« On the subject of lousy service | HomePage | Will America get the debate out of Obama that we need? »

Sunday, February 17, 20081203272100

Kosovo Day

Congratulations to Kosovo, the newest country in the world!


"Kosovo is a republic - an independent, democratic and sovereign state"


Kosovo's independence was made possible through military support from NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the EU, or European Union. Fittingly, Kosovo's independence will be announced through the "Ode to Joy," Europe's national anthem.


The Political-Military Ruleset



The Political-Economic Ruleset


Kosov's independence is another milepost in NATO's and the EU's expansion into the lands of the fallen Communist empire. The latest central remnant of that empire, now called the Russian Federation, It also is just the latest bit torn from Yugoslavia, a country hapless enough to decide to be a Russian satellite


The Remains of Yugoslavia


Kosovo, welcome to freedom!

On the webCatholicgauzeZenpundit

12:15 Posted in Europe | Permalink | Comments (38) | Tags: Kosovo, Serbia, EU, NATO, Yugoslavia

Comments

Serbia's been reduced to its historical territory, the pashalik of Belgrade. History has its irony.

Posted by: Adrian | Sunday, February 17, 2008

So is this it for Serbia, no more breakaway regions? What ethnic conflicts are likely to continue? Hungarians in the North, Rumanians in the East, Bulgarians the Southeast, Albanians in the Southwest, Bosniaks in the West? A fascinating region, politico-ethnically. Now that Serbia has been reduced, time to make nice and lure them from the Russian camp?

Posted by: Moon | Sunday, February 17, 2008

"Act up and we will mess you up" [1] --- hopefully Russia gets the message [2,3].

From Stratfor, in Decembertime [4]:

"If the United States and some European powers can create an independent Kosovo without regard to Russian wishes, Putin’s prestige in Russia and the psychological foundations of his grand strategy will suffer a huge blow. If Kosovo is granted independence outside the context of the United Nations, where Russia has veto power, he will be facing the same crisis Yeltsin did. If he repeats Yeltsin’s capitulation, he will face substantial consequences. Putin and the Russians repeatedly have warned that they wouldn’t accept independence for Kosovo, and that such an act would lead to an uncontrollable crisis."

[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/02/22/the_brutal_colonizer.html
[2] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2007/12/20/the-rise-of-europe.html
[3] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2007/06/09/the-dismemberment-of-those-states-that-oppose-us.html
[4] http://blogs.stratfor.com/friedman/2007/12/18/russia-kosovo-and-the-asymmetry-of-percept

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Dan tdaxp, your unbridled triumphalism is a tad premature. A "declaration of independence" does not equal independence, nor does it promise the formation of a successful, stable, and secure nation state.

Posted by: ortho stice | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Ortho,

Thank you for your comment.

"A "declaration of independence" does not equal independence,"

Perhaps. Certainly, the fate of Kosovo has been independent of Serbian will since 1999, long before the declaration.

"nor does it promise the formation of a successful, stable, and secure nation state."

That will come if and when Kosovo unites with Albania, I imagine.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Actually there isn't much interest in Albania of uniting with Kosovo. The idea of a "greater Albania" is just playing off Serb paranoia IMO.

Posted by: Adrian | Sunday, February 17, 2008

The Trashed Ruleset: The UN Security Council (not that it was ever all that good anyways).

This whole Kosovo escapade reeks. From Wesley Clark's ramroding the "Kosovo War" down the collective throats of NATO to the "We will not send in Ground Troops" line from BJ Clinton to the utter lack of action in actually bringing Serbia into "Europe." And now we have another Albanian mafia-run Muslim nation in Europe. Congratulations.

And don't get too excited over the expansion of "Europe." Europe is barely democratic--rather it's a regime of bureaucracies.

Even the whole Kosovo War reminds me of an old DDR Quote: "You pretend to govern. We will pretend to obey." Adapted to the Kosovo Conflict: "We pretend to fight. Serbia pretends to submit."

Posted by: Smitten Eagle | Sunday, February 17, 2008

You're forgetting the autonomous region of Vojvodina in the north of Serbia.

Posted by: Michael | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Kosovo is a lesson in demographics. It was around 88% Kosovar Albanian when Milosevic was merely a Yugoslav Communist bureaucrat. Now it's what ? 94 % Albanian? Most of whom felt Milosevic's repressive hand for six or seven years before the Kosovo War.

Kosovo is lost to Serbia regardless of whether independence results in a successful state or not.

Posted by: zenpundit | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Vojvodina is a demographic history going the other way -- peaking at 28.5% Hungarian in the 1940s, now the Magyars are less than 15% of the population of that autonomous province.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Kosovo is lost to Serbia, but far from independent. Rather it will putter forward much like Bosnia does, also under UN administration. Both now have 'sovereignty', although the degree to which each state is responsible for itself is minimal since the UN has a tendency of being too direct in its nation building endeavors.

Although the Russians don't like this, they're still going to use it to screw up other nationalist conflicts around the region, like in Moldova and Georgia. In that sense, a new European conflict is now arising as East and West no longer are united in their acceptance of legitimate state boundaries. This creates great opportunities for separatists in weak states as they can use the international discord for added legitimacy and support.

