Main Edition
US
FR
Azov members in Kyiv (Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)
Azov members in Kyiv (Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)Over the past decade, and especially since the political shocks of 2016, there has been an increasing tendency to see both domestic and international politics in terms of a set of binary opposites: democracy and authoritarianism, liberalism and illiberalism, internationalism and nationalism, and so on. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine last February, this predisposition — a story of good guys against bad guys — has grown even stronger. As comforting as this narrative is, however, it obscures all the complexities and contradictions of the current moment.
The European Union plays a particular role in this dominant narrative. The bloc is usually seen as one of the good guys: it stands up for democracy and liberalism, two values which are threatened by Russia, a country on the side of authoritarianism and illiberalism. The EU is also viewed as the embodiment of cosmopolitanism, the opposite of the nationalism of Russia and its Eurosceptic “populist” supporters.
In reality, however, the EU occupies a much more complex space within the binaries that dominate our political thinking. As an examination of its history shows, it stands for liberalism rather than democracy, while replicating some of the features of nationalism on a larger, continental scale. Crucially, rather than limiting these tendencies, the war in Ukraine may actually be strengthening them.
The history of the European project is more problematic than the idea of it as a symbol of democracy suggests. Few “pro-Europeans” know that it began as a colonial project — what might be called its original sin. As Peo Hansen and Stefan Jonsson have shown, the first phase of European integration in the Fifties was partly intended to consolidate Belgian and French colonies in central and west Africa, which needed an injection of West German capital. Many in West Germany, on other hand, saw it as a chance to get back into the colonial game from which they had been excluded since the end of the First World War.
From the Sixties, however, when Belgium and France lost their remaining colonies in Africa, the six countries that had created the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community turned inwards and forgot its colonial origins. Thus the narrative that emerged around what became the EU centred on the internal lessons of European history (that is, the centuries of conflict between European countries, culminating in the Second World War and the Holocaust), rather than the external lessons of European history (in particular European colonialism). Europe was increasingly imagined as a “closed system”.
The EU, as it became with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, increasingly saw itself as a vehicle through which authoritarian states could make democratic transitions. It was seen as crucial to the democratic transitions of Italy and West Germany in the early phase of European integration, and then again with Greece, Spain and Portugal, which joined in the Eighties. In reality, what the EU actually did was to constrain popular sovereignty in its member states.
Yet in the post-Cold War period, the founding story of an EU that stood for democracy continued to strengthen as the bloc enlarged to include central and eastern European countries. The post-1989 revolutions in the countries of the Warsaw Pact were seen, above all, as democratic revolutions. But as Branko Milanović has recently reminded us, they were also nationalist revolutions that aimed to create ethnically homogenous nation states. Joining the EU meant that the national and popular sovereignty of these countries was immediately constrained. In the medium term, this produced a backlash against the EU, the effects of which we now see in Hungary and Poland.
Moreover, the inclusion of central and eastern European countries strengthened the identity of the EU as a white bloc. New members viewed the accession process as a “return to Europe”. But if the “Europe” they were joining was simply the post-war integration project, it was not a “return”, because they had never been part of it before. The “Europe” they thought they were “returning” to was a much older idea of Europe — a civilisational one. The EU, for its part, saw it as completely natural that central and eastern European countries should join it — once, that is, they had carried out reforms. Morocco, on the other hand, applied to join the European Community, as it then was, in 1987, but was told it could not do so, regardless of what reforms it carried out, because it was not a European country.
During the 2010s, as the EU faced a series of cascading crises, it came to feel much more threatened and, as a result, became more defensive, which led to a revival of the concept of a “geopolitical” Europe that first emerged in the Twenties. That idea was a response to a sense of European decline after the First World War — namely, a fear that Europe was losing power relative to the Soviet Union and United States. The pan-European movement — the inspiration for the post-war “European project” — urged Europeans to unite to become a “third force” in international politics and maintain their position of power in the world. Central to this thinking was the idea of Africa as Europe’s “plantation”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI bear an inherent distrust toward any academic or think-tank wonk who blames ‘whiteness’ for societal ills or undesirable political outcomes. It’s a blanket term often used to bully conscientious people into voting or acting against their own best interests.
Be fair, once all our descendants are all mixed race the instapundits can continue to earn a living writing about the sad cultural death of folk traditions.
/sarcasm
I’m afraid you’re importing American cultural signifiers into your understanding of European history and politics. Europe has a history of colonialism and ideas of ‘whiteness’ played an important role in that history. It’s naive to assume that these ideas no longer have a bearing on the politics and policies of the EU.
I think that’s true, but the problem that brings about his knee-jerk reaction is that all real issues have been coopted and twisted into either silencing and empowering in a very corrupt way.
This is also not just an American issue, we even saw this in Europe with those in power who favord the migrations. What did they accuse those who opposed them of being?
Now, as the migration stuff is falling out of favor, is there an apology coming to those who are vindicated by what they tried to warn everyone of?
One thing African leaders have recently said at the BRICS confrence is that they are tried of is being just considered a “resource” place, where nations just take those resources back to thier own nations and add value.
The IMF never really invested or helped them build infrastructure, power facilities, or factories to make their own products. This is why China made such progress there with their Belt and Road, trading infrastructure for resources.
One thing we’re seeing though is in regards to Europe, this is all working its self out anyway, as we can see Niger just overthrew its French masters. No more all you can have easy gold or uranium for France. This is going to hurt the French economy.
The IMF never really invested or helped them build infrastructure, power facilities, or factories to make their own products.
Because they kept stealing the money?
The IMF never really invested or helped them build infrastructure, power facilities, or factories to make their own products.
Because they kept stealing the money?
“ Thus when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was inevitably seen as a civilisational Other against which Europe must defend itself.”
Most of the EU had no imperial possessions. Less so now that the U.K. has left.
Some of these countries were in fact invaded by Muslim powers, many were invaded by other European powers. If whiteness existed as overarching idea it doesn’t appear in European history as force that stops war.
The colonial powers didn’t need whiteness either, Rhodes for instance believed that the Anglo Saxons should dominate the world. He didn’t say white. He bemoaned inferior German immigration to the US. The French believed that France was superior, the Germans that Germany was.
The island you live on (I assume) has had inter ethnic conflict between the Anglos, and celts. This is continuing to this day in Northern Ireland. No amount of American inspired rhetoric derived from the US would explain the conflict in Northern Ireland using ideas like whiteness.
It’s generally the left who import ideas from the US, like whiteness and other racially or gender absurdities, and when there’s any conflict or pushback accuse the other side of importing us ideologies. ♂️
The US was the student, not the master.. now the students have taken over and naivety has replaced cynicism.
The US was the student, not the master.. now the students have taken over and naivety has replaced cynicism.
And yet that ‘whiteness’ doesn’t exist in isolation – it is connected to other things- the continent of Europe, it’s nation states, Christianity, as much as ‘Arabness’ is associated with the Middle East and Islam.
So what exactly is your point?
To return to the article, compared to Ukraine, Morocco is most definitely not European in any meaningful sense, and not just because most Moroccans are ‘brown’.
Another example would be Turkey; while similar to parts of Europe that are close to it, it is also not European for similar reasons – partly geographic, but mostly cultural and historical and religious.
The OP’s point is that using ‘whiteness’ as an explanation is hopelessly simplistic and also grossly offensive – can you imagine discussing the problem of ‘blackness’ or ‘yellowness’ in the public square in this way?
Quite correct! but very depressing that it has garnered 23 ‘thumbs down’ so far.*
(*ie: at 14.29 BST.)
I subtracted one for you. Consider it therapy.
I subtracted one for you. Consider it therapy.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. There was a time when skin color was considered a signifier of intelligence or brutish savagery. Thankfully, we have for the most part left those dark days behind us. I don’t deny that the colonialist impulse continues to exist – it does, but it’s been subsumed by big corporations and the welfare state. In effect Westerners are in the process of being colonized.
The term ‘whiteness’ (which is now used as a pejorative) no longer just refers to skin color, but is broadly applied to anyone holding a political or philosophical view that runs counter to the aims of big government and corporations. It’s a convenient way to dismiss the concerns of political opponents and therefore side-step democratic processes. After all, why should we listen to bigots and racists?
The biggest identity problem at the moment is not whiteness, but the creation of ‘victimized’ identities. Many of these are completely made up, but by pledging to protect them, the State legitimizes increased modes of surveillance and speech control. It behooves the State to create victims of us all, so that we all become dependent on it. Hence the promotion of narcissistic therapy culture, mental health issues, and sexual disorders, etc. It is akin to the US health care system which relies on keeping people sick in order to make profits.
I apologize for rambling on a bit. I tend to write as I think.
And I just read an article by Lisa Bortolotti that would suggest you could add conspiracy theorists and their followers to the list of groups afflicted with a disorder requiring interventions. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13634615231187243
Yes
And I just read an article by Lisa Bortolotti that would suggest you could add conspiracy theorists and their followers to the list of groups afflicted with a disorder requiring interventions. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13634615231187243
Yes
“Whiteness” as a concept ONLY existed in the colonies to any meaningfully degree. It was never a thing in Europe at all until after 1945 and the non-white population of several western European countries skyrocketed due to an inability for the nationality legal regimes to keep up until the 1970s. You are the one importing Americanisms into European history and culture.
Correct.. thin veneers to cover up a brutal, racist exceptionalism, eg Christian (what?), Cultured (yes, here and there), Civilised ..give me a break! Liberalism, yes provided you were ‘in’ – brutal suppression was the norm in the colonies.
I think that’s true, but the problem that brings about his knee-jerk reaction is that all real issues have been coopted and twisted into either silencing and empowering in a very corrupt way.
This is also not just an American issue, we even saw this in Europe with those in power who favord the migrations. What did they accuse those who opposed them of being?
Now, as the migration stuff is falling out of favor, is there an apology coming to those who are vindicated by what they tried to warn everyone of?
One thing African leaders have recently said at the BRICS confrence is that they are tried of is being just considered a “resource” place, where nations just take those resources back to thier own nations and add value.
The IMF never really invested or helped them build infrastructure, power facilities, or factories to make their own products. This is why China made such progress there with their Belt and Road, trading infrastructure for resources.
One thing we’re seeing though is in regards to Europe, this is all working its self out anyway, as we can see Niger just overthrew its French masters. No more all you can have easy gold or uranium for France. This is going to hurt the French economy.
“ Thus when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was inevitably seen as a civilisational Other against which Europe must defend itself.”
Most of the EU had no imperial possessions. Less so now that the U.K. has left.
Some of these countries were in fact invaded by Muslim powers, many were invaded by other European powers. If whiteness existed as overarching idea it doesn’t appear in European history as force that stops war.
The colonial powers didn’t need whiteness either, Rhodes for instance believed that the Anglo Saxons should dominate the world. He didn’t say white. He bemoaned inferior German immigration to the US. The French believed that France was superior, the Germans that Germany was.
