The idea that ethnostates are the root of all evil is so embedded in political theory that it is considered axiomatic.  A case in point is Stanford University’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Secession which blithely dismisses “Ascriptivist Theories” of secession as a “Primary Right” with the statement introducing such theories: This approach to unilateral secession has a long pedigree, reaching back at least to Nineteenth Century nationalists such as Mazzini, who proclaimed that every nation should have its own state… this appears to be not only unfeasible, but a recipe for increasing ethno-national conflict… given the historical record of ethno-nationalist conflict, the worry remains that institutionalizing the principle that every nation is entitled to its own state would exacerbate ethno-national violence, along with the human rights violations it inevitably entails.

So I have a question: Has anyone bothered to check—objectively and rationally—to assure themselves that accessionism has a history less tarnished by “human rights abuses”, violence/coersion (state directed violence/coersion/bias on behalf of politically enfranchized ethnicities) and other “inevitable” consequences of accessionism? 

Certainly the origin of the word “racism” as an epithet was with Trostky aka Braunstein during the dawn of the less-than-exemplary Soviet State—with its very accessionist and open anti-nationalism.

It was Australia Day today. The Melbourne Age marked the occasion with a special front page item: a message to the nation by cartoonist Michael Leunig.

The message was a contemplation on “our precious diversity”. According to Leunig, tolerance is not enough and “the richer possibility is that Australia can actually embrace and enjoy its glorious detail and diversity”.

“Perhaps,” continues Leunig “more than tolerance we need openness, which is a type of innocence and a type of strength. And beyond xenophobia, fear of strangers, we might contemplate the wisdom and pleasure that could flow from another Greek word, filoxenos – love of stranger.”

“Innocent friendliness is a sentimental concept to some, yet surely it refers to a rare quality of openness that we sometimes dreamed had curiously emerged in this land. Surely the real living treasure of this country could be simple friendliness.”

And on and on it goes. I expect we’ve all heard this type of thing before. I have a word I use to refer to such platitudinous speeches, marked by politically correct pieties divorced from reality: guff. And Leunig is a first rate “guffer”.

READ MORE...

One interesting result in the Canadian election was the victory of Michael Ignatieff, a Harvard academic who has written widely on the issue of nationalism.

Ignatieff set out his views on nationalism in his book Blood and Belonging, published in 1993. In this work Ignatieff explains that whilst he himself is a cosmopolitan, he nonetheless supports a civic nationalism.

Why a civic nationalism? Ignatieff is a liberal. As such, he believes that individuals should be self-defined. Therefore he rejects ethnic nationalism (in which national identity is based on a common ancestry, culture, language and so on) because,

“Ethnic nationalism claims ... that an individual’s deepest attachments are inherited not chosen. It is the national community that defines the individual, not the individuals who define the national community.”

READ MORE...

“BNP chief’s Muslim slur” ran this morning’s headline in The Sun.  “THE racist leader of the British National Party branded Asians rapists and muggers at a secret meeting, a court heard yesterday.  Nick Griffin whipped up hatred against Muslims by claiming gangs of them were targeting white women, a jury was told.  He even claimed the sex attacks were part of their RELIGION, it was alleged.”

That is what passes for balanced reporting at Britain’s biggest-selling newspaper.  No doubt The Sun’s libel lawyer cleared this nakedly hostile line on the basis of those four little words, “a jury was told”.  Regardless, it remains a disgrace.

READ MORE...

Riot: Minor disturbance involving White sports fans.

Disturbance: Major Ethnic race riot.

Youth: Ethnic mugger.

Mugger:White mugger.

Racist murder: Ethnic killed by White criminal.

Apparently motiveless killing: racist murder of White person.

Part of a comment by Calvin on Mark’s A coy media thread.

Remember Tom Forrest and his good lady?  They own a family guesthouse in the Scottish Highlands and ran afoul of some homosexual activists last July.

Last July Stephen Nock, a homosexual living in London, tried to book a room with double bed for himself and his boyfriend at a “Bed & Breakfast” in the wild and mountainous North-West of Scotland.  Now, the b&b – Cromasaig in Kinlochewe, Wester Ross – is a family home.  The owners, Liz and Tom Forrest, didn’t want that kind of trade.  Renting a double bed to two homosexuals entailed a certain complicity in an act which Liz and Tom saw as a perversion.  And that is what Tom perhaps somewhat bluntly said to Mr Nock in an e-mail extending his hospitality if the two homosexuals settled for a twin-bed room.

Evidently, Mr Nock didn’t appreciate the offer because the result, in Tom’s words, was that in no time he got “stitched up”.  Homosexual political activists and a prurient press began to shit upon him from a very great moral height.

A weak man would have buckled.  Tom Forrest is not a weak man.  When he was accused of homophobia he replied, “I have no hatred or fear of poofs.  I just do not approve of unnatural acts being performed in my home.” Even when a woman from the National Tourism Board of Scotland arrived to re-educate him - Cromasaig was listed on its website so presumably she thought she had a duty to do so – he remained true to his down-to-earth principles.

Well Tom is not only not weak, he is fiercely independent of mind and industrious, too.  He and, one must suppose, some like-minded, sturdy Scots of conventional taste and good conscience have launched a website pointedly titled Normal Scotland.  Well, quite.  So far there are fifteen or so normal Scots hoteliers listed there, which looks like a pretty good beginning.

Every social conservative, every libertarian, everyone who despises the politically correct and the gaily political should give it up for the man from Cromasaig.  He deserves a fortune to favour his bravery.

Hat-tip to Laban Tall for the story

Yesterday I reported on a riot by young Muslim men at a public swimming pool in Melbourne. It seems that such men are keen to frequent places where they can observe young Western women bathing.

But what about Muslim girls? Do they bathe? The answer is yes. In fact, there is an Australian swimwear company, Ahiida, which makes garments,

aimed at today’s modern Muslim girl. We are constantly striving to develop our collection with new colours, designs and fabrics that focus on today’s society.

Here are two examples of their swimwear styles: the Modest-fit Design and the Slim-fit Design.

Most Westerners seeing these outfits will be struck with a sense of the culturally alien. Even those of us who like to see women dress modestly will struggle to understand the mentality behind such designs.

Perhaps it can be explained by the influence of polygamy in Islamic societies. If you have several wives, it might be more difficult to be confident of their fidelity.

Whatever the reason, it seems to me that a clash of cultures is inevitable when you mix together Islamic and Western populations. Those Muslim boys at Oak Park are getting powerfully mixed messages when they see their sisters decked out in Ahiida gear and the Australian girls at the pool in bikinis.

We’ve had another little riot here in Melbourne. A life guard at a suburban swimming pool tried to eject a patron. As a result, the four life guards (one female) were set upon and bashed by a mob of 30 youths, the attack lasting until police arrived. One of the staff members was taken to hospital with a smashed cheek.

The events happened at Oak Park, one of the more multicultural of Melbourne’s suburbs (yet another proud moment for “diversity”).

It’s interesting that the reporting of the event has followed a typical pattern in which more is revealed in the internet version of the story than in the print version.

The internet article has a sentence in which a witness says of the mob that “They all appeared to be Middle-Eastern youths”. The print version is exactly the same as the internet article, except that this information has been removed.

I suppose the reasoning of the sub-editor is that fewer people are likely to read the internet version and that the information is too sensitive to release to a mass audience.