And as this completes the last episode in Yugoslavia's breakup, it begins a new one where Serbia is defiantly saying 'fuck off' to the West and embracing an identity as a 'revisionist' state. If NATO/EU had better managed the breakup and subsequent post-conflict situations afterwards, this could have been avoided.

Posted by: Stephen Pampinella | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Stephen,

"Although the Russians don't like this, they're still going to use it to screw up other nationalist conflicts around the region, like in Moldova and Georgia. In that sense, a new European conflict is now arising as East and West no longer are united in their acceptance of legitimate state boundaries."

Aren't you describing the situation as it's existed since the early 1990s?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Putin is wrong in a number of ways but he is right about one thing. Kosovo independence awakens a lot of simmering resentment among a lot of long standing ethnic, national, tribal submersions. America may some day find an ethnic, national breakaway southwest and west. Who does Tom Jefferson think he is to buy The land from the French Emperor for a paltry $11.million. An American Army occupied Mexico City when we "paid" for a slice of Northern Mexico from Santa Anna to get a better connecting route to the West Coast. Will Russia think the Czar and John Hay cut too sweet a deal for Mother Russia to swallow today? Funny about the number 11. Alaska cost $11.m too, didn't it? Nationality today is like marriage. Open marriage is a short term relationship and breakup is often nasty.

Posted by: Robert C. Brenzel, Sr | Sunday, February 17, 2008

I can remember while I was in Kosovo (Now Kosova) those Serbian villages I used to visit and how resentful those people were regarding our (KFOR) "humanitarian intervention." God, I'm glad I don't have to look those folks in the eye today. But as was pointed out above, the side who has children will always win in the end. The Sex-bomb is more powerful than any thermonuclear device.

I often wonder what the purpose of the "intervention" was anyway? Did US planners see Serbia as a growing regional hegemon? Could the conflict in Kosovo have grown into a larger regional war? Was there a key pipeline which ran through Kosovo?

I think it was to stop a larger conflict. With Albanians agitating for a Greater Albania, the involvement of Middle Eastern fighters and Russian mercenaries, and the possibility of Russia sending ground forces, I think the US and NATO wanted to keep it from getting out of control.

But what does this mean for the future? Is Southern Macedonia now fair game for Albanian expansion? Is this precedent for future separatism? Is breeding the new face war? (69GW?)

Posted by: Seerov | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Does this mean that the services of tdaxp al Mujahid[1] are no longer needed?

[1]: http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/06/11/free-kosovo-free-beer-a-tdaxp-fatwa.html

Posted by: Brendan | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Correction above: I meant Northern Macedonia.

Posted by: Seerov | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Robert,

Please rephrase.

Brendan,

Wherever the forces of tyranny and darkness threaten, the Mujahid is always needed.

Seerov,

Whatever the human rights justification, the wars against Yugoslavia pulverized the only European state stupid enough to sign up with the Russians after the fall of the Soviet Empire.

Putin's rise complements this nicely -- having alienated Transdneistra, Belarus, and various kleptocrats in Ukraine, the stans, and elsewhere, he's busy strangling the regimes naive enough to maintain their client relationship with Moscow.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, February 17, 2008

Do you think that was the purpose, closing in Russian influence? Here's Chomsky's take on it. Pretty interesting interview and it does correspond well with this purpose. Check it out:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1173294088504833509&q=chomsky+serbia&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Posted by: Seerov | Monday, February 18, 2008

tdaxp said: "Whatever the human rights justification, the wars against Yugoslavia pulverized the only European state stupid enough to sign up with the Russians after the fall of the Soviet Empire."

Unless, of course, you include Bielorussia. But there are no human-rights abuses there...oh...wait...nevermind.

So originally it was all about the vaunted Barnettian Rulesets. Now it's Demographics.

So if this is all about Demographics, then how long until the so-called Special Security Zones surrounding Paris and teeming with "youths" from North Africa declare independence? If Algeria can declare independence from France, why not the Zones?

Heck...lets just let Aztlan go it's own way. If demographics are destiny, bye bye Texas, Cali, New Mexco, Arizona, Colorado...

I can think of a dozen other cases.

The whole Kosovo case merely underscores the supreme lack of grand strategy employed by the US throughout the 1990s. By shrouding the whole sordid affair in "Rulesets" and then "Demographics" we made ourselves tools for idiots in places that aren't worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier.

Posted by: Smitten Eagle | Monday, February 18, 2008

"Heck...lets just let Aztlan go it's own way. If demographics are destiny, bye bye Texas, Cali, New Mexco, Arizona, Colorado..."

I already consider these places as gone. And with France's "youth" problem not getting any better, you can be sure that the Caliph will be returning to Europe again.

"The whole Kosovo case merely underscores the supreme lack of grand strategy employed by the US throughout the 1990s. By shrouding the whole sordid affair in "Rulesets" and then "Demographics" we made ourselves tools for idiots in places that aren't worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier."

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here? What strategy should the US have employed in Kosovo?(If Any) Please help me, as I surely don't favor making myself an idiot for people not worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier?

