The following discussions, on a potential
new Geopolitical map for a post Globalisation word, form the core of a
phenomenon that could be referred to as a wave of pan secessionism. This is a phenomenon
occurring across the world now. Given that the financial system, which has
underpinned the world empire, is completely disintegrating this actually makes
a great deal of sense. The political systems and territorial definitions that
this system has underpinned will now mirror the disintegration.
However this need not be seen as a negative
thing. There are some on the left who view this as some sort of horrendous rise
of "Nationalism". They view this as the bastion of right wing
politics and condemn it out of hand. I will now offer a comprehensive rebuttal
to such argument.
Far from resisting this current trend
towards decentralisation, the left should be embracing it and supporting its
arrival. Both the left and the right would agree that we have hit a period
where democratic institutions, we have taken for granted for the past 200
years, are in a break down phase. The hanging of Parliaments across the Western
world is now a well established phenomenon.
There is a rapidly rising "democracy
deficit" taking hold in western civilisation. Part of this could be
ascribed to the economic crisis and part to the interruptive affect of new
technology. It can be argued therefore that the system can no longer serve
large body politics. Breaking these down into smaller, sovereign, body polities
will seek to ease this crisis.
This moment in history could be seen as a
chance to restore a new Westphalia 2.0. Many astute observers have noted that
the current cycle of violence, which we find ourselves trapped in, mirrors to a
great extent that which destroyed Europe in the Thirty Years War. Many have
even called it a new Thirty Years War and the Pentagon claims it as "The
Long War", for similar reasons.
Therefore to seek solutions to bring an end
to this self destructive spiral, our civilisation finds itself in, let us look
to past solutions that have worked. When thought about deeply enough one can
see that Nationalism is in fact a Progressive policy. The modern nation state
was birthed out of the first Westphalian treaty. This was a result of the
progressives of the time, the so called Protestors or Protestants, finally
fighting the conservatives to a stalemate in the Thirty Years War.
This brought to an end the supra national
empire of the Catholic Church, which then held sway over most of Western
Europe. Therefore supra national power, with a supra national centre based in
Rome, was the position of the conservatives. Smaller nation states, with the
right to govern themselves and hold sovereignty over their own territory, was
the position of the progressives.
This idea was further solidified by the
American and French Revolutions, which could only have birthed the idea of the
modern Republic with the help of the Enlightenment ideas, which flourished
after the treaty of Westphalia. Again the revolutionaries of the late 18th
century were the progressives of the time. The Monarchists who were trying to
hold onto the old order were the conservatives.
Thus it is interesting that the left has
fallen for a great fallacy in recent times. It has somehow sold itself the myth
that nationalism is a great evil. Whether this has been done by an accidental
misreading of history, or by elements infiltrating the left and leading it
astray, is a debate for another time.
What we can say however is that at the
close of World War Two elements reshaped the narrative about Nationalism.
Suddenly it no longer came to be about the liberational moments of leftist
history, such as the Thirty Years War, the American Revolution, the French
Revolution or even to some degree the Napoleonic Wars. Instead it became
associated with the Fascism of Hitler and Mussolini.
However I think a serious case can be made
to show that neither of these individuals were in fact Nationalists. They were
consummate SUPRA Nationalists. Mussolini wished to restore a Roman Empire to
the world. This was one of the ultimate expressions of Supra Nationalism in
history. It was this same supra nationalist structure that the Catholic Empire
had then modeled itself on.
Hitler was a similar Supra Nationalist. Had
he simply been an Austrian Nationalist he would have maintained his particular
political ideology to within the borders of Austria. Instead he became first a
proponent of Pan Germanism, calling for a large Union of all nations with a
link to the Germanic tribes. Following on from this he then went completely
Supra Nationalist, as he too attempted to create an enormous, globe spanning,
Reich.
So in actual fact these two individuals
were Imperialists and Ultra Conservatives. They were attempting to undo the
nation state building of the progressive liberals, of previous generations.
They were ENEMIES of Nationalism. They were undoing everything that had been
agreed upon at Westphalia.
So it is a curious twist of fate that it
was large elements of the left who then also became supra nationalists after
the war. Some of this mutation came from elements of the left leaning towards
Communism, as a solution to the inequality they saw in their current system.
Stalin was running a similarly Supra Nationalist project at the time. Some of
it however came from the idea that the Neo Liberals had, that they were the
inheritors of the Enlightened ideal and thus they should spread this to all the
corners of the globe. However this led them into the same trap of Supra
Nationalism.
