RSS
Though it is Catalonia and Iraqi Kurdistan that have dominated the news these past two weeks, this month also saw a flare-up in separatist sentiment in Brazil.
The referendum was organised a week after a similar vote in Catalonia by a secessionist movement called “The South Is My Country”.
The movement said it set up polls in more than 1,000 municipalities across the states of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Paraná.
This region apparently has a have a fleeting historical experience of independence:
The south of Brazil has expressed secessionist tendencies before, ever since Italy’s Giuseppe Garibaldi helped it achieve a short-lived semi-independence in 1836.
Last year a similar vote in October 2016 organised by “The South Is My Country” gathered 617,500 votes. Over 95% of the voters in the three states said they were in favour of separation.
They are the the whitest states:
| State | White (%) | Brown (%) | Black (%) | Asian or Amerindian (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Santa Catarina | 86,6 | 9,4 | 3,6 | 0,4 |
| Rio Grande do Sul | 82,3 | 11,4 | 5,9 | 0,4 |
| Paraná | 70,3 | 25,5 | 3,0 | 1,1 |
| São Paulo | 70,2 | 22,4 | 6,2 | 1,3 |
| Rio de Janeiro | 54,5 | 32,4 | 12,6 | 0,4 |
And the most developed and cognitively gifted ones.
Emil Kirkegaard: The S factor in Brazilian states
Brazil is not in any danger of breaking up anytime soon – while the referendums in the three “separatist” provinces register overwhelming support for independence, turnout is very low, indicating that a majority are either opposed or at the very least don’t care all that much.
However, what is true today may no longer be true the case tomorrow, because the centrifugal forces that break nations apart are gathering strength at the global level.
Historical perspective: One of the strongest and most consistent geopolitical trends of the past 200 years has been an explosion in national entities.
We went from less than 50 polities in 1800 to around 200 today.
But it wasn’t always like this. I don’t know if anybody has quantified this precisely, but the number of states or state-like entities in the world must have constituted many thousands during the medieval and Early Modern periods.
Just the territories of the Holy Roman Empire at times accounted for more than a thousand!
The Holy Roman Empire during the time of the Hohenstaufen Emperors.
Then the rise of the great gunpowder empires and European colonialism rapidly whittled down the numbers of independent states to a few dozens, with even the Latin American independence movements of the 19th century making nary a blimp at the global level.
But then the 20th century saw the collapse of the European monarchic empires, the emergence of national self-determination as a legitimate consideration in international law, the decolonization of the Third World, and the collapse of Communist federative states such as Yugoslavia and the USSR. The number of independent states, including unrecognized de facto polities, now numbers over 200.
As the cliodynamician Peter Turchin points out, the optimal size of a polity has varied throughout history:
We know empirically that the optimal size of a European state took a step up following 1500. As a result, the number of independent polities in Europe decreased from many hundreds in 1500 to just over 30 in 1900. The reason was the introduction of gunpowder that greatly elevated war intensity. The new evolutionary regime eliminated almost all of the small states, apart from a few special cases (like the Papacy or Monaco).
In today’s Europe, however, war has ceased to be an evolutionary force. It may change, but since 1945 the success or failure of European polities has been largely determined by their ability to deliver high levels of living standards to their citizens.
Consequently, under a liberal globalism that is true to its ideals, that is, one free of authoritarian coercion or Malthusian selection for big strong states, it appears that runaway national fragmentation is inevitable.
And these aren’t even the only trends militating against national consolidation.
1. Clever, high-functioning regions breaking away from stupid, corrupt regions. The classic example of this is, of course, Italy, where the 103 IQ, highly productive north has gotten increasingly fed up with the 93 IQ nepotistic, lackadaisical south. (
-
- PISA tests
-
- GDP per capita
-
- Consanguinity rate
Map credit: Those Who Can See; Reluctant Apostate.
There are variants of this in other countries as well. Catalonia is the headline example as of the time of writing. There is evidence this could become an issue in Brazil. Even the Russian nationalist slogan “Stop feeding the Caucasus” is an implicit statement of separatism.
The industrialized Donbass, at any rate, has already had it feeding the rest of the Ukraine (this wasn’t the main reason for the rebellion, but it was a reason).
Although there are many “experts” who parrot the idea that separatism is economically ruinous, that doesn’t seem to be at all obvious. All else equal, it would instead seem to be that, say, a Northern Italy freed of the obligation of having to pay extra taxes to feed their southern neighbors will allow them to spend more money on their own infrastructure, or to save it up; being more intelligent and less clannish, they will also likely create better institutions without the “contributions” of their southern former countrymen. Nor will the companies of the new North Italian states lose the markets of the states they break away from, since they will all remain within the single European economic space (at least in an ideal, non-hypocritical world; after all, protectionism is bad, according to liberal globalism).
This is important, because with the Liberal-Left’s discreditation of “nationalist” justifications for the existence of current nation-states, we are left with just the materialist, economic ones. But they are not necessarily in their favor!
Sputnik i Pogrom map of European separatist movements.
2. The rediscovery of ancient local identities. The collapse of “artificial” Communist constructs in the face of resurgent nationalisms hid the fact that the modern nation-state is also in many ways a relatively new and pretty artificial construct based on a shared literary corpus, Tombs of the Unknown Soldier, and sappy tales about semi-mythical heroes of yore like the Yellow Emperor, Barbarossa, Joan D’Arc, Ivan Susanin, and Paul Revere. A construct that was competitive in the past 200 years, to be sure, but will not necessarily remain so in a 21st century more characterized by a resurgence of ancient local identities and alternate models of sovereignty.
The drive towards Italian and German unification began at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and cultimated by the 1870s, a blink of an eye in historical terms. The rise of a strong American national consciousness dates to the late 18th century, and is now being actively deconstructed by Leftist and Black nationalist ideologues (e.g. stressing that the Founding Fathers were slave-owners, that Columbus was an occupier, etc). The way is being cleared for the disintegration of the United States and its replacement by its constituent ethno-cultural units.
English, French, and Russian national identity is considerably older, and have a long history of centralization around London, Paris, and Moscow as opposed to the more distributed arrangements of Germany, Italy, or Spain, so they might be expected to hold out the longest in Europe. However, even their “core” territories have regions with distinct local identities – Cornwall, the North, and the region around London in England; Britanny, the Vendée, and the South in France; Ingria, Idel-Ural, “Green Ukraine”, and the Kuban in Russia. These units, though very much underneath the surfaces, are still recognizable and some of them have even made themselves felt in past civil wars, so their reemergence during this century is not out of the question.
3. The globalist population replacement project. As one Italian has recently told me, separatist sentiment in the North has ebbed somewhat in the past couple of years, thanks to Merkel’s immigrants helping them realize that they still have so much in common. However, I suspect this will be a short-term and fleeting phenomenon.
BBC: We wuz lords.
Meet the new Germans.
When you affirm that any African or Asian can be a Briton or a German, you implicitly devalue those very national identities – at least relative to both localized and globalist alternatives to sovereignty (which is what really matters). This is because all nation-states have at least an implicit ethnonationalist basis. Increasingly strident denial of this fact, backed up by hate speech legislation, may be a short-term way of shoring up the legitimacy of the new multi-cultural chimeras popping up in Europe, but at the same time it will doom their long-term prospects – unless they abandon pretenses and start outright apeing the United States (and the USSR) by becoming explicit “proposition” nations. But too bad for them, the EU already has that “niche” cornered.
4. The rise of alternate models of sovereignty. These include:
- Regional economic blocs, such as Mercosur, the African Union, and of course the most advanced example of this, the European Union.
- Corporate-friendly globalist trading agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
- Outright global government in the form of the United Nations.
The utopian globalist option enjoyed a brief period of popularity in the immediate wake of WW2, but was soon displaced by the cynical realities of the Cold War.
The regionalist and corporatist options really began to flourish from the 1970s and haven’t looked back since, minor disruptions such as Brexit and Trump regardless. The EU is now arguably more influential than any single European country.
This is a very important development because the existence of massively supra-national and globalist frameworks nullify many of the economic arguments against localist separatism.
5. It only takes one domino. New polities tend to emerge in waves – as Lenin pointed out, “There are decades where nothing happens, and weeks where decades happen.” This is unlikely to change in the future.
Jose Ricon spells this out with reference to Catalonia:
So the referendum lacks any sort of legal backing. But what is being attempted in Catalonia, if successful, could serve as a precedent for the future. If unilateral independence is possible by peaceful means, and the international community eventually recognised Catalonia as a State, this would move the state of the interpretation of the right to self-determination more towards the side of Liechtenstein: That any territory, if it just feels like it, can become independent by passing a vote. This is what is being attempted, even though it is not being made explicit: to appeal to what is considered right to change what is considered legal.
This principle would also allow for the independence of Barcelona, or of London, for example, if recognised in a non-hypocritical way. …
This could be just another footnote in a history book, or an opening passage in the chapter that explains how you got an explosion in the number of states that began around 2017.
As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100, if we project linearly, or closer to 1,000, if we project exponentially.
This is a very weird prospect to be sure, but stranger things have happened before.
After all, there are still no shortage of countries riven by ethnic identity – Wilsonian self-determination taken to its logical conclusions should produce at least another 100 states in Europe and the former Soviet Union, another 100 in the Middle East, several dozen in India, and who knows how many in Africa.
If African borders correlated to ethnic identity.
There are also no shortages of wealth gradients even in mono-ethnic regions of the world. Such a result is indeed expected in countries that are “long” on the longitudinal axis by dint of Richard Lynn’s Cold Winters Theory of IQ. As GDP per capita hews closer and closer to the levels predicted by average population IQs, as we can expect to see in our future biorealistic world, the pressures for separation will grow ever more manifest, everywhere.
And since national breakup is coterminous with the march of liberal globalism – which enjoys the near unanimous support of the cognitive elites – can it even be stopped?
Perhaps one of the key arenas of international competition in the coming century, apart from dealing with global warming and the race towards IQ augmentation and machine intelligence, will revolve around struggles to foment separatism in your neighbors before you fall apart yourself. With its authoritarian government and one billion strong Han core, I expect China to win this “race” as well.
And yet this world will not necessarily be a uniform mishmash of different races and colors and cuisines and dialects with no identity of their own. When you are a technocrat ruling over 80 million people, it is easy for you to listen to your economists and invite in millions of supposed “doctors and engineers” to augment your workforce, protestations from stupid racist hillbillies in the boondocks be damned. Quite a lot harder if you’re the mayor of a small city who has to justify his decisions to a combatative citizens’ gathering in a townhall – the bulk of opposition to Merkel’s immigration decrees was at the local level.
Besides, what is nationalism but globalism at a smaller level? The Duchy of Aquitaine and the Most Serene Republic of Venice had their own culture, their own identities, their own values – and there is no reason to expect things to be any different in the future world of city-states and corporate fiefdoms from the Emirate of Abu Dhabi to the Canton of Zurich.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Why do you expect corporations to remain as powerful as they are now? Seems to me they are a pretty specialized economic organism.
