|
Post by Wayne Hall on Feb 6, 2024 23:49:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Feb 6, 2024 9:08:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Feb 6, 2024 8:53:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Feb 3, 2024 6:12:47 GMT -5
fascio.substack.com/p/civilizational-states-self-determination?utm_campaign=email-post&r=8t72z&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=emailCivilizational-States: Self-Determination of The Peoples? by Zoltanous FEB 2, 2024Introduction In the current epoch, numerous self-proclaimed nationalists are oblivious to the fact that their ideology is steeped in the liberal tradition, thus failing to achieve their purported goals. They often misconceive "Globalism" as merely a synonym for "world governance," while holding the belief that their liberal version of "nationalism" is the antidote. It is critical to recognize that "Globalism" represents a secular, liberal order, with the Atlanticist West at its helm, principally administered by the liberal democracies, with Washington D.C. as the epicenter of this American-centric empire. The concept of "Nationalism" is frequently invoked without a true grasp of its historical roots. Born out of the 18th century, nationalism was initially a tool of the Jacobin revolutionaries designed to dismantle the old-world order of medieval Europe. It is intrinsically tied to the emergence of the bourgeois "Nation-State," which rose to prominence post the Treaty of Westphalia. Though later eras saw "Nationalism" being co-opted by staunch anti-liberals, it is imperative to acknowledge that its inception served the advancement of liberal and secular humanist agendas.
The Jacobin version of nationalism was an early harbinger of globalism. Those who stand against globalism today cannot effectively do so from a traditional nationalist perspective. They must re-evaluate their perspective and cultivate a reformed sense of nationalism, one that has shed the liberal creeds of "absolute national sovereignty.” Realizing these subtleties points to a path of resistance that diverges from the nation-state construct, instead gravitating towards the Aristocratic Civilization-State paradigm. This approach entails the synthesis of the proletariat into "Aristo-Proletarianism." Such a philosophy should be the guiding force behind authentic anti-liberal nationalisms and internationalisms, driving towards a harmonious multipolarity characterized by a tapestry of Civilization-States, each upholding and reinforcing the identities and sovereignties of communities that stand against the tide of modern globalism.
Why The Civilizational Model? In his 1915 pamphlet titled The Revolutionary Proletariat and The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Vladimir Lenin eloquently portrayed the circumstances prevailing in Russia during the 19th and early 20th centuries: “Russia is a prison of peoples.” Throughout this period, Russian civilization extended beyond its traditional borders, incorporating diverse peoples through military conquest, resulting in the formation of one of history's largest empires. However, it's crucial to note that within the Russian Empire at the turn of the 20th century, none of these peoples possessed inherent sovereignty or political rights. Lenin acknowledged the importance of this issue and articulated it in his writings. He recognized the imperative for the revolutionary proletariat to advocate for the right of nations to self-determination. This principle underscores that each nation, irrespective of its size, holds the inherent right to determine its political destiny and exercise sovereignty over its affairs. Lenin's acknowledgment of this right demonstrates his understanding of the diverse ethnic and cultural mosaic within the Russian Empire. His call for the empowerment of these nations to shape their futures stands as a testament to his progressive and inclusive vision.
Lenin asserted that for the Russian working class to lead a successful democratic revolution and to join European workers in a socialist revolution, it must unequivocally support the right of all nations oppressed by Tsarist rule to separate and become independent from Russia. Manifesting an unwavering allegiance to his ideological convictions, Lenin transformed his theoretical constructs into tangible reality. On the 15th of November in the year 1917, the nascent Russian-Soviet authority promulgated a seminal manifesto, The Declaration of The Rights of The Peoples of Russia, a document that crystallized pivotal tenets that would undergird the regime's approach to governance. This declaration was not a mere formalistic gesture; it was a doctrinal compass comprising critical axioms designed to steer the government's course of action. These axioms were not only declarations but were also intended to be the bedrock upon which the Soviet government would erect its policy framework, sculpting the political landscape of the new Russia and its relationship with the mosaic of ethnicities within its orbit.
Its primary essence can be encapsulated as follows:
Equality and sovereignty for all Russian peoples.
Right to self-determination and secession for Russian peoples.
Elimination of national and religious privileges and restrictions.
Free development for national minorities and ethnographic groups in Russia.
Complete integration and assimilation of all Russian peoples into the Soviet System.
In the intricate geopolitical tapestry that unfolded following the ascent of Soviet power, it is imperative to recognize the nuanced historical moment when a constellation of nations, among them Latvia and Ukraine, chose to detach themselves from the Soviet matrix and forge their own separate, non-Soviet polities. These emergent states encountered tribulations from without and within, as ideological schisms gave rise to internal factions that echoed the Soviet narrative, thereby challenging the very essence of their nascent sovereignty.
To the cursory observer, these incursions might be construed as a paradoxical maneuver by the Leninist regime, belying its own principles. Yet, to truly penetrate the depths of such a historical conundrum, one must engage with further segments of Lenin's 1915 discourse, seeking therein the submerged strata of his ideological stance. Only through such a comprehensive hermeneutic effort can one access the profound undercurrents that informed and justified the Soviet posture vis-à-vis these fledgling republics, as they stood at the crossroads of self-determination and the overarching Soviet vision for a new world order.
“This we demand, not independently of our revolutionary struggle for socialism, but because this struggle will remain a hollow phrase if it is not linked up with a revolutionary approach to all questions of democracy, including the national question. We demand freedom of self-determination, i.e., independence, i.e., freedom of secession for the oppressed nations, not because we have dreamt of splitting up the country economically, or of the ideal of small states, but, on the contrary, because we want large states and the closer unity and even fusion of nations, only on a truly democratic, truly internationalist basis, which is inconceivable without the freedom to secede.”
— Vladimir Lenin, Lenin Collected Works
Within the vast expanse of the Russian Federation, a tapestry of ethnicities and national identities weaves together, distinct from the ethnic Russian majority. These diverse groups, often known as "non-Russian peoples," possess unique linguistic, cultural, and historical identities. As the inheritor of the Soviet Union's legacy, the Russian Federation acknowledges the existence of these nationalities and has enacted measures to safeguard and nurture their distinct cultural identities and self-governance.
The Federation's structure accommodates autonomous republics, regions, and districts, each home to specific ethnic communities. These areas are granted a spectrum of autonomy, enabling them to uphold their native languages in official capacities and to perpetuate their cultural legacies. Moreover, the Russian Federation has instituted policies aimed at bolstering economic growth and social welfare within these territories, striving to rectify historical disparities and to enhance the quality of life for all inhabitants, irrespective of ethnicity. One must recognize the complexities the Russian Federation faces as a multi-ethnic state in honoring the rights and ambitions of its varied ethnic groups. The endeavor to sustain cohesion and stability, while also validating the rights of different nationalities, necessitates persistent dialogue, collaboration, and inclusive governance. The Russian authorities persist in their pursuit of a cohesive society that cherishes and defends the interests of all its constituents, including the non-Russian ethnic groups.
The Soviet paradigm of ethnic republics endures within the contemporary framework of the Russian Federation, which comprises eighty-five federal subjects, including twenty-two republics such as Dagestan, Chechnya, and Bashkortostan. Moreover, nations like Belarus, Armenia, and Kazakhstan, though not formally acknowledged as sovereign states, are intricately woven into the Eurasian Economic Union. The Russian Federation, an amalgam of states with Russia at its nucleus, serves as an exemplary model of self-determination for peoples, emancipated from the rigid confines imposed by 20th-century Marxist and Nationalist ideologies.