Despite my confusion, I still stand by the demographics is destiny statement. There's a fairly good reason that "Conservative" Republicans are calling their tradiontional voters "racists" and "bigots." Eventually, the Euro Elite will start to favor the "youths" outside of France as well.

I don't see the connection between me making this observation and Tom Barnett's terminology? Perhaps you see it as too simple? Too sweeping?

Posted by: Seerov | Monday, February 18, 2008

Smitten,

"Unless, of course, you include Bielorussia. But there are no human-rights abuses there...oh...wait...nevermind."

As I mentioned in my comment, Belarus retained its client relationship with Moscow up to the early 2000s, when Putin servered it (as he did with Transdneistra, etc.)

"The whole Kosovo case merely underscores the supreme lack of grand strategy employed by the US throughout the 1990s. "

As Seerov asks, what then would you have suggested in its place?

Seerov,

What is the difference between racism and white nationalism?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, February 18, 2008

I suggest a grand strategy based on national interest. If such national interest existed, I doubt BJ Clinton would have prohibited a ground invasion in the first place. His unwillingness to commit anything more than tactically ineffective airstrikes illustrates both the featherweight case for war, and the equally lighweight graveness of the conflict.

Ultimately the US had no business in Kosovo. A better policy toward Serbia: containment, combined with policies to integrate the European, Christian nation of Serbia into the European economy. But that is a road not taken, and we still have an economically backward Serbia, supported by Russia in the midst of southern Europe. We also have an economically unviable and backwards Albanian-Mafia-run "state" of Kosovo that about a half-dozen countries have a grudge against (Russia, Serbia, Greece, Macedonia, Cyprus...). Oh--and NATO will still be committed to this strategically worthless backwater.

The purpose of a grand strategy & foreign policy: Strengthen our alliances, pump up morale, and disrupt, isolate & fragment the alliances of our enemies, and reduce their morale. I submit that the Kosovo affair has done the exact opposite.

The only interest we really served in fighting the Kosovo war was the KLA's interest. After the fighting concluded and Kosovo was "ruled" by the UN, the Kosovo affair rather embodied the interests of Europe vs. Russia. Now this worthless province is giving cause to an even more antagonized Russia. Pointless.

Posted by: Smitten Eagle | Monday, February 18, 2008

"Aren't you describing the situation as it's existed since the early 1990s?"

Not necessarily, the Russians are a lot stronger now than way back when. In the 1990s, they were too weak to stop us from slapping down Milosevic. Nowadays, they show no qualms about leveraging their power to complicate our interests.

I also responded to Smitten's comments at my own blog.

Posted by: Stephen Pampinella | Monday, February 18, 2008

Smitten,

"The purpose of a grand strategy & foreign policy: Strengthen our alliances, pump up morale, and disrupt, isolate & fragment the alliances of our enemies, and reduce their morale. I submit that the Kosovo affair has done the exact opposite.
"

Could you elaborate? I'm unsure about how Kosovo now provides signs of strength (instead of weakness) to our enemies, or how coming through for our on-the-ground allies from 1999 reduces their morale.

Stephen,

Russia's transition from the early 1990s to now mirrors their transition from the early 1960s to late 1970s -- more cash, less territorial control. This has been their consistent strategy, or death spiral, for quite a long time, and it is wonderful that it shows no signs in letting up.

Catholicgauze has a great article on Kosovo [1], by the way.

[1] http://catholicgauze.blogspot.com/2008/02/kosovo-worlds-newest-country.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, February 18, 2008

I'd be happy to elaborate.

Perhaps "enemy" is too strong of a word. "Adversary" or "Challenger" may be more appropriate.

In the case of Kosovo, our challengers were certainly the Serbs and the Russians. We have now given strength to them by dismembering Serbian territory, and giving more strength to the brand of politics that pits the Russians against the West. (In that type of politics the Russians have a clear advantage.)

Had we instead focused on bringing Serbia into the European club--by perhaps focusing on military-to-military training, promises of aid, etc., we might today be dealing with a fast-tracking of Serbia into NATO membership, thereby removing Russia's last ally in Southern Europe. In doing so, we could have also trapped the Milosovic-driven nationalism in a real web of rulesets. Instead we chose to place the Milosovic nationalism in perminant stasis--this brand of nationalism will forever be able to claim to be a victim of the West.

As far as "coming through for our on-the-ground Allies" goes, our only on-the-ground Ally was the KLA by default. So, yes, I suppose we did pump up their morale by helping to fight their war. At the same time, you will recall that our actual treaty-bound allies in NATO were not so pumped about this discretionary war. Recall how this fighting, far from strengthening the alliance, nearly destroyed it. It was such a delicate operation that seemed to place more emphasis on papering over fissures in the alliance than was actually focused on the enemy.

Posted by: Smitten Eagle | Monday, February 18, 2008

Smitten,

"Perhaps "enemy" is too strong of a word. "Adversary" or "Challenger" may be more appropriate."

One might also refer to bargaining partners, other interested parties, etc.