I mean if Aegean Pirates (and there had to have existed at some point) arise again, what are they going to do? Sure they could invest in their own private security, but we are talking about a world of fires going on (at least that’s what I see as one possibility). The US government can maintain military forces all over the world, I don’t think Apple or Mercedes can. Then there is the particular current principle of “intellectual property,” not sure what happens to that in a fragmented world.
You also seem to assume that abstract market entities like the EU will continue to exist. Maybe, but I’m not so sure. They seem like things that are a struggle to maintain, and only the will of the elites keep them going.
We’ll see. Of course this will take a couple decades before we see the lay of the land, so this is academic right now.
As consumers, we choose what we acquire and, indeed, what we are part of. It stands to reason that there must be some form of appeal, a certain kind of national worth, to bring together otherwise disparate interests.
In short, if an administration fails to deliver, it is voted out. And if a government fails to deliver, it stands to reason to propose alternatives up to and including redrawing of borders and competencies.
But, like I said, it's just another consequence of affluence. It's shopping for national identity with a gold credit card. The Catalonians, for example, are the one percenters of Spain and have been so for more than a century. Now that they can no longer slave the whole of Spain to their economy and for their profit (no more Franco), what interest is there in any further association?Replies: @jilles dykstra, @Anon
It is suggestive that all the examples you give appear to be of failure. Is it really plausible that wider forces are moving so as to make such secessions more likely in the future? Neither Catalonia nor northern Italy appears to have any viable route to successful secession at the moment or in the foreseeable future, with any possible success depending upon a fortuitous collapse of resistance at the national level.
And it seems likely that ongoing mass immigration will generate increasing populations opposed to secession within those regions even as it might alienate the indigenous populations. The latter will, of course, as we have seen already, be vigorously suppressed by “hate speech” etc laws and related harassment any time it attempts to use that vigour to generate political momentum. You will be left with fundamentally hollow, deracinated leftist movements that are legal but doomed to failure like the Catalan one, or genuinely potentially capable right wing ethno-nationalist based ones that are legally and socially suppressed and reduced to embittered and marginalised dissident movements, capable only of generating the kind of exciting but ultimately probably pointless triumphs such as the Trump and Brexit votes, voting for people who make some of the right noises but will ultimately betray their real hopes.
It’s not a coincidence that establishments throughout the US sphere act most repressively against ethno-nationalist opinions – they recognise that those are the only ones that genuinely threaten the established internationalist order.
Conflict and civil war seem the only even potentially viable routes to nationalist secession, but are even those viable in the face of the powers the globalist left establishments have now accrued?
You make a strong case on an interesting issue. It will be interesting to see to what extent it can be countered.
With my mid-late C20th background, I tend to see global government, whether de jure or de facto, as the real threat and still, despite the nationalist resurgence of the post-millenium, the likely dystopian future, and to suspect that the supposed independent polities you anticipate will be mostly sovereign in name only, if that.
You seem to be implying that liberal globalists hate separatist movements, but is it so?
Just like individualistic atomization domestically, splitting up larger states into small pieces makes them weak and easy to manipulate/control/bully by supranational institutions like European central bank, court of human rights, etc. Even by the open society foundation, or some such. Not to mention the well-known institutions in DC and NYC.
This may not be exactly true in Europe today because of peculiarities of the EU structure where some important decisions require unanimity, but that could be easily worked out, repealed, changed.
Liberal globalists such as Merkel, Macron, May etc, with their power based in the major existing national governments, do hate separatist movements in general, at least within the EU, except where they see them as tools that can be used against external enemies without undue blowback against their own interests.
But the wider liberal globalist supporters tend to hate separatist movements if they are ethno-nationalist in their political hierarchy (the Lombard/Northern League, most English nationalist movements, etc) because they fear them, but to be in favour of them if they are left globalist in their hierarchy (Scotland, Catalonia), because they see them as weapons against resistance to supra-nationalist and globalist forces such as the EU by the big established nations.
But the latter is complicated by the detailed structure of the EU itself, which is still dominated by the left globalists with national government power bases, but seen by wider globalists as one of their main tools against national resistance. Until they can persuade the government globalists to end EU features designed to suppress secession, such as the automatic departure of seceding areas from EU membership and subsequent veto on any membership application by the nation from which they had seceded, their position must remain conflicted.Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji, @Verymuchalive
“Clever, high-functioning regions breaking away from stupid, corrupt regions”
-> here is a comparison of several criteria in Poland. Top left is crime, to the right credits in swiss franks, bottom left are divorces, to the right passed matura exams (the one you take at the end of high school, before you enroll at universities)
Western Poland is richer than Eastern -> http://static1.money.pl/i/h/147/art400787.jpg. Purchasing power parity
Density of purchasing power parity, whatever the hell it means, in mln Złoty/km^2 ->
Here’s the so called “colonization on german law”/Ostsiedlung ->
Here’s “dominicantes” in Poland, so people who go to Sunday mass ->http://mapy.gis-expert.pl/mapy_iskk/01_parafie_domnicantes.jpg. Country-wide it’s about 35-40%
And the further South you go in Brazil, the more Germanic the white population. Die Andere Heimat.
I used to be a fan of ministates. The Welsh nationalist argument Post WW2 was that they were less likely to go to war than big states. Then came Yugoslavia. But yes, a world of Free Trade and harmonization around international standards set by the UN, which happens now, doesn’t need states with populations in the 10’s of millions.
It depends where the said liberal globalists have their power base, and to whom they answer.
Liberal globalists such as Merkel, Macron, May etc, with their power based in the major existing national governments, do hate separatist movements in general, at least within the EU, except where they see them as tools that can be used against external enemies without undue blowback against their own interests.
But the wider liberal globalist supporters tend to hate separatist movements if they are ethno-nationalist in their political hierarchy (the Lombard/Northern League, most English nationalist movements, etc) because they fear them, but to be in favour of them if they are left globalist in their hierarchy (Scotland, Catalonia), because they see them as weapons against resistance to supra-nationalist and globalist forces such as the EU by the big established nations.
But the latter is complicated by the detailed structure of the EU itself, which is still dominated by the left globalists with national government power bases, but seen by wider globalists as one of their main tools against national resistance. Until they can persuade the government globalists to end EU features designed to suppress secession, such as the automatic departure of seceding areas from EU membership and subsequent veto on any membership application by the nation from which they had seceded, their position must remain conflicted.
Also, although the SNP promotes itself as a " social democratic " party, its actions in government are decidedly different. It has had complete control of the Scottish Parliament since 2011, but its policies are very similar to the present Conservative UK government and the 2 previous UK governments. Of course, it continues to blame the UK government for any and all financial stringency, but even where it has leeway, it differs little from Westminster.
The SNP is a "liberal globalist" party disguised as a " social democratic " one. Yet liberal globalists elsewhere seem unwilling to support its claim of "Independence in Europe."Replies: @Randal
Enlighten me. Wasn’t the population of Prussia and Silesia expelled in the late 1940’s and replaced by other expelled people from modern Belarus? This would predict a society with problems of community. high divorce, low church attendance but also low socio-economic achievement. How big was the remaining Polish population in the Western parts relative to the immigrants? Dominant, balanced, a minority?
By the way, the politics of modern Wales can also be predicted by 800 year old maps, despite huge Anglo-Irish immigration and language obliteration in parts of the (now lower IQ) South.
Most of the population of western parts of Poland came from “ethnic” Poland. When Poland lost its belarussian and ukrainian territories, then indeed they resettled in western parts. Western parts were given to Poland only after WW2, so they had to be filled with Poles in the first place, those territories are basically migrant territories, so you’re correct about problems with community, social bonds, tradition and such
interesting take. reminds me of a bit in G̶u̶n̶s̶ ̶G̶e̶r̶m̶s̶ ̶&̶ ̶S̶t̶e̶e̶l̶ Collapse: What did the guy who felled the last tree on Easter Island think? Nothing, because by the time there was just one tree left, wood had lost any importance.
the (politically engineered) atrophying of national identities means that sovereignty will be granted to every tom, dick and jamal, because nationhood doesn’t mean anything anymore, all “nations” will be reporting to UN/EU/Samsung, anyway.
Dialectics…
Liberal globalists such as Merkel, Macron, May etc, with their power based in the major existing national governments, do hate separatist movements in general, at least within the EU, except where they see them as tools that can be used against external enemies without undue blowback against their own interests.
But the wider liberal globalist supporters tend to hate separatist movements if they are ethno-nationalist in their political hierarchy (the Lombard/Northern League, most English nationalist movements, etc) because they fear them, but to be in favour of them if they are left globalist in their hierarchy (Scotland, Catalonia), because they see them as weapons against resistance to supra-nationalist and globalist forces such as the EU by the big established nations.
But the latter is complicated by the detailed structure of the EU itself, which is still dominated by the left globalists with national government power bases, but seen by wider globalists as one of their main tools against national resistance. Until they can persuade the government globalists to end EU features designed to suppress secession, such as the automatic departure of seceding areas from EU membership and subsequent veto on any membership application by the nation from which they had seceded, their position must remain conflicted.Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji, @Verymuchalive
Actually, I thought a split up of Spain would be beneficial for Merkel (as the leader of the Fourth German Reich). It would make her position stronger. But undesirable for the US, for exactly the same reason. The US must be worried about Germany/EU’s strength, even though it has 35K troops there.
One of the few potential benefits of a US repudiation of the Iran agreement could well be the triggering of that.Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
I recommend a Portlandia episode where Portland declares independence. This is the most probable scenario for how those things will go.
Except that Merkel has to work with the other heads of state within the EU, so any small gains from decreasing Spain’s weight within the EU would be massively outweighed by the diplomatic costs of being seen as acting against the vital interests of the Spanish/French/Italian/UK governments that are directly threatened by separatism. So even if German government might be happy with using secessionism against its EU rivals (and it could be a very powerful move if and when Germany becomes powerful enough to get away with it), German government figures have to pretend not to support it.
Not about its military strength. Possibly about its potential economic and political strength and growing potential to finally break away from the post-WW2 US hegemony over Europe.
One of the few potential benefits of a US repudiation of the Iran agreement could well be the triggering of that.
Basically, it's that same multipolar vs unipolar thing. Challenge to the US hegemony not only over Europe, but worldwide.
What do you mean by a “Green Ukraine” in Russia, AK?
Another way of looking at the divide between the clever/high functioning and other regions is to map the eprcentage of overindebted households. Overindebtedness in a household is more often than not a proxy for cognitive functioning. When you are clever enough, you are usually also clever enough to know how much money you can spend and don’t run into high debts.
The South-East / North-West divide is evident and will only get stronger, the more Eastern Germany overcomes its communist heritage and converges with the West GDP wise.
Share of households that are overindebted
Perhaps your argument is reversed? Those in (at least some) high-debt areas have access to capital and/or social networks that allows them to use debt to speculate on making themselves even more rich.
One of the few potential benefits of a US repudiation of the Iran agreement could well be the triggering of that.Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
Of course. She wouldn’t openly support it.