A map of the Russian Federation’s semi-autonomous republics
Martin Jacques, a distinguished British journalist with a deep understanding of China, has been influential in defining the concept of the "civilization state." In his book When China Rules The World, he contrasts China's short history as a nation state of roughly 150 years with its ancient civilization stretching back millennia. Jacques highlights the civilizational state is marked by entrenched cultural norms such as Confucian values and the intricate relationship between the written and spoken Chinese language. In the eyes of the Chinese, "China" evokes their civilization, with its ancient dynasties and philosophical roots, rather than a simple political entity. Jacques' notion is reinforced by Vladimir Lapkin, who reflects on non-Western civilizations' response to Western universalism by harnessing their indigenous cultural assets.
Jacques further distinguishes China as a unique civilization state, featuring a continuous identity that is not mirrored by other historical civilization states such as India, and certainly distinct from the relatively recent civilization legacy of the United States. Challenging Western perceptions, Jacques questions the idea of China as a highly centralized state, instead proposing that due to its size and complexity, governance has always required a more adaptive approach, a sentiment mirrored in Russia's federated system. Jacques posits that while some countries clearly fit the mold of nation states, others, like China, embody characteristics of both nation states and civilization states. This view is encapsulated in Lucian Pye's assertion that China is a "civilization pretending to be a nation-state," with the implication that some civilization states may not primarily identify as nation-states.
Building on Jacques’ arguments, the ancient Chinese concept of Tianxia, or "all under heaven," has historically positioned China as a central force in the world, suggesting a blend of divine and earthly governance. This historical perspective is not just a relic of the past but is also reflected in modern initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, which echoes the Tianxia principle of a China-centric global order. China's commitment to this civilizational heritage is also evident in its approach to internet governance, where it enforces cyber sovereignty and controls its digital borders to protect its cultural identity. This focus on cultural continuity is a testament to China's dedication to sustaining its civilizational ethos. Through these actions, China demonstrates how its ancient philosophies continue to inform and guide its engagement with the world today, underscoring the lasting impact of the civilization state concept.
The Civilization-State interacts with the world yet eschews any reliance; it asserts its self-reliance, sovereignty, and autarky. It transcends the limited frameworks of space and time as understood by modernist statecraft, instead emerging as a living, breathing organism that is unbounded by the constraints of temporality and spatiality. It adapts to the exigencies of existence while steadfastly preserving its ontological core and wholeness. Within the philosophical framework of the Civilization-State, the conventional measures of time and space are considered to be secondary, as they fail to encompass the true depth of a civilization's being and substance. The Civilization-State is predicated on the notion of an everlasting now, a perpetual moment of existence that defies the linear construct of time, where divisions are seen as ephemeral and deceptive, a play of temporal shadows. In this worldview, the rigid concepts and orthodoxies of universal rights are obsolete; rather, it is the principle of personalism that arises as an intrinsic imperative. The legalistic and progressive ideals that are foundational to the modern Nation-State concede to a higher regard for virtue ethics and the philosophy of perennialism. This profound divergence delineates the intrinsic cultural contrasts between the Civilization-State and the modern Nation-State, revealing their fundamental disparities in spiritual, psychological, sociological, economic, and ecological dimensions.
While the legacy of Soviet Russia did not persist into the 21st century, the model of the Civilization-State remains a source of profound insights for today's global landscape, particularly for the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China. These nations epitomize the Civilization-State, repudiating both conventional Nationalism and Globalism. Their capacity to counter the Atlanticist dominance stems from their rejection of liberal doctrines that leave them vulnerable to external manipulation. The liberal factions in the West frequently call for a "decolonization of Russia" and lend support to anti-Russian nationalist movements under the guise of "self-determination." This is evident in their backing of "Ukrainian Nationalism" when it serves to weaken the Russian Federation. Similarly, they employ divisive strategies against China through rallying cries of "Taiwanese Nationalism" and the "defense of Human Rights in Hong Kong."
Consider the potential uproar if Russia and China were to openly support and encourage secessionist movements like "Southern Dixie independence" within the United States. It is questionable whether the same liberal proponents of "Ukrainian self-determination" or "Taiwanese self-determination" would embrace the idea of a "Southern right to self-determination." These scenarios lay bare the novel geopolitical complexities of the 21st century that demand thorough scrutiny and strategic thought. To effectively oppose Globalism, one cannot rely on any strain of liberal nationalism or internationalism. Battling Globalism requires a commitment to authentically anti-liberal forms of nationalism and internationalism. The old dialectic of nationalism versus internationalism has withered, giving way to a new dynamic: Globalism against Civilizationism. Within this fresh paradigm, various expressions of nationalism and internationalism can coexist, yet they are distinguished by their liberal or anti-liberal character. Globalism is the banner under which liberal nationalism and internationalism unite, whereas Civilizationism is the domain of anti-liberal nationalism and internationalism. This distinction is set to shape the geopolitical narrative of the 21st century and potentially beyond.
Both Russia and China are intrinsically diverse entities. Vladimir Putin, in acknowledging the inherent plurality within Russia, emphasizes the value of every ethnic community. Nevertheless, radical segments of Russian nationalism threaten this mosaic, promoting an exclusionary "Russia for Russians" stance that seeks to destabilize the cohesion that Putin has assiduously cultivated. Likewise, China esteems the multitude of ethnicities within its borders, valuing their unique cultural, customary, traditional, and religious contributions. While protecting their rights, China expects allegiance to the national collective, precluding external influences from disrupting its unity. The kinship between Russia and China is partly rooted in their mutual respect for internal diversity. As Americans, we would do well to heed Putin's counsel on the importance of fostering unity through diversity. His insights remind us that the embrace of diverse identities is fundamental to the prosperity and harmony of any Civilization-State.
“Caveman nationalism, with the slogan ‘Russia is only for Russians,’ only harms Russians, only harms Russia, we shouldn't allow this to happen. Of course, we must make sure that the culture of every nation, its history, and roots of every nation is respected and honored in our country.”
— Vladimir Putin quoted in Putin Slams Caveman Nationalism by Russia Today
The formation of American identity can be likened to a tapestry woven from diverse cultural, ethnic, and racial threads, echoing the nature of Russian self-perception. Both have developed as Civilization-States, with identities that transcend simple racial or ethnic classifications. Historically, empires have expanded their cultural majorities by assimilating new members into their societies. The Roman Empire, for instance, was notable for its ability to incorporate conquered peoples, granting them avenues to Roman citizenship, which in turn enriched the empire's cultural fabric. The Chinese model of identity, with the Emperor presiding over a Confucian-structured society, also exemplified a broad and inclusive sense of belonging, demanding loyalty above all.
India stands as a quintessential example of a Civilization-State, and it continues to hold the promise of becoming a formidable presence in global affairs. The Islamic world, stretching from Indonesia to Morocco, embodies a vast civilization, but its division into various nation-states and cultural niches complicates the prospect of political unification. Although Islamic civilization has given rise to numerous civilization-states throughout history — including the successive Caliphates, segments of Genghis Khan's empire, the Safavid Empire, the Mughal Empire, and the Ottoman Empire — the legacy of these entities' boundaries persists, and their potential unification faces considerable obstacles. Similarly, the macro-civilizations of Latin America and Africa are also dispersed, but the emerging multipolar world will foster unity within these regions.
In America, national identity has continued to evolve inclusively, even in the wake of conflicts such as the Mexican-American War and those involving Native American nations. The Hispanic population has become an integral part of the American fabric, while Native Americans have adopted a strong sense of American nationalism despite historical hardships. Civilizations have an inherent drive to expand, consolidating a shared identity that propels them toward territorial growth, motivated by resource acquisition, prestige, or both. The Romans, drawing from Greek and Italic influences, sought empire for reasons that spanned strategy to culture. Commentators such as J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur and Alexis de Tocqueville have remarked on America's distinctive synthesis of African and European lineages, giving rise to an archetype characterized by unceasing progress and achievement.