"In the case of Kosovo, our challengers were certainly the Serbs and the Russians. We have now given strength to them by dismembering Serbian territory"

a) Do you believe that Serbia has greater international standing now than before?
b) Do you disagree with Stratfor's analysis on the challenge to Russian power, that was disussed above?

"and giving more strength to the brand of politics that pits the Russians against the West. (In that type of politics the Russians have a clear advantage.)"

c) What evidence do you have to support this?

"Had we instead focused on bringing Serbia into the European club--by perhaps focusing on military-to-military training, promises of aid, etc., we might today be dealing with a fast-tracking of Serbia into NATO membership, thereby removing Russia's last ally in Southern Europe."

Certainly there is a question of whether states that become clients of Russia and proceed to engage in military action against the United States should gain or lose from such a course of policy. I clearly support punishing bad acts and reward good ones.

"In doing so, we could have also trapped the Milosovic-driven nationalism in a real web of rulesets. Instead we chose to place the Milosovic nationalism in perminant stasis--this brand of nationalism will forever be able to claim to be a victim of the West."

d) How long of a time period do you mean by "permanent" and "forever"?

"As far as "coming through for our on-the-ground Allies" goes, our only on-the-ground Ally was the KLA by default. So, yes, I suppose we did pump up their morale by helping to fight their war. At the same time, you will recall that our actual treaty-bound allies in NATO were not so pumped about this discretionary war. Recall how this fighting, far from strengthening the alliance, nearly destroyed it. It was such a delicate operation that seemed to place more emphasis on papering over fissures in the alliance than was actually focused on the enemy."

I was referring to continually supporting our allies, whereas your response criticizes the wisdom of making them allies in the first place. An interesting discussion, but off-topic.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, February 18, 2008

"What is the difference between racism and white nationalism?" (-Dan tdaxp)

Dan tdaxp,

I'm not sure why you're asking me this, but I will attempt to answer. Ethnopolitics has become a great interest of mine, and I think I have the necessary background to addresses this. I need to go work on some reading for school right now (while my brain still works, it stops at about 12 midnight)but will be back later with an essay.

Posted by: Seerov | Monday, February 18, 2008

I sort-of, kind-of have to agree with love bird on this topic-- I'm not sure if supporting Kosovo's independence helps our strategic interests.

Way I see it, those interests consist of the following:
* Preventing genocidal violence between the Albanians and Serbs. Apart from the mandates of simple humanity, preventing a repeat of the refugee flows and radicalisation of the 90s- on Europe's doorstep- is in the interests of everone in NATO.
* Eliminating the portion of the Gap that's within the Balkans.
* Keeping Russia from leaving the Core.

The first would have been served as easily by upgrading Kosovo to full republic status within Yugoslavia. More so if that status translated to equal political and military status under the same government. Independence puts minorities in both countries at the mercy of their landlords.

The second is accomplished by independence only to the extent that Kosovo is granted access to IMF funds and the like-- which could have been accomplished by changing the rules to allow loans to UN-administered areas. To the extent that Serbian pride is hurt along with their trust of the West, Serbian progress towards the Core is jeopardised.

As the Russians have a fair degree of their own national pride tangled up in this issue, showing them that they can't get what they want by playing by the West's rules threatens their willingness to play by the West's rules. This isn't to say that we should have let them have their way, but openly backing the outcome they didn't want without at least talking to them first or looking for a compromise isn't smart on our part.

I'm positive I just overlooked something in my analysis, but I'm hungry and dehydrated. Have fun dismembering this while I seek dinner.

Posted by: Michael | Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Michael,

Thank you for your excellent comment. I'd rephrase your strategic goals as possible

* Preventing political violence from existing in the Balkans such that France, Germany, and Britain materially support opposing sides (as existed in the early 1990s war
* Moving the Balkans Seam into the Core while preventing any of it from sliding into the Gap
* Minimizing Russian influence

Working through your explanations, I'd reply

a) Every other consituent republic of Yugoslavia has seceeded, as was their constitutional right. Elevating Kosovo to a Republic would lead to a rapid secesion vote. If anyone suggested this to Serbia, it's not surprising they didn't fall for the rouse.

b) The second is accomplished by strenghthening the EU/NATO ruleset in the Balkans while preventing the infiltration of jihadis and other ne'er-do-wells. As the Slavic ruleset to dealing with Muslim insurgencies is to kill off the moderates, generating an Islamist opposition (see Chechnya, Dagestan, et al), preventing the Slavs from repeating their performance in Kosovo was vital for failure avoidance, while rewarding EU/NATO friends and punishing EU/NATO enemies (adversaries, whatever) strengthens the Core.

c) Over the past decades, Russia has transitioned from a phony industrial power that exports energy (1980s), to a phony industrial power (1990s), to a state that exports energy (2000s). While Russia is New Core in some ways, it's a power on its way out, not up. Their actions reflect this, as they diplomatically supported Serbia during her war against both NATO and the Kosovars, as the Russian military attempted to block NATO use of the Pristina airport, etc.

Seerov,

I'm looking forward to it!

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, February 19, 2008

I'm going to post the essay now.

