Who Needs Nationalism?

Good point on the EU: “Frustrated idealists of today look at the bureaucratic monster that oppresses the European people and fail to remember the high-mindedness that motivated the birthing of the beast in Belgium.” Economic free market trade between the strongest players.

European history alone shows that Europe has a mixture of positive and negative-overall divisions i.e. Italian > Romanian culture.

Italy is a great example of how the concept of nationhood beyond hard borders (English Channel) are created by conditions of war. (If you can’t defend it, at your borders, it isn’t yours.) Odds are, Italy will splinter again as its people splinter and any effort to unite *a* nation as it stands would stave off this tendency to ethnic entropy.

Henry Dampier

Attilla and His Hordes Destroy Italy and The Arts - Eugene Delacroix Attilla and His Hordes Destroy Italy and The Arts – Eugene Delacroix

Nationalism is the most controversial sector of the neoreactionary trichotomy. The most ardent nationalists tend to be suspicious and hostile towards neoreaction, but not always. This essay will survey the modern situation, perform a brief historical review, and then move on to practical considerations of political strategy as it relates to the ethno-nationalist tendency. It closes with a recommendation.

The recent historical background

Since World War II, all the great powers have repudiated previous-held doctrines of rights to ethno-religious self-determination that became popular after the European upheavals of 1848. The victorious Allies supplanted European nationalism with an internationalist set of Universal Human Rights which repudiates the idea of ethnic and religious exclusivity that nationalism requires.

The obvious reason why this happened is because the USSR was an internationalist Marxist dictatorship. The US is and was a universalist democratic world-Empire with an…

View original post 2,612 more words

UK Government forcing LGB lobby ideology on independent schools

The upper class are concerned with two things: inheritance and grandchildren. They got what they wanted, state control of sex education, they were too arrogant, however, to expect it would ever be used against them.

from: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/10/New-Government-Regulations-Compel-Schools-to-Promote-Same-Sex-Marriage

…These coercive provisions are contained in the new Independent School Standards regulations which change the legal framework for academies, free schools and private education….

This latest aggression by social engineers in a supposedly Conservative-led government is ominously significant, even historic, in that it crosses a red line never before violated by introducing state interference in the curriculum. Even Labour never went as far as that in its social engineering mania….

Now, however, these new regulations will trample down that tradition of political neutrality in the curriculum in English schools. Regulation (b) (vi) introduces a duty to “encourage respect for other people, paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010 (a)”. Note the weasel language regarding “protected characteristics”. Nobody has any problem with pupils being taught respect for other people – they have long been instructed in that duty in religious knowledge classes, civics lessons and in the home.

But respecting “protected characteristics” defined in the most un-British piece of legislation ever passed is an entirely different matter.It involves ideology rather than people. One of the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act is sexual orientation. The regulations assert a “new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons with protected characteristics” with the intention of allowing the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations, including “failure to address homophobia”.

Colin Hart, Campaign Director of the Coalition for Marriage, observes: “As we know from recent history, reasonable opposition to same-sex marriage is routinely described as ‘homophobia’.” He asks if a school must discipline or dismiss a teacher who voices support for traditional marriage and whether parents of prospective pupils will be interrogated about their beliefs before their child is granted a school place. Such totalitarian inquisition is already practised with regard to fostering and adoption.

The sinister term “actively promote” was defined in the Government’s consultation document: “ ‘Actively promote’ also means challenging pupils, staff or parents expressing opinions contrary to fundamental British values.” Anyone who thinks that is simply aimed at jihadist sympathisers is sadly deluded. “Fundamental British values”, in a Government context, bears no relation to the traditional ethos, beliefs and standards of mainstream Britain; on the contrary, it is coded language for political correctness.

This blueprint for indoctrination further insists that in future private schools must conform to “national norms” rather than the expectations of parents. So much for independent education. If this is the climate of enforcement that will prevail in the independent sector, what kind of Stalinist Thought Police can we expect to rule over state schools?

The QC’s opinion commissioned by the Christian Institute, another body alarmed by this interference with academic and moral freedom, quotes a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights: “The state is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents’ religious and philosophical convictions. That is the limit that the states must not exceed.”

The British Government prefers to “challenge” parents. They should accept that challenge and respond, most notably at the ballot box. Some of them took the opportunity of doing so on Thursday. It beggars belief that this offensive against the ideological impartiality of the school curriculum, traditional marriage, parental authority and freedom of speech results from an initiative by a so-called Conservative Prime Minister.

Now we know just how “free” the Tories’ free schools are intended to be. Independent education is an oxymoron when the intruder State attempts to enforce its progressive prejudices on pupils and teachers. We are being herded along a road well trodden by totalitarian dictators before. How long before we arrive at the Orwellian destination where pupils are indoctrinated with the slogan “Be a good citizen – report your parents”? Debauching the school curriculum is an aggression too far by Dave’s PC social engineers.

Wonder why ‘inequality’ is meant to be such a problem?

study here


Apparent Strength Conceals Instability in a Model for the Collapse of Historical States

Europhile politicians right now“We find that a small amount of dissatisfaction is typically harmless to the state, but can trigger sudden collapse when there is a sufficient buildup of political inequality.”

Yeah. That’s why. The game theory of why empires fall and civil war occurs seemingly overnight.

Article: Cultural Collapse Theory

A succinct summary of events we should be wary of. Give it a chance.

“All cultural identity will eventually be lost, and to be “American” or “British,” for example, will no longer have modern meaning from a sociological perspective. Native traditions will be eradicated and a cultural mixing will take place where citizens from one world nation will be nearly identical in behavior, thought, and consumer tastes to citizens of another. Once a collapse occurs, it cannot be reversed. The nation’s cultural heritage will be forever lost.”

It's cold on the front line of civilization