Yes. Mostly political, I think. The EU becoming unified political entity, with its own foreign policy (does Catalonia really need one?), one set of embassies, unified intelligence services and all that. And eventually with its own military force – which is why Trump talking about the end of NATO caused a panic in the US.
Basically, it’s that same multipolar vs unipolar thing. Challenge to the US hegemony not only over Europe, but worldwide.
Poorer areas in Poland are more clever than richer areas
The actual post ww2 tendency in the UK has been unification . The Parliament of Northern Ireland ended in 1972.
So the tendency has been towards greater regionalization.Replies: @Sean
That’s why I think overindebtedness is a better proxy for IQ than richness, at least on the regional level. In Germany you have dumb but rich regions as well (Hamburg e.g.) and at the same time poor and smart regions (Saxony), but nevertheless the richer Hamburgers more often run into debt than the poorer Saxons.
It is not IQ. Rather family values, tradition religiosity.
Some of the nations on that map are hilarious. I particularly enjoy the map-maker’s invention of a Northumbrian nation
That was due to the Troubles. Wales and Scotland got a devolved National Assembly and Parliament in 1998 and Northern Ireland got an Assembly as part of the peace process (it has been suspended several times). You could argue that the greater London government is another devolved administration, with plans to create regional assemblies in provincial England failing on referendum in 2006. Moreover, several Scotland and Wales Acts have been passed afterwards, each extending the power of the regional assembly.
So the tendency has been towards greater regionalization.
The Ulster government until 1972 was far more independent than anything currently in Scotland, Northern Ireland (or Wales). The Ulster state was toppled by their ethnic minority being seen as oppressed :- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ulster_Constabulary)
And that is why there cannot be more nation states. Just as the British used concern over the way Jews were treated to control the freed Balkan peoples (see here) the big countries will not allow breakaways. Russia's justification in Ukraine was the treatment of the Russian minority.Replies: @RadicalCenter
I like the idea of the main part of a country expelling other parts. Like the white part of England expelling London and the darkest cities in the midlands, or France expelling the Paris conurbation, or the US expelling California and New York. Then a more white electorate in the remaining parts of the country could get down to business in terms of restoring a pro-Western Civilization regime.
'Yahoo' was invented in Utah,
'Google' was created in Nevada,
'Uber' was implemented in Wyoming,
Pro-western civilization will be created in fly-over zones. Go for it.
This ignores the centralizing, unifying, statist, and militaristic aspects and tendencies of nationalism. Any increase in the number of nationalist states will have the effect of reducing the potential number of nationalist states as nationalistic states generally do not tolerate secessionism and seek to maintain and expand if possible unified territory under their control.
The ‘legal’ basis of secession, trumping local alleged ‘laws’, is the United Nations Charter, which incorporated the ideal & right of ‘self-determination for peoples’ … and in another ignored provision, the UN Charter strictly affirms the right to leave a religion … so all the Muslim countries that have death penalty etc for apostasy, should be kicked out of the UN I guess, right after Israel for its violations of Palestinian ‘self-determination’.
Andrew Anglin – his Daily Stormer now via Anguilla at https://dailystormer.ai/ if you’d like to keep up – had a funny piece on how Nato was just about to bomb Madrid in order to liberate Catalonia, because the case was just like Belgrade not wanting to let go of Kosovo.
Another interesting case of secession is inside South Africa, with the possible secession of the Western Cape province including Cape Town, the only province where black Africans are a minority versus more numerous mixed-race ‘coloureds’. There is an increasingly popular ‘Cape Party’ pursuing the independence objective, with whites & the metis coloureds both favouring the idea in great numbers.
There is reportedly a great amount of internal South African immigration by whites who are moving into the region with the sense that Western Cape is their strongest region in terms of opportunity or just survival in the future.
Of its somewhat more than 6 million inhabitants, Western Cape is about one-sixth white, about half ‘coloured’ (i.e., mixed-race) & about one-third full-African-black, with a small minority from India. It is significantly Afrikaans-speaking (the close sister of Netherlands Dutch).
South Africa as a whole, has several million poor white people who are being sadly murdered in great numbers, as some blacks there speak increasingly not only of confiscation of white assets but also in some genocidal-type chatter of just outright killing whites as well. There is a petition in Europe to allow European-descended South Africans to emigrate back to the Europe of their ancestors … to which EU authorities are cold, quite striking in light of the millions of economic-benefit-seeking culturally-clashing migrants Europe is allowing to land & stay.
Some European countries, such as Germany and Italy, allow citizenship based on even distant ancestry if one can prove the trail, but the Netherlands from which many Afrikaners have their ancestors, is not one of them.
In Benelux the Belgian secession situation is curious, rather like Canada in that it is talked about for decades but hasn’t happened. The 1830 Belgian revolution against the Netherlands, was because beer-drinking, Carnival-partying Catholics chafed under Calvinist Dutch, and so even Dutch-speaking Flemish Catholics joined that secession party. Now that Christianity is ‘over’ & Dutch-speaking Flanders is richer, secession is a live issue, but the problem has been what to do re Brussels, where Flemish work but mostly don’t live in. If there was a split in Belgium, it is clear the French-speaking Belgians of Wallonia would soon just join France, whose television they are watching anyway … and after some more years the Flemish would likely join with the Netherlands as well, with the common bond of having a minor language to defend & protect.
All nations are “proposition” nations. They just differ in their propositions. Nazi Germany was as much a proposition nation as the USSR was and the USA is. Nazi Germany was defined by the propositions that made up for example the Nuremberg Laws and the Reich Citizenship Law.
Politics is only the most superficial level of society though.
At the cultural level, which is all that really matters; people all around the globe increasingly listen to the same mechanical music, watch the same superhero films, use the same websites, consume the same corporate media, read the same bestseller trash, eat the same factory food and wear the same branded clothing.
The last is especially striking – just look up photographs by Albert Kahn to see what we’ve lost.
«Perhaps one of the key arenas of international competition in the coming century […] will revolve around struggles to foment separatism in your neighbors before you fall apart yourself. With its authoritarian government and one billion strong Han core, I expect China to win this “race” as well.»
No, China’s going to fall apart…
Russia is best prepared to win this “race”. It can intentionally break itself into pieces, starting the global “domino” process. Then (after a painful period of turmoil — but Russians have pretty high pain tolerance) it will reintegrate itself in some different form, enjoing the results of separatist chaos elsewhere.
In fact, everything is already prepared for this post-Putin scenario.
If they were organised into a group they'd behave like white blood cells in the body.
And over 350 thousand Brazilians of Ukrainian descent* inhabit this area, specifically in Parana and Rio Grande de Sul. Offspring of these once poor peasants have developed into a well to do landowner class of people, who cling tenaciously to their ethnic roots and Ukrainian Greek Catholic religion. It would be difficult to accept the idea of an autonomous ‘South Region’ autonomy without their active participation, yet I’ve never come across any such proclivities?…Help me to understand this, Anatoly?
Expect opposition. The left is terrified of separatism because it neuters their ability to police all parties under an single oppressive collective where the group can exact moral punishment on any outliers. They know that in a less social world, they would not be able to enforce their morals norms to the extent they do today.
There’s going to be more and more liberal fearmongering about the “isolationist future”, complete with apologetics for police state style interventionism in order to “lead the world” and “spread democracy” (i.e. leftist degeneracy).
Liberal globalists such as Merkel, Macron, May etc, with their power based in the major existing national governments, do hate separatist movements in general, at least within the EU, except where they see them as tools that can be used against external enemies without undue blowback against their own interests.
But the wider liberal globalist supporters tend to hate separatist movements if they are ethno-nationalist in their political hierarchy (the Lombard/Northern League, most English nationalist movements, etc) because they fear them, but to be in favour of them if they are left globalist in their hierarchy (Scotland, Catalonia), because they see them as weapons against resistance to supra-nationalist and globalist forces such as the EU by the big established nations.
But the latter is complicated by the detailed structure of the EU itself, which is still dominated by the left globalists with national government power bases, but seen by wider globalists as one of their main tools against national resistance. Until they can persuade the government globalists to end EU features designed to suppress secession, such as the automatic departure of seceding areas from EU membership and subsequent veto on any membership application by the nation from which they had seceded, their position must remain conflicted.Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji, @Verymuchalive
I must contradict one of your points. I don’t remember any “liberal globalists” coming out in favour of independence during The Scottish Independence Referendum 2014.
Also, although the SNP promotes itself as a ” social democratic ” party, its actions in government are decidedly different. It has had complete control of the Scottish Parliament since 2011, but its policies are very similar to the present Conservative UK government and the 2 previous UK governments. Of course, it continues to blame the UK government for any and all financial stringency, but even where it has leeway, it differs little from Westminster.
The SNP is a “liberal globalist” party disguised as a ” social democratic ” one. Yet liberal globalists elsewhere seem unwilling to support its claim of “Independence in Europe.”
The status of the Cameron and May governments is clearly evident from their gratuitous promotion of gay "marriage" and enthusiastic embrace of the "antiracist" and other dogmas of political correctness, together with their continuation of the Blairite policy of promoting mass immigration.Again, I don't recognise the distinction you draw between "liberal globalist" and "social democratic" as having any relevance in the modern context, but as far as leftists supporting Scottish independence is concerned, you could start with the Greens and go on to an endless list of lefty luvvies and celebrities from Bjork to Ken Loach.
Part of the problem is in our use of terminology here, since I regard globalism as politically speaking a leftist phenomenon (internationalism), whereas you seem to focus more on the greedy self-serving corporate support for it and categorise it as on the right (if I understand your use of "liberal globalism", as distinct from my own, correctly). I'm using liberal more in the American sense, which seems more apt to modern day illiberal liberalism even in this country.Replies: @LondonBob
I used to be a fan of ministates. The Welsh nationalist argument Post WW2 was that they were less likely to go to war than big states. Then came Yugoslavia. But yes, a world of Free Trade and harmonization around international standards set by the UN, which happens now, doesn't need states with populations in the 10's of millions.Replies: @Silva
Marginally more Germanic; majorities only in small cities. Source: I live in the Southernmost capital. Getúlio Vargas was right to be worried about ethnic-German separatism in his time, but that’s *far* past now – thank Rede Globo!
Not Anatoly, but Southern Brazilian: the successful minorities in Brazil are descended from Germans, Italians, Poles, Ukrainians, Christian Syrians/Lebanese, Jews (both Ashkenazim and Sefaradim), Chinese, and Japanese. They either live in rural, already quite separate areas (first 4), or are capitalists dependent on hiring people of other races (all 8). In other words, a few don’t have much contact with “Brazil” (except for TV), and most won’t secede for the same reasons white Mexicans won’t (including being too few for that to be even possible). “White Southern Brazilians” (a category into which most Brazilians would classify me, that includes lots of brown people because of reverse almost one-drop rule) are more often of Portuguese and Spanish descent, often with visible Amerindian and Sub-Saharan traits. It has to be said that even rich Brazilians of Northern European descent don’t behave much like Northern Europeans – slavery degrades both the slave and the slaver.
how do they behave? ghetto?