Posted by: Seerov | Thursday, February 21, 2008

"What is the difference between racism and white nationalism?" (-Dan tdaxp)


For some unknown reason, Dan at tdaxp has asked me to answer the above question. His reason for asking me is a bit of a mystery, but due to my interest in Western ethno-politics, I will attempt to give him an answer. The best reason I can come up with for him asking me this is probably due to some of my postings on his blog. These postings sometimes go beyond the comfortable boundaries of someone socialized in the West in the last 40 years. Regardless of the reason for my assignment, I will answer this honestly and thoughtful as possible. If any negative consequences occur as a result of this essay, please understand that “I was only following orders.”

To begin to answer, we have to first ponder what the word “racism” is all about. The Encarta Dictionary has two definitions: (1) animosity or prejudice against peoples who belong to other races; (2) the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior.

Seems simple enough, but is it? Why is someone like Al Sharpton who has a history of “animosity” towards whites and Jews and who’s actions even led to the deaths of seven people at the Jewish owned “Freddy’s Fashion Mart”-in New York- not considered to be a racist? How can someone who refers to Jews as “diamond merchants” and to whites as “white interlopers” not be marginalized in our racially sensitive society? And I’m not trying to single out Sharpton, I can give example after example of “respectable” people saying and doing things that would normally be considered “racist” and not see any consequences for doing so.

Of course I’m not saying anything new here. Every somewhat free thinking white person has had these thoughts despite at times being too afraid to admit to it. This feeling of fear is so strong, that if white people even do admit to thinking these forbidden thoughts, they usually have a tourette syndrome-like qualifier which goes something like this “I’m not a racist but” ………… This tourette-like qualifier is strong evidence of the powerful forces of socialization which cannot be considered universal socialization, as if it were; we’d see it in other races as well. In fact, this socialization process is so strong, that there even exists a school of thought which espouses the idea that the only people who can be “racist” are whites.

The second definition is even more controversial. If one is to believe that no differences have occurred from the evolutionary process of human beings, then by default, the movie “White Men Can’t Jump” must be considered inherently racist. Of course it’s not considered racist, but as a Nobel Prize winner recently found out, displaying any sort of dissent towards the orthodoxy relating to human diversity is so dangerous, that an individuals’ life can actually be ruined as a result.

So why is this term “racism” such a confusing ordeal? Why doesn’t it apply to everyone? Why are there “no-go” areas of scholarship when relating to race? To answer this, we have to go to the source of the word itself.

While I have found a couple explanations for the word, all sources seem to point to early 20th century leftwing scholars. Lawrence Dennis, author of “The Coming of American Fascism” and Magnus Hirschfeld author of the book “Racism” seem to be the first to coin the word in english. While there’s not much on Dennis that I could find, I did find an article on Hirschfeld. I’m posing the link to the article at the bottom of the page because it can offer a better explanation than I can. [1] As I expected, the word was mainly intended to use as a slur against European ethno-Nationalism and anyone else who thought of race in terms contrary to leftwing ideology. As we can see today, the term is not so much a word, as it’s a weapon, wielded by people who wish to discredit, embarrass, or destroy. The word can also be used for explanatory reasons too. If children are underperforming in school, it must be the hidden racism of the teachers. If someone doesn’t get the promotion, it must be the racist boss. If one neighborhood is poorer than another, it must be systemic racism. If kids of the same ethnic group sit together in the lunchroom, it must be the racism of the parents. If people get mad, riot in the streets and pull white people from their cars to beat on, this is only out of frustration for the racist society they live in. If people don’t vote for someone, it could be racism too.

In the West, racism has replaced the concept of “original sin” that our Christian forefathers/mothers believed. Today, were all born racists and only by accepting the religion of Political Correctness can we hope to find salvation. The high priests of Political Correctness can be found in our universities and media outlets and any sort of dissent from the faith will make one a heretic. In Europe and Canada, one can actually find themselves thrown in jail for questioning the faith, similar to people offending the profit Muhammad in Muslim Countries.

So “racism” is nothing but a control mechanism. Used by people to crush unpopular ideas and to keep the populace in order. This brings me to the next half of the essay; what is White Nationalism?

White Nationalism can mean many things but it’s mainly associated with white political interests. This shouldn’t be mixed up with White Supremacy. White Supremacy is the belief that whites are superior to other races. It’s possible to be a white supremacist and not a white nationalist. Someone could believe that whites are superior but work as a civil rights attorney who shakes down businesses for not hiring enough non-whites. A white nationalist is a person who believes that whites have legitimate political interests and feels that they should pursue them. White nationalism works on a continuum. It can range from people who feel that better care should made by the schools to celebrate western history, appose affirmative action, and draw attention to crime against whites, to people who believe that whites should have their own ethno-State. It’s similar to the environmental movement. On one side you have the Serria Club (American Renaissance), and on the other you have the Earth Liberation Front (Aryan Nations). However, in the media and schools, all these groups are one in the same.