The island you live on (I assume) has had inter ethnic conflict between the Anglos, and celts. This is continuing to this day in Northern Ireland. No amount of American inspired rhetoric derived from the US would explain the conflict in Northern Ireland using ideas like whiteness.
It’s generally the left who import ideas from the US, like whiteness and other racially or gender absurdities, and when there’s any conflict or pushback accuse the other side of importing us ideologies. ♂️
And yet that ‘whiteness’ doesn’t exist in isolation – it is connected to other things- the continent of Europe, it’s nation states, Christianity, as much as ‘Arabness’ is associated with the Middle East and Islam.
So what exactly is your point?
To return to the article, compared to Ukraine, Morocco is most definitely not European in any meaningful sense, and not just because most Moroccans are ‘brown’.
Another example would be Turkey; while similar to parts of Europe that are close to it, it is also not European for similar reasons – partly geographic, but mostly cultural and historical and religious.
The OP’s point is that using ‘whiteness’ as an explanation is hopelessly simplistic and also grossly offensive – can you imagine discussing the problem of ‘blackness’ or ‘yellowness’ in the public square in this way?
Quite correct! but very depressing that it has garnered 23 ‘thumbs down’ so far.*
(*ie: at 14.29 BST.)
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. There was a time when skin color was considered a signifier of intelligence or brutish savagery. Thankfully, we have for the most part left those dark days behind us. I don’t deny that the colonialist impulse continues to exist – it does, but it’s been subsumed by big corporations and the welfare state. In effect Westerners are in the process of being colonized.
The term ‘whiteness’ (which is now used as a pejorative) no longer just refers to skin color, but is broadly applied to anyone holding a political or philosophical view that runs counter to the aims of big government and corporations. It’s a convenient way to dismiss the concerns of political opponents and therefore side-step democratic processes. After all, why should we listen to bigots and racists?
The biggest identity problem at the moment is not whiteness, but the creation of ‘victimized’ identities. Many of these are completely made up, but by pledging to protect them, the State legitimizes increased modes of surveillance and speech control. It behooves the State to create victims of us all, so that we all become dependent on it. Hence the promotion of narcissistic therapy culture, mental health issues, and sexual disorders, etc. It is akin to the US health care system which relies on keeping people sick in order to make profits.
I apologize for rambling on a bit. I tend to write as I think.
“Whiteness” as a concept ONLY existed in the colonies to any meaningfully degree. It was never a thing in Europe at all until after 1945 and the non-white population of several western European countries skyrocketed due to an inability for the nationality legal regimes to keep up until the 1970s. You are the one importing Americanisms into European history and culture.
Correct.. thin veneers to cover up a brutal, racist exceptionalism, eg Christian (what?), Cultured (yes, here and there), Civilised ..give me a break! Liberalism, yes provided you were ‘in’ – brutal suppression was the norm in the colonies.
Don’t know why the good readers at Unherd and Europeans as a whole haven’t figured out that ‘Mr Kundnani’ isn’t on their side.
You need only look at the other side of the coin to understand what is at issue.
Is that a kind of reverse, reverse racist comment? Surely skin colour is nothing but a convenient label when, in fact, the issue is one of a (very corrupted) christian culture.. I use a small ‘c’ because that ‘culture’ bears little resemblance to anything Christ had to say.
Beneath the rhetoric was a vicious, brutal, greedy exceptionalism which is now prevalent in its protégé the US. We in Europe at least have discovered rightful guilt and shame for Europe’s horrible past while the US seems oblivious to its relatively recent genocidal and slave history.
The claimed difference in skin colour is irrelevant (just as the claimed difference in religion in NI was irrelevant to that conflict).. Just compare the skin colour of a person from Northern France to Southern Italy or Greece.
It’s time to fess up and stop grasping for academic fig leaves to cover up a wicked past.
You’re kidding, right? White Americans can’t get enough breast-beating over slavery (ended 150+ years ago) and bewailing the sins of their ancestors.
It means they – like the Europeans – can pretend to be virtuous while their own generation slaughters & maims millions in MENA.
You’re kidding, right? White Americans can’t get enough breast-beating over slavery (ended 150+ years ago) and bewailing the sins of their ancestors.
It means they – like the Europeans – can pretend to be virtuous while their own generation slaughters & maims millions in MENA.
Be fair, once all our descendants are all mixed race the instapundits can continue to earn a living writing about the sad cultural death of folk traditions.
/sarcasm
I’m afraid you’re importing American cultural signifiers into your understanding of European history and politics. Europe has a history of colonialism and ideas of ‘whiteness’ played an important role in that history. It’s naive to assume that these ideas no longer have a bearing on the politics and policies of the EU.
Don’t know why the good readers at Unherd and Europeans as a whole haven’t figured out that ‘Mr Kundnani’ isn’t on their side.
You need only look at the other side of the coin to understand what is at issue.
Is that a kind of reverse, reverse racist comment? Surely skin colour is nothing but a convenient label when, in fact, the issue is one of a (very corrupted) christian culture.. I use a small ‘c’ because that ‘culture’ bears little resemblance to anything Christ had to say.
Beneath the rhetoric was a vicious, brutal, greedy exceptionalism which is now prevalent in its protégé the US. We in Europe at least have discovered rightful guilt and shame for Europe’s horrible past while the US seems oblivious to its relatively recent genocidal and slave history.
The claimed difference in skin colour is irrelevant (just as the claimed difference in religion in NI was irrelevant to that conflict).. Just compare the skin colour of a person from Northern France to Southern Italy or Greece.
It’s time to fess up and stop grasping for academic fig leaves to cover up a wicked past.
I bear an inherent distrust toward any academic or think-tank wonk who blames ‘whiteness’ for societal ills or undesirable political outcomes. It’s a blanket term often used to bully conscientious people into voting or acting against their own best interests.
I stopped taking the writer seriously when he bridled at the temerity of the EU for not accepting Morocco into the bloc as somehow indicative of racism. He then points to the acceptance of geographically contiguous countries like Poland to validate his (extremely dodgy) arguments. ‘Nil Points’ from me and another example of UnHerd’s slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness.
Maybe it’s because it’s August?
I agree with your (implied) views that this whole ‘racist’ thing is stupid and that UnHerd has changed it’s articles, with a movement to the left.
But for me the whole problem with politics today is that all things are labelled as ‘left’ or ‘right’. Therefore, if you agree with allowing more immigration you are ‘left’ or if you disagree you are ‘right’. Politicians have become more and more concerned about these labels, in fact more worried about labels than actual solutions to the problem. The esteemed Mayor of London dismissed the opposition to his ULEZ schemes as ‘just fascists outside the building’.
I have been with UnHerd for 3 years and have seen a more balanced choice in essays but the comments have become more extreme. If I was a young person I wouldn’t go near the site because it seems so ‘fixed’ in the views of the commenters. Sadly, everyone criticises but no-one comes up with solutions.
Also the editing has become more vigorous. Yesterday, I disagreed with the majority and my comments ‘upset’ somebody, so they were removed. What is the point of UnHerd today?
I used ‘Left’ lazily and I apologise. Like many UnHerd readers, my political views don’t map neatly into left and right. Unfortunately, this binary is where we are. And so, apparently, I’m on the ‘Right’ (despite having a boatload of hitherto liberal values). Hey, I don’t make the rules or decide which direction the Overton Window shifts – even if it is only in one direction.
My beef with UnHerd is its noticeable change in talent. Too many re-treads, tired post-Marxists and leftist refugees mugged by reality. There are now only three regular contributors I consider must-reads. I am perfectly happy to concede I might not be ‘clever’ enough for UnHerd, but too many of the articles read like cultural studies MA assignments at the moment.
As it is, I’m not renewing my subs but might in the future. It’s just, at the moment, there are too many Substacks out there more deserving of my money, time and engagement.
A bit off-topic, but continuing the general line of being rather disappointed by UnHerd:
I miss the guy who came up with extremely witty captions to the pictures.
I am sure he would’ve suggested something brilliant for this article.
His contribution was one the things that helped UnHerd stand out, compared to other media outlets.
Alas! Apparently, they didn’t manage to keep him…
Just out of curiosity, which are your three?
A bit off-topic, but continuing the general line of being rather disappointed by UnHerd:
I miss the guy who came up with extremely witty captions to the pictures.
I am sure he would’ve suggested something brilliant for this article.
His contribution was one the things that helped UnHerd stand out, compared to other media outlets.
Alas! Apparently, they didn’t manage to keep him…
Just out of curiosity, which are your three?
Consummatum est.
Ever read through the comments in the Free Press? Hard to find a bigger disconnect between article content and audience.
I used ‘Left’ lazily and I apologise. Like many UnHerd readers, my political views don’t map neatly into left and right. Unfortunately, this binary is where we are. And so, apparently, I’m on the ‘Right’ (despite having a boatload of hitherto liberal values). Hey, I don’t make the rules or decide which direction the Overton Window shifts – even if it is only in one direction.
My beef with UnHerd is its noticeable change in talent. Too many re-treads, tired post-Marxists and leftist refugees mugged by reality. There are now only three regular contributors I consider must-reads. I am perfectly happy to concede I might not be ‘clever’ enough for UnHerd, but too many of the articles read like cultural studies MA assignments at the moment.
As it is, I’m not renewing my subs but might in the future. It’s just, at the moment, there are too many Substacks out there more deserving of my money, time and engagement.
Consummatum est.
Ever read through the comments in the Free Press? Hard to find a bigger disconnect between article content and audience.
As usual nowadays, my reply is ‘Awaiting for Approval’.
My replies/comments often have “Awaiting for Approval” and I would put myself into the libertarian/right(whatever right means) corner.
My replies/comments often have “Awaiting for Approval” and I would put myself into the libertarian/right(whatever right means) corner.
Quite right. On the basis of Minister Badenoch’s post-Brexit pursuit of an “enhanced” trade relationship with Morocco, including apparently a possible privileged visa scheme, he could plausibly be advocating that it should be joining the UK.
“…another example of UnHerd’s slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness”
I’ve noticed this too. Sad really. I hope it is just August…
Right, its best writers are on vacation, leaving those who have day jobs waiting on tables.
I certainly agree with the “slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness. I felt this quite strongly at an Unherd event two weeks back, headed “the War against Farming”. The Unherd host introduced with little talk of war, more about the right wing French and Dutch farmers, the first dropping manure on the Place du Concorde, the latter forming into the PPP and likely to end up winning or holding power in the coming Dutch election. There was little talk of food security. The evening did then move on to more specifically related food issues and castigated the alliance of government, environmental agencies and big business in allowing the production of crap at ridiculously low prices for us all to eat. no wonder half the country is ill. The EU is highly complicit in this.
More importantly, the underlying criticism of criticism of farmers, which by extension included anyone who produces food or makes something was that they were all nationalist and right wing – “far” did once or twice creep in – denying the liberal-progressive consensus that pervaded the evening.