"slavery degrades both the slave and the slaver."
didn't they abolish slavery about the same time the US did?
perhaps forced diversity (regardless of power disparities) messes people up.
Yep, England is highly unified, despite regional variation, as you would expect given that England dates all the way back to the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy. Even Welsh and Cornish separatism is very much a fringe interest.
“It has to be said that even rich Brazilians of Northern European descent don’t behave much like Northern Europeans”
how do they behave? ghetto?
“slavery degrades both the slave and the slaver.”
didn’t they abolish slavery about the same time the US did?
perhaps forced diversity (regardless of power disparities) messes people up.
More examples of “Clever, high-functioning regions breaking away from stupid, corrupt regions”. Biafra trying to escape Nigeria in 1967. Efforts to split Volkstaat and Western Cape from South Africa.
If West Germany must be overrun by Muslim warriors, then East Germany would be better off without unification.
A nation must be big enough to defend itself. For US, China and Russia, that means being big enough to pay for plenty of nukes. For smaller countries it depends on the neighborhood.
Good luck to the south of Brazil. The big war is the war of global South vs. North.
I was referring my question to ‘Anatoly’, however since you’re a native to the area perhaps you can explain just what the fuss is all about, and what the referendum that recently tookas the lead in for this thread is all about:
My research indicates that about 350,000 Brazilians of Ukrainian descent live in this area, which would make them a majority there. Do you know how specifically they’re involved in this secessionist movement, or is it just a bunch of noise about nothing in reality?
if so they tend to be anti-political.Replies: @Mr. Hack
“The South Is My Country” is a separatist movement for the region, it is got nothing to do with an ethnostate, given that the region is home to various european ethnic groups, many of which have blended to a considerable extent with one another, much like in the US. There are also non white minorities.
The largest Ukranian diaspora in Latin America is indeed in Brazil, concentrated in Paraná state, but present in numbers in the other 2 southern states & the southeastern state of São Paulo.
The Ukranians do NOT make a majority in any Brazilian state... they are not even the largest Slavic group in Brazil, which is the Polish.
Largest ethnic European immigrant groups in the country are the Portuguese, Italian, Spanish and Germans.
As for the separatist thing, it is largely economic; some people think they'd be better off as a separate entity. Same feeling can be found in Brazil's richest state of S. Paulo; the idea being that those areas 'support' the rest of the country. Not much traction.
I agree with this general thesis especially as I believe this
is most likely to occur in homogenous populations where the political class is most related to the citizens.
However I think human affairs are disproportionately effected by what the sociopaths want and so a possible counter to your logic is what do the the sociopaths want?
I’d say there are two factions:
1) authoritarian type who want atomized individuals ruled by an all powerful state – EUSSR and USSSR (united states soviet socialist republic) – these people want 1984
and
2) oligarch type who want atomized individuals ruled by all powerful corporations – these people want Bladerunner
(the two types are currently allied hence the uniparty effect throughout the West but will eventually fight.)
The 1984 type are maybe 60% of the EU elite and and maybe 40% of the US federal elite and yes if their public statements were true they should have no problem with sub-national self determination but they do – cos their public statements aren’t true and they don’t want any collective resistance to state power not even families.
I’d imagine the Blade Runner group are mostly okay with separatism into smaller polities as in theory (although maybe not in practice) it would make it easier for the oligarchs to dominate each individual piece however if correct that would then become a reason for the smaller states to want to group together for protection – not military protection this time but economic protection.
So it seems to me non-sociopaths are caught between a rock and a hard place: run from the oligarch’s “Blade Runner” future into the arms of “1984” or vice versa.
I guess it’s somewhere to the southwest of the NATO-member Volgograd Republic.
are they Ukrainian or descendants of the German/Dutch Mennonites (kulaks) who got out of the gulag through international pressure after the 1917 revolution?
if so they tend to be anti-political.
No, China's going to fall apart…
Russia is best prepared to win this “race”. It can intentionally break itself into pieces, starting the global “domino” process. Then (after a painful period of turmoil — but Russians have pretty high pain tolerance) it will reintegrate itself in some different form, enjoing the results of separatist chaos elsewhere.
In fact, everything is already prepared for this post-Putin scenario.Replies: @notanon
If Pooty wants to prevent the inevitable oligarch’s cannibal feast of Russia after he’s gone he should get some scientists to figure out what genetic combination creates the “sheepdog” personality and then get all the kids like that tested for and sent to special janissary schools for eventual placement in the KGB and priesthood.
If they were organised into a group they’d behave like white blood cells in the body.
Women have fewer children because the banks started to lend on a couple’s income rather than a husband’s.
if so they tend to be anti-political.Replies: @Mr. Hack
No, they’re really Ukrainians, mostly from Galicia but there’s a mishmash of Ukrainians from other areas as well, Volyn, Bukovina, Zakarpattya and even further east. They seem to be quite clanish and stick to themselves, and what I’ve heard from some that have been there, many of them are quite prosperous farmers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Brazilians
It’s too bad that Ukrainians living in Russia aren’t allowed more opportunities to express their native language and other cultural activities, like in Brazil and Kazakhstan. Russian nationalists must really hate their Ukrainian ‘brothers’ and seem intent on quashing any signs of Ukrainian ethnicity.
So the tendency has been towards greater regionalization.Replies: @Sean
The GLC was abolished because it was too independent.
The Ulster government until 1972 was far more independent than anything currently in Scotland, Northern Ireland (or Wales). The Ulster state was toppled by their ethnic minority being seen as oppressed :- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ulster_Constabulary)
And that is why there cannot be more nation states. Just as the British used concern over the way Jews were treated to control the freed Balkan peoples (see here) the big countries will not allow breakaways. Russia’s justification in Ukraine was the treatment of the Russian minority.
Secession can defuse that tension IF the original larger country is willing to act in good faith rather than try to punish & impoverish the seceders by refusing reasonable trade deals, transit rights, tourist and business visas, etc.
Good luck to Catalonia & Scotland in their bids for independence from Spain and the UK, respectively. (Too bad they both seem likely to surrender their sovereignty all over again by applying to rejoin the increasingly Islamic, fascist/socialist/mandatory-Third-World-mass immigration body known as the "European" Union.)
Eastern Germans, too, have the right to secede from Germany because staying subject to German/EU immivasion policies will turn that part of the country into a Third World Islamic cesspool as well.Replies: @Sean
Bring it on please.
Some people are not worth co-existing with.
Some say Africans cause so much trouble in EU because of trauma of imperialism.
If so, how come Poles get along just fine as workers in Germany? Germany sure treated Poland badly for a long time.
(And Viets seem to be causing less trouble in Vietnam even though French war in Vietnam killed many more people than in most black African nations.)
Also, although the SNP promotes itself as a " social democratic " party, its actions in government are decidedly different. It has had complete control of the Scottish Parliament since 2011, but its policies are very similar to the present Conservative UK government and the 2 previous UK governments. Of course, it continues to blame the UK government for any and all financial stringency, but even where it has leeway, it differs little from Westminster.
The SNP is a "liberal globalist" party disguised as a " social democratic " one. Yet liberal globalists elsewhere seem unwilling to support its claim of "Independence in Europe."Replies: @Randal
The present “Conservative” government, like the preceding Cameron government, is by no means conservative in any meaningful sense and should properly be regarded as broadly left-liberal, in the social democrat bracket (which means radical leftist on social issues and on immigration). Liberal and social democrat are not meaningfully distinguishable on these issues since liberals are nowadays not liberal but enthusiastically in favour of radical social engineering provided it is for leftist purposes.
The status of the Cameron and May governments is clearly evident from their gratuitous promotion of gay “marriage” and enthusiastic embrace of the “antiracist” and other dogmas of political correctness, together with their continuation of the Blairite policy of promoting mass immigration.
Again, I don’t recognise the distinction you draw between “liberal globalist” and “social democratic” as having any relevance in the modern context, but as far as leftists supporting Scottish independence is concerned, you could start with the Greens and go on to an endless list of lefty luvvies and celebrities from Bjork to Ken Loach.
Part of the problem is in our use of terminology here, since I regard globalism as politically speaking a leftist phenomenon (internationalism), whereas you seem to focus more on the greedy self-serving corporate support for it and categorise it as on the right (if I understand your use of “liberal globalism”, as distinct from my own, correctly). I’m using liberal more in the American sense, which seems more apt to modern day illiberal liberalism even in this country.
For the sake of white Brazilians I hope their Ukies are nothing like the multiculti-worshipping Ukrainians Canada got stuck with: The Ukrainian Connection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Hlynka
A conservative, anti-Communist politician who successfully lobbied the Canadian government to bring in large numbers of Eastern European anti-commie immigrants after World War II. Without his efforts the European population of Canada would have been a lot smaller, and a lot more leftist, as these Ukrainians, Hungarians, Poles have tended to be more conservative.
Moreover, as is obvious, a bicultural French-English ideology is no barrier to Islamic immigration. France and England have succumbed to mass Islamic immigration. Aggressively pro-French Quebec has seen a large influx of French-speaking Muslims from Algeria or Africa. Preventing non-French, non-English Europeans such as Ukrainians, Poles, Italians, etc. from asserting themselves does not prevent Islamic integration. And since the English and the French themselves tend to be much more accommodating of Islam than are the Ukrainians, Poles and others the dominance of the French-English identity would probably have been worse for Canada; it would have become more like France or England.Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Matra
Probably not, being of a less developed and lower socio economic status, but still making strides in the direction to preserve their own unique culture.
Hilliard’s rant is indeed just that, a long disunited ramble that makes no sense at all. His main point seems to be that with the advent of a multi-cultural policy within Canada, somehow there’s been a relentless attack on Canada’s legal and jurispudence system of laws, that were originally imbued with an anglo-saxon basis. Nowhere does he do an adequate job in showing the connection. In fact, as far as the Ukrainian community is concerned, he actually exculpates this group from this perceived crime by stating:
Hilliard doesn’t realize that the ‘blind spot’ of not mentioning anglo saxon laws and jurispudence by Hlinka was intentionally not included, for the Ukrainian community found these laws and way of life superior to what they had left behind, and found no reason to try and upend this satisfactory situation. Besides, these same sorts of erosions that he laments are taking place in neighboing America too, where no form of state sponsored multiculturalism is taking place!
Somewhat silly article. It blames Ukrainian-Canadians, largely responsible for turning Canada’s ideology from bicultural English-French to multicultural so that Ukrainians could be included as part of a “mosaic”, for inadvertently opening the door to sharia and other non-European cultural practices in Canada. In other words, by promoting the national self-expression of a pioneer settlement community of Europeans who arrived in the late 19th century, the Ukrainian activists of the 1940s-1960s (who were actually Christian Europhiles, and generally conservative) are somehow responsible for Islam-problems associated with non-Europeans in the 21st century. Here is one of the main Ukrainian-Canadian promoters of “multiculturalism:”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Hlynka
A conservative, anti-Communist politician who successfully lobbied the Canadian government to bring in large numbers of Eastern European anti-commie immigrants after World War II. Without his efforts the European population of Canada would have been a lot smaller, and a lot more leftist, as these Ukrainians, Hungarians, Poles have tended to be more conservative.
