Smidgey

You and I are alike!

Indeed, in exactly the same way communitarianism can have many different factions (as I mentioned earlier). I would also say that the reason for holding these views are different from person to person - I am just generally sceptical of government and would like the maximum liberty possible - which means libertarianism. This is incompatible with the idea of the EU. Others believe in British culture or sovereignty or a whole plethora of other reasons.

There are only those who seek to control - no matter their stripes - and those who seek liberty.

If you use it to distinguish yourself from a globalist, why don't you use a term like isolationist, neutrality, strategic neutrality, etc.

Nationalism is heavily loaded and I would guarantee that your view contains far more than just the ideas of a distinct state. I would hasten to add that your state must contain certain things, rather than just being opposed to becoming party of another super-state.

It would only be neo-Marxist if it was enforced. The free movement of peoples, labour and capital is required for individual freedom, capitalism and liberty of all peoples.

The two are not that distinct. They may have a different economic policy, but that is pretty much it. They are both lumped in the category of 'authoritarian'.

This last paragraph seems to contradict what you said before about making your position distinct from a globalist. Here you talk of national identities and then make a sweeping claim that all people are biased towards their own culture. This is simply not true. I personally couldn't care less about what happens to the UK, so long as I am free and at liberty to do what I wish (the same being for others). I don't care for people wishing to force a national identity (or any other identity for that matter) on me. I've used this quote before, but I think it's time to use it again:

"Wherever there is liberty, that is my country."

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

For_England

I think this is a little unfair Smidgey; some clarifications are necessary. Now I assume by communitarian that you mean collectivist, and these kinds of words usually imply statism. However, the proponents of nationalism on this forum, for the most part at least, do not support the all-powerful nation-state - in fact that is a liberal, modern and anti-traditional idea. Now I accept that the word 'nationalist' has been used in this way - of Chang Kai Chek for example, but it think it would be in the interests of fairness if you acknowledged that this is not true of all the ethnic nationalists on here, who see a strong ethnic community as a limitation on government, as even the utilitarian John Stuart Mill recognised. Not all nationalists believe in race superiority and fascist, totalitarian government. In fact the basic assumptions of most non-western countries, and the assumptions of western countries up until recent times, were broadly nationalist. Was the Monday Club 'collectivist' in your view? I think we really need to define terms.

SilverFalcon

Have to agree with bnpforme here. Also, libertarianism is basically quite authoritarian because you cannot have liberty without responsibility and you cannot be responsible without discipline, both internal and external, and you cannot have a very large group of people with almost no governing power, bureaucracy or policing. That would end up in chaos and anarchy. Mankind is a being requiring order and discipline, like any other animal species, to survive, to make plans, to get agreement for these and to put them into practise.

I agree with bnpforme that not all people favouring a sovereign nation state of reasonable proportions and representation are fascists, unless one is libertine or anarchist. Then order like this is considered an infringement. No civilization with this degree of lack in infrastructure and control would ever be able to cohere. If you want to live in city-based units then you need sophisticated and complex forms of government, especially if multiculturalism is going to characterise them. The less multiculturalist the groups are the easier it is to govern them by democracy and the more closely they will work together for the greater good of the community.

Mikeuk

In the early years of the Dutch settlement there was so much interbreeding that vast numbers of today's Afrikaners are likely to have African blood. Frequently Negro ancestry has been clearly discernible in the facial features of the strongest advocates of segregation. Paul Kruger and Eugene Terreblanche are two prominent examples.

That is perhaps one reason why the Afrikaners took such an extreme and negative position on the race question - one which they have now comprehensively betrayed, as South Africa slips into a mire of barbarism.

The principle that should have been followed was Cecil Rhodes's dictum of 'equal rights for all civilised men'. Instead not only the African natives - civilised and uncivilised - but even Coloureds and Asiatics were brutally oppressed. It was a policy that was bound to end in disaster, and it has.