As Julian Farrows puts it so well and succinctly : “I bear an inherent distrust toward any academic or think-tank wonk who blames ‘whiteness’ for societal ills or undesirable political outcomes. It’s a blanket term often used to bully conscientious people into voting or acting against their own best interests.”
Conquest’s Second Iron Law obviously applies to websites like UnHerd too.
Conquest’s Second Iron Law obviously applies to websites like UnHerd too.
It’s a mixed up article which tries to link historical happenings with today and comes over as completely nonsensical. Where do they find these people?
I agree with your (implied) views that this whole ‘racist’ thing is stupid and that UnHerd has changed it’s articles, with a movement to the left.
But for me the whole problem with politics today is that all things are labelled as ‘left’ or ‘right’. Therefore, if you agree with allowing more immigration you are ‘left’ or if you disagree you are ‘right’. Politicians have become more and more concerned about these labels, in fact more worried about labels than actual solutions to the problem. The esteemed Mayor of London dismissed the opposition to his ULEZ schemes as ‘just fascists outside the building’.
I have been with UnHerd for 3 years and have seen a more balanced choice in essays but the comments have become more extreme. If I was a young person I wouldn’t go near the site because it seems so ‘fixed’ in the views of the commenters. Sadly, everyone criticises but no-one comes up with solutions.
Also the editing has become more vigorous. Yesterday, I disagreed with the majority and my comments ‘upset’ somebody, so they were removed. What is the point of UnHerd today?
As usual nowadays, my reply is ‘Awaiting for Approval’.
Quite right. On the basis of Minister Badenoch’s post-Brexit pursuit of an “enhanced” trade relationship with Morocco, including apparently a possible privileged visa scheme, he could plausibly be advocating that it should be joining the UK.
“…another example of UnHerd’s slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness”
I’ve noticed this too. Sad really. I hope it is just August…
Right, its best writers are on vacation, leaving those who have day jobs waiting on tables.
I certainly agree with the “slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness. I felt this quite strongly at an Unherd event two weeks back, headed “the War against Farming”. The Unherd host introduced with little talk of war, more about the right wing French and Dutch farmers, the first dropping manure on the Place du Concorde, the latter forming into the PPP and likely to end up winning or holding power in the coming Dutch election. There was little talk of food security. The evening did then move on to more specifically related food issues and castigated the alliance of government, environmental agencies and big business in allowing the production of crap at ridiculously low prices for us all to eat. no wonder half the country is ill. The EU is highly complicit in this.
More importantly, the underlying criticism of criticism of farmers, which by extension included anyone who produces food or makes something was that they were all nationalist and right wing – “far” did once or twice creep in – denying the liberal-progressive consensus that pervaded the evening.
As Julian Farrows puts it so well and succinctly : “I bear an inherent distrust toward any academic or think-tank wonk who blames ‘whiteness’ for societal ills or undesirable political outcomes. It’s a blanket term often used to bully conscientious people into voting or acting against their own best interests.”
It’s a mixed up article which tries to link historical happenings with today and comes over as completely nonsensical. Where do they find these people?
I stopped taking the writer seriously when he bridled at the temerity of the EU for not accepting Morocco into the bloc as somehow indicative of racism. He then points to the acceptance of geographically contiguous countries like Poland to validate his (extremely dodgy) arguments. ‘Nil Points’ from me and another example of UnHerd’s slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness.
Maybe it’s because it’s August?
The 27,000 people who died trying to enter Europe illegally chose to take that risk. The 400 people killed and thousands more injured in terrorist attacks on European soil perpetrated by first or second generation immigrants from north Africa or the Middle East during the same period had no choice in the matter.
Yes, that was ridiculous statement from the author.
Wr should be sinking boats of invaders instead allowing them in and providing shelter and money to millions of low IQ savages.
Yes that stuck out to me as well. Millions have been let in with terrible consequences, hardly the attitude of ‘let them die’.
Yes, that was ridiculous statement from the author.
Wr should be sinking boats of invaders instead allowing them in and providing shelter and money to millions of low IQ savages.
Yes that stuck out to me as well. Millions have been let in with terrible consequences, hardly the attitude of ‘let them die’.
The 27,000 people who died trying to enter Europe illegally chose to take that risk. The 400 people killed and thousands more injured in terrorist attacks on European soil perpetrated by first or second generation immigrants from north Africa or the Middle East during the same period had no choice in the matter.
“White bloc” is such an empty statement. The US may have taught itself to think in terms of simple colours, but European ‘whiteness’ is full-on ethnically diverse. It’s history is of different white ethnic groups interacting, fighting, trading, coalescing, separating – Vikings, Normans, Franks, Saxons, Goths, Romans, Slavs, Celts. 17 EU countries have been through some form of independence struggle to get where they are, and others have internal independentists in their midst. On to this smorgasbord of cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, Europe also has a history of elite-driven empires, starting with the Romans, but including Charlemagne, Hapsburgs, Bourbons, Denmark, Spain, Britain, Austria, Napoleon, Hitler, Soviet Union along with pacts, treaties, ententes cordiales that bind countries together and create rivalries. The tensions of centralisation and decentralisation are a huge part of European history – are you going to tell the Dutch nationalists of the 16th century, that they should remain Spanish? Or praise Bismark or Garibaldi for unleashing hard warmongering nationalism from the unification of German and Italy? The simplistic narrative of Europe as a unified coherent bloc is as nonsensical as thinking of Africa as one nation just because of skin colour.
“White bloc” is such an empty statement. The US may have taught itself to think in terms of simple colours, but European ‘whiteness’ is full-on ethnically diverse. It’s history is of different white ethnic groups interacting, fighting, trading, coalescing, separating – Vikings, Normans, Franks, Saxons, Goths, Romans, Slavs, Celts. 17 EU countries have been through some form of independence struggle to get where they are, and others have internal independentists in their midst. On to this smorgasbord of cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, Europe also has a history of elite-driven empires, starting with the Romans, but including Charlemagne, Hapsburgs, Bourbons, Denmark, Spain, Britain, Austria, Napoleon, Hitler, Soviet Union along with pacts, treaties, ententes cordiales that bind countries together and create rivalries. The tensions of centralisation and decentralisation are a huge part of European history – are you going to tell the Dutch nationalists of the 16th century, that they should remain Spanish? Or praise Bismark or Garibaldi for unleashing hard warmongering nationalism from the unification of German and Italy? The simplistic narrative of Europe as a unified coherent bloc is as nonsensical as thinking of Africa as one nation just because of skin colour.
I can read this kind of specious nonsense in The Guardian, in fact I already have (it’s just been repurposed to include Ukraine). The point being, what’s it doing here?
”Eurowhiteness”, good grief
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/12/europes-fear-of-refugee-has-shattered-the-illusion-of-a-cosmopolitan-haven
Mr Kundnani seems to have built a career around his notion of Eurowhiteness. I wonder what proportion of Chatham House is of his ilk?
Why do we need Kundnani types in Europe at all?
Why do we need Kundnani types in Europe at all?
Mr Kundnani seems to have built a career around his notion of Eurowhiteness. I wonder what proportion of Chatham House is of his ilk?
I can read this kind of specious nonsense in The Guardian, in fact I already have (it’s just been repurposed to include Ukraine). The point being, what’s it doing here?
”Eurowhiteness”, good grief
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/12/europes-fear-of-refugee-has-shattered-the-illusion-of-a-cosmopolitan-haven
“brutally push back migrants”?? Could the author please tell us about a non-brutal push back method? The only alternative to push-back is the UK government’s Stradey Park 4 star hotel approach to controlling migration.
‘They’ should ALL be transported to Scapa Flow immediately.
I calculate that it could hold between 8-10 million of ‘em, and additionally it would provide much needed employment for the Orkney islanders.
Each of the detainees should be provided with a smart phone so they may send photos of the joys of living in Scapa Flow back to their chums back home.
Bird watching lessons should also be provided.
Guess, the “brutal push back of migrants” also happened in Australia, and I don’t think it had anything to do with Eurowhiteness, but rather with trying to stem the flow of mass migration to protect Australia’s social systems, which couldn’t cope with the huge influx anymore.
In Europe the push back of migrants has similar reasons and of course additional cultural ones. Countries with millions of migrants from Third World Countries, who bring with them their inherited problems, will end up having bloody street fights in their own cities. In Germany Ethiopians migrants recently fought street battles between pro (Ethiopian) government supporters and anti government protesters. Many Germans asked themselves, why the pro government group was seeking asylum in the first place. Also Syrian and Kurdish-Libanese clan families fought daily in the Ruhr area (a typical former coal mining community) with baseball bats and knives, destroying local restaurants and bars. The various clans are deeply involved in drug trafficking and money laundering and finally appointed their own peace negotiators, totally disregarding German courts and police.
Let’s call it multiple joys of multiculturalism.
Let’s call it multiple joys of multiculturalism.
‘Brutal push back’ is a white person saying ‘No’ to a non-white’s invasion demands.
‘They’ should ALL be transported to Scapa Flow immediately.
I calculate that it could hold between 8-10 million of ‘em, and additionally it would provide much needed employment for the Orkney islanders.
Each of the detainees should be provided with a smart phone so they may send photos of the joys of living in Scapa Flow back to their chums back home.
Bird watching lessons should also be provided.
Guess, the “brutal push back of migrants” also happened in Australia, and I don’t think it had anything to do with Eurowhiteness, but rather with trying to stem the flow of mass migration to protect Australia’s social systems, which couldn’t cope with the huge influx anymore.
In Europe the push back of migrants has similar reasons and of course additional cultural ones. Countries with millions of migrants from Third World Countries, who bring with them their inherited problems, will end up having bloody street fights in their own cities. In Germany Ethiopians migrants recently fought street battles between pro (Ethiopian) government supporters and anti government protesters. Many Germans asked themselves, why the pro government group was seeking asylum in the first place. Also Syrian and Kurdish-Libanese clan families fought daily in the Ruhr area (a typical former coal mining community) with baseball bats and knives, destroying local restaurants and bars. The various clans are deeply involved in drug trafficking and money laundering and finally appointed their own peace negotiators, totally disregarding German courts and police.
‘Brutal push back’ is a white person saying ‘No’ to a non-white’s invasion demands.
“brutally push back migrants”?? Could the author please tell us about a non-brutal push back method? The only alternative to push-back is the UK government’s Stradey Park 4 star hotel approach to controlling migration.
The author makes some interesting arguments but weakens them with assertions such as: “Even as it (the EU) continued to brutally push back migrants in the Mediterranean.” The EU has the military wherewithal to ensure no boats make it across the Mediterranean, yet clearly does not do so. Gross hyperbole.
As for the ubiquity of Ukrainian flags seen throughout Europe, very much including Britain, the author is projecting his own beliefs on a gesture of solidarity with an underdog brutally invaded by Putin’s latter day Mongol hordes.
As for Europe as a bastion of whiteness, why not? Africa is a bastion of blackness. South Asia is a bastion of whatever hue you wish to ascribe to it. East Asia likewise. What is the alternative? For Europe to join Africa in being a bastion of blackness? No, thank you.