Moreover, as is obvious, a bicultural French-English ideology is no barrier to Islamic immigration. France and England have succumbed to mass Islamic immigration. Aggressively pro-French Quebec has seen a large influx of French-speaking Muslims from Algeria or Africa. Preventing non-French, non-English Europeans such as Ukrainians, Poles, Italians, etc. from asserting themselves does not prevent Islamic integration. And since the English and the French themselves tend to be much more accommodating of Islam than are the Ukrainians, Poles and others the dominance of the French-English identity would probably have been worse for Canada; it would have become more like France or England.
The Ulster government until 1972 was far more independent than anything currently in Scotland, Northern Ireland (or Wales). The Ulster state was toppled by their ethnic minority being seen as oppressed :- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ulster_Constabulary)
And that is why there cannot be more nation states. Just as the British used concern over the way Jews were treated to control the freed Balkan peoples (see here) the big countries will not allow breakaways. Russia's justification in Ukraine was the treatment of the Russian minority.Replies: @RadicalCenter
That doesn’t follow at all. If we do NOT allow smaller nation-states that have a higher degree of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic unity, there will be increasing friction between the groups that constitute racial and ethnic minorities in existing countries and the majorities in those countries.
Secession can defuse that tension IF the original larger country is willing to act in good faith rather than try to punish & impoverish the seceders by refusing reasonable trade deals, transit rights, tourist and business visas, etc.
Good luck to Catalonia & Scotland in their bids for independence from Spain and the UK, respectively. (Too bad they both seem likely to surrender their sovereignty all over again by applying to rejoin the increasingly Islamic, fascist/socialist/mandatory-Third-World-mass immigration body known as the “European” Union.)
Eastern Germans, too, have the right to secede from Germany because staying subject to German/EU immivasion policies will turn that part of the country into a Third World Islamic cesspool as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Hlynka
A conservative, anti-Communist politician who successfully lobbied the Canadian government to bring in large numbers of Eastern European anti-commie immigrants after World War II. Without his efforts the European population of Canada would have been a lot smaller, and a lot more leftist, as these Ukrainians, Hungarians, Poles have tended to be more conservative.
Moreover, as is obvious, a bicultural French-English ideology is no barrier to Islamic immigration. France and England have succumbed to mass Islamic immigration. Aggressively pro-French Quebec has seen a large influx of French-speaking Muslims from Algeria or Africa. Preventing non-French, non-English Europeans such as Ukrainians, Poles, Italians, etc. from asserting themselves does not prevent Islamic integration. And since the English and the French themselves tend to be much more accommodating of Islam than are the Ukrainians, Poles and others the dominance of the French-English identity would probably have been worse for Canada; it would have become more like France or England.Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Matra
Thank God so many Slavs immigrated to Canada. We’d love some more millions of those here in the USA — and we have about forty million illegal aliens we can deport to make plenty of room 😉
Come on over, brothers.
Secession can defuse that tension IF the original larger country is willing to act in good faith rather than try to punish & impoverish the seceders by refusing reasonable trade deals, transit rights, tourist and business visas, etc.
Good luck to Catalonia & Scotland in their bids for independence from Spain and the UK, respectively. (Too bad they both seem likely to surrender their sovereignty all over again by applying to rejoin the increasingly Islamic, fascist/socialist/mandatory-Third-World-mass immigration body known as the "European" Union.)
Eastern Germans, too, have the right to secede from Germany because staying subject to German/EU immivasion policies will turn that part of the country into a Third World Islamic cesspool as well.Replies: @Sean
The first time that Hitler was sent to prison it was for beating up the Bavarian separatist leader, post ww1 German separatist movements were supported by the French of course. Nations states have emergent qualities, they try to survive, Nazi or liberal, they’ll use anything to prevent breakaways.
A right is something that can be enforced. Germany would not allow a breakaway East and one that that did not guarantee the rights of immigrants would be easily discredited. Eire (the EU member southern Irish republic) has an internationally agreed say in the government of the UK province of Northern Ireland. The Flemish nationalists were simply banned when they got too big, the rationale was they did not subscribe to the enlighten liberal values of the state. The protection of immigrants and minorities will be uses to justify the suppression of incipient nations.
Anyway, the Scottish nationalist party are fanatically pro immigration; they cannot get enough of it, and like the Catalans,their policy is for non-independence (ie the SNP are adamant about staying withing the EC.) The UK is better for the Scottish people who care about immigration. The people of the UK voted to get out the EC What is being called Scottish independence would expose Scotland to a continuation of the current EC mandated open door to east Europeans. It’s turtles all the way down (ie there is friction at every level of human grou), but the current nation states level has proven best for the majority of the people. The UK voted to leave the EU, and that shows the current UK nation state is the least easy for the internationalist liberal business class to control.
As for the rest, it is clear that in the modern world, nationalist revolutions are only successful if the globalist establishment agrees and/or cannot help it. That is why Kosovo and an Ukrainian Crimea are both present into most maps in the West, in spite of the clear contradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Hlynka
A conservative, anti-Communist politician who successfully lobbied the Canadian government to bring in large numbers of Eastern European anti-commie immigrants after World War II. Without his efforts the European population of Canada would have been a lot smaller, and a lot more leftist, as these Ukrainians, Hungarians, Poles have tended to be more conservative.
Moreover, as is obvious, a bicultural French-English ideology is no barrier to Islamic immigration. France and England have succumbed to mass Islamic immigration. Aggressively pro-French Quebec has seen a large influx of French-speaking Muslims from Algeria or Africa. Preventing non-French, non-English Europeans such as Ukrainians, Poles, Italians, etc. from asserting themselves does not prevent Islamic integration. And since the English and the French themselves tend to be much more accommodating of Islam than are the Ukrainians, Poles and others the dominance of the French-English identity would probably have been worse for Canada; it would have become more like France or England.Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Matra
In other words, by promoting the national self-expression of a pioneer settlement community of Europeans who arrived in the late 19th century, the Ukrainian activists of the 1940s-1960s (who were actually Christian Europhiles, and generally conservative) are somehow responsible for Islam-problems associated with non-Europeans in the 21st century.
What matters is that Ukrainians and other white and Jewish minorities undermined, divided, demoralised, shamed, and eventually helped destroy Anglo-Canada and its sense of nationhood. They all worked together to do this. The Islamic stuff today is just a continuation of what the Ukrainians & friends started a century ago.
RadicalCenter: Thank God so many Slavs immigrated to Canada.
During the Cold War the supposedly anti-communist Polish/Ukrainian/Croatian Slavic immigrants voted overwhelmingly for Canada’s leftist multiculti/feminist Liberal Party at both the provincial and federal levels. Even when Pierre Trudeau made excuses for the USSR these anti-communist Slavic immigrants continued to vote Liberal because once in Canada they identified the historical Canadian Anglo-Saxon nation as their primary enemy.
You can read more about Ukrainians and Canada here: Majority Rights.
2. I don't know about Polish of Croat Canadian voters, but the for awhile the Conservative premier (governor) of Alberta, which is Canada's Texas, was a Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainian guy, Ed Stelmach.
Here is a list of prominent Ukrainian Canadian politicians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_Canadians#Politicians
10 of these are Conservatives and Social Credit (a right-wing populist party of the 1940s), 10 Liberals or NDP (Leftists), 1 an independent.Not really. See the list above.Replies: @notanon
Given that Britain itself has largely lost its sense of nationhood (see: London), and that Anglo Canadians are themselves strong leftist supporters, this blaming is rather silly.
1. The Canadian Liberal Party, like the Democratic party in the USA, wasn’t always a leftist feminist party.
2. I don’t know about Polish of Croat Canadian voters, but the for awhile the Conservative premier (governor) of Alberta, which is Canada’s Texas, was a Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainian guy, Ed Stelmach.
Here is a list of prominent Ukrainian Canadian politicians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_Canadians#Politicians
10 of these are Conservatives and Social Credit (a right-wing populist party of the 1940s), 10 Liberals or NDP (Leftists), 1 an independent.
Not really. See the list above.
Also, probably the most prominent of the bunch, and the real father of multiculturalism in Canada was Senator Paul Yuzyk (not Isidore Hlynka). a member of the ‘Progressive Conservative party’. His approach to Canadian ethnic affairs was pragmatic, fair and well reasoned. In his own words:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Supranational_European_Bodies
This is a cool map. Europe is officially segmented by function, with nations opting in or opting out of various transnational institutions. The big three are currency, trade and regulation, and the military.
The map is impressive in terms of the menu of what countries can choose. But in practice, opting out of the Euro is major. Most of the rest of it, less so.
Norway and Switzerland are effectively in the trade zone, via EFTA.
The Schengen Area is theoretically a big deal. However, there are countries not in it but which don’t require passports, so are de facto embers.
As far as the Euro, there are countries that use it but aren’t part of the Euro Zone. And countries that peg their currency to it.
NATO is NATO. Overall, it is a pretty good deal since it effectively disarms bordering countries and eliminates threat of a land war between bordering states. Not officially, of course. But most of the countries are interested in transferring defense costs to whoever will bear it, which means the US or maybe no one.
Catalonia is around 7 million people and populous enough to equal a lot of EU members. Denmark, Norway, Switzerland …. there are a lot in the 5 to 8 million population size range.
The indirect point being that if we assume independence, then what will the new nation opt into? The same transnational organizations they belong to as a region of Spain.
Nothing that seems worthy of a war. But that is the ultimate end game if both sides continue and no one blinks. If it is a matter of specific things …. there could be negotiations and power devolved over those areas of government. In theory, at least.
The EU would have to change signage, buy some more chairs and rearrange their assembly, another flag, etc. Just so Catalonia could belong to the same supranational organizations they are already in.
It’s not like they go from a Spanish region to the G-8 or the UN Security Council. Or even if they did?
I visited the Scottish Parliament building and watched a bit of a session on television. It seemed like they got to administer various social programs but without any new budget, so it was painfully vacuous.
Brexit will start off ‘hard’ and then, slowly, they will end up in the same damn supranational groups except Schengen.
Switzerland is the most independent nation in the EU, but I doubt if anyone notices it.
This is a cool map. Europe is officially segmented by function, with nations opting in or opting out of various transnational institutions. The big three are currency, trade and regulation, and the military.
The map is impressive in terms of the menu of what countries can choose. But in practice, opting out of the Euro is major. Most of the rest of it, less so.
Norway and Switzerland are effectively in the trade zone, via EFTA.
The Schengen Area is theoretically a big deal. However, there are countries not in it but which don't require passports, so are de facto embers.
As far as the Euro, there are countries that use it but aren't part of the Euro Zone. And countries that peg their currency to it.