Brendan Scarborough

Ughhh...my grey matter is throbbing and enflamed. You internationally dispersed Anglo-Saxon intellectuals are taxing my supply of Tylenol extra strength.

How delightfully disturbing to think we might have anything in common. With a little effort perhaps we may occasionally find additional patches of common ground. Of course, I would wish to erect a statue of Boudicca upon this collective real estate, and you a Zen water garden.

Why must you always speak of absolutes? The maximum liberty possible would be anarchical in nature, and as SF so eloquently stated, the human animal needs boundries, discipline, and order, and this can only be enforced by some type of formal governmental structure. Large numbers of human beings cannot live together without a sizable and complex system of government. It is up to the members of a particular society to safeguard their individual and civil liberties by ensuring the government is responsive to the needs and the will of the people, and to hold politicians and other governmental functionaries and institutions accountable to the people. Limited government? yes, by all means. No government? Chaos.

Yes. In the context of this discussion-those who 'seek to control' would be represented by the Eurocrats, and those seeking to 'restore liberty' would be the Eurosceptics.

Why not simply identify me as a Tribalist and be done with it.

For some reason your focus is on this all encompassing 'State', while mine has consistently been on the un-convoluted issue of maintaining the independence and cultural distinctiveness of the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish people in the face of massive foreign migration from all points of the Globe to the Shores of Great Britain. I become defensive when you throw around terms such as Statist because I suspect you are tactfully employing not so subtle euphemisms to imply that my beliefs could be interpreted as betraying some sympathy with totalitarianism or state sponsored racism.


That is a philosophical [typically globalist] viewpoint and hardly a scientific imperative.

I would think it is in the matter of economic theory that the two could most closely be compared. The state controlling the means of production etc. The communist is -in theory- egalitarian in nature, while the Fascist is Aristocratic. The Fascist State is the perfect antidote to the abuses of hyper capitalism, but, alas, a system which belongs to another era and can only be viewed as anachronistic.

Hmmm... will you next accuse me of Corporatist attitudes?

Ah, so you throw all caution to the wind and definitively reveal yourself as a text book Multiculturalist. Hedonistic, self-centred, and with a soul as empty as the promise of Eutopia. Without care for the generations which came before and all they bequeathed us -what and who are we? Little more than a clever Ape who learned to walk upright and make a decent cup of tea.



B.

__________________

SilverFalcon

At last, sanity. Thank you, Mike. It was the political objective of the English (they were known as "the English" whether they were Scots or Irish, but most were actually English as the Scots and Irish tended to intermarry with Afrikaners on account of their mutual hatred for the English )... Digression, as usual ... It was the political objective of the English South Africans to create, by education and opportunity, a middle class African strata who would have something concrete to lose if threatened by the commie mob.

The English South Africans wanted to make a pact with the then Rhodesians, also mostly English, but were prevented by the Apartheid regime. The reason was that the Afrikaners refused to speak English and feared that any integration with another South African English group may weaken their power base. Also, the apartheid regime followed a policy of exclusion when it came to white immigration, something the English did not want to do. The English wanted to flood the country with Europeans who could help build the economy and swell the ranks of the extant white population so that these infrastructural and economic and industrial aspects could find manifestation in solid business practice and the creation of employment and opportunity for the hoped for raising of the Africans from one kind of cultural and economic sphere into one that would place them in a good position to contribute more meaningfully to the country's development.

No go, as far as the Apartheid regime was concerned. All immigrants were classed as "uitlanders" (think Hitler and his "auslander" paranoia). The English were irrevocably placed in this category and their removal and suppression was a life's work on the part of many hard line Afrikaner nationalists. On the immigration forms in the sixties were questions about race and religion. The Apartheid regime had excluded Catholics from entering the country and so many Dutch entrants put "DRC" down hoping this would indicate "Dutch Reformed Church" when in fact they were Dutch Roman Catholic. I remember at the convent I attended cards with "Prayers for Vocations" being handed out as this policy was killing the Catholic community and wiping out their schools and missions as no nuns and priests could enter.