African American culture has left indelible marks on the United States, influencing everything from language and architecture to religious practices and critical agricultural innovations. The cultural resilience and contributions of African Americans resonate through American music, food, and more, indicating their central role in the nation's development. The American identity, a mosaic of cultural assimilation, is vividly represented by immigrants. Their perseverance in the face of adversity, often working tirelessly for modest pay, reflects an embodiment of the American ethos that can surpass even that of native-born citizens. Their commitment to the country's progress aligns with the Protestant work ethic, considered a foundational American principle. Thus, the essence of America lies in its people, manifesting the idea that the American identity can be adopted and expressed through a commitment to the collective progress of the nation.
The impact of geography on civilization is profound. While the phrase "geography is destiny" may oversimplify the matter, the role of geographical factors in shaping societies is crucial, as explored by Vidal de la Blanche and in German geopolitics, and remains relevant today. Russia's development, influenced by its Turkic and Slavic roots, is a case in point. Its vast landmass is strategic for regional influence but not for naval power, often affecting neighboring areas, an idea echoed in Dugin's vision of an Imperial Russia. America's geography positions it for leadership on both regional and global stages. Its coasts open it to trade with Europe and Asia, and its natural resources and fertile land support growth with minimal reliance on man-made infrastructure. The Mississippi River system enhances domestic trade and unity, reinforcing the strategic advantages of geography described by Mahan. With its potential for prosperity even in isolation, America has a unique imperial capacity, immune to invasion and nimble in global affairs, perhaps promising a longevity of influence beyond that of the British Empire.
Americans skeptical of Globalism must realize that renewal lies in a return to foundational values and traditions, not in liberalism's promises or secular humanism. As the liberal order wanes, they must be ready to forge a new societal framework. The examples set by Russia, China, and the former Soviet Union offer guidance. To counter the perils of Globalism and misplaced faith in reason, which has fostered nationalism, Americans must envisage a Civilization-State that harmonizes its multicultural fabric within a multipolar world order. Learning from the self-reliance of the Soviet past, the Russian Federation, and China's rise, America can move towards a future where identity and sovereignty thrive amidst the complexities of globalization and the rise of transnational powers. This vision requires a historic pivot to a world where diverse Civilization-States coexist peacefully, ensuring internal harmony and standing firm against the challenges of our time.
Civilizations are elevated to their esteemed positions by those outstanding individuals often referred to as "the unique ones." These are the people who personify the core values of their nation while leveraging the distinct historical and situational advantages available to them, usually catalyzing the advancement and progression of their civilizations. This group of exceptional individuals — the Natural Aristocracy — encompasses not just the conventional leaders and policymakers but also extends to cultural innovators like artists, poets, musicians, entrepreneurs, or even distinguished members of the labor force. The legacy of Greek civilization, for instance, includes the conquests of Alexander the Great across vast territories as well as the intellectual contributions from the likes of poet Homer, mathematician Pythagoras, and philosopher Plato. France's historical narrative is marked by the strategic prowess of Napoleon Bonaparte, while Germany's cultural heritage boasts of creative geniuses such as the composer Mozart, the socio-economic theorist Karl Marx, and the profound philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The presence of a Natural Aristocracy is a global phenomenon, yet the attainment of civilizational prominence is contingent upon effectively mastering their environment.
In America, Abraham Lincoln stands as a paragon of the Natural Aristocracy. Rising from humble beginnings to the presidency, Lincoln faced the formidable challenge of a nation fracturing to protect an outdated social hierarchy. Despite early military setbacks under the shrewd command of Confederate generals, Lincoln's strategic ingenuity and his ability to morally galvanize the populace through the Emancipation Proclamation were pivotal in dismantling the rebellious South and achieving national unity. Without these efforts, the United States' current status as a dominant global force might not have materialized. America's contribution to the Natural Aristocracy is further enriched by literary talents such as Edgar Allan Poe and H. P. Lovecraft; poets like Walt Whitman and Robert Frost; legendary musicians Elvis Presley and Louis Armstrong; and visionary film directors including Orson Welles and George Lucas. The argument stands that America's civilizational identity is propelled by its extensive Natural Aristocracy. This aristocratic inclusivity is a core strength of the American civilization.
For this reason, America's distinct identity as a Civilization-State is akin to those of India, Russia, China, Rome, and the Islamic world. America's identity has risen to the stature of a "civilization" by daringly expanding its influence and nurturing a diverse Natural Aristocracy that has enhanced both its territory and society. To achieve true unity and secure a leading role in the global hierarchy, American citizens must recognize and embrace their nation's civilizational status. This is essential not only for internal cohesion but also for prevailing in the geopolitical arena, where borders and conflicting ambitions remain a reality. It is in the American people's objective self-interest to strive for preeminence. I urge you, as the reader, to use the knowledge gained from this conversation to counter adversaries of American values, including White Supremacists, who seek to fracture our society with their archaic Caveman Nationalism. Grasping the idea of a Civilization-State allows one to recognize the distinct and lasting character of these entities, upheld by the shared determination of their people and leaders to maintain their Imperial heritage.
“For good or ill, America is what it is — a culture in its own right, with many characteristic lines of power and meaning of its own, ranking with Greece and Rome as one of the great distinctive civilizations of history.”
— Max Lerner, America As a Civilization
What America Requires For America's future, we seek to initiate a rebirth that respects our historical traditions while moving beyond the limits of both capitalism and socialism. We aim to rekindle a sense of organic community where citizens actively engage, the economy is managed responsibly, and rural values are revitalized — all within a framework that acknowledges the essential authority of the State. Our intent is to achieve transformation respectfully and peacefully, reinstating a sense of order and rank that resonates with the wisdom of our forebears. At the heart of this vision lies the rejuvenation of Industrial Unionism. We see it not just as a labor movement but as a return to a natural societal structure in which every worker plays a critical part in the greater economic body. This form of unionism creates a sacred bond between those who work in industry and agriculture, reflecting a syndicalist approach that embraces the rich variety of our nation's heritage.
We call for the establishment of a National Labor and State Assembly, a bicameral entity that combines the venerable insights of worker-elected representatives with the strategic oversight of a managerial body for cooperatives. Their joint mission will be to synchronize the diligent efforts of our workforce with the collective economic aspirations of our nation. Our strategy promotes a syndicalist construct that authentically represents the complex weave of American society, incorporating the various identities within our workforce into the dignified mission of production. This model promotes a form of democracy that is deeply connected to the spirit of American workers, anchored in our traditions and sense of community. In the agricultural sector, we propose a cooperative system that brings together individual farmers, rural laborers, and state-run farms into a community network, directed by collectives that blend local expertise with state-level direction. We aim to develop policies that respect local needs and perspectives while aligning with the nation's broader strategic vision, harmonizing local self-governance with national coherence.
Looking outward, we call for the creation of an expansive North American Civilization-State, aimed at strengthening our economic ties and security arrangements. This ambitious concept respects the unique identities of political entities while fostering an international order that is both diverse and united. We support a federalist system where a strong central authority provides vital functions such as conflict resolution and defense, while regions that are rich in their own ethnic and cultural traditions enjoy self-governance. These regions will choose representatives to a Federal government responsible for establishing foundational laws and overseeing our joint economic endeavors, all guided by timeless values.
Lastly, we affirm the profound principle of self-determination within the storied expanse of the Amerikana "Great Space," promoting the creation of semi-autonomous Republics. These Republics will act as stewards of their fate, operating like Nation-States within the larger Civilization-State, empowering communities to choose leaders who genuinely represent their desires, shape their societal norms, manage their economies, safeguard their populations, and legislate in a way that reflects their unique identities. This framework is crafted to honor the natural evolution of America's diverse cultural and identity groups, nurturing unity while preserving the sanctity of our collective heritage and traditions.
A map of the new America Federation
Americanism has a distinctive role on the world stage, which many liberals misunderstand, it is nonetheless a testament to its our influence and leadership. American’s civilizational identity transcends ethnic homogeneity, rooted instead in a rich mosaic of cultures and peoples. True American exceptionalism is deeply intertwined with a reverence for our guiding principles, its commitment to Christian faith, its Imperial history, and its Aristocratic values. It is this profound understanding of the Empire's core ideas and principles that encapsulates the true American Spirit.
