Tuesday, September 12, 2017

September 12, 2017

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

Rebirth of Nationalism and Secession: Is It the Way for the Future?



The centralized, directed-from-Bruxelles and Wall Street, New World Order has been in something of a “panic mode” since last November and since our cousins in Britain voted to secede from the European Union (BREXIT). The goals and aims that globalists have had since the end of the Second World War in Europe, and since at least the administration of Franklin Roosevelt (and his successors) in the United States, have been and are being placed in jeopardy as never before, politically, economically, and even militarily.

Yet, with the renewed and largely grass roots opposition to globalism have come extreme measures to contain, suppress, and, yes, even criminalize those who would challenge it. Whether in the various speech codes and limitations now being applied rigorously in Europe (and also in the United States), the purging of the Internet of sites considered “extremist” (always on the political “right”), the increasing and unrelenting totalitarianism on college campuses, or the establishment of dogmatic “rules of behavior” and speech in the media and amongst political leaders, the minions of New World Order—the managerial, political and cultural establishment, the Deep State—furiously seek to staunch any recidivism or return to a time when countries and their citizens enjoyed liberties and rights largely inherited and bequeathed to them as part of their national historic legacies.

On both sides of the Atlantic the battle rages, and, as perhaps never before, the irresistible panoply of forces of the New World Order have been forced in large measure to reveal themselves to meet the challenge. Citizens in both the United States and in Europe have been able to see them arrayed in their depth and power: in the media, in our educational system, in entertainment, and in politics.

Despite the best and the most far-ranging efforts of the global elites, it is nationalism—a populist and conservative nationalism—that percolates and undermines their best laid plans and designs. But unlike much of the older “nationalisms” of the 20th century, in most nations of Europe—in Poland, in Hungary, in Russia, and elsewhere—this nationalism encompasses a broad, even religious traditionalism that does not seek to aggrandize one nation at the expense of its neighbors. Rather, it seeks to return to, to draw from, the individual heritage of each country, to defend national identity and protect national history and customs, against the encroachments from the EU. In that sense, it is truly more regionalist or, better, “states’ rights” than strictly “nationalist” in an older sense.

In the United States a recrudescent regionalism and re-appreciation of our historic states’ rights legacy has only recently begun to resonate anew, and in places where such ideas were once thought purely quixotic or inane…California and Washington State, for example, where a far Left mentality and value system crashes up against a more conservative hinterland and a president who for many “Californios” is the pure antithesis of all they esteem and believe.

Even a few voices have begun to suggest what was once unthinkable: perhaps secession is the way to go for the future, especially given that the American nation seems to be coming unglued at the seams, with large percentages of the population not just unable to talk to each other, but unable to even use the same language.

Perhaps, then, it is time to seriously consider a practical regionalization, a separation of regions into self-governing entities which posit their own sets of beliefs, traditions, and standards of behavior and morality?

Certainly, the New World Order will do what it can to prevent such regionalism—unless, that is, it perceives that the majority in the American nation now reject its domination and rule; then, as in California, perhaps it, too, will take up the cause of regionalism  and secession?

Inconceivable? Perhaps. But history is filled with “inconceivables” that became reality.

This morning, then, I pass on Pat Buchanan’s latest column, “Tribalism Marches On,” which examines this very subject.

Dr.  Boyd D. Cathey

Tribalism Marches On!

By Patrick J. Buchanan   Tuesday - September 12, 2017

Recently, a columnist-friend, Matt Kenney, sent me a 25-year-old newspaper with his chiding that my column had been given better play. Both had run in The Orange County Register on June 30, 1991.

"Is there no room for new nations in the New World Order?" was my title, and the column began:  "In turning a stone face toward embattled Slovenia and Croatia, President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker have not only put America's chips on the wrong horse. They have bet on a losing horse.”

"Can the U.S. Government seriously believe that a Yugoslavia of such disparate peoples, all of whom wish greater freedom, most of whose republics wish to be free of Belgrade, is a viable nation?"