The author’s strongest argument is that Eastern Europe feels a strong nationalist, national democratic, and civilisational component in its EU aspirations, whereas federalist “European Project” EU champions tend to see European nation states being subsumed within a new technocratic, Pan-European entity. Clearly, this causes tensions. This, in turn, in terms of Brexit, begs the question which of those two conflicting models Britain was “leaving,” and what exactly is the EU? Certainly not a static status quo but an entity heading for an undeclared somewhere. Undeclared because it would divide as much as unite.
The author makes some interesting arguments but weakens them with assertions such as: “Even as it (the EU) continued to brutally push back migrants in the Mediterranean.” The EU has the military wherewithal to ensure no boats make it across the Mediterranean, yet clearly does not do so. Gross hyperbole.
As for the ubiquity of Ukrainian flags seen throughout Europe, very much including Britain, the author is projecting his own beliefs on a gesture of solidarity with an underdog brutally invaded by Putin’s latter day Mongol hordes.
As for Europe as a bastion of whiteness, why not? Africa is a bastion of blackness. South Asia is a bastion of whatever hue you wish to ascribe to it. East Asia likewise. What is the alternative? For Europe to join Africa in being a bastion of blackness? No, thank you.
The author’s strongest argument is that Eastern Europe feels a strong nationalist, national democratic, and civilisational component in its EU aspirations, whereas federalist “European Project” EU champions tend to see European nation states being subsumed within a new technocratic, Pan-European entity. Clearly, this causes tensions. This, in turn, in terms of Brexit, begs the question which of those two conflicting models Britain was “leaving,” and what exactly is the EU? Certainly not a static status quo but an entity heading for an undeclared somewhere. Undeclared because it would divide as much as unite.
In 1648, when the Hmelnitzky uprising took place, there were no Jews in England (only in 1655 they got the right to settle) and in France Jews and (after 1685) Protestants were not allowed to live (with the exception of Alsace) until 1787.
Poland-Lithuania had Jewish communities long before Western thinkers tried to figure out how tolerance could work.
I don’t try to oppose East vs West, but it would be useful to know Eastern European history better than its oversimplified and primitive summary. Ukrainian nationalism is much more than a line from Hmelnitzky to Bandera. But that is maybe to subtle for Western minds.
You are mistaken about there being no Jews in England until 1655. The first significant migration of Jews to England came after the Norman Conquest in 1066. By the late 1200s England had a small Jewish population of around 3000. Anti-semitic laws and riots against them were common and in 1290 Edward I banished them.
Yes, Jews were banished from the kingdom in 1290, and it was only in 1655 that they were permitted to return. Thus the only correction that needs to be made to Edit Szegedi’s assertion is that in 1648 there were no Jews legally in England. Nothing was said about the situation earlier.
Quite right, my apologies to Edit Szegedi, I misread your comment.
Quite right, my apologies to Edit Szegedi, I misread your comment.
Yes, Jews were banished from the kingdom in 1290, and it was only in 1655 that they were permitted to return. Thus the only correction that needs to be made to Edit Szegedi’s assertion is that in 1648 there were no Jews legally in England. Nothing was said about the situation earlier.
There were Jewish communities in medieval England. I suggest you need to have a firmer grasp on history before you lecture others.
He didn’t say that.
He said there we no Jews in England in 1648. As an aside he mentioned that they only got the right to settle here in 1655 ( thanks to ‘the blessed Oliver Cromwell MP.).
He made no reference to Medieval England whatsoever, so you castigate him unfairly.
‘She’ mentioned I think. If Edit is the same name as Edith?
‘She’ mentioned I think. If Edit is the same name as Edith?
One of the Edwards, I believe it was the first, expelled the Jews from England in the thirteenth-century. I think he owed them a lot of money.
So did many others, notably the ‘saintly’ Cistercians.
So did many others, notably the ‘saintly’ Cistercians.
He didn’t say that.
He said there we no Jews in England in 1648. As an aside he mentioned that they only got the right to settle here in 1655 ( thanks to ‘the blessed Oliver Cromwell MP.).
He made no reference to Medieval England whatsoever, so you castigate him unfairly.
One of the Edwards, I believe it was the first, expelled the Jews from England in the thirteenth-century. I think he owed them a lot of money.
You are mistaken about there being no Jews in England until 1655. The first significant migration of Jews to England came after the Norman Conquest in 1066. By the late 1200s England had a small Jewish population of around 3000. Anti-semitic laws and riots against them were common and in 1290 Edward I banished them.
There were Jewish communities in medieval England. I suggest you need to have a firmer grasp on history before you lecture others.
In 1648, when the Hmelnitzky uprising took place, there were no Jews in England (only in 1655 they got the right to settle) and in France Jews and (after 1685) Protestants were not allowed to live (with the exception of Alsace) until 1787.
Poland-Lithuania had Jewish communities long before Western thinkers tried to figure out how tolerance could work.
I don’t try to oppose East vs West, but it would be useful to know Eastern European history better than its oversimplified and primitive summary. Ukrainian nationalism is much more than a line from Hmelnitzky to Bandera. But that is maybe to subtle for Western minds.
Europeans adopted Anglo-Saxon ‘democracy’ after the War because it was a condition of Marshall Aid. If you read Monnet or any other of the early movers it quickly becomes clear that the purpose of the EU was to return Europe to traditional forms of government by self-selected elites whilst maintaining a very thin veneer of democratic practice.
Instead, the wobbly peg he hangs his argument on is arcane wrangling over colonial possessions in the 50s and the European Coal and Steel Community. Again, we see someone settling on a conclusion and working backwards.
Perfectly put Sir.
Eh? I think that you will find that there were rather more European countries electing governments in democratic ways in the 1930s than there were in the 1950s, ‘after the War’.
For example Mr Hitler.
For example Mr Hitler.
True. One of the first acts of the Allied Forces as they pushed the NazIs out was to remove the weapons from the Resistance who were usually Communist. There was to be no challenge to the new ‘rules based order’.
Quite right too.
I seem to recall we even had to “put a bit of stick about” in Greece, and later, using superlative Japanese troops, did the same in the Dutch East Indies*.
(*Now Indonesia.)
Not in countries like Poland.
But so called Communist resistance only happened after Soviet Union were no longer ally of Hitler.
Before that, Communists were sabotaging French industry and advocating surrender (why should we fight over Danzig?).
Quite right too.
I seem to recall we even had to “put a bit of stick about” in Greece, and later, using superlative Japanese troops, did the same in the Dutch East Indies*.
(*Now Indonesia.)
Not in countries like Poland.
But so called Communist resistance only happened after Soviet Union were no longer ally of Hitler.
Before that, Communists were sabotaging French industry and advocating surrender (why should we fight over Danzig?).
Instead, the wobbly peg he hangs his argument on is arcane wrangling over colonial possessions in the 50s and the European Coal and Steel Community. Again, we see someone settling on a conclusion and working backwards.
Perfectly put Sir.
Eh? I think that you will find that there were rather more European countries electing governments in democratic ways in the 1930s than there were in the 1950s, ‘after the War’.
True. One of the first acts of the Allied Forces as they pushed the NazIs out was to remove the weapons from the Resistance who were usually Communist. There was to be no challenge to the new ‘rules based order’.
Europeans adopted Anglo-Saxon ‘democracy’ after the War because it was a condition of Marshall Aid. If you read Monnet or any other of the early movers it quickly becomes clear that the purpose of the EU was to return Europe to traditional forms of government by self-selected elites whilst maintaining a very thin veneer of democratic practice.
The author accuses Europe of hypocrisy for welcoming Ukrainian refugees, whilst not welcoming migrants from across the Med. Ukraine has invaded by a foreign power. By contrast, Afghanistan has not been invaded: it has had a change of government, with the present government simply reverting to type. Most of the other migrants are “fleeing” from out-of-control population increase. Practically all of them come from countries where the population had doubled since the 1990’s.
The author accuses Europe of hypocrisy for welcoming Ukrainian refugees, whilst not welcoming migrants from across the Med. Ukraine has invaded by a foreign power. By contrast, Afghanistan has not been invaded: it has had a change of government, with the present government simply reverting to type. Most of the other migrants are “fleeing” from out-of-control population increase. Practically all of them come from countries where the population had doubled since the 1990’s.
“Since 2014, 27,000 people have died in the Mediterranean”. But in that period, well over 2 million migrants have crossed the Med. So an irregular migrant has a better than 97% chance of successfully getting into Europe by crossing the Med.
Precisely, this INVASION must stop NOW.!
The Romans called the Mediterranean ‘MARE NOSTRUM’, – Our Sea.
We should do so again, and defend it as such.
We owe it to our grandchildren and their children.
You’re English, miles from the Mediterranean. It’s not your sea.
How about stop ruining African countries forcing the young to leave. The world does not belong to English speaking whites.
You have had 4 centuries stealing the assets of the rest of the world. Why don’t you lot just buy them, after all you are the ones who want the market in every part of human activity?
..
Are you by any chance a ‘ Plastic Paddy’, it certainly sounds like it, judged by this juvenile rant.
(A full reply to follow, if the Censor allows.)
I presume you are Irish, as that is sort of inaccurate rant you chaps specialise in.
Anyone crossing the Mediterranean is dreaming of getting to the ‘land of milk and honey’ otherwise known as England. Thus better to stop them at the first barricade, eg: The Med, than waiting for them to start paddling across The English Channel no?
Actually you are wrong, the world does belong to “English speaking whites” and just as well looking at the other lot.
Not quite four centuries, more like three and a half*, but yes we had a simply wonderful time plundering the planet as human beings do, but very unusually we did also ‘plough back’ a lot, unlike our FAR more rapacious European competitors.
“Why don’t you lot just buy them” Are you serious, what on earth would we want to do with ‘them’?
(* Ignoring Ireland, 1603 first Honourable East India Company Factory’ established in Bantam, Sumatra. Incidentally also the home of fabulous, fighting,
feroco-chicken known as the Bantam C*ck.)
A side note from this non-plastic if pedantic Paddy. Keating via Ancestry.com: ‘English: possibly from a Middle English personal name Keting Kiting (Old English Cȳting). Irish (of Norman origin): Anglicized form of Céitinn and Mac Céitinn a Gaelicized derivative of de Ketyng (probably a habitational name) a surname which was taken to Wexford in the 12th century by Anglo-Norman settlers.’
One the ‘depraved English’ mentioned in the circa 1360, Statutes of Kilkenny perhaps?
One the ‘depraved English’ mentioned in the circa 1360, Statutes of Kilkenny perhaps?
A side note from this non-plastic if pedantic Paddy. Keating via Ancestry.com: ‘English: possibly from a Middle English personal name Keting Kiting (Old English Cȳting). Irish (of Norman origin): Anglicized form of Céitinn and Mac Céitinn a Gaelicized derivative of de Ketyng (probably a habitational name) a surname which was taken to Wexford in the 12th century by Anglo-Norman settlers.’