“It is the small town, the small city, that is our heritage. We have made twentieth-century America from it, and some account of these communities as they were… we owe our children and grandchildren.”
— Henry Seidel Canby, The Age of Confidence
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Feb 2, 2024 13:07:31 GMT -5
Dear Wayne,
This is the third week in a row I’ve written to you about Australia Day in one way or another.
But there’s a reason for that.
Because I don’t know if you noticed it, but there was a change in the air this year.
Yes, we got the usual protests and complaints from the activists who want to abolish the day and, in fact, abolish Australia itself.
We got the posturing from the sporting codes and supermarkets, and a few celebrities chipped in with their views that no one asked for.
But this time, ordinary Australians pushed back.
The activists who hate our country thought changing the date – and starting the push to do away with any national day – was a done deal.
This year they found out they were wrong.
Woolies’ decision to stop carrying Australia Day merch wasn’t met with indifference but anger.
And after a couple of weeks they were forced to defend themselves in the media. Good luck with that!
Cricket Australia also had to walk back its decision not to acknowledge Australia Day.
They’re finally getting the message.
But you and I know it’s not that easy.
Next year the push will come again, but now our opponents know we’re stronger.
So that’s why it’s time to end this debate once and for all.
It’s time we protect January 26 in legislation. Let’s make it the law that it cannot change without the people getting their say through a vote.
If the activists are so confident Australians want to change the date, let’s ask them. And if they say no, let’s put it in the law.
There’s even a Bill ready to go thanks to Henry Pike, the LNP Member for Bowman, whose Australia Day 2023 Bill will do just that.
My mates at ADVANCE have been on the front foot with a campaign to get this done.
Their supporters have already sent more than 342,000 emails to MPs requesting this legislation change.
And Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has backed it too.
So let’s get it done. Let’s protect our national day.
Because our country is worth celebrating.
Yours for REAL solutions,
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
Senator for the Northern Territory
Dear Jacinta,
I have indeed noticed the "change in the air" over Australia Day and I was similarly disgusted by Woolworths' stupid arrogance. If I were living in Australia I would boycott Woolworths and never shop there again, however much they backtrack. I support the proposal that Australia Day not be changed from 26th January without a popular - universal suffrage - vote.
Since October last year my stance on Australia Day has been that IF it is necessary to compromise with the "change the date" lobby, the new date for Australia Day should be October 14th, commemorating the date when national sovereignty was reaffirmed with a new inclusiveness. But if it is not necessary to compromise, why change the date? Change for the sake of change?
26th January happens to be significant for Greece also. It is the date when the first governor of modern Greece, Ioannis Capodistrias, was sworn in in 1828 in Aegina and the modern Greek state established for Greeks (though not yet for the "international community" of that time). As a resident of Aegina I was pleased (semi-pleased) when ten years ago the persistence of Aeginetans in claiming recognition for 26th January was finally rewarded by a Greek presidential decree proclaiming 26th January as a national day "of local significance". To me there seemed to be some vague purpose to wishing for a common Greek and Australian effort for promotion of 26th January as an important date. main.cse-initiative.eu/?p=483
But in the meantime there have been significant developments. I don't need to tell you about the developments in Australia. In Greece the dramatic dislocations since 2020 have made "how relevant are the ideas of Capodistrias to the present day?" a question of some interest. A discussion on the subject was programmed for 26th January 2024 in Aegina. But for various reasons the event had to be postponed, and the date that was finally judged convenient was 10th February. It is entirely coincidental that this date turned out to be Capodistrias' birthday. He was born in Corfu on that date in 1776, the year when the United States of America declared its independence. His rather neglected grave is in Corfu.
Returning to Australia, Jacinta is probably right when she says "next year the push will come again", meaning that another attempt will be made to change the date of Australia's national day.
I have said before that I happen in my youth to have been in the same far-left (Trotskyist) group as Marcia Langton, one of the prime movers of the campaign for the Voice in parliament and for the push to change the date of Australia Day. It could be instructive to cast an eye on a discussion from ten years ago between Marcia and another member of the Communist League of that time, the distinguished author Peter Robb. It would also be most interesting to hear Peter Robb's views on the Voice campaign and the result of the October 14 2023 referendum.
Peter Robb's book "Lives" includes a chapter on the founder of the Communist League, the Brisbane medical doctor John McCarthy. Peter does not say anything either in "Lives" or in the online discussion with Marcia, about Marcia's relations with John McCarthy, so I am the one who will commit the indiscretion.
John is no longer in this life but tribute is paid to his work, both as a medical doctor and as a defender of Australian "first people's" rights, in the far left press, and not only there. Here is some of it: halva.proboards.com/thread/221/john-mccarthy-1948-2008
I really do think it would be valuable to obtain Peter Robb's views of the current political situation in Australia, including the implications of the Voice's defeat in the October 14 2023 referendum. One of Peter's books, "A Death in Brazil", is centred on the beginnings of the career of Brazil's current president Lula da Silva but expands into a comprehensive overview of the past and present of South America's largest nation. It would be marvellous if e.g. the Brazilian-Australian academic Augusto Zimmerman (or someone else, for heaven's sake!) could find Peter Robb and bring him into our discussion.
In the 1970s the Communist League's international leader, the Belgian economist Ernest Mandel, despite being banned from entry into either Germany or France in Europe's post-1968 crackdown against the far left, was nevertheless invited, along with John McCarthy, to a cabinet meeting of the Whitlam Labor government, at the initiative of the later governor general Bill Hayden. We are speaking of a political current now that is as dead as any extinct "first nation" tribal grouping, and I think the analogy is pertinent because both may warrant investigation. Marcia Langton has sought much more determinedly to keep alive the aspect of the past that she considers worthy of staying alive than I have tried to keep alive the memory of the 1970s groupuscule in which we both participated, but I don't think this really prevents either her or me from living in the present.
I am forwarding this, with the "Let's make it law" idea, to a few people in Australia (and New Zealand) who are more in a position than I am to help with that project.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 30, 2024 15:48:17 GMT -5
Was Adolf Hitler a Eurasianist? by The Fascifist
fascio.substack.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Jan 29 Introduction
The research by Brandon Martinez, a White Nationalist with views that align with racist, reactionary, capitalist, and liberal ideology, has prompted me to write this paper. His assertions about Hitler have been proven historically accurate, and for these findings, he deserves commendation. Martinez's work seems to have taken our previous discussions to heart, particularly a suggestion I once made about re-education for those lacking an understanding of Fascist theory, which he has evidently pursued. His Telegram channel, "Red Ideologies," is a valuable resource for understanding the similarities between Fascism and Communism and their intertwined history.
Martinez accurately points out that Hitler, like Stalin, was a socialist and both were against the liberal democratic and capitalist frameworks of the West. He describes the conflict between Marxists and Third Positionists as a socialist fraternal conflict, and suggests Hitler had Eurasianist tendencies. Moreover, he correctly identifies Hitler and Stalin as detrimental to “White people,” a term laden with complex implications that include modernism, capitalism, secular humanism, liberal democracy, Western culture, and the bourgeoisie. This term historically refers to the bourgeoisie class that overthrew European aristocracy in the 18th century, positioning themselves as anti-Aryan and maintaining their order through the exploitation of the proletariat. Brandon Martinez is a White Nationalist I highly regard, alongside Richard Spencer, for they both acknowledge truths about “White people,” albeit from a “pro-White” stance, while I approach it from an anti-White perspective. Despite our differing philosophical bases and moral compasses, we find common ground on certain facts about White people, a complex overlap that I find worthwhile to consider.