Its important to understand how White Nationalism relates to “Conservative” politics. Conservatives are supposed to oppose Affirmative Action, oppose open borders, support gun rights, and generally oppose shenanigans by so called “civil rights” activists. Does this mean that Conservatives are White Nationalists? (For now on I’ll use WN) I would say no, but they do share some characteristics. In general, WN are less concerned with abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools. While many WN are Christians, I would consider their movement to be secular. WN are more concerned with Homer being taught in the schools than they are with the Bible. The biggest difference I see between the two relates to foreign policy. Most WN are opposed to the war in Iraq and many are opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Where Conservatives and WN really, really, really spilt, is on the subject of Israel and Jews. Where Conservatives adore Israel and feel that “Israel’s interests are our interests” WN strongly disagree. This too, runs on the continuum. Some WN, like the American Renaissance people, see Jews as White and shun anti-Semitism. Others, like Psychologist Kevin Macdonald, believe that Jews are a competing ethnic group, and that Jews have played a role in undermining white interests. The most radical groups like Aryan Nations see Jews as the “Seed of Satan” who should be liquidated. On economic issues, WN can range from protectionist to free trade, but overall not much can be found regarding this. Issues such as the size of the government or levels of public health tend to vary from Libertarianism to even National Socialism.

White nationalism is growing and will be more of a force in the future. While in the past, it only attracted the dregs of society and a few eccentric academics, it now appears to be attracting “normal” middle/working class people. The reason for this is twofold. First, the demographic situation in America is changing and second, mainstream politicians are seen as neglecting whites and pandering to their new and future constituents. While Lindsey Gram and John McCain call whites concerned about immigration “racists”, people are starting to look to those who don’t. People are seeing their children’s schools overcrowding, hospitals shut down, crime increase, and wages fall. They’re also seeing the buildings in their communities turn from George Washington to MLK and also becoming more sensitive to the anti-western rhetoric being taught in the schools.

The rise of the internet is also a huge factor in the rise of WN. Besides being able to read various perspectives besides the normal left-right scam, they can now become aware of news stories that are normally covered up. About a year ago, there was a terrible killing in Knoxville Tennessee. Two white college kids were kidnapped, beaten, raped, cut to pieces, and burned by six blacks. It was probably one of the worst crimes I ever heard of. It was the type of crime that you would hear about on the national news. It didn’t get on the national news but in a matter of days, it had spread through the internet like wildfire. It seemed like it was being talked about everywhere and eventually became a national story based on how much internet traffic it got. People became aware of it but it started with a handful of WN talking about it. Eventually it showed up in some major news outlets and WN considered it a victory. The networking power of the internet is well understood here so I don’t think I need to go on.

I try to think about WN like other movements that have sprang up in history. From what I can tell, most political movements start in an intellectual stage. Marx wrote the communist manifesto in 1848 and it didn’t bare fruit for at least 60-70 years. The neoconservative Strauss planted the seeds for that ideology in the 60’s and 40 years later we see the results. I see the early 1990’s as the beginning of the modern WN movement and believe the 2020’s will be the time it becomes a political force. The 20’s will mark the downside of the 50 year economic cycle that the American economy goes through and by then, whites will no longer be the majority in America.

Europe will see a similar situation. Traditionally, the concept of “White Nationalism” has not existed in Europe. European identity was based on National identity and the concept of “white” meant nothing. With the rise of Islam and a similar outlook by the political and business elite, this will change. For the first time since the siege in Vienna, Pol’s and Germans will be reacting to the Islamic demographic as “Europeans” as they will have no choice. The situation there is “heating up” as I write this.

The reaction to WN in America will be similar to other multi-ethnic States. Hate speech laws, internet censorship, intense political indoctrination in the schools, and forced integration will be the norm. Instead of giving people the right to separate and live with who they wish, the state will do all it can to “dilute” any homogenous enclaves (except for where the elite live). We saw this in the former Soviet Union when the State brought in ethnic Russians to the Baltic States and Central Asian States. If you read any ethnic conflict literature, you’ll see that large enclaves start the most “trouble.” Most of all, the media will do its best to make people think that the 4th Reich is close to being. This is key, as people must be scared. Don’t be surprised if some kind of “War on Hate” is expanded from the “War on Terror.” The current elite like the status quo and WN as a movement threatens this status quo. The current left-right sham serves the elite well, and they will not tolerate any change that they don’t authorize.

So, the answer to the question: “What is the difference between racism and white nationalism” is NOTHING, and at the same time EVERTHING. To some people White Nationalism must be made to be racism, hate, Nazism, genocide, death, war, and intolerance. To others, trying to survive a multi-ethnic state, White Nationalism will be a sense of belonging, pride, HOPE, survival, CHANGE, and transformation. As for me, I’ll be reading about it in a cabin in the woods, far, far away.


[1] http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/the_origins_of.php

Posted by: Seerov | Thursday, February 21, 2008

Seerov,

Thank you for your well-written reply.

Clearly, the second definition of racism ("") is poorly written, as "the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities," is factually testable and probably true, while it's not clear whether "that some races are inherently superior or inferior." is speaking on empirical or normative grounds.

The first definition of racism, "animosity or prejudice against peoples who belong to other races," appears to describe a psychological rather than political orientation, and so is not too useful.