Care to specify in what way we are “ruining African countries”? (As opposed to, say, expending large amounts of capital both financial and political in attempting to offset the effects of their own self-destructive rejection of the stable and prosperous social and economic systems with which we left them.)
..
Are you by any chance a ‘ Plastic Paddy’, it certainly sounds like it, judged by this juvenile rant.
(A full reply to follow, if the Censor allows.)
I presume you are Irish, as that is sort of inaccurate rant you chaps specialise in.
Anyone crossing the Mediterranean is dreaming of getting to the ‘land of milk and honey’ otherwise known as England. Thus better to stop them at the first barricade, eg: The Med, than waiting for them to start paddling across The English Channel no?
Actually you are wrong, the world does belong to “English speaking whites” and just as well looking at the other lot.
Not quite four centuries, more like three and a half*, but yes we had a simply wonderful time plundering the planet as human beings do, but very unusually we did also ‘plough back’ a lot, unlike our FAR more rapacious European competitors.
“Why don’t you lot just buy them” Are you serious, what on earth would we want to do with ‘them’?
(* Ignoring Ireland, 1603 first Honourable East India Company Factory’ established in Bantam, Sumatra. Incidentally also the home of fabulous, fighting,
feroco-chicken known as the Bantam C*ck.)
Care to specify in what way we are “ruining African countries”? (As opposed to, say, expending large amounts of capital both financial and political in attempting to offset the effects of their own self-destructive rejection of the stable and prosperous social and economic systems with which we left them.)
You’re English, miles from the Mediterranean. It’s not your sea.
How about stop ruining African countries forcing the young to leave. The world does not belong to English speaking whites.
You have had 4 centuries stealing the assets of the rest of the world. Why don’t you lot just buy them, after all you are the ones who want the market in every part of human activity?
Precisely, this INVASION must stop NOW.!
The Romans called the Mediterranean ‘MARE NOSTRUM’, – Our Sea.
We should do so again, and defend it as such.
We owe it to our grandchildren and their children.
“Since 2014, 27,000 people have died in the Mediterranean”. But in that period, well over 2 million migrants have crossed the Med. So an irregular migrant has a better than 97% chance of successfully getting into Europe by crossing the Med.
The whole thing is rubbish from start to finish – but the crowning achievement is when he says that “ Thus when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was inevitably seen as a civilisational Other against which Europe must defend itself.”
The Russians are white, dude. We need these kinds of guys to be removed from their positions, not because of ideology but because of stupidity.
The whole thing is rubbish from start to finish – but the crowning achievement is when he says that “ Thus when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was inevitably seen as a civilisational Other against which Europe must defend itself.”
The Russians are white, dude. We need these kinds of guys to be removed from their positions, not because of ideology but because of stupidity.
I have searched for evidence / quotes in the Swedish writers the author cites of anything like what is proposed. The origins of the Coal and Steel Community, Euratom and the EEC in the 1950 s are very well known. To argue that it was about ( or partly but signicantly about) French and Belgian colonies is demented. Our friends write word salad of the highest order, obsessive about three countries, France, Germany and Belgium, and Africa. Maybe they didnt notice, but post war Benelux, Italy and France, all having been occupied and started again with new Constitutions, came together with a defeated Germany to form alliances. Why on earth would they have had a policy of African migration to these countries? What one can untangle from this nonsense is the very obvious difference between the first 12 EU members, trying to reduce nationalist stresses , and the Eastern European nations, who had neither guilt nor shame in their history. But this also is nothing to do with African migration policies.
I have searched for evidence / quotes in the Swedish writers the author cites of anything like what is proposed. The origins of the Coal and Steel Community, Euratom and the EEC in the 1950 s are very well known. To argue that it was about ( or partly but signicantly about) French and Belgian colonies is demented. Our friends write word salad of the highest order, obsessive about three countries, France, Germany and Belgium, and Africa. Maybe they didnt notice, but post war Benelux, Italy and France, all having been occupied and started again with new Constitutions, came together with a defeated Germany to form alliances. Why on earth would they have had a policy of African migration to these countries? What one can untangle from this nonsense is the very obvious difference between the first 12 EU members, trying to reduce nationalist stresses , and the Eastern European nations, who had neither guilt nor shame in their history. But this also is nothing to do with African migration policies.
This article is left wing garbage. Too much of this dreck appearing in UNHERD lately. May have to unsubscribe.
Off you go. You won’t be missed.
Great article, I was worried Unherd was turning into the Daily Mail and the Spectator. Hood to have some balanced views for once.
Great article, I was worried Unherd was turning into the Daily Mail and the Spectator. Hood to have some balanced views for once.
Do as you think best, but don’t be put off by a nasty little Leprechaun like Mr Keating.
Yes, my time on here is coming to an end as well.
Off you go. You won’t be missed.
Do as you think best, but don’t be put off by a nasty little Leprechaun like Mr Keating.
Yes, my time on here is coming to an end as well.
This article is left wing garbage. Too much of this dreck appearing in UNHERD lately. May have to unsubscribe.
The EU is a useless project and should be peacefully ended. I suggest keeping NATO around, though.
The EU is a useless project and should be peacefully ended. I suggest keeping NATO around, though.
When’s the author going to write about African blackness or Indian non-whiteness I wonder? Never of course. There’s only ever one baddie in the world. Time to write my long-awaited tome ‘Occidentalism ‘ ( see Orientalism and reverse all the jaded arguments).
Wait until the author finds out how black people treat Indians in Africa.
He wont care.
He wont care.
Wait until the author finds out how black people treat Indians in Africa.
When’s the author going to write about African blackness or Indian non-whiteness I wonder? Never of course. There’s only ever one baddie in the world. Time to write my long-awaited tome ‘Occidentalism ‘ ( see Orientalism and reverse all the jaded arguments).
Oh my gosh. European civilization wants to preserve itself. Heavens forbid. If the EU was slightly more effective at that project, it might have more support. What planet are you on?
Oh my gosh. European civilization wants to preserve itself. Heavens forbid. If the EU was slightly more effective at that project, it might have more support. What planet are you on?
“the EU’s tendency to see itself as the embodiment of a threatened European civilisation — and further strengthen its identity as white bloc.”
Whiteness is neither here nor there. The EU is a forlorn attempt to resurrect a secularised Christendom. Given the reproduction rates of most of its constituent nations, it scarcely seems worth bothering.
“the EU’s tendency to see itself as the embodiment of a threatened European civilisation — and further strengthen its identity as white bloc.”
Whiteness is neither here nor there. The EU is a forlorn attempt to resurrect a secularised Christendom. Given the reproduction rates of most of its constituent nations, it scarcely seems worth bothering.
The more European-level nationalism, the more there will be European-level democracy.
The more European-level nationalism, the more there will be European-level democracy.
The majority of Europeans are white and with a shared, if sometimes tenuous, history in which is contained the idea of Christendom and many concomitant concepts. This part of European identity is still there, even if it seems to belong to the political subconscious: until it is attacked.
The majority of Europeans are white and with a shared, if sometimes tenuous, history in which is contained the idea of Christendom and many concomitant concepts. This part of European identity is still there, even if it seems to belong to the political subconscious: until it is attacked.
According to this writer, Ukraine “has a long history of anti-Semitism which extends from its 16th-century Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky to Stepan Bandera during the Second World War — both of whom are still venerated in Ukraine.” His apparent conclusion: Ukraine is a dubious, morally hazardous candidate for EU membership.
All he proves with this is that if you go back far enough into any country’s history, you can uncover gross atrocities. With regard to anti-Semitism, it’s a fact that Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Austria and others saw discrimination, pogroms and/or expulsions of Jews. Even England expelled them many centuries ago — so by the writer’s logic, Brexit was a lucky break for the virtuous EU members. Phew, that was a close call …
And despite the undoubted persecutions of Jews in Ukraine, for centuries the Jews flourished there, and their numbers grew. It’s also where they developed many of the Jewish traditions they still practice today. Oh, and that short fellow in charge over there — isn’t he one of them?
According to this writer, Ukraine “has a long history of anti-Semitism which extends from its 16th-century Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky to Stepan Bandera during the Second World War — both of whom are still venerated in Ukraine.” His apparent conclusion: Ukraine is a dubious, morally hazardous candidate for EU membership.
All he proves with this is that if you go back far enough into any country’s history, you can uncover gross atrocities. With regard to anti-Semitism, it’s a fact that Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Austria and others saw discrimination, pogroms and/or expulsions of Jews. Even England expelled them many centuries ago — so by the writer’s logic, Brexit was a lucky break for the virtuous EU members. Phew, that was a close call …
And despite the undoubted persecutions of Jews in Ukraine, for centuries the Jews flourished there, and their numbers grew. It’s also where they developed many of the Jewish traditions they still practice today. Oh, and that short fellow in charge over there — isn’t he one of them?
The author makes some good points, but he also seems to be trying to cram the whole essay into the current intellectual Procrustean fad of colonialism or whiteness or something.
The author makes some good points, but he also seems to be trying to cram the whole essay into the current intellectual Procrustean fad of colonialism or whiteness or something.
The woke left insists that every question must be considered under the lens of its racialism.
The woke left insists that every question must be considered under the lens of its racialism.
A quasi-academic article that seems to have been composed by a ChatGPT algorithm, combing a random collection of academic articles on just about anything popular today. And “White” seems to be at the top of the list for 2023. Followed by “immigration,” “colonialism,” and “fascism.”
Sorry, that “whiteness” somehow has anything to do with the present war ignores the many coalitions in the past involving Europe that certainly weren’t based on race, to include WW2, and the Cold War. In those cases there was a clear adversary who was perceived to be a threat to every member. Indeed, no one consciously thought that race was a factor WRT the Soviet Union.
Also, rather obviously, Russians are just as “white” as any European nation–and far more racist and chauvinist. So “whiteness” has nothing to do with it. This is about a sudden threat to an alliance that never thought that Putin would really invade. That alliances pull together when threatened…is rather what alliances do.
And if this threat had succeeded, it would have given Putin control over 1) Europe’s energy supply, and 2) much of the world’s food supply. In view of Russia’s steep decline in everything else, it was the only thing his tiny brain could conceive of to make Russia a significant power again. And, as recent thinking has confirmed, he won’t give that dream up anytime soon.
But the least convincing part of the piece is the writer’s implication that Ukraine’s “Nazis” (under a Jewish president!) are somehow a threat to…somebody. That really doesn’t hold water.
Ukraine is far less likely to turn into a Nazi state if it has to abide by the EU’s rather extensive entry rules, than if it remains isolated and perpetually threatened by Russia.
Indeed, if you want a Nazi state, making Ukraine into a poor, truncated state is the very best way to achieve that. Both Italy and Germany, interwar, are two good examples. Russia itself after 2000 is another.