Recentering our discussion on the essence of this paper, I affirm that Adolf Hitler indeed harbored Eurasianist ambitions comparable to Napoleon Bonaparte's, from the moment he assumed power on January 30, 1933. His objective was not to achieve lasting peace with Britain and America — which he deemed impossible due to his geostrategic goals — but to gain the necessary time and resources to build a Germanic civilizational state on par with the United States in North America or Russia in Eurasia. The claim by the Americans and British that Hitler aspired to global dominance had merit; he sought to reshape the "old world" just as Napoleon had a century prior. For both leaders, the foremost adversary was Britain and her global empire. They believed that Europe's security had to be won at the cost of Anglo-American hegemony.
In this essay, I aim to demonstrate that Hitler's geopolitical desires mirrored Napoleon's, as he sought an empire robust enough to challenge Britain and the USA. I will establish Hitler's Eurasianist credentials, showing that his influences, strategies, and alliances were unmistakably aligned with this goal. The core geopolitical contention between Bonaparte, Hitler, and Stalin was the seat of power for Eurasia — Paris, Berlin, or Moscow, respectively — though their ultimate goal was identical: to erect a formidable counterbalance to London and Washington DC. While it may seem anachronistic to label Hitler and the National Socialists as followers of Duginism, given that the Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin came long after them, Martinez adeptly highlights the similarities between Dugin's contemporary Eurasianism and Hitler's strategies. Eurasianism, of course, predates both figures, but credit is due to Martinez for presenting the same insights to his audience that Zoltanous and I have shared with ours. Now, without further ado, let's dive into this intriguing subject. Was Adolf Hitler a Civilizationist Beneath His Nationalism?
For those familiar with Zoltanous and my work, the understanding that political ideologies often clash with geopolitical ambitions will not be new. Political expediency sometimes demands actions that stray from ideological purity. When faced with such dilemmas, states may choose to honestly reconcile their ideology with their actions or craft deceptions to justify their chosen course. This dynamic highlights that ideology within statecraft can be both a strength and a weakness, and ultimately, geopolitical pragmatism must prevail, with ideology serving as a means to an end rather than the end itself. Delving into whether Adolf Hitler was a Eurasianist requires an understanding that Hitler, despite outwardly presenting as a republican and adherent to the nation-state concept, was fundamentally a civilizationist, which equates to being an advocate for an empire.
This empire is not one of commercial maritime power like Britain or America, but of a traditional land-based aristocracy akin to Russia or Rome. Being a Eurasianist is synonymous with being a civilizationist; hence, demonstrating that Hitler was a civilizationist moves us closer to determining his Eurasianist stance. Leon Degrelle's account of Hitler's unexpected answer to the question of where his homeland was — saying "Greece" instead of the anticipated "Europe" — hints at Hitler's philosophical depth. This response and further inquiries into his views suggest that Hitler had an idealistic ontology shaping his understanding of history and the evolution of social identity.
In his speech declaring war on the United States on December 11, 1941, Hitler made the following remarks:
“What is Europe, my deputies? There is no geographical definition of our continent, but only an ethnic-national and cultural one. The frontier of this continent is not the Ural mountains, but rather the line that divides the Western outlook on life from that of the East. At one time, Europe was confined to the Greek isles, which had reached even the Nordic tribes, and where the flame first burned that slowly but steadily enlightened humanity. And when these Greeks fought against the invasion of the Persian conquerors, they did not just defend their own small homeland, which was Greece, but that very concept that is now called “Europe”. And then Europe shifted from Hellas to Rome. Roman thought and Roman statecraft combined with Greek spirit and Greek culture. An empire was created, the importance and creative power of which has never been matched, much less surpassed, even to this day. And when the Roman legions defended Italy in three terrible wars against the attack of Carthage from Africa, and finally battled to victory, in this case as well Rome fought not just for herself, but for the Greco-Roman world that then encompassed Europe.
The next invasion against the home soil of this new culture of humanity came from the wide expanses of the East. A horrific storm of cultureless hordes from the center of Asia poured deep into the heart of the European continent, burning, ravaging and murdering as a true scourge of God. On the Catalaunian fields , Roman and Germanic men fought together for the first time (in 451) in a decisive battle of tremendous importance for a culture that had begun with the Greeks, passed on to the Romans, and then encompassed the Germanic peoples.”
— Adolf Hitler's speech on December 11, 1941
From the content of his war declaration speech, we can confidently infer that Hitler held a civilizationist perspective on social identity, evident beyond his articulated nationalism. He seemed to embody a vision that surpassed the narrow confines of rigid nationalism. Hitler's determination to unify the disparate regions of Germany under the banner of "Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Ein Führer" — translated as "one people, one empire, one leader" — suggests that his imperial ambitions were not limited to Germany alone. It is logical, then, that he would seek to extend his empire to encompass additional peoples and territories essential for securing vital resources, thereby fortifying his land power against the pressing threats posed by Britain and America.
At this juncture, one might interject, proposing that the exigencies of a global conflict drove Hitler's territorial and resource acquisitions, and that he did not initially aspire to elevate Germany to the status of a civilization state and empire on par with Britain, France, Russia, and America. Yet, this argument is effectively dismissed by examining his own words at the conclusion of chapter 13 and the onset of chapter 14 in Mein Kampf:
“We National Socialists must go still further: The right to land and soil becomes a duty when a great nation seems destined to go under, unless its land is extended... Germany will either be a world power, or not at all. But in order to become a world power, it needs that size which gives it the necessary importance today, and gives life to its citizens.”
“Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through our pre-war conduct of foreign policy. We resume where we left off, six centuries ago. We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe, and turn our eyes towards the land of the East. We finally shut off the colonial – and trade-policy of pre-war times, and pass over to the land-policy of the future. But when we speak of new land and soil in Europe today, we must principally think of Russia and its subject border states.”
“Our task, and the mission of the National Socialist movement, is to develop the political insight in our people that will enable them to realize that their future aim is not the fulfillment of some new and wildly adventurous March of Alexander, but rather as the industrious labor of the German plow, for which the sword will provide the soil.”
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
These excerpts from Hitler's speeches and writings make it clear that he envisioned Germany as a civilization state — an entity that must rise to the status of a great land power or cease to exist. This decisive stance stemmed from his historical analysis, which posited that great powers, notably the British Empire, would never allow Germany's peaceful ascendance. Hitler believed that Germany had to become a power equal to or greater than Britain or suffer the consequences of inferiority. His geopolitical drive was fueled by the perpetual threat he perceived from Britain, echoing the earlier geopolitical challenges faced by Napoleon Bonaparte, whose strategic legacy profoundly influenced Hitler.
The intellectual contribution of Carl Schmitt, a jurist and political philosopher of the Third Reich, to Hitler's geopolitical vision is a subject of debate. Some argue that Hitler drew inspiration from Schmitt's concept of "large spaces" for geopolitical organization, while others suggest Schmitt refined ideas originating from Hitler. Nonetheless, it is clear that the American doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" had a notable impact on the German concept of "Lebensraum" (living space). Furthermore, it can be argued that geopolitically, Hitler sought to realize a vision akin to that proposed by Count Coudenhove Kalergi in his Pan-European manifesto, subsequently echoed by Pierre Drieu La Rochelle in Fascist Socialism, and Sir Oswald Mosley's Europe a Nation. These ideas collectively influenced the eventual formation of the European Union (EU), which represents a warped culmination of these thinkers' ideas. The current structure of the EU is quite centralized, and there is an argument to be made that without the liberal democratic constraints imposed by the Globalist American Empire, the EU could achieve the vision promoted by Hitler, Coudenhove Kalergi, La Rochelle, or Mosley — a vision of a unified, sovereign civilization-state with Germany at its core. In World War II, the parallel between Germany's geopolitical aims and those of Napoleonic France became evident. The German military campaigns extended into North Africa, the Middle East, and aspirations even stretched towards India, aiming to displace British influence from the region. An example of a potential multipolar world order had the Axis Powers won the World War 2
Who was Karl Haushofer and how did he influence Adolf Hitler?