The State Department had denounced "these unilateral steps by Croatia and Slovenia" to break free: "As Secretary Baker made clear last Friday, we will neither encourage nor reward secession."

Croatia and Slovenia are today free and members of NATO.

A month later in 1991, George H. W. Bush, in what Bill Safire dubbed his "Chicken Kiev" speech, warned that Ukraine's desire to break free of Moscow manifested a "suicidal nationalism."  Today, Ukraine is independent and the Bush-GOP establishment wants to send weapons to Kiev to fight pro-Russia secessionists.
As nationalism tore apart Yugoslavia and the USSR in the 1990s, and surged to propel British secession from the EU and Donald Trump's triumph in 2016, that primal force appears on the march again.  Wrote The Wall Street Journal Monday:  "Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban barely mentions his political rivals as he campaigns for a fourth term. Instead, he is targeting the European Union and its biggest members. 'Our fiercest opponents are not in Hungarian opposition parties,' Mr. Orban said in a speech last week, 'They are abroad ... Berlin, Brussels.'

"In neighboring Poland," the Journal goes on, "government rhetoric is even harsher. Politicians have one-upped each other in attacking France and Germany, arguing they are forcing multicultural liberal democracy on more traditional Poles."

Not only in the east of Europe but also in the west, nationalism is surging. Wrote The New York Times Friday:  "The accelerating battle over Catalonia's status hit warp speed this week. Catalan lawmakers voted to go ahead with an Oct. 1 referendum on separating from Spain. Spain's constitutional court declared the vote suspended. And Catalan politicians said they would proceed anyway."

Yesterday, thousands of Catalans paraded through Barcelona under a banner proclaiming "Goodbye, Spain!" It was the Catalan National Day, which commemorates the 1714 capture of Barcelona by Philip V, the first Bourbon monarch of Spain. Spain's wealthiest region, Catalonia believes it is being milked by Madrid for the benefit of regions that contribute far less.

The question being raised by Catalonia is one America has faced before. Do peoples in a democratic republic have a right to declare their independence, secede, and establish a new nation, as the 13 colonies did in 1776 and the Confederate States of America sought to do in 1861?

Though America was born of secession, the U.S. establishment since the Cold War has been far more trans-nationalist and globalist than a great champion of new nations. Perhaps that is because the New World Order proclaimed by Bush I in 1991 envisioned the U.S. as the benevolent global hegemon.

Another ethnonational secession may be declared even before the Catalans go to the polls Oct. 1.

The Kurdistan Regional Government has scheduled a referendum for Sept. 25 — on independence from Iraq. Should it go forward, a massive vote to secede seems certain. And Kurds are relying on U.S. support. For they have sustained many casualties and shed much blood backing us in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State.

Yet while our sentiments may cheer the cause of an independent Kurdistan, our national interests may call for caution. For though the Kurds, 30 million in number, are probably the largest ethnic group on earth without a nation-state of their own, creating a Kurdish homeland could ignite a Middle East war the Kurds could lose as badly as did the Confederate States. Why? Because, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919-20 not only left millions of Kurds in Iraq, it left most of them in Turkey, Iran and Syria. A free and independent Kurdistan carved out of Iraq could prove a magnet for the 25 million Kurds in Iran, Turkey and Syria, and a sanctuary for Kurd rebels, causing those nations to join together to annihilate the new country.

Then, there is Kirkuk, seized by the Kurds after the Iraqi army fled from an invading ISIS. The city sits on some of the richest oil deposits in Iraq.  Yesterday, Massoud Barzani, president of Iraqi Kurdistan, told the BBC that if the Kurds vote for independence and Baghdad refuses to accept it, they will forcibly resist any Iraqi attempt to retake the city.

Tribalism appears to be doing to the Bush New World Order what it did to Mikhail Gorbachev's Soviet Union.

No comments:

Post a Comment

                                                  May 8, 2021     MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey Aggressive Abroad and Despotic at Home:  ...