Hmmm…
ChatGPT may still need some work…
A quasi-academic article that seems to have been composed by a ChatGPT algorithm, combing a random collection of academic articles on just about anything popular today. And “White” seems to be at the top of the list for 2023. Followed by “immigration,” “colonialism,” and “fascism.”
Sorry, that “whiteness” somehow has anything to do with the present war ignores the many coalitions in the past involving Europe that certainly weren’t based on race, to include WW2, and the Cold War. In those cases there was a clear adversary who was perceived to be a threat to every member. Indeed, no one consciously thought that race was a factor WRT the Soviet Union.
Also, rather obviously, Russians are just as “white” as any European nation–and far more racist and chauvinist. So “whiteness” has nothing to do with it. This is about a sudden threat to an alliance that never thought that Putin would really invade. That alliances pull together when threatened…is rather what alliances do.
And if this threat had succeeded, it would have given Putin control over 1) Europe’s energy supply, and 2) much of the world’s food supply. In view of Russia’s steep decline in everything else, it was the only thing his tiny brain could conceive of to make Russia a significant power again. And, as recent thinking has confirmed, he won’t give that dream up anytime soon.
But the least convincing part of the piece is the writer’s implication that Ukraine’s “Nazis” (under a Jewish president!) are somehow a threat to…somebody. That really doesn’t hold water.
Ukraine is far less likely to turn into a Nazi state if it has to abide by the EU’s rather extensive entry rules, than if it remains isolated and perpetually threatened by Russia.
Indeed, if you want a Nazi state, making Ukraine into a poor, truncated state is the very best way to achieve that. Both Italy and Germany, interwar, are two good examples. Russia itself after 2000 is another.
Hmmm…
ChatGPT may still need some work…
The more European-level nationalism, the more European-level democracy.
That is very true – and welfare, fiscal transfers etc. the EU has been failing because of a deficit of EU mutual identification and nationalism. That is what makes the EURO ludicrous. If he was right, it would be a good thing – and the saving grace of the entire project
That is very true – and welfare, fiscal transfers etc. the EU has been failing because of a deficit of EU mutual identification and nationalism. That is what makes the EURO ludicrous. If he was right, it would be a good thing – and the saving grace of the entire project
The more European-level nationalism, the more European-level democracy.
An aspect not mentioned here, but which I believe is important, is that the EU used to oblige its member states to protect minorities; when the Baltic States joined and openly discriminated against their Russian minority, they were given a pass.
Under the dual umbrellas of NATO and the EU – now progressively fused into one -, the likes of Poland and the Baltic States saw an opportunity to resume their nationalist expansion that had been rudely interrupted by WW II.
It is these countries, which Donald Rumsfeld admiringly called “New Europe”, that are driving the agenda, firm in the (mistaken) belief that the US, whose interests happen to coincide with theirs at the moment, will back up their antics, and THEY won’t end up like so many other US “allies”, used and cast aside when no longer useful.
What nationalist expansion?
The only nationalist expansion which was stopped by end of ww2 was by Germany.
By obviously Naz* scum like your parents or grandparents used to gas Jews?
Hence your surname.
When you say “nationalist expansion” in re Poland and the Baltics, do you possibly mean “fascist?”
The “Russian minority” in the Baltic states are colonists the USSR settled there to undermine the national identities of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Yes after the occupation they deported about 7% to gulags and executed many others who did not flee. It was a decades long Russification project. They formed a higher caste that is now displaced. So unfair!
Yes after the occupation they deported about 7% to gulags and executed many others who did not flee. It was a decades long Russification project. They formed a higher caste that is now displaced. So unfair!
What nationalist expansion?
The only nationalist expansion which was stopped by end of ww2 was by Germany.
By obviously Naz* scum like your parents or grandparents used to gas Jews?
Hence your surname.
When you say “nationalist expansion” in re Poland and the Baltics, do you possibly mean “fascist?”
The “Russian minority” in the Baltic states are colonists the USSR settled there to undermine the national identities of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
An aspect not mentioned here, but which I believe is important, is that the EU used to oblige its member states to protect minorities; when the Baltic States joined and openly discriminated against their Russian minority, they were given a pass.
Under the dual umbrellas of NATO and the EU – now progressively fused into one -, the likes of Poland and the Baltic States saw an opportunity to resume their nationalist expansion that had been rudely interrupted by WW II.
It is these countries, which Donald Rumsfeld admiringly called “New Europe”, that are driving the agenda, firm in the (mistaken) belief that the US, whose interests happen to coincide with theirs at the moment, will back up their antics, and THEY won’t end up like so many other US “allies”, used and cast aside when no longer useful.
“In reality, however, the EU occupies a much more complex space within the binaries that dominate our political thinking. As an examination of its history shows, it stands for liberalism rather than democracy, while replicating some of the features of nationalism on a larger, continental scale.”
This article is excellent, and this part stands out. Ever since the painful debates around brexit started, I have often found that the vociferous and often abusive support for EU membership appears to take a form similar to hidebound nationalism – one that implicitly sees the EU as a nation in its own right, and which was under threat by brexit as if brexit was a secessionary, unpatriotic agenda.
On one level this isn’t really controversial: what else do you call a region with precise borders, a capital city, a flag and its own currency? But wow, if you’re in an argument with a europhile and you point this out, my advice is to know your escape route from the room in advance.
“In reality, however, the EU occupies a much more complex space within the binaries that dominate our political thinking. As an examination of its history shows, it stands for liberalism rather than democracy, while replicating some of the features of nationalism on a larger, continental scale.”
This article is excellent, and this part stands out. Ever since the painful debates around brexit started, I have often found that the vociferous and often abusive support for EU membership appears to take a form similar to hidebound nationalism – one that implicitly sees the EU as a nation in its own right, and which was under threat by brexit as if brexit was a secessionary, unpatriotic agenda.
On one level this isn’t really controversial: what else do you call a region with precise borders, a capital city, a flag and its own currency? But wow, if you’re in an argument with a europhile and you point this out, my advice is to know your escape route from the room in advance.
Maybe I’m reading your article wrong (who can blame me), but to me you seem to say this as if it is some revelation of the EC’s racism and that Morocco being told that it’s ‘not a European country’ and therefore can’t join is just a nifty excuse the EC crafted to exclude non-whites. Morocco is in North Africa. Geographically speaking, it is not part of Europe. I have no love for the EC but an organisation called ‘The European Community’ not allowing countries on continents other than Europe to become member states is hardly a form of racism. It was/is a regional organisation inherently defined by geography and it is this, not race, that was reflected in the decision to exclude Morocco.
Maybe I’m reading your article wrong (who can blame me), but to me you seem to say this as if it is some revelation of the EC’s racism and that Morocco being told that it’s ‘not a European country’ and therefore can’t join is just a nifty excuse the EC crafted to exclude non-whites. Morocco is in North Africa. Geographically speaking, it is not part of Europe. I have no love for the EC but an organisation called ‘The European Community’ not allowing countries on continents other than Europe to become member states is hardly a form of racism. It was/is a regional organisation inherently defined by geography and it is this, not race, that was reflected in the decision to exclude Morocco.
So what? You’re slowly catching up. My preferred structure would be a USE (with Britain included, although FC of that, unfortunately) with a common army and a commitment to protecting our common European culture, which to me is the best culture in the world. If that makes me a nasty European nationalist, I’m very comfortable with that label.
There might be something that approximates to Northern European culture but there really is no single European culture.
I was told by a young European some 20 years ago that a USE could and would never, ever happen. The European nations are (were) still too attached to their “nationalist” identities. Perhaps things have changed?
There might be something that approximates to Northern European culture but there really is no single European culture.
I was told by a young European some 20 years ago that a USE could and would never, ever happen. The European nations are (were) still too attached to their “nationalist” identities. Perhaps things have changed?
So what? You’re slowly catching up. My preferred structure would be a USE (with Britain included, although FC of that, unfortunately) with a common army and a commitment to protecting our common European culture, which to me is the best culture in the world. If that makes me a nasty European nationalist, I’m very comfortable with that label.
‘…the danger is that the war, and Ukrainian accession, will increase the EU’s tendency to see itself as the embodiment of a threatened European civilisation — and further strengthen its identity as white bloc.’
And the problem with that is?
‘…the danger is that the war, and Ukrainian accession, will increase the EU’s tendency to see itself as the embodiment of a threatened European civilisation — and further strengthen its identity as white bloc.’
And the problem with that is?
‘Meanwhile, the danger is that the war, and Ukrainian accession, will increase the EU’s tendency to see itself as the embodiment of a threatened European civilisation — and further strengthen its identity as white bloc.’.
And so what.. We don’t identify as a ‘white’ block but as nation states i connection with each other from and idea that there is a European identity. Poland in history has aspired to be european. And the incredibly development in the last 20 years happened among other thins due to EU support. For a researcher who sure take some long views it’s surprising that a recent right wing turn in Poland and Hungary is a hinderance in a long development. And ‘white’ of course North European is mostly of the sam race. How could that be otherwise.
‘Meanwhile, the danger is that the war, and Ukrainian accession, will increase the EU’s tendency to see itself as the embodiment of a threatened European civilisation — and further strengthen its identity as white bloc.’.
And so what.. We don’t identify as a ‘white’ block but as nation states i connection with each other from and idea that there is a European identity. Poland in history has aspired to be european. And the incredibly development in the last 20 years happened among other thins due to EU support. For a researcher who sure take some long views it’s surprising that a recent right wing turn in Poland and Hungary is a hinderance in a long development. And ‘white’ of course North European is mostly of the sam race. How could that be otherwise.
I’ve come to the cynical conclusion that human nature includes an innate need to band together over similarities, be they profound differences of values or superficial traits like skin color (in practical terms, it’s almost always a combination of both), and struggle against other groups. To expect human beings not to do this would be like trying to teach wolves not to run in packs or make cats into vegetarians. It would require intervention at the genetic level. This, more than anything else, is why globalism must fail as an ideology. No technology nor method has yet been found that can suppress basic human nature indefinitely, and I suspect none ever will be. If there are no designated foreigners to act as the psychological ‘other’, people will simply find their own, and band together in whatever way they choose against whomever they choose. The horrible, but relatively brief, external conflicts we call war, conducted by both sides with formal rules on designated battlefields over specific issues or territories between the trained soldiers of both sides, will be instead replaced by constant, continuous, internal factional violence, toxic politics, acts of terrorism, rioting, attempted coups, and so on. As horrible as war is, the alternative is actually far more costly (see present day Syria, Iraq, etc.). The reason modern nation states evolved in the first place was because they were successfully able to harness and utilize pre-existing clan and tribal instincts through the mechanism of nationalism and create the long term internal peace and harmony that contributed to human thriving and facilitated the modern era. The author seems to acknowledge the continuing presence of and importance of nationalism when noting the differing treatment of Ukrainian versus middle eastern refugees and the wildly different public reactions. He knows the basic facts, that Ukrainian refugees are more readily accepted, that they are perceived as being more “European” than middle easterners, and that the actual people of Europe seem to care more about the welfare of Ukrainians than they do the middle easterners, but like most intellectuals of our age, he seems determined to avoid the obvious conclusions. Those conclusions being that humans have an innate sense of tribalism that causes them to value human life unequally, that humans have a need to feel that they are in some sense similar to the people around them, and differentiate between ‘us’ and ‘them’, and that other things being equal homogeneity along racial, religious, and historical/cultural lines contributes to social harmony, reduces crime, and produces healthier and happier communities. One might be tempted to conclude that the author lacks the courage to face the darker side of human nature, including his own, and instead blames his own psychological ‘other’, all those ignorant white nationalists, instead.