Karl Ernst Haushofer, born on August 27, 1869, and passing on March 10, 1946, was a towering figure in German history, serving as a general, professor, geographer, and diplomat. His work on "Geopolitik" significantly influenced the political philosophy of Adolf Hitler. Rudolf Hess, who was also under Haushofer's tutelage, joined Hitler in imprisonment following the failed Beer Hall Putsch. During their time at Landsberg prison, Haushofer visited to provide education and guidance to both Hess and Hitler. Additionally, Haushofer is credited with introducing the term "Lebensraum" for political purposes, a concept that Hitler would later integrate prominently into his political discourse.
From left to right: Adjutant of Alfred Hess Leitgen, Professor Karl Haushofer, Chief Medical Director Dr. Gerhard Wagner, Rudolf Hess and the German ambassador to Sweden, the Prince of Wied
The Haushofer family was recognized for their contributions to art and academia. Karl Ernst Haushofer, born in Munich, was the son of Max Haushofer, a distinguished economics professor, politician, and author of scholarly and literary works. In 1887, Karl Haushofer joined the Bavarian Army's 1st Field Artillery regiment "Prinzregent Luitpold" and completed his military education at the Bavarian War School, Artillery School, and War Academy.
In November 1908, he received orders to proceed to Tokyo as a military attaché to observe the Imperial Japanese Army and to offer artillery instruction as a military advisor. Accompanied by his wife, he journeyed through India and Southeast Asia, arriving in February 1909. There, he was welcomed by Emperor Meiji and established connections with influential figures in Japanese politics and military circles. During the fall of 1909, Haushofer and his wife spent a month in Korea and Manchuria, coinciding with the construction of a railway. They returned to Germany in June 1910 via Russia, arriving a month later. Not long after his return to Bavaria, Haushofer began to experience severe respiratory illness, leading to a three-year leave from military service. His time in Imperial Japan profoundly impacted him and would influence his geopolitical perspective for the rest of his life.
Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin has commented on this aspect of Haushofer's life, noting:
“In Japan, Haushofer saw the clearest example of a traditional society that fully preserved the hierarchy, the military samurai caste system, the values of loyalty and honor, contempt for death and the duty of sacrifice for the sake of the nation – which was seen as something far superior to the individual – as a special spatial ethnic organism, incomparably superior to any concept of an individual.”
— Alexander Dugin
Haushofer remarked in his own words the following about Japan:
“Japan, the land of the rising sun, the world of Tradition, the cult of ancestors, the cult of the elements - the Sun, the Moon, Water, mountains, streams, groves. The unique etiquette of the samurai. A warlike and heroic nation, mobilized for a common and total service to the highest solar ideal. All this contrasted sharply with what we see in our homeland, in Germany and in Europe as a whole. Cosmopolitan cities, selfishness, capitalism, the market, venality, oblivion of higher ideals. But at the same time, how close is Japan to the romantic soul of a German patriot, in love with German myths and legends, full of nostalgia for that golden feudal age, when Tradition flourished on the European continent — the age of Knights, Holy Empires and Magical Kings.”
— Karl Haushofer
Alexander Dugin further states this about Haushofer:
“Haushofer's main orientations crystallize precisely in Japan. It is here that the intellectual formation of the one who will soon become the greatest geopolitician of the twentieth century takes place. In Tokyo, Karl Haushofer receives his initiation. He becomes a member of the mysterious Japanese Order of the ‘Green Dragon’, about which so many incredible legends will be spread in the occult circles of the West. The dragon is a symbol, Rene Guenon, undoubtedly the highest authority on the symbolism of the Tradition, emphasizes that in the Far Eastern Tradition, the symbol of the dragon represents ‘Heavenly Logos’, that is, the highest spiritual and therefore purely positive instance of religious cosmology.”
— Alexander Dugin
During his period of recovery between 1911 and 1913, Haushofer pursued and completed his PhD in philosophy at Munich University, with a dissertation on Japan titled Dai Nihon: Betrachtungen über Groß-Japans Wehrkraft, Weltstellung und Zukunft (Reflections on Greater Japan's Military Strength, World Position, and Future). His expertise in Far Eastern affairs was well-regarded in Germany, and he went on to co-found the geopolitical journal Zeitschrift für Geopolitik (Magazine for Geopolitics), serving as its co-editor until publication ceased near the end of World War II. Once his health improved, Haushofer resumed his military career with Imperial Germany and took up a position teaching War History at the Military Academy in Munich. Haushofer led a brigade on the Western Front during World War I. However, he grew disenchanted with Germany's state of preparedness for war. The entry of the United States into the conflict intensified his animosity towards Americans, whom he described in harsh and derogatory terms, indicating a profound and instinctive disdain.
Haushofer's Anti-American sentiment was entwined with Anti-Semitism, a common pairing in Germany at the time. Despite being married to Martha, a woman of Jewish descent, he expressed virulently anti-Semitic views in his correspondence, accusing Jews of disloyalty and war profiteering. Haushofer believed that Germany's redemption required a strong and magnetic leader, and he expressed his readiness to support a "Caesar" figure who could utilize his capabilities. Following his retirement from the army with the rank of Major General in 1919, Haushofer developed a significant relationship with Rudolf Hess, who worked as his research assistant. Hess would later ascend to a prominent position within the Nazi party, becoming Hitler's deputy. Haushofer's influence on Hess — and through him, on Nazi ideology — would leave an indelible mark on German history.
Karl Haushofer on the left and Rudolf Hess on the right
In 1919, Karl Haushofer completed his second doctoral thesis and began teaching as a private lecturer for political geography at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. By 1933, he was appointed a professor, although he declined a formal appointment and salary to avoid affecting his military pension. Haushofer's academic pursuits were driven by a desire to help Germany recover and strengthen itself. He attributed Germany's World War I defeat in part to inadequate geographical and geopolitical insight, which resulted in unfavorable alliances. He pioneered "Geopolitik," an interdisciplinary approach that wove together geography, history, economics, demography, political science, and anthropology. Haushofer's work emphasized the concept of the state as an organism shaped by geography and history, leading to his introduction of the term "Lebensraum,” which became central to Hitler's expansionist aims.
Following Hitler's imprisonment due to the unsuccessful "Beer Hall Putsch" in 1923, Haushofer began mentoring both Hitler and his devoted follower, Rudolf Hess, while they were incarcerated at Landsberg Prison. Dedicating himself to their tutelage, Haushofer made regular visits to provide in-depth political and philosophical education, which Hitler absorbed eagerly. Every Wednesday for several months in 1924, Haushofer traveled from Munich to Landsberg to engage with his "young eagles," Hess and Hitler, offering detailed guidance that would influence the future direction of National Socialism. His reputation as a respected general and academic lent significant weight to his teachings.
From 1925 to 1931 and again from 1933 to 1939, Haushofer was a familiar voice on German radio, providing monthly broadcasts on the global political climate. This exposure made him well-known beyond academic circles. As a founding member and president (1934-1937) of the Deutsche Akademie, he was a prolific author on various subjects, especially Asia, and provided Nazi leaders and German military officials with his writings. Even after the Nazis came to power, Haushofer maintained his relationship with Hess. Preceding World War II, he played a key role in fostering the alliance between Japan and the Axis powers, aligning with the ideas presented in his influential book Geopolitics of The Pacific Ocean.
“Karl Haushofer closely associates with the Japanese samurai elite. He discusses the secret of the origin of samurai traditions, learns about the strange proximity of ancient Japanese symbols with the runic signs of the European North, Haushofer's homeland. Gradually, before his eyes, a whole picture of the ancient unity is built, some kind of forgotten civilization of heroes and warriors, uniting the expanses of Eurasia in a single spiritual political synthesis. This is how Haushofer laid the foundations for what would later become his life's work. The theory of the geopolitical unification of Eurasia into a continental bloc — from the Azores to Tokyo.”
