable sixty vote (1/3 of the UNGA) pressure group and not a conspiracy theory – have successfully deterred Hezbollah from further incursions into northern Israel and Hamas from untenable rocket firing in the south. This week, Ha’aretz reports Hamas’ Interior Minister Fathi Hamad confirming that most ‘policemen’ killed during the Gaza war were in fact Hamas militants which is in stark contrast with the much acclaimed Goldstone Report, and which brings the score of casualties of the war closer to IDF estimates.

Another Waltian assertion is that Israel is to blame for Turkey’s estrangement and strategic realignment. According to Walt ‘Unfortunately, Israel’s assault on Gaza back in December and January appalled many Turks and embarrassed the Turkish government. He goes on to say that Israel alienated the Turkish government by blitzing Gaza right when Ankara was gracefully mediating back-channel talks between Hamas and Israel. True as that may be, it is hard to imagine that Israel would have so easily dismissed and despised such an important ally as Turkey without so much as hinting that such an assault was either in the making or actually imminent. Supposing that it did, other intervenients in the Peace Process negotiations such as Russia or the Arab states, didn’t feel insulted by Israel, why should Turkey? There is also the hypocrisy factor: Turkey invaded and retained north Cyprus unilaterally, by surprise and in violation of all international norms, it holds no moral high ground to lecture others. As for the treatment of Palestinians, the Occupied Territories give Palestinians some of the highest ratings of human development of the Middle East and the level of violence and repression is much smaller now than it ever was. Turkey never had much to say about it anyway and its contributions for the UNRWA have to this day remained meagre at best. Finally, as Walt and the Turkish government put it, it almost seems that the entire Israelo-Turkish relations are being held back by a mere diplomatic row. If that is the case, why then is the Turkish government severing strategic ties with Israel?

More than any other person I understand that the election of AKP was more than a change of government, it was a change of regime and the AKP may not feel that it needs to take responsibility for years of CHP policies but in that case the change that took place happened on the Turkish side and the Gaza and flotilla incidents serve as nothing other than a scapegoat for the justification of a radical reversal of policy. This is where I am forced to part ways with Walt and other left-wing Realists. I am no neoconservative by any stretch of mind but the critique of Turkey on the part of the neocons is justified given Ankara’s realignment. It is not just Israel that Turkey is shunning, the Turks have also parted ways with the US and it is natural that ferocious advocates of democratic peace will disapprove of any regime that dismisses the most powerful democracy in the world and is hostile to the most liberal democracy in the Middle East.

Another area in which I cannot agree with Walt is Iran. I have written before that it is not the [theocratic] nature of Iran’s regime that prevents it from maintaining good relations with the US but rather the messianic attitude of its government. Walt however claims that Iran is a rational actor and that the sanctions will not work: ‘We continue to ramp up sanctions that most people know won’t work, and we take steps that are likely to reinforce Iranian suspicions and strengthen the clerical regime’s hold on power‘. Iran being financially and militarily weaker than the US and the GCC should be ‘courted’ by America and pressured via its poor human rights record into accepting American demands. But even if Iran acquires a nuclear deterrent – which Walt declares it may perceive to need given American threats (forgetting that American threats are due to its secret programme and erratic foreign policy) – that would not constitute a problem since all that could be expected is a regional MAD. I acknowledge Iran to be opportunistic but Walt seems to equate this to rationality. Mr. Walt what was the Iranian national interest in the Balkans that led it to send Pasdaran and equipment to the Bosniaks? Or for that matter in Lebanon, a country that not even its neighbours border? This is not to say that if Iran were to acquire nukes, it’d feel tempted to actually use them. The problem lies instead in the Iranian government’s anti-americanism and religious universalism which blind it to common rules of power politics. This erratic foreign policy is the actual cause of its current problems as Hossein Askari writes today in The National Interest ‘(…) instead of adopting sound policies to encourage private-sector growth, the government has squandered these resources to buy support through wasteful subsidies, to enrich regime insiders, to pursue military programs and grandiose foreign-policy adventures, all of which it could ill afford‘ ; and unlike what Stephen Walt claims the sanctions are indeed biting ‘These fines were the key to making sanctions “bite,” as Iranian banks were virtually cut off from the international financial system. Iran’s cost of trade skyrocketed, in my estimation by some 20–25 percent, in turn squeezing Iran’s foreign currency reserves’; and The National Interest is not exactly a neocon bastion…

Dear Mr. Walt, I am a fan and think of myself as a true realist. As you I believe that America’s messianic foreign policy hurts its national interest and that the invasion of Iraq was a considerably misguided decision. But I must distance myself from your current Middle East views. I apologise but to observe the map of the Middle East and conclude that Israel is the messianic expansionist and Iran the rational actor is something too twisted for me to reconcile.

Permalink 5 Comments