I’ve come to the cynical conclusion that human nature includes an innate need to band together over similarities, be they profound differences of values or superficial traits like skin color (in practical terms, it’s almost always a combination of both), and struggle against other groups. To expect human beings not to do this would be like trying to teach wolves not to run in packs or make cats into vegetarians. It would require intervention at the genetic level. This, more than anything else, is why globalism must fail as an ideology. No technology nor method has yet been found that can suppress basic human nature indefinitely, and I suspect none ever will be. If there are no designated foreigners to act as the psychological ‘other’, people will simply find their own, and band together in whatever way they choose against whomever they choose. The horrible, but relatively brief, external conflicts we call war, conducted by both sides with formal rules on designated battlefields over specific issues or territories between the trained soldiers of both sides, will be instead replaced by constant, continuous, internal factional violence, toxic politics, acts of terrorism, rioting, attempted coups, and so on. As horrible as war is, the alternative is actually far more costly (see present day Syria, Iraq, etc.). The reason modern nation states evolved in the first place was because they were successfully able to harness and utilize pre-existing clan and tribal instincts through the mechanism of nationalism and create the long term internal peace and harmony that contributed to human thriving and facilitated the modern era. The author seems to acknowledge the continuing presence of and importance of nationalism when noting the differing treatment of Ukrainian versus middle eastern refugees and the wildly different public reactions. He knows the basic facts, that Ukrainian refugees are more readily accepted, that they are perceived as being more “European” than middle easterners, and that the actual people of Europe seem to care more about the welfare of Ukrainians than they do the middle easterners, but like most intellectuals of our age, he seems determined to avoid the obvious conclusions. Those conclusions being that humans have an innate sense of tribalism that causes them to value human life unequally, that humans have a need to feel that they are in some sense similar to the people around them, and differentiate between ‘us’ and ‘them’, and that other things being equal homogeneity along racial, religious, and historical/cultural lines contributes to social harmony, reduces crime, and produces healthier and happier communities. One might be tempted to conclude that the author lacks the courage to face the darker side of human nature, including his own, and instead blames his own psychological ‘other’, all those ignorant white nationalists, instead.
This is today’s EU word salad special from a sous-chef at the EU restaurant.
But still, I am going to re-read it because I suspect it tells us what is going on behind the scenes in the EU kitchen.
This is today’s EU word salad special from a sous-chef at the EU restaurant.
But still, I am going to re-read it because I suspect it tells us what is going on behind the scenes in the EU kitchen.
IMPORTANT >>>> Just wanted to add the President of Eritreas “comments” at the RU/ Africa summit:
I am happy to meet with you again and to have the opportunity to compare notes on current issues. Russia and Eritrea maintain friendly relations that continue to develop on the principles of equality and mutual respect; last May we marked the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations.
A couple of months ago you visited Russia and we held in-depth talks, and discussed promising areas for cooperation between our countries, mapping out concrete steps to develop them.
On my instruction, an ad hoc high-level inter-departmental working group was set up, and it will be led by my aide, Mr Maxim Oreshkin, who will be looking into opportunities to boost trade and step up economic cooperation between our countries. We are looking forward to the appointment of a coordinator of all these issues representing your country.
I expect our meeting today and your participation in today’s all-African discussion – its outcome, at least – to contribute to strengthening relations between Russia and Eritrea.
I am very happy to see you and, once again, welcome.
President of Eritrea Isaias Afwerki: I have been patiently listening to people talking at these meetings and there is one issue that worries me. I just want to articulate that issue and tell you our views, at least how we see the situation from our perspective.
When people talk about Russia and Ukraine, I say that there is no Russia-Ukraine war at all, there is no Russia-Ukraine conflict. This is a war that was declared by NATO on Russia. The war declared by NATO on Russia is not only against Russia; its aim is to dominate the whole world.
This is an agenda they developed after the end of the Cold War. They came up with this fantasy about containing Russia, containing any power – small or big – that challenges them technologically, economically, socially, culturally. They have to contain everybody.
This is a defunct ideology. I say Russia did not prepare to face this declared war, even though Russia was aware of the dynamics of what was going on. NATO is defunct. NATO does not exist. NATO is in intensive care. The EU does not exist. The EU is in intensive care. Thirty years ago, when they decided to contain Russia, they felt that it was a major threat for them.
China was not considered a threat at that time. Now they know that they missed the point. They could not contain Russia. They will never contain Russia. Ukraine is a sacrifice. Ukraine is a price they have to pay. They are not paying on their own: they will provide billions and billions even trillions to continue this war.
Now we need to look at the narrative thread: this is not a war between Russia and Ukraine; this is a declared war against Russia because Russia was a major threat to them. Now they have to defeat Russia so that they hegemonise everything.
They need to be your equals technologically, militarily, they have to be superior economically, they have to control everything, grab every resource here and there, and get technology under their control. That dream is no more.
The fighting going on in Ukraine is their battleground. That battleground is a sacrifice for them. We need to put this thread on the record, when a big meeting like this Russia-Africa summit is held, people will have to come to a consensus – this is not a war between Russia and Ukraine to me, and anyone who has a different explanation will have to tell me.
This is a war declared on Russia but a war declared to achieve hegemony. In the last 30 years I have seen the details of the mechanism of this declared war; this last event is the final phase to me. It will end sometime. NATO will not get out of intensive care. The EU will not get out of intensive care. These systems are crumbling. It is only a matter of time.
The whole world will have to be prepared not to defend Russia but to stand with Russia so that this hegemonistic ideology does not prevail at any point in history.
How do we design a plan? How do we make their plan fail without any further cost? They are printing money. They are not manufacturing anything at all; it is all about printing money. And this is one of their weapons. The global monetary system controlled by the dollar and the euro is being used. They are introducing sanctions and freezing accounts – these are their tools. This is not going to continue indefinitely.
We need a new financial architecture, globally, one that is not controlled by the euro, the dollar or other currencies. Following this failed attempt to contain Russia they will immediately move to the East: containing China is their next agenda. They are playing a very deceptive tactic, telling everyone: “Oh, no, we have to work with China, we have to do this and that.”
Their calculation about China has proved to be wrong. They have failed: they probably have the technology, they have everything, the Chinese can only copy those things, but they will never equal them. So, they will contain Russia while promoting friendship with China and continuing to use it so that containing Russia would be easier for them.
Now China is out of control. Containing China from Taiwan, from India, from Japan, from the South Kurils, from Australia – how do they do it, how will they do it? That challenge is coming next, but first they need to deal with Russia. How do they want to deal with Russia and then move on to China? How can they deal with everybody? How do they contain us?
Imagine, this time Eritrea is being contained by them. We are being punished with their sanctions all the time. We have to be punished because we are not bowing to their conditionalities. We are a very small threat; we are not even a threat to them. But they have to contain us: sanctions, sanctions, sanctions, conflict here, conflict there.
I think we need to strategise and I say Russia will have to lead this strategy. Russia will have to design a plan on facing this declared war, not only on Russia, but this is a global war. Everybody should come and join Russia in this strategy, and the sooner, the better. The easiest way for us to control their hegemonistic strategy and frustrate that strategy is to have peace, and then development will come.
Nobody is going to bother us, nobody is going to bully anybody. They are using defamation, demonisation, psychological warfare, sanctions. We will need an alternative strategy to deal with this hegemonistic declaration of war. And every event – bilateral or multilateral – will have to adopt this strategy, and that is why I say during my remarks that Russia should design a strategy.
It is not because Russia will have to do everything; we can make our contribution. It is a matter of ideas: how do we face this hegemonistic strategy in a way that we are able implement bilateral programmes, technology, industrialisation, agriculture, energy, water management, services, tourism, life in general – how do we do that?
Now, we have to look at this in the historical context. This is a continuation of classical slavery. After slavery came colonialism. Slavery was exterminating populations. Nine million people were exterminated in the Congo, Indians were exterminated in North America and in Canada. They were exterminating indigenous populations and grabbing control of their land.
And when they got control of the land, they had to bring slaves from Africa for their cotton plantations in the United States. That was slavery, and it continues. Then the industrialisation came. That was a matter of grabbing other countries’ resources and the continuation of slavery. Then a different form – colonialism – came: they colonised territories so that they could grab control of the land, and then they controlled labour and enslaved everybody.
Then there was neo-colonialism and the Cold War. Russia was the hope of the people of the world during the period of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, leaders in the Soviet Union made mistakes that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was a historic tragedy, as you said at one point. That was a historic tragedy: in the course of the history of humanity that was a catastrophe.
That was one of the reasons that encouraged people like Fukuyama and Huntington to design their strategy of hegemony. Because the Soviet Union collapsed, the Soviet Union disintegrated, and they felt that they could control the world for the coming 50 or 100 years without anyone challenging them.
That was when this hegemonistic fantasy emerged. We have seen what they have done over the last 30 years. It is a continuation of the same ideology of slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, and then hegemony.
The world will have to overcome this state of affairs. We are at a crossroads. We believe we are in transition to a new world order. How do we design a new world order? How can we possibly strategise, how do we use the resources, how do we make people everywhere aware that this threat exists. And if they get out of this situation, they can enjoy their liberty, their freedom, their development without this hegemonistic idea.
I think this issue will have to be thoroughly addressed and we need to come up with concrete plans. We will make our modest contribution, but we have the understanding that this Russia-Africa partnership is one part of the bigger global partnership that we will have to develop.
Russia will have to take the lead, because Russia has been targeted and is still being targeted. They might dream of using the war in Ukraine now to weaken Russia and they probably dream about the same event happening. The collapse of Russia will be a big advantage for them. It is a dream. They are now spending trillions and trillions by printing money to run the show in Ukraine. This will have to end at some point.
We need to look beyond that. Our bilateral partnership is based on our understanding of this historic mission of Russia. Russia has a historic mission to play. On behalf of everybody in the world I can say who is the leader of this show – Mr Vladimir Putin is the leader of the show. Russia should take the lead because of the challenge that we are facing.
I am not flattering anyone. I am not doing any favour to you. I say this is a global challenge and we have to overcome it by identifying the role of each and every one of us in the whole story.
Economic programmes, energy, water, infrastructure – you name it. Everyone will have a strategy and will define their goals and objectives. Once we have a strategy in place, we will draw detailed plans on each and every sector, each and every industry. We will mobilise the resources for implementing those programmes and we will see that implementing them will change people’s lives in Africa, Asia, Latin America, even Europe and the United States also.