The paragraphs "White National can mean many things..." and "Its important to understand..." are particularly illuminating. An excellent description in some detail of a broad political movement.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 21, 2008

The unfortunate reality of Russia's nuclear arsenal suggests there's only so much that can be done- and even less that should be done- to minimize their influence. Look, for example, at North Korea, whose leadership is constantly threatening their neighbors because that's the ONLY way they can influence them.

What we need to do is encourage them use and seek influence in directions we can live with. Selling weapons to third-world guerillas, bad; selling us the helicopters we need in Afganistan and elsewhere, good.
Neglecting the safety of their WMD infrastructure, VERY bad; converting parts of it to electricity generation and civilian research, better (even if they do decide to dispute credit and royalties).
Bullying their neighbors, bad (and ultimately futile if no carrots accompany the sticks); combining defense of their interests with aforementioned carrots, better.
Refusing to let outsiders 'interfere' with their neighbors even when things are going to hell-in-the-proverbial-handbasket, bad; working with outsiders, better.
Letting them stay an oil dictatorship, bad; pushing for deals that will maintain and expand the non-fossil parts of their economy, good.

I'm not talking about asking for angelic behavior from them. I'm talking about demanding more respect for international norms from them while letting them reap all the reward they can manage for their successes in doing so. I'm also talking about giving their declared interests the same consideration we would demand for our own interests.

Posted by: Michael | Thursday, February 21, 2008

To get to other parts of the thread:
"a) Every other consituent republic of Yugoslavia has seceeded, as was their constitutional right. Elevating Kosovo to a Republic would lead to a rapid secesion vote. If anyone suggested this to Serbia, it's not surprising they didn't fall for the rouse."

Considering that a) Yugoslavia as a nation is gone anyway and b) Milosevic was able to get away with doing what he did to other Yugoslav Republics, the Consitution would have needed re-writing anyway. Inserting an 20-year cooling off period into a new Constitution would have reassured the Serbs while giving the Kosovars a chance to try their hand at limited self-governance before getting the chance to become fully independent.

"White nationalism works on a continuum. It can range from people who feel that better care should made by the schools to celebrate western history, appose affirmative action, and draw attention to crime against whites, to people who believe that whites should have their own ethno-State."

If you're at the former end, wouldn't it be easier to just demand the same rights and responsibilities for ALL races and chuck the racial rhetoric altogether? If you're at the latter end, what definition of 'white' would you propose that doesn't either lump so many different groups together as to render the concept meaningless or require the formation of several, mutually antagonistic homelands?

Posted by: Michael | Thursday, February 21, 2008

Michael,

"The unfortunate reality of Russia's nuclear arsenal suggests there's only so much that can be done- and even less that should be done- to minimize their influence. Look, for example, at North Korea, whose leadership is constantly threatening their neighbors because that's the ONLY way they can influence them."

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you comparing the regimes of North Korea and Russia, and arguing that the difference in their behavior is explainable in terms of non-nuclear leverage they have?

"What we need to do is encourage them use and seek influence in directions we can live with."

Of course, all within the context of recognizing that Russia as its currently constituted has core interests which are incompatible with ours. In particular, Russia's rentier/despotic character makes it unlikely to be a nurturing home or friend to market economies.

Thus, the wise policy is to minimize the harm of bad actors, while allowing good ones to thrive as they can. In other words, a free Europe with a Russia as weak as feasible.

"I'm not talking about asking for angelic behavior from them. I'm talking about demanding more respect for international norms from them while letting them reap all the reward they can manage for their successes in doing so."

What do you mean by "international norms"? This is a word I hear a lot when I speak to IR guys, but rarely does it mean the same thing across conversations.

"I'm also talking about giving their declared interests the same consideration we would demand for our own interests."

Depending on what you mean by "the same consideration," either this is trivially true (the recognition that other states have their own objectives) or else absurd (the valuing of other states' objectives as highly as our own).

"Considering that a) Yugoslavia as a nation is gone anyway and b) Milosevic was able to get away with doing what he did to other Yugoslav Republics"

Clearly you have a sunnier view of dying in prison while your country's dismembered than I do.

", the Constitution would have needed re-writing anyway."

You're close to intellectual dishonesty here. Above you talked about upgrading Kosovo to "full republic status within Yugoslavia," but now you're saying that Yugoslavia's gone anyway, and the definition of "full republic status" would be reduced.

"Inserting an 20-year cooling off period into a new Constitution would have reassured the Serbs while giving the Kosovars a chance to try their hand at limited self-governance before getting the chance to become fully independent."

As the second's accomplished anyway, what you would be doing is "reassur[ing the Serbs" -- overkill if your objective is merely "preventing genocidal violence" (which was your rational for uprading Kosovo to full republic status). As I mentioned before, there's a basic question of whether we should be in the habit of rewarding countries for fighting us.