I remember how the Afrikaans university eventually consumed all the ground my convent was built on and finally chased us and the Christian Brothers College out into new territory for which there were was no more money and a final death of this community. All the old convents and colleges became lay teaching schools. Things have changed now and the once almost dead seminary has been revived and a new one has been built and seems to be booming.

This attempted removal of the Catholics caused them to turn left politically at the time. The English generation of the seventies was to follow as the army began a vicious training programme through conscription that killed many young men in the first six weeks of basic training. Being English in the army in those days was particularly dangerous. I was informed a few days ago of a book that has just come out about the experiences of people during this time in the SA army. It should make a few pompous fascists do a double take as the truth comes out from the white horse's mouth. At last.

Mike is quite correct in his assessment of what happened to South Africa instead of the hoped for transformation. Instead there has been a wild take over and a continued legacy of corruption and mismanagement. The English did try their level best to gain a just solution but with a 40 to 60 ratio, democracy delivers only majority rule. Beware the wonders of mere people power. Now the situation is even worse.

The British should not have given up their colonial possessions so quickly. If integration of people into first world economics and industry could have happened more intelligently and with a view to providing equality before the law for all, then a different Zimbabwe and South Africa might have ensued. Instead - chaos.

Brendan Scarborough

Esteemed Staff,

I think these South Africa essays of Silver Falcon's deserve their own thread. Such quality shouldn't be lost among the generalities of this particular threads subject matter.

Perhaps under the heading: Twilight of the Afrikaaner.

Post #33 & 56 particularly.

B.

__________________

SilverFalcon

Dear B,

I am not an Afrikaner, so his twilight is out of my province. I know about the twilight of the English South African only insofar as I was there during some it. What all of us South Africans can do is tell our own stories. These would show just how complex both people and societies are and highlight the need for peoples to have nation status and places where this may be practised legitimately and with integrity. And this includes the nation of the Jews. Although they have no country that isn't something someone else had first, they are still a people and as long as their situation and that of the Palestinians cannot be resolved the western world will clash with the Arabs and all those who have adopted Islam.

Brendan Scarborough

Well, Twilight of the European colonial in Africa then.
My heart is rent with emotion thinking of you fading away into oblivion like an old Sarum Aurochs......

They can take my freedom, and they can take my life, but they will never take my sense of humour.

B.

__________________

SilverFalcon

Nor mine and if you want to laugh like drains you want to hear the Afrikaner sense of humour, the old country Boer humour about the trials and tribulations of life on the "plaas" (farm). Fantastic. They have made so many wonderful TV series about the small town community. Pity these are unknown. They are little masterpieces of the genre. Here the ordinary folk get a chance to be themselves without the beaky authorities glaring down on them. South Africa has produced sculptors, painters, writers and film makers of reknown.

Take a squizz at the film that recently won an Oscar for foreign films called "Tsotsi", based on an Athol Fugard work. It's absolutely surreal and has subtitles so you can feel the authenticity of the young black criminals (tsotsies) and how they get into this lifestyle and the damage it does and the people they hurt (including themselves). Believe me, the ambiance is rich and strange and compelling and the thing will grab you and make lights go on and others go out in your pevious convictions about who is what and why. When I see it I know the light and the shadows personally, I have seen and spoken to people like this, watched from windows or thought about them at night, or when it's very cold, when everyone else has gone home and they are still there, stuffing a loaf of bread into a plastic packet outside a roadside cafe, waiting for a bus or a taxi and waiting for God to maybe notice them. Unfortunately only artists see them, but when art can imitate life successfully, miracles can occur.

Thank you for your thoughts on our fading. We are the last leaves on this particular tree. But new saplings are emerging and taking root all the time, across the world, and as these old trees grow on into the sunset of their time, so will new forests flame into existence.

Where I live, the ancient mountains named after Chief Mgale have seen many liquid scarlet suns slip into their dark and dreaming arms over the years, watched many bowls of the sun's bright blood shed into night's oblivion. It is the way of Africa ...