— Alexander Dugin
Karl Haushofer was a staunch proponent of Eurasianism, espousing the geopolitical imperative for an alliance between Germany, Japan, and the lands that lay between them. He was, in many ways, Germany's counterpart to the British geographer Halford Mackinder, yet their ideologies diverged sharply. While Mackinder, a liberal thinker, viewed Asia as a threat to what he termed "English Freedom," Haushofer, with his anti-liberal traditionalist views, saw Asia as the cradle and source of "German Folkism." Whereas Mackinder advocated for Britain to disrupt and dominate Europe as a safeguard against Eastern powers, Haushofer advocated for Germany to unite Europe and advance eastward to defend against Western aggression. This ideological conflict can be framed within the broader context of "Atlanticism vs Eurasianism," where the liberal maritime powers aim to manipulate Europe to gain control over Eurasia, while the illiberal continental powers seek to fortify Europe against the encroachments of "Atlantis" (Britain and America). Europe thus becomes the key strategic theater in the struggle between the progressive, White supremacist West and the traditional, Aryan-influenced East.
On May 29, 1937, during the Spanish Civil War, a duo of Tupolev SB bombers from the Soviet-backed Spanish Republican Air Force attacked Nationalist airfields and the port of Ibiza in the Mediterranean. Launching from Los Alcázares airbase near Cartagena, the bombers mistakenly targeted the German heavy cruiser Deutschland, which was stationed offshore as part of an International Non-Intervention Committee patrol, believing it to be the Nationalist cruiser Canarias. Pilots Captain Anton Progrorin and Lieutenant Vassily Schmidt executed the bombing, resulting in severe damage, the deaths of 31 sailors, and injuries to 74 others. This event became known as the Deutschland Incident. In a communication with Rudolf Hess, Haushofer's son, Albrecht, shared his thoughts on this incident:
"One cannot avoid the conclusion that they (the British) regard neither Italy nor Japan (nor even the Soviet Union) as public enemy number one. They are once again glaring across the North Sea - at Germany."
— David Irving, Hess: The Missing Years 1941-1945
This could be the very reason why a lasting peace with Britain was unachievable, necessitating a conflict of survival between the Western-minded White English and the Eastern-oriented Aryans.
“Hess immediately asked about the possibilities of conveying the Führer's sincere wish for peace to leading British personages. 'It's clear that, if the war goes on, they will be committing suicide ... The Führer neither has nor had any desire to destroy the British empire. Is there anybody in Britain ready to talk peace?’ Haushofer used blunt language in his reply: ‘it was not just the Jews and Freemasons but virtually every Englishman who regarded any treaty signed by Hitler as worthless’. ‘Why?' asked Hess, genuinely puzzled. Haushofer pointed to the broken treaties that littered the last decade. 'In the English speaking world, the Führer is regarded as the devil's deputy on earth.’ When he added that the British would rather convey their empire piecemeal to the Americans than allow Germany to dominate Europe, Hess heatedly asked why. The diplomat pointed out that Churchill himself, being of half-American blood, (like several members of his Cabinet), would have few qualms in that respect. Reverting to Hess's original question, he said, 'My view is that the British who have property they stand to lose, that is the more calculating elements of the plutocracy, are those likely to talk about peace, but even these will only regard peace as a temporary truce.' To this Hess responded, 'Do you think our feelers haven't been getting through to them — that we have been using the wrong language?' It was obvious that he was referring to Ribbentrop (who wanted to instead ally with the Soviets and maintain a friendship with Stalin).”
— David Irving, Hess: The Missing Years 1941-1945
Hitler subscribed to Eurasianist ideas, and National Socialism was his way of actualizing a geopolitical countermeasure against the modern, Western-influenced world led by Britain and America. Haushofer envisioned liberating the "three great future peoples" — the Germans, Russians, and Japanese — from the chokehold prepared by Anglo-Saxon powers. He believed that the vigor of the "Russian bear" ought to be directed southward towards India, without encroaching upon German territories in the West or Japanese domains in the East. To Haushofer, the pervasive "dollar imperialism" represented the foremost external adversary ever since Germany's humiliation at Versailles. Despite his mixed feelings about the Bolshevik regime in Moscow — rejecting its methods but acknowledging its role in freeing Russia and potentially other nations from the "enslavement of banks and capital" — Haushofer's geopolitical vision was clear.
“The day the Germans, Japanese and Russians unite will be the last day of Anglo-Saxon hegemony.”
— Karl Haushofer
Reflecting on these insights leads to the undeniable conclusion that Adolf Hitler was a Eurasianist profoundly shaped by his geopolitical mentor, Karl Haushofer. It becomes evident that National Socialism was an ideology with an "Eastern worldview," though cloaked in the guise of Western modernism and terminology, yet fundamentally traditional and anti-Western at its core. The Germans perceived in the Japanese not merely a strategic ally, but a kindred spirit bound by a common fate — a connection rooted in the spiritual and volitional dimensions, contrasting sharply with the foreign nature of Britain and America. The foundational principle of the National Socialist ideology — blood and soil — ties Europe, Eurasia, and Asia together through a shared land that molds the character of its peoples. It is Britain and America, separated by the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean, whose maritime spirits starkly oppose those of the East. Haushofer contended that it is not Eurasia that threatens Europe but Atlantis, and for Europe to defend itself effectively, the Eurasianist vision must be realized. Hitler acknowledged this imperative, becoming the executor of Haushofer's geopolitical strategies.
Omar Amine, who previously went by the name Claudio Mutti, is an Italian philosopher with Nazi-Maoist leanings, a political analyst, and an associate of Franco Freda and Alexander Dugin. He posits that German geopolitical goals must disavow the "White race," which he categorizes as English, American, and Jewish, labeling it as antithetical to National Socialism.
He asserts:
"Not only 'anti-Semites' like Wagner and Chamberlain but also Jews like Weininger noted the relationship between the English type and the Jewish type if we are to judge by the 'origin myth' that affirms that they are both the descendants of the Israelites. It would be better to abandon the unrealistic views of those—within National-Socialism—who are filled with illusions of gaining England to their own side (a nation indisputably of the 'white race'—but the Jews and the Yankees are as well!) to the benefit of German geopolitical projects."
— Omar Amine quoted in The Disintegration of The System by Franco Freda
Lastly, I suggest watching the accompanying video to gain a deeper comprehension of the topics discussed here.
On Haushofer views and how it relates to Dugin
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 30, 2024 15:34:43 GMT -5
Reflections in February
Lina Petriti, who speaks in this video, unfortunately passed away at the end of January (2024). Although the video starts in the same way as a better-known video of the Aegina Association of Active Citizens, the remainder of the video contains a few surprises. In the video she speaks warmly of the Capodistrian Cities Network being promoted by the mayor of Aegina of that time Panagiotis Koukoulis.
The video caught the attention of Finnish librarian and activist Mikail Book, who assumed that Lina was a university academic, not a lady running a lottery ticket shop. Mikail Book had, and has, a site promoting the work of Altiero Spinelli
www.kaapeli.fi/book/spinelli/
and this led to an initiative entitled Capodistrias-Spinelli-Europe.
Spinelli has been adopted as a kind of mascot by the European Union, largely because of assumed "left wing credentials". Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn-Bendit started a Spinelli Group which gained some credibility with intellectuals. But what did they do with this credibility? They lent active support to the Maidan uprising in Ukraine and to the subsequent politics of Ukraine and NATO against the Soviet Union and then against Russia.
It seems in retrospect that rather than Spinelli the openly anti-Marxist Coudenhofe-Kalergi could have been a more promising prophet of European integration. He was hounded by Hitler as much as any Marxists or Jews were.