Our detailed plans for sectoral programmes are ready: on each and every sector we have our own strategic plan. We have considered the details of each and every item of an infrastructure programme: roads, ports, airports, railway, energy programmes, water preservation and water management programmes, irrigation, introducing technologies, and our human resource development strategies. We discussed it yesterday with one of your ministers. We agreed on the details of how we will go about this because the development of our human resources is a priority for us. There could be other resources: oil, gas, minerals, and so on. But human resources are our human capital. We need to invest in that and we can rely on the Russian Federation to help develop our capacity to implement developmental programmes by guaranteeing the qualified human resources that we need. The details are there.
Do we have the money? We will try to mobilise every single penny, and if we cannot mobilise this resource, we will say to our partners in the Russian Federation: “These are our plans and if you have an idea or an opinion, or alternatives we would like to listen.”
Mobilising resources is a shared responsibility and we can mobilise our own resources from whatever is available: mining, agriculture, manufacturing. We can do that.
Thank you for your patience.
IMPORTANT >>>> Just wanted to add the President of Eritreas “comments” at the RU/ Africa summit:
I am happy to meet with you again and to have the opportunity to compare notes on current issues. Russia and Eritrea maintain friendly relations that continue to develop on the principles of equality and mutual respect; last May we marked the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations.
A couple of months ago you visited Russia and we held in-depth talks, and discussed promising areas for cooperation between our countries, mapping out concrete steps to develop them.
On my instruction, an ad hoc high-level inter-departmental working group was set up, and it will be led by my aide, Mr Maxim Oreshkin, who will be looking into opportunities to boost trade and step up economic cooperation between our countries. We are looking forward to the appointment of a coordinator of all these issues representing your country.
I expect our meeting today and your participation in today’s all-African discussion – its outcome, at least – to contribute to strengthening relations between Russia and Eritrea.
I am very happy to see you and, once again, welcome.
President of Eritrea Isaias Afwerki: I have been patiently listening to people talking at these meetings and there is one issue that worries me. I just want to articulate that issue and tell you our views, at least how we see the situation from our perspective.
When people talk about Russia and Ukraine, I say that there is no Russia-Ukraine war at all, there is no Russia-Ukraine conflict. This is a war that was declared by NATO on Russia. The war declared by NATO on Russia is not only against Russia; its aim is to dominate the whole world.
This is an agenda they developed after the end of the Cold War. They came up with this fantasy about containing Russia, containing any power – small or big – that challenges them technologically, economically, socially, culturally. They have to contain everybody.
This is a defunct ideology. I say Russia did not prepare to face this declared war, even though Russia was aware of the dynamics of what was going on. NATO is defunct. NATO does not exist. NATO is in intensive care. The EU does not exist. The EU is in intensive care. Thirty years ago, when they decided to contain Russia, they felt that it was a major threat for them.
China was not considered a threat at that time. Now they know that they missed the point. They could not contain Russia. They will never contain Russia. Ukraine is a sacrifice. Ukraine is a price they have to pay. They are not paying on their own: they will provide billions and billions even trillions to continue this war.
Now we need to look at the narrative thread: this is not a war between Russia and Ukraine; this is a declared war against Russia because Russia was a major threat to them. Now they have to defeat Russia so that they hegemonise everything.
They need to be your equals technologically, militarily, they have to be superior economically, they have to control everything, grab every resource here and there, and get technology under their control. That dream is no more.
The fighting going on in Ukraine is their battleground. That battleground is a sacrifice for them. We need to put this thread on the record, when a big meeting like this Russia-Africa summit is held, people will have to come to a consensus – this is not a war between Russia and Ukraine to me, and anyone who has a different explanation will have to tell me.
This is a war declared on Russia but a war declared to achieve hegemony. In the last 30 years I have seen the details of the mechanism of this declared war; this last event is the final phase to me. It will end sometime. NATO will not get out of intensive care. The EU will not get out of intensive care. These systems are crumbling. It is only a matter of time.
The whole world will have to be prepared not to defend Russia but to stand with Russia so that this hegemonistic ideology does not prevail at any point in history.
How do we design a plan? How do we make their plan fail without any further cost? They are printing money. They are not manufacturing anything at all; it is all about printing money. And this is one of their weapons. The global monetary system controlled by the dollar and the euro is being used. They are introducing sanctions and freezing accounts – these are their tools. This is not going to continue indefinitely.
We need a new financial architecture, globally, one that is not controlled by the euro, the dollar or other currencies. Following this failed attempt to contain Russia they will immediately move to the East: containing China is their next agenda. They are playing a very deceptive tactic, telling everyone: “Oh, no, we have to work with China, we have to do this and that.”
Their calculation about China has proved to be wrong. They have failed: they probably have the technology, they have everything, the Chinese can only copy those things, but they will never equal them. So, they will contain Russia while promoting friendship with China and continuing to use it so that containing Russia would be easier for them.
Now China is out of control. Containing China from Taiwan, from India, from Japan, from the South Kurils, from Australia – how do they do it, how will they do it? That challenge is coming next, but first they need to deal with Russia. How do they want to deal with Russia and then move on to China? How can they deal with everybody? How do they contain us?
Imagine, this time Eritrea is being contained by them. We are being punished with their sanctions all the time. We have to be punished because we are not bowing to their conditionalities. We are a very small threat; we are not even a threat to them. But they have to contain us: sanctions, sanctions, sanctions, conflict here, conflict there.
I think we need to strategise and I say Russia will have to lead this strategy. Russia will have to design a plan on facing this declared war, not only on Russia, but this is a global war. Everybody should come and join Russia in this strategy, and the sooner, the better. The easiest way for us to control their hegemonistic strategy and frustrate that strategy is to have peace, and then development will come.
Nobody is going to bother us, nobody is going to bully anybody. They are using defamation, demonisation, psychological warfare, sanctions. We will need an alternative strategy to deal with this hegemonistic declaration of war. And every event – bilateral or multilateral – will have to adopt this strategy, and that is why I say during my remarks that Russia should design a strategy.
It is not because Russia will have to do everything; we can make our contribution. It is a matter of ideas: how do we face this hegemonistic strategy in a way that we are able implement bilateral programmes, technology, industrialisation, agriculture, energy, water management, services, tourism, life in general – how do we do that?
Now, we have to look at this in the historical context. This is a continuation of classical slavery. After slavery came colonialism. Slavery was exterminating populations. Nine million people were exterminated in the Congo, Indians were exterminated in North America and in Canada. They were exterminating indigenous populations and grabbing control of their land.
And when they got control of the land, they had to bring slaves from Africa for their cotton plantations in the United States. That was slavery, and it continues. Then the industrialisation came. That was a matter of grabbing other countries’ resources and the continuation of slavery. Then a different form – colonialism – came: they colonised territories so that they could grab control of the land, and then they controlled labour and enslaved everybody.
Then there was neo-colonialism and the Cold War. Russia was the hope of the people of the world during the period of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, leaders in the Soviet Union made mistakes that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was a historic tragedy, as you said at one point. That was a historic tragedy: in the course of the history of humanity that was a catastrophe.
That was one of the reasons that encouraged people like Fukuyama and Huntington to design their strategy of hegemony. Because the Soviet Union collapsed, the Soviet Union disintegrated, and they felt that they could control the world for the coming 50 or 100 years without anyone challenging them.
That was when this hegemonistic fantasy emerged. We have seen what they have done over the last 30 years. It is a continuation of the same ideology of slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, and then hegemony.
The world will have to overcome this state of affairs. We are at a crossroads. We believe we are in transition to a new world order. How do we design a new world order? How can we possibly strategise, how do we use the resources, how do we make people everywhere aware that this threat exists. And if they get out of this situation, they can enjoy their liberty, their freedom, their development without this hegemonistic idea.
I think this issue will have to be thoroughly addressed and we need to come up with concrete plans. We will make our modest contribution, but we have the understanding that this Russia-Africa partnership is one part of the bigger global partnership that we will have to develop.
Russia will have to take the lead, because Russia has been targeted and is still being targeted. They might dream of using the war in Ukraine now to weaken Russia and they probably dream about the same event happening. The collapse of Russia will be a big advantage for them. It is a dream. They are now spending trillions and trillions by printing money to run the show in Ukraine. This will have to end at some point.
We need to look beyond that. Our bilateral partnership is based on our understanding of this historic mission of Russia. Russia has a historic mission to play. On behalf of everybody in the world I can say who is the leader of this show – Mr Vladimir Putin is the leader of the show. Russia should take the lead because of the challenge that we are facing.
I am not flattering anyone. I am not doing any favour to you. I say this is a global challenge and we have to overcome it by identifying the role of each and every one of us in the whole story.
Economic programmes, energy, water, infrastructure – you name it. Everyone will have a strategy and will define their goals and objectives. Once we have a strategy in place, we will draw detailed plans on each and every sector, each and every industry. We will mobilise the resources for implementing those programmes and we will see that implementing them will change people’s lives in Africa, Asia, Latin America, even Europe and the United States also.
Our detailed plans for sectoral programmes are ready: on each and every sector we have our own strategic plan. We have considered the details of each and every item of an infrastructure programme: roads, ports, airports, railway, energy programmes, water preservation and water management programmes, irrigation, introducing technologies, and our human resource development strategies. We discussed it yesterday with one of your ministers. We agreed on the details of how we will go about this because the development of our human resources is a priority for us. There could be other resources: oil, gas, minerals, and so on. But human resources are our human capital. We need to invest in that and we can rely on the Russian Federation to help develop our capacity to implement developmental programmes by guaranteeing the qualified human resources that we need. The details are there.
Do we have the money? We will try to mobilise every single penny, and if we cannot mobilise this resource, we will say to our partners in the Russian Federation: “These are our plans and if you have an idea or an opinion, or alternatives we would like to listen.”
Mobilising resources is a shared responsibility and we can mobilise our own resources from whatever is available: mining, agriculture, manufacturing. We can do that.
Thank you for your patience.
Excellent essay exposing the multiple contradictions underpinning the EU project – especially regarding Ukraine and Ukrainians. Morocco – a very outward looking and tolerant country – is both liberal and democratic; indeed it represents a much more enlightened candidate for EU membership than Ukraine. Ironically, Islamists are far more problematic – and visible – in the EU than in Morocco. Furthermore, the EU’s grudging reception of refugees from ‘non-white’ war zones could not be more apparent – despite the shameful exploitation of former colonies which is still ongoing.
Excellent essay exposing the multiple contradictions underpinning the EU project – especially regarding Ukraine and Ukrainians. Morocco – a very outward looking and tolerant country – is both liberal and democratic; indeed it represents a much more enlightened candidate for EU membership than Ukraine. Ironically, Islamists are far more problematic – and visible – in the EU than in Morocco. Furthermore, the EU’s grudging reception of refugees from ‘non-white’ war zones could not be more apparent – despite the shameful exploitation of former colonies which is still ongoing.