NATO is NATO. Overall, it is a pretty good deal since it effectively disarms bordering countries and eliminates threat of a land war between bordering states. Not officially, of course. But most of the countries are interested in transferring defense costs to whoever will bear it, which means the US or maybe no one.
Catalonia is around 7 million people and populous enough to equal a lot of EU members. Denmark, Norway, Switzerland .... there are a lot in the 5 to 8 million population size range.
The indirect point being that if we assume independence, then what will the new nation opt into? The same transnational organizations they belong to as a region of Spain.
Nothing that seems worthy of a war. But that is the ultimate end game if both sides continue and no one blinks. If it is a matter of specific things .... there could be negotiations and power devolved over those areas of government. In theory, at least.
The EU would have to change signage, buy some more chairs and rearrange their assembly, another flag, etc. Just so Catalonia could belong to the same supranational organizations they are already in.
It's not like they go from a Spanish region to the G-8 or the UN Security Council. Or even if they did?
I visited the Scottish Parliament building and watched a bit of a session on television. It seemed like they got to administer various social programs but without any new budget, so it was painfully vacuous.
Brexit will start off 'hard' and then, slowly, they will end up in the same damn supranational groups except Schengen.
Switzerland is the most independent nation in the EU, but I doubt if anyone notices it.Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
Switzerland is in a bind.
Its treaties with the EU require it to be open to migration from the EU (e.g. any Bulgarian is free to come and get a job). That’s a requirement for Switzerland if it wants to be in the ‘common market’.
However, a couple of years ago the opponents of open EU migration won a referendum requiring migration quotes.
Last time I checked (months ago, admittedly) Switzerland was still negotiating with the EU, hoping to be able to introduce quotes and stay in the ‘common market’. But of course the EU would hate a precedent like that. So, unless something’s happened recently and I missed it, Switzerland still has a big question mark written all over it…
2. I don't know about Polish of Croat Canadian voters, but the for awhile the Conservative premier (governor) of Alberta, which is Canada's Texas, was a Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainian guy, Ed Stelmach.
Here is a list of prominent Ukrainian Canadian politicians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_Canadians#Politicians
10 of these are Conservatives and Social Credit (a right-wing populist party of the 1940s), 10 Liberals or NDP (Leftists), 1 an independent.Not really. See the list above.Replies: @notanon
all the western countries were poisoned by the cultural Marxist infiltration of schools and media.
And Espírito Santo 😉 state received huge european immigration [ (northern) italians, germans and east europeans]. This state also have a huge black and pardo population.
Santa Catarina have considerably german immigration, indeed, this state is with the highest % of german descendents in whole Brazil. Paraná is more european in Curitiba and south/southwestern areas.
“English, French, and Russian national identity is considerably older, and have a long history of centralization around London, Paris, and Moscow as opposed to the more distributed arrangements of Germany, Italy, or Spain, so they might be expected to hold out the longest in Europe. ”
This is bullshit, I’d say Italian, Spanish and German identity are a lot more older than than those first mentioned. There were “Italians” in Greco-Roman antiquity although “Italianess” most likely differed from that artificial 19th century “Italianess”. Also Italy was more restricted to Central and Southern Italy(essentially the Mezzogiorno minus the islands). Likewise with Spain, the Romans spoke of the “Hispani” but again just as in the case of Italy, “Hispania” was more restricted to the south(from which, according to Strabo the Romans and their Hispanic allies started colonizing the rest of the peninsula). What can I say about the Germans, it was not for nothing that they were one of Rome’s fiercest opponents along with the Persians. I mean you really have to be ethnically conscious in order to go up against an empire like Rome. Now I don’t remember reading any ancient source speak of Russia? The Franks and Angles yes but they were considered Germans.
Ancient identities do not depend on political centralization, those fabricated 19th century identities as well as those medieval identities(which seem to go hand in hand with Abrahamic ideologies) do.
Hello Anatoly,
Unless I have missed it, would you kindly include a link to the origin of the maps on Italian consanguinity and GDP? They were created by me, and first published here:
http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.fr/2011/10/nation-and-nations.html
The Italian & Spanish IQ map was originally created and posted by The Reluctant Apostate, here:
https://reluctantapostate.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/mapping-the-2009-pisa-results-for-spain-and-italy/
Thank you.
AK: Done.
Are Catholics (green on your map) smarter in Germany? Are more Catholic Poles in South-East Poland better at school?
It is not IQ. Rather family values, tradition religiosity.
The phenomenon can be referred to as boutique nationalism… which is fine, really.
As consumers, we choose what we acquire and, indeed, what we are part of. It stands to reason that there must be some form of appeal, a certain kind of national worth, to bring together otherwise disparate interests.
In short, if an administration fails to deliver, it is voted out. And if a government fails to deliver, it stands to reason to propose alternatives up to and including redrawing of borders and competencies.
But, like I said, it’s just another consequence of affluence. It’s shopping for national identity with a gold credit card. The Catalonians, for example, are the one percenters of Spain and have been so for more than a century. Now that they can no longer slave the whole of Spain to their economy and for their profit (no more Franco), what interest is there in any further association?
I found two facts on fora, if they're true, I do not know.
First, Catalonia pays 8.9 % of Catalonian income to Madrid, a comparable figure for the German region Bayern is 3.6 %.
Second, the Spanish High Court in a recent verdict, very criticised, turned back Catalonian autonomy.
We could see a few days ago how the Italian regions Venetia and Lombard also want more autonomy, they are fed up with paying for the poor Italian south, and the corrupt Rome government.
Already in 1973 an Italian said to me 'the only way to get our country in order is to sell the civil servants for what they cost, and buy them back for what they're worth'.Replies: @L.K, @LauraMR
The devil is in the details as always. Generalizations without knowledge is not a sign of intelligence.
Leftist Catalonia has been inoculating hatred through its schools for the last 25 years, building up to the current moment. It is sucessful economically, not with a Catalonian base of operations, but a Spanish one. In 1714, Barcelona had 37,000 inhabitants, Madrid 120,000. Through economic measures taken by the central government, Barcelona got trade monopolies and quadrupled its population in 50 years. They were also protective tariffs put in place in the ensuing centuries for their textile industries. After the Civil War, Franco allocated 40% of the National Institute for Industry to Cataluña, 20% each to Madrid and the País Vasco and the rest to other parts. Since the 1978 Constitution, the have received political grants, and their companies gain revenue in all of Spain, not just Catalonia. The push to punish some of the scandalous corruption by the elites has come from the central government. The push to make Barcelona mahomedan from locals, but not from Jordi on the street. Catalonia houses 30% of Muslims living in Spain, more coming in, and in Barcelona they account for 30% of under 30's. Many, many are Salaafists, and this has been deliberate, the local elites shunning spanish-speaking immigration.
It is a dispute between very corrupt elites, not a people choosing self determination.Replies: @Disordered, @LauraMR
Very strange and nothing about separatism in USA.
Wilson in 1917 or so invented self determination.
Diplomats at the time were flabbergasted, they understood what Pandora’s Box had been opened.
Cynical historians write that Wilson invented self determination to break up three empires: the Habsburg, the German, and the Ottoman.
The result is known, Wilson’s ‘war to end al wars’ caused wars all over the place.
As consumers, we choose what we acquire and, indeed, what we are part of. It stands to reason that there must be some form of appeal, a certain kind of national worth, to bring together otherwise disparate interests.
In short, if an administration fails to deliver, it is voted out. And if a government fails to deliver, it stands to reason to propose alternatives up to and including redrawing of borders and competencies.
But, like I said, it's just another consequence of affluence. It's shopping for national identity with a gold credit card. The Catalonians, for example, are the one percenters of Spain and have been so for more than a century. Now that they can no longer slave the whole of Spain to their economy and for their profit (no more Franco), what interest is there in any further association?Replies: @jilles dykstra, @Anon
Our media tell us nothing about the why of Catalan separatism.
I found two facts on fora, if they’re true, I do not know.
First, Catalonia pays 8.9 % of Catalonian income to Madrid, a comparable figure for the German region Bayern is 3.6 %.
Second, the Spanish High Court in a recent verdict, very criticised, turned back Catalonian autonomy.
We could see a few days ago how the Italian regions Venetia and Lombard also want more autonomy, they are fed up with paying for the poor Italian south, and the corrupt Rome government.
Already in 1973 an Italian said to me ‘the only way to get our country in order is to sell the civil servants for what they cost, and buy them back for what they’re worth’.
They left Italy in the interwar period, Veneto was poor as hell back then. Things change.
My view is that separatist movements tend to gain some traction in times of serious crisis, be it economic, social, etc.
That's the case with a lot of European countries... in Brazil, there is a serious economic & political crisis made worse by a soft coup.
Under such conditions people often look for escapes which might turn out to be partly or totally bogus.
Broken up statelets are normally weaker in the face of large unified ones, such as ZUSA.Replies: @Disordered
If you do want to educate yourself on the political situation in Spain, consider the following as an appetizer.
Spain, as a whole, has been so enslaved to Catalonia (and the Basque country) for so long that once democracy came around, these two regions expected to continue ruling the country. The political narrative in those two regions at the time was explicitly stated as "the maid cannot be allowed to run the house", since they considered the rest of Spain to be fundamentally inferior. Indeed, Spaniards had been forced for decades to emigrate to those two regions for work and were paid and treated miserably. Another nationalistic slogan since democracy ended the economic and political tyranny enforced of those two regions is that Africa started south of their borders. Racist slogans are still commonplace.
Anyway, like I said, educate yourself. Trust the media at your peril.
But wouldn’t you expect the opposite to happen in 100 years? As CRISPR and cognitive genetic engineering becomes feasible for mass utilization people will become MORE similar not less, and we’ll see a complete annihilation of local cultures under a planetary cognitive and mass-corporatist elite that will manage the major industries of the world at that time.
The status of the Cameron and May governments is clearly evident from their gratuitous promotion of gay "marriage" and enthusiastic embrace of the "antiracist" and other dogmas of political correctness, together with their continuation of the Blairite policy of promoting mass immigration.Again, I don't recognise the distinction you draw between "liberal globalist" and "social democratic" as having any relevance in the modern context, but as far as leftists supporting Scottish independence is concerned, you could start with the Greens and go on to an endless list of lefty luvvies and celebrities from Bjork to Ken Loach.
Part of the problem is in our use of terminology here, since I regard globalism as politically speaking a leftist phenomenon (internationalism), whereas you seem to focus more on the greedy self-serving corporate support for it and categorise it as on the right (if I understand your use of "liberal globalism", as distinct from my own, correctly). I'm using liberal more in the American sense, which seems more apt to modern day illiberal liberalism even in this country.Replies: @LondonBob
The May government is pressing ahead with Cameron’s proposal to build a ghastly holocaust memorial right smack bang next to parliament, ruining a small but popular public park.
A world of 1000 nations, presumably much more ethnically homogeneous nations? Excellent!