Kalergi's mission, which was also that of Capodistrias, remains unfulfilled.
W. Hall
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 24, 2024 14:00:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 24, 2024 3:30:20 GMT -5
Discussion with the office of former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating
Dear Mr Hall
Yes, you may share the reply with your friends.
Thank you for your understanding of Mr Keating’s position.
Kind regards
Susan Grusovin
From: wayne
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 4:42 PM
To: Grusovin, Susan
Subject: Re: Telephone
Dear Mrs Grusovin,
This is a polite answer and thank you for it.
May I send it to others?
Best wishes,
Wayne Hall
On 1/24/2024 6:05 AM, Grusovin, Susan
Dear Mr Hall
We have received your many emails over the months and been copied in to many more from your colleagues as well.
As you might imagine, Mr Keating receives a great deal of correspondence on various topics and many requests to meet people and address events.
But after over fifty years of speaking out on issues, these days he is paring back his activities, preferring to contribute to the public discourse when and in ways he chooses, including on matters such as the AUKUS treaty to which you refer.
Unfortunately, he will not be available to correspond or speak with you or your group further, having as he does, plenty on his plate already.
Thank you for your interest in contacting Mr Keating.
Sincerely
Susan Grusovin
From: wayne Sent:
Tuesday, January 23, 2024 8:43 PM
To: Grusovin, Susan
Subject: Telephone call
Good morning,
This is a videoed discussion of the proposal I sent to you. Your comment and indeed a comment from Mr. Keating would be much appreciated.
main.cse-initiative.eu/?p=1130
Sincerely,
Wayne Hall
Subject: Telephone call Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 01:05:39 +0200 From: wayne To: Susan grusovin
Dear Susan,
I telephoned your office a few minutes ago. My telephone numbers are xxxxxxx and mobile xxxxxxxxxx
But e-mail communication is what I normally prefer.
Hoping to hear from you.
Best wishes,
Wayne Hall
This link gives a good outline of the situation Australians, like others, are facing: www.globalresearch.ca/wef-davos-2024-world-falling-apart-show-must-go-on/5846274
From: wayne
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 6:55 AM
To: Nikos Vako
Cc: James Roguski
Subject: A suggestion for Mr. Paul Keating
The suggestion is that Mr Keating should contact Winston Peters and support Liz Gunn's message to him as a first step for present and former politicians and as a move towards inauguration of an international movement starting from Australia and New Zealand.
Here is another link:
rumble.com/v46tlu9-the-media-circus-has-left-town-but-barry-young-still-faces-jail.-hows-that-.html
W.
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: A further gesture towards ex-PM of Australia Paul Keating Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 16:21:59 +0000 From: Nikos Vako To: wayne
Thank you Wayne! Nikos ________________________________________ From: wayne Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2024 4:45 PM To: Nikos Vako ; Vivianne S ; nigelutton; Evangelos Venetis ; Catherine Printziou Subject: Fwd: A further gesture towards ex-PM of Australia Paul Keating
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: A further gesture towards ex-PM of Australia Paul Keating Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 16:16:31 +0200 From: wayne To: Susan grusovin CC: James Roguski
Dear Susan,
Some months ago Paul Keating was at the centre of public controversy over Australian foreign policy. It had started previously.
Here is a relevant section of the Wikipedia entry: "In September 2021, following the announcement of the AUKUS trilateral military alliance between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, Keating criticised the alliance, saying that "Australia turns its back on the 21st century, the century of Asia, for the jaded and faded Anglosphere" and the deal would be "locking the country and its military forces into the force structure of the United States" ...... "In January 2022, Keating accused British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss of making "demented" comments about Chinese military aggression in the Pacific, saying that "Britain suffers delusions of grandeur and relevance deprivation."[113] In 2023, Keating went on to call the AUKUS pact "the worst deal in all history" and lambasting the Labor government for being "incompetent" and stating that the decision was the worst by a Labor government since Billy Hughes attempted to introduce conscription during World War I."
This is a reply I received a few days ago:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Automatic reply: Two new links Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:39:59 +0000 From: Grusovin, Susan To: wayne Thank you for your email. This office will be effectively closed until Monday 15 January 2024 with limited email access. Thank you, Susan. (end of message)
Susan, I had asked some high school fellow "old boys" resident in Sydney if they were willing to request a real-life meeting with Mr. Keating if they would like to try to discuss with him the present situation confronting Australians. One of them, a Vietnam war veteran, replied "Sorry, but I'm not the one to approach any politician." But he did also make some other comments: "Australia needs to align itself with a power - like most other small countries. We've consistently chosen the UK and the USA. That now includes NATO and Japan. China is clearly a bully. We need to stand up to them. To align ourselves with China, but more accurately kowtow to them would be gross folly. Going along with the USA and NATO has its risks and sometimes gets us involved in dubious ventures such as Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Ukraine. But it also sometimes helps us, such as in WW2. The world is changing. The BRICS bloc is developing into a possible rival with the Euro/NATO bloc. I would say we should NOT entertain thoughts about joining the BRICS bloc. .."
Paul Keating has always been associated with conceptions of Australia being "a part of Asia" but this had different implications fifty years ago before China became what it is now. (For the war veteran just mentioned it is "a bully". For a variety of other critics it is a Communist dictatorship [no change])
On the other hand, there are some very sanguine views: theduran.com/facts-which-show-that-china-wont-be-imperialist-which-america-is/
Hopefully here in Greece in the coming summer, at the annual film festival held at the Kollatos estate in Aegina, it will be possible for the following interview on China to be screened, with Greek subtitles (https://rumble.com/v3dx8ko-is-china-a-friend-or-enemy-of-the-new-world-order-tish-talks-with-matt-ehre.html) (Slightly edited English transcript attached).
Susan, as with the e-mail sent to you a few days ago, on 12th January, a bcc is now being sent to Mr. James Roguski in California. Even if "old boys" in Sydney are not available, James Roguski may be interested in contact with Paul Keating, if Mr. Keating is. James's subject is of course not just China but "the present situation confronting Australians" (and not only Australians).
This is what we talked about with Mr. Roguski just before Christmas: rumble.com/v45rt8u-the-yellow-revolution-meeting-with-logan-courtney.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=43
Is Paul Keating interested in this discussion? Hoping for a response.
Wayne Hall
Aegina, Greece
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 21, 2024 23:19:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 21, 2024 8:28:55 GMT -5
Rusere Shoniwa:
"Contrary to the rage expressed and amplified in the media, we actually do know how to get along and respect each other’s differences. We do know what matters to most of us, and it’s not reflected in the spurious ‘Left’ / ‘Right’ labels or the media’s hate fest."
This "getting along and respecting each other's differences" may be an important factor behind "the public's" general reluctance or unwillingness to subscribe to the revelations of those the media and politicians describe as "conspiracy theorists". Without this usually being articulated, the public is mostly pretty well aware that any controversial assertion is likely to be, or become, one side of a "divide and rule" scenario. In the interest of "getting along and respecting each other's differences" the public will therefore tend to avoid public identification with anything perceived to be controversial.
Of course this same public just as frequently tends to parrot what is persistently and uniformly projected by the mainstream media. The two tendencies coexist, sometimes even in the same individual.
When Rusere endorses a British party called "The Independent Alliance" he seems to be doing more or less, if not exactly, the same as what a supporter of, e.g. the New Zealand Party called N.Z. Loyal, is doing, however opposite the proclamation of independence seems to be prima facie from the proclamation of loyalty.
To me the loyalty proclamation seems less of a cliche, more remote from the assumptions of liberalism, less shopworn.
W.H.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 21, 2024 8:04:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 21, 2024 6:32:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
WOKE
Jan 19, 2024 23:48:59 GMT -5
Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 19, 2024 23:48:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 19, 2024 23:39:52 GMT -5
Ambivalence about China
|
|