I'm interested in Seerov's response, btw.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 21, 2008

On Kosovo:
I'm noticing a weakness of mine in describing some of my ideas-- I'm looking at them from multiple points of view and getting them jumbled up. In the case of this idea, the view points are chronological.
Before Yugoslavia started breaking up, the Serbs would have fought it on general principle and the international community wouldn't have been around to push for it.
After Yugoslavia started breaking up, the Serbs would have fought it for the reasons you've already discussed-- they know a full Republic could vote to secede. The presence of NATO and the interest of the international community would have made it possible, though.
The dissolution of Yugoslavia would have provided the best opportunity for this idea as a new Yugoslavia formed from Serbia, Kosovo and (possibly) Vojvodina would be able to start from scratch constitutionally.
Now . . . the Serbs would likely be more agreeable to the idea than the Kosovars. Depending on how forcefully Russia pushes against Kosovo's independence, and how well the Kosovars can run their own show, it MIGHT be possible to force a compromise like this. In general, though, the debate is probably academic at this point; independence or some sort of partition agreement is all that's left.

BTW: a good analysis from BBC, including a discussion of the likelihood of future secessions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7256488.stm

On the subject of Russia:
"I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you comparing the regimes of North Korea and Russia, and arguing that the difference in their behavior is explainable in terms of non-nuclear leverage they have?"

Pretty much, yeah. My understanding of human nature is, people want (figuratively speaking) to be heard by those whose actions effect them. Start taking away the means by which they can make their feelings known, and the temptation increases of reverting to the toddler method of getting peoples' attention: temper tantrums and violence.

Here's where the similarities between Russia and NK end. The Kim family chose long ago to pursue a path of isolationism to control its populace. This worked fine so long as they had Communist dictatorships to interact with, but left them isolated after the end of the cold war. With little trade and interaction with the outside world, they're left with the choice between opening up and risking the loss of internal control, or threatening their neighbors to get what they want.

On the other hand, Russia has the remnants of their Soviet-era technological and industrial might, abundant energy resources and a permanent veto on the UN Security Council in addition to its military might. They are not in North Korean YET. But as they lose non-violent means of making themselves heard in the outer world, the temptation- already strong, as their behavior illustrates- to use the violent means at their disposal will grow. If they reach the point of giving in to that temptation and employing toddler negotiation methods (along, presumably, with toddler property law) it's World War III (IV, whatever) time.

As eliminating Russia's violent potential without triggering a massive war seems impractical, the challenge faced by the rest of the world is to find ways of protecting our own interests and methods of making our voices heard without denying the Russians their interests and voice to the point they resort to warring on the rest of us. In short, it's a balancing act.

Posted by: Michael | Friday, February 22, 2008

"If you're at the former end, wouldn't it be easier to just demand the same rights and responsibilities for ALL races and chuck the racial rhetoric altogether?"

Amen to that. This is exactly where I stand, therefore, while I am sympathetic to some WN positions, I'm not a WN. Just let people get by on merit. Some will say "well, white people own all the corporations so they so discriminate against everyone except white men." Of course, this is a stupid argument, we don't see Asians having problems in this country, or Jews, or Indians and even Middle Easterners come here and start business in the worst "Gap" neighborhoods. And if corporations cared about the interests of white people, they wouldn't be shutting down whole towns in the Midwest and Northeast for cheap labor in China. So I'm with you all the way.

However,(and I'm disappointed that I didn't put this in my essay) the white nationalist will point out that the country does not go by merit and every other ethnic group looks out for their own interests. If every other ethnic group looks for out their interests and yours doesn't, guess what? Your group will be out of luck. The WN will point out that there's probably not going to be affirmative action for whites when they become a minority. In fact, minority groups are forming alliances to help erode white interests.

Working class blacks are foolish not to team up with whites for the anti-immigration movement, but you don't see the blacks getting on board. Instead, their leadership sees the alliance as being too important. Blacks are being ethnically cleansed from LA neighborhoods but you don't see Jesse, AL or any other race shyster down there. Can you imagine if white people were doing the cleansing? The Muslim group CAIR made a statement supporting the Hispanic illegal immigration movement too.

This tends to upset some people, but I don't really see America as one nation anymore. I see it as a group of ethnic groups trying to get all they can from it. While white people do take part in lobbying, they don't take part in ethno-lobbying. I expect to see this change by the 2020's. Its even possible that you'll see East Asians form a block with whites? This, I'm not sure of yet?

As you may have noticed, politics are getting very racial, and they will continue to do so for now on. For most of history, whites used non-whites to compete against other whites. Now that non-whites are rising in power, you can expect all the cultural stuff (prayer in school, abortion, gays) to be replaced by ethno stuff (Affirmative action, quotas, interracial crime). I'm not sure how economics will play in all this. For now, I assume that whites and maybe East Asians will be the free enterprise group while blacks and Hispanics (And whites who like words like "CHANGE" and "HOPE") to make up the entitlement group. I also expect to see left-wing influence to come up from South America in support for the "oppressed" peoples of North America.

Posted by: Seerov | Friday, February 22, 2008

I'm not sure cultural factors are fading. Between the attempts by the far-left and far-right to nail candidates down on their favorite issues and questions about how Hillary's gender or Romney's religion relate to their respective potentials as Presidents, the culture wars seem alive and well. The racial factor introduced by Obama's candidacy is just one part of it.

Posted by: Michael | Friday, February 22, 2008

Post a comment