What we see every day in the US is that only very small governmental units, village level and smaller, are responsive to the citizens. Larger units become inexorably less responsive and more corrupt every year….Hence the many financial crises facing all larger levels of US government, but not the local school board in a small town.
Political formations can range from the smallest (i.e., like the city-states of Ancient Greece) to the largest (i.e., the three inter-continental superstates in George Orwell’s 1984, Oceana, Eurasia, and Eastasia).
Without the threat of being overrun by your neighbour (due to a number of factors, including population growth, scarce resources, greed, etc.), I think the “natural” political formation is the city-state. In the presence of these threats, however, amalgamations are required.
Perhaps political formations are destined to fluctuate between these two extremes, depending upon the waxing and waning of these various threats?
Just my 2 cents.
Suddenly, the EU is the flavour of the month! Mr Karlin points to two phenomena. First, the ongoing replacement of Europe’s pre-1789 multi-ethnic states with a large number of nation-states and the reluctance of the remaining multi-ethnic states (Russia, France, the UK, Spain …) to see their “historic” territories fall apart. Secondly, the question whether the larger nation-states or near nation-states that emerged in the 19th century (Germany, Italy …) are so big as to be unmanageable and should therefore consider splitting up into their regional components. How any of this applies outside of Europe is a debate I don’t feel qualified to get into. What is clear, though, is that neither of these phenomena would be workable in practice without a European Union of some sort, nor indeed would they even be on the table for serious discussion.
A point of English: “corporatism” does not mean the power of “corporations” in the American sense, i.e. what the rest of the world calls “companies”. Corporatism is primarily associated with Mussolini’s regime (see Wikipedia) and the corporations referred to are socio-professional groupings.
As consumers, we choose what we acquire and, indeed, what we are part of. It stands to reason that there must be some form of appeal, a certain kind of national worth, to bring together otherwise disparate interests.
In short, if an administration fails to deliver, it is voted out. And if a government fails to deliver, it stands to reason to propose alternatives up to and including redrawing of borders and competencies.
But, like I said, it's just another consequence of affluence. It's shopping for national identity with a gold credit card. The Catalonians, for example, are the one percenters of Spain and have been so for more than a century. Now that they can no longer slave the whole of Spain to their economy and for their profit (no more Franco), what interest is there in any further association?Replies: @jilles dykstra, @Anon
@”But, like I said, it’s just another consequence of affluence. It’s shopping for national identity with a gold credit card. The Catalonians, for example, are the one percenters of Spain and have been so for more than a century. Now that they can no longer slave the whole of Spain to their economy and for their profit (no more Franco), what interest is there in any further association?”
The devil is in the details as always. Generalizations without knowledge is not a sign of intelligence.
Leftist Catalonia has been inoculating hatred through its schools for the last 25 years, building up to the current moment. It is sucessful economically, not with a Catalonian base of operations, but a Spanish one. In 1714, Barcelona had 37,000 inhabitants, Madrid 120,000. Through economic measures taken by the central government, Barcelona got trade monopolies and quadrupled its population in 50 years. They were also protective tariffs put in place in the ensuing centuries for their textile industries. After the Civil War, Franco allocated 40% of the National Institute for Industry to Cataluña, 20% each to Madrid and the País Vasco and the rest to other parts. Since the 1978 Constitution, the have received political grants, and their companies gain revenue in all of Spain, not just Catalonia. The push to punish some of the scandalous corruption by the elites has come from the central government. The push to make Barcelona mahomedan from locals, but not from Jordi on the street. Catalonia houses 30% of Muslims living in Spain, more coming in, and in Barcelona they account for 30% of under 30’s. Many, many are Salaafists, and this has been deliberate, the local elites shunning spanish-speaking immigration.
It is a dispute between very corrupt elites, not a people choosing self determination.
Catalans on the left crow about self-determination, yet it is the ones on the elitist right the bigger force, precisely for the reasons you argue. And may I add, those benefits given by the Spanish Kingdom were given because upon arrival, the Bourbons tried to centralize Spain in the French way. Before that, Spain was a Crown with its medieval kingdoms incorporated on the sovereigns' crowns, starting with Ferdinand and Isabella. The erasure of those national entities - Castile, Aragon, Navarre - obviously upset ethnic tensions, which were already inflamed due to agrarian Castile getting all the conquistador gold (while Aragon's medieval domination of the Mediterranean became weak and less important). These tensions have been a perennial factor ever since Muslims destroyed Visigoth Hispania - which might be telling concerning the current situation...
As for the article, I agree to a degree. I doubt Spain will allow Catalonia to secede, much like Britain prevented Scotland, with the same threat - "no euro for you!". As for the ethnonationalistic trend, it does depend on the nation/region. I truly doubt that Brazil separates; even though it is true that the southern "gaúchos" have an identity due to their relative whiteness and ancestral relative closeness to Argentina and Uruguay (which was for a bit a Portuguese colony), South American nations overall tend to be VERY patriotic. Even if they have admitted waves of immigrants before, they have always emphasized assimilation into the national postcolonial creole-led culture. That is not to say there are no ethnic or regional tensions (see Bolivia, where the non-mixed natives took over thanks to both larger numbers and power due to the coca farms - creating tension with the relatively whiter and more capitalistic population of the lowland Oriente region). But, since there has been so much intermixing for centuries, and such a massive effort by the creole elites to propagandize and maintain the order (including giving emphasis to the distinctness of their own minorities, as the Peruvians do with Incas for example), it is harder to argue for an ethnostate (for this same reason, supranational blocs such as Unasur cannot erase borders completely or impose common currency; Latin countries are close enough to call themselves siblings in a Patria Grande, but far enough to not join in marriage). Plus, the leftist wave is being defeated (by elitist banker-right types, sadly), so the cultural Marxism that might have been increasing (monuments to Columbus were being taken down in Argentina - ironic, since they cleansed most of their natives over there, and thus many owe their existence to their racist ancestors) is being stifled. Or at the very least, I hope so...
The rest of the world may have more ethnic problems, but I doubt that corporations (who after all benefit from the rules imposed by states and supranational organisms) will allow much breakaway. And if it happens, I do not see why corporations will not have their own states - or more likely, empires. The Pacific Northwest might as well become an technoligarchy, with statues to their brave leaders such as Bezos or Gates (though I bet many more statues will be "diverse"), and with every citizen made to carry Quotations from Chairman Jobs pre-installed in their iPhones... Because, whatever you may think about the Joan of Arcs and the Paul Reveres, the fact that the government gives a day off to the proles for their nation-building deeds, and that they are inscribed in every prole child's history book to justify them, makes a difference. Dollars are important, but so are the faces on them - they are the faces of the people who print and use said dollars... Humans have a tendency to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, after all.
This is my major insight for the day. Can the elite really be that clueless?
So those in Mainz are a lot cleverer than those in Wiesbaden (although Wiesbaden certainly would be considered the “economically richer” area) or those in Frankfurt a M.!
Perhaps your argument is reversed? Those in (at least some) high-debt areas have access to capital and/or social networks that allows them to use debt to speculate on making themselves even more rich.
Maybe countries like Germany and Sweden should just admit they are screwed and take a hint from Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem. Think of themselves as peoples independent of a fixed geography. Jews went further and defined themselves as a covenant with God, independent of geography or even a language. Rename Germany as ‘The Central European Republic’. Not all citizens of The Central European Republic’ would be German. Actual Germans, wherever they live on earth, would create their own educational and religious institutions. So Germans would survive whatever the future holds.
After almost four centuries of control by the foreign sect that Cromwell let back into the country, England is pretty much a slave state. Now days even the “monarchy” has been taken over by the foreign sect.
So
‘Yahoo’ was invented in Utah,
‘Google’ was created in Nevada,
‘Uber’ was implemented in Wyoming,
Pro-western civilization will be created in fly-over zones. Go for it.
Without the threat of being overrun by your neighbour (due to a number of factors, including population growth, scarce resources, greed, etc.), I think the "natural" political formation is the city-state. In the presence of these threats, however, amalgamations are required.
Perhaps political formations are destined to fluctuate between these two extremes, depending upon the waxing and waning of these various threats?
Just my 2 cents.Replies: @Sean
Agree, but the waxing and waning will be temporary. Every country is on a consolidated line of development because democratic ethnic states still must have economic growth (even the ostensibly Islamic regieme in Turkey is popular because it delivers a high rate of economic growth). When technology is factored in it can be seen that a Singleton is inevitable.
Which studies show IQ 93 for the south? Real IQ studies, not PISA scores.
Not any that I’m more aware of than you are, but all this does is once again demonstrate the superiority of the PISA tests over “real IQ studies” with their different tests, varying sample sizes, varying years, and typical lack of comprehensive subregional data.
However, if you ever care to read the huge reports that come with these studies, you'll learn that there is a lot more than the intelligence of students that influences country results.
Sure, the representativeness and the standardized testing of PISA and other international tests make them a billion times more robust and scientific than cherry-picking IQ studies of different eras and of uncontrolled representativeness.
However, if you ever care to read the huge reports that come with these studies, you’ll learn that there is a lot more than the intelligence of students that influences country results.
I do agree, though PISA test results are strongly confounded by environment, schooling quality, etc.
“… school quality in the South is actually inferior and that this quality relates to level of learning.” (pg 468; https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2010-cornoldi.pdf)
We have this table from this paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236970447_The_case_against_Lynn%27s_doctrine_that_population_IQ_determines_levels_of_socio-economic_development_and_public_health_status
So if PISA test scores are tests of educational attainment and not intelligence (http://www.scienzeformazione.unipa.it/doc/225/D_Amico__Cardaci__Di_Nuovo___Naglieri_2012.pdf) and PISA results are strongly affected by school quality (which is lower in the South, see above cite), then the differences in scores must come down to differences in environment, not magic MENA genes that Lynn et al speak of.
One more thing, in regards to the amoral familism hypothesis Othat Southern Italians differ in amoral familism in regards to Northern Italians)(http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/amoral-familism), this has been disproved:
“However, our data do not confirm the stereotype that northern and southern Italians differ in their tendency to amoral familism as defined by Banfield.”
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022116644986
As to Brazil and their antipathy for secession. You said ” a majority are either opposed or at the very least don’t care all that much.”
the mean IQ for participation in a democracy… ie voting or monitoring government… is 90.
Brazil is filled with low IQ blacks and browns…. they cannot function in a complex economy or garner the discipline to do anything outside their immediate environment.
The devil is in the details as always. Generalizations without knowledge is not a sign of intelligence.
Leftist Catalonia has been inoculating hatred through its schools for the last 25 years, building up to the current moment. It is sucessful economically, not with a Catalonian base of operations, but a Spanish one. In 1714, Barcelona had 37,000 inhabitants, Madrid 120,000. Through economic measures taken by the central government, Barcelona got trade monopolies and quadrupled its population in 50 years. They were also protective tariffs put in place in the ensuing centuries for their textile industries. After the Civil War, Franco allocated 40% of the National Institute for Industry to Cataluña, 20% each to Madrid and the País Vasco and the rest to other parts. Since the 1978 Constitution, the have received political grants, and their companies gain revenue in all of Spain, not just Catalonia. The push to punish some of the scandalous corruption by the elites has come from the central government. The push to make Barcelona mahomedan from locals, but not from Jordi on the street. Catalonia houses 30% of Muslims living in Spain, more coming in, and in Barcelona they account for 30% of under 30's. Many, many are Salaafists, and this has been deliberate, the local elites shunning spanish-speaking immigration.
It is a dispute between very corrupt elites, not a people choosing self determination.Replies: @Disordered, @LauraMR
Plus, Catalonia is the autonomous region with the most debt.
Catalans on the left crow about self-determination, yet it is the ones on the elitist right the bigger force, precisely for the reasons you argue. And may I add, those benefits given by the Spanish Kingdom were given because upon arrival, the Bourbons tried to centralize Spain in the French way. Before that, Spain was a Crown with its medieval kingdoms incorporated on the sovereigns’ crowns, starting with Ferdinand and Isabella. The erasure of those national entities – Castile, Aragon, Navarre – obviously upset ethnic tensions, which were already inflamed due to agrarian Castile getting all the conquistador gold (while Aragon’s medieval domination of the Mediterranean became weak and less important). These tensions have been a perennial factor ever since Muslims destroyed Visigoth Hispania – which might be telling concerning the current situation…
As for the article, I agree to a degree. I doubt Spain will allow Catalonia to secede, much like Britain prevented Scotland, with the same threat – “no euro for you!”. As for the ethnonationalistic trend, it does depend on the nation/region. I truly doubt that Brazil separates; even though it is true that the southern “gaúchos” have an identity due to their relative whiteness and ancestral relative closeness to Argentina and Uruguay (which was for a bit a Portuguese colony), South American nations overall tend to be VERY patriotic. Even if they have admitted waves of immigrants before, they have always emphasized assimilation into the national postcolonial creole-led culture. That is not to say there are no ethnic or regional tensions (see Bolivia, where the non-mixed natives took over thanks to both larger numbers and power due to the coca farms – creating tension with the relatively whiter and more capitalistic population of the lowland Oriente region). But, since there has been so much intermixing for centuries, and such a massive effort by the creole elites to propagandize and maintain the order (including giving emphasis to the distinctness of their own minorities, as the Peruvians do with Incas for example), it is harder to argue for an ethnostate (for this same reason, supranational blocs such as Unasur cannot erase borders completely or impose common currency; Latin countries are close enough to call themselves siblings in a Patria Grande, but far enough to not join in marriage). Plus, the leftist wave is being defeated (by elitist banker-right types, sadly), so the cultural Marxism that might have been increasing (monuments to Columbus were being taken down in Argentina – ironic, since they cleansed most of their natives over there, and thus many owe their existence to their racist ancestors) is being stifled. Or at the very least, I hope so…
The rest of the world may have more ethnic problems, but I doubt that corporations (who after all benefit from the rules imposed by states and supranational organisms) will allow much breakaway. And if it happens, I do not see why corporations will not have their own states – or more likely, empires. The Pacific Northwest might as well become an technoligarchy, with statues to their brave leaders such as Bezos or Gates (though I bet many more statues will be “diverse”), and with every citizen made to carry Quotations from Chairman Jobs pre-installed in their iPhones… Because, whatever you may think about the Joan of Arcs and the Paul Reveres, the fact that the government gives a day off to the proles for their nation-building deeds, and that they are inscribed in every prole child’s history book to justify them, makes a difference. Dollars are important, but so are the faces on them – they are the faces of the people who print and use said dollars… Humans have a tendency to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, after all.
I found two facts on fora, if they're true, I do not know.
First, Catalonia pays 8.9 % of Catalonian income to Madrid, a comparable figure for the German region Bayern is 3.6 %.
Second, the Spanish High Court in a recent verdict, very criticised, turned back Catalonian autonomy.
We could see a few days ago how the Italian regions Venetia and Lombard also want more autonomy, they are fed up with paying for the poor Italian south, and the corrupt Rome government.
Already in 1973 an Italian said to me 'the only way to get our country in order is to sell the civil servants for what they cost, and buy them back for what they're worth'.Replies: @L.K, @LauraMR
Hmm… the Italian side of my family is from northern Italy, my grandma’s folks from Veneto.
They left Italy in the interwar period, Veneto was poor as hell back then. Things change.
My view is that separatist movements tend to gain some traction in times of serious crisis, be it economic, social, etc.
That’s the case with a lot of European countries… in Brazil, there is a serious economic & political crisis made worse by a soft coup.
Under such conditions people often look for escapes which might turn out to be partly or totally bogus.
Broken up statelets are normally weaker in the face of large unified ones, such as ZUSA.
Geez, corporations not remaining as powerful as they are now. What a tragedy!
Hitler beat up the leader of the Bavarian SOVIET Republic. And Soviets back then still believed in permanent world revolution – Stalin had not purged Trotsky yet, and communists were nearly synonymous with internationalists (specially by Weimar-era nationalists who hated the League of Nations and anything that smelled of Versailles).
As for the rest, it is clear that in the modern world, nationalist revolutions are only successful if the globalist establishment agrees and/or cannot help it. That is why Kosovo and an Ukrainian Crimea are both present into most maps in the West, in spite of the clear contradiction.
I found two facts on fora, if they're true, I do not know.
First, Catalonia pays 8.9 % of Catalonian income to Madrid, a comparable figure for the German region Bayern is 3.6 %.
Second, the Spanish High Court in a recent verdict, very criticised, turned back Catalonian autonomy.
We could see a few days ago how the Italian regions Venetia and Lombard also want more autonomy, they are fed up with paying for the poor Italian south, and the corrupt Rome government.
Already in 1973 an Italian said to me 'the only way to get our country in order is to sell the civil servants for what they cost, and buy them back for what they're worth'.Replies: @L.K, @LauraMR
Spain is one of the countries in which I’ve lived. Trust the media at your peril.
If you do want to educate yourself on the political situation in Spain, consider the following as an appetizer.
Spain, as a whole, has been so enslaved to Catalonia (and the Basque country) for so long that once democracy came around, these two regions expected to continue ruling the country. The political narrative in those two regions at the time was explicitly stated as “the maid cannot be allowed to run the house”, since they considered the rest of Spain to be fundamentally inferior. Indeed, Spaniards had been forced for decades to emigrate to those two regions for work and were paid and treated miserably. Another nationalistic slogan since democracy ended the economic and political tyranny enforced of those two regions is that Africa started south of their borders. Racist slogans are still commonplace.
Anyway, like I said, educate yourself. Trust the media at your peril.
The devil is in the details as always. Generalizations without knowledge is not a sign of intelligence.
Leftist Catalonia has been inoculating hatred through its schools for the last 25 years, building up to the current moment. It is sucessful economically, not with a Catalonian base of operations, but a Spanish one. In 1714, Barcelona had 37,000 inhabitants, Madrid 120,000. Through economic measures taken by the central government, Barcelona got trade monopolies and quadrupled its population in 50 years. They were also protective tariffs put in place in the ensuing centuries for their textile industries. After the Civil War, Franco allocated 40% of the National Institute for Industry to Cataluña, 20% each to Madrid and the País Vasco and the rest to other parts. Since the 1978 Constitution, the have received political grants, and their companies gain revenue in all of Spain, not just Catalonia. The push to punish some of the scandalous corruption by the elites has come from the central government. The push to make Barcelona mahomedan from locals, but not from Jordi on the street. Catalonia houses 30% of Muslims living in Spain, more coming in, and in Barcelona they account for 30% of under 30's. Many, many are Salaafists, and this has been deliberate, the local elites shunning spanish-speaking immigration.
It is a dispute between very corrupt elites, not a people choosing self determination.Replies: @Disordered, @LauraMR
I lived in Spain for a few years and, it seems, so have you. So, sure, I agree with most of what you’ve said. It is an elaboration on what I said and it can be further elaborated ad infinitum. The other commented, Disordered, also provided additional information.
They left Italy in the interwar period, Veneto was poor as hell back then. Things change.
My view is that separatist movements tend to gain some traction in times of serious crisis, be it economic, social, etc.
That's the case with a lot of European countries... in Brazil, there is a serious economic & political crisis made worse by a soft coup.
Under such conditions people often look for escapes which might turn out to be partly or totally bogus.
Broken up statelets are normally weaker in the face of large unified ones, such as ZUSA.Replies: @Disordered
Agreed. The spark tends to be economic, or other upheaval. Though it is ironic, the soft coup you mention was done by the elitist Brazilian whiter right, in order to take down the brown left that had devolved into a bureaucrat’s oligarchy. Then again, like I said in an earlier comment, separatism in Latin America is relatively low.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/26/berkeley-paper-runs-anti-semitic-alan-dershowitz-cartoon-now-editors-are-apologizing/?utm
Progs are full of crap. They denounce Zionist treatment of Palestinians but support mass colonization via globalism. If progs lament what has become of Palestinians, how can they support mass colonization? After all, it was Zionist colonization of Palestine that led to ethnic cleansing.
Now, Third Worlders are Palestinianizing the whites in California.
Brazil is divided into regions and those into states. The southern region is comprised of 3 states with a population of near 30 million.
“The South Is My Country” is a separatist movement for the region, it is got nothing to do with an ethnostate, given that the region is home to various european ethnic groups, many of which have blended to a considerable extent with one another, much like in the US. There are also non white minorities.
The largest Ukranian diaspora in Latin America is indeed in Brazil, concentrated in Paraná state, but present in numbers in the other 2 southern states & the southeastern state of São Paulo.
The Ukranians do NOT make a majority in any Brazilian state… they are not even the largest Slavic group in Brazil, which is the Polish.
Largest ethnic European immigrant groups in the country are the Portuguese, Italian, Spanish and Germans.
As for the separatist thing, it is largely economic; some people think they’d be better off as a separate entity. Same feeling can be found in Brazil’s richest state of S. Paulo; the idea being that those areas ‘support’ the rest of the country. Not much traction.
The world will beak up into two types of “governments. “Traditional” governments will be those with nukes. The other governments will be semi-anarchies due to being destroyed by the “traditional” governments.
That will persist until the first nuclear civil war when the whole world will become a semi-anachy followed by ?
There's going to be more and more liberal fearmongering about the "isolationist future", complete with apologetics for police state style interventionism in order to "lead the world" and "spread democracy" (i.e. leftist degeneracy).Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
Indeed. Nick Land, the originator of the neo-reaction concept, believes that left politics will degenerate into nothing more than a spasmodic opposition to “Exit”, completely devoid of any substantial ideas (because it is intellectually bankrupt).
I would think the mass adoption of CRISPR and other bio-engineering technique to increase the drive to decentralization. If I have an IQ of 140 and am perfectly functional in other ways (have no problem with getting my hand dirty,doing real work), why the hell would I ever take orders from anyone who is less capable than I? You might have the guy with the 165 IQ. But he’s the guy working on fusion power or the warp drive to take us to the stars.