Since this time there has always been a
massive cognitive dissonance, among the left, in its dealings with Nationalism.
During the 60's and 70's the left had no problem supporting and encouraging
many revolutions across Africa and the Subcontinent, in order to reverse the
supra national structures that the European empires had cast across the
regions, in the previous century. This was a perfectly noble position to hold.
However this means that the left was in effect supporting Nationalist
movements, in these new African countries that were emerging.
The ultimate example of the left being okay
with Nationalism has been its long support for the Palestinian Nationalist
cause. It has also long offered support to various Indigenous nationalist
movements, in the colonial countries in the New World and Australasia. So it
seems that the Left had a cognitive dissonance in support for Nationalism
overseas but denouncing its existence at home.
Even on the extremes of the far left, where
one finds the classical Anarchists, this dissonance seems to hold sway. How is
it that many Anarchists can be open proponents of a "two state"
solution in the middle east, when one would assume they would rather support a
"no state" solution? Indeed it would seem that 'smashing the state'
does not preclude having a dealing with Nationalism.
Let us look at the ultimate success story
of Anarchism on the planet today. The city state of Christiania. Whilst its
internal structures may indeed be organised along a stateless, non hierarchical
structure, this does not preclude the region from being nationalist. Evidence
of this is shown in the fact that these Anarchists have adopted a flag that
represents their dominion. This flag flies over their territory. Their
territory has clearly defined borders. Borders which they militantly protect
when the Danish state encroaches on their sovereignty.
We see a similar ability, for Anarchist
governmental models to comfortably co-exist against a Nationalist backdrop,
with the Kurds of the Rojava region. Kurdistan is an inherently nationalist
project, yet the government structure of the YPG is in itself Anarchic in
construction. Therefore it seems that "Smash the State" need not also
mean "Smash Nationalism".
The incongruity of the Left's position on
Nationalism has eventually built up to the modern era, where the support of
supra nationalist bodies is in complete collapse, despite the desperate
attempts by the social engineers to shriek that this constitutes some racist
return to xenophobia. Encouraging cultures and languages to remain strong is in
fact a very multicultural approach to have. The modern Neo Liberal Left has
again confused itself.
It claims that it supports cultures and is
the enlightened bastion of multiculturalism. Yet it demands that all borders
are broken down, which in effect erodes culture and begins to force a single,
mono culture, on the entire world. Such a system would never survive. It is the
classic example of over expansion leading to collapse. A great example is the
current outcry in the United Kingdom. Far from celebrating the Brexit moment
many on the Left are upset by it. Yet this discounts the very real option that
finally borders can be restored for the Scots, Welsh, Cornish and Irish. A
return to them being allowed to form a strong culture again and a right to
speak their language sits before them. Instead of celebrating this possibility
for multiculturalism the Left is in opposition to it.
The ultimate example of this
monoculturalism, which the supra nationalist, imperial endeavour creates, is
its demand that only one economic model is in existence on the planet at any
time. This was the travesty that kept us locked in the last great conflict of
the Cold War. A new treaty of Westphalia could also be used to address this
problem.
The first treaty of Westphalia stated that
no nation could interfere in the rights of which confession a neighbouring
nation was allowed to belong to. This brought a truce to the conflict between
Catholic and Protestant. In the modern age economics has become our new
theocracy, complete with its high priests, its fundamentalists and its demand
at gun point that everyone follows the same belief. A Westphalia 2.0 could
declare that no nation can demand another nation adhere to any particular
model. This would leave us with a
pluralism of systems. Some Communist, some Socialist, some traditional
Capitalist, some Anarcho Capitalist and so on. In the event that one system
fails and collapses somewhere, it will not pull the entire globe and empire
down with it.
This will require a certain level of
protectionism to be restored to the world economic system. Again however we
must ignore the propagandists, who have attempted to tell us this is somehow a
bad thing. The global empire, of the Neo Liberals, never fully manifested its
stated goals of an open world any way. In a world where there is only free
trade and thus the free movement of capital, then there must also be the free
movement of labour. This means that a world of free trade must be a world of no
borders and hence the giant, mono-cultural empire, which we are now debating.
However this was never allowed to manifest.
At the same time that borders to capital were smashed, the "Fortress West"
mentality was fostered across the western world, with extreme walls put up
against the flows of labour that were chasing after this capital. This
essentially became the under pinning model for a system of neo-colonialism.
Capital and resources were wildly harvested, back towards the centre of the
empire, but labour was impeded from chasing after this dwindling lack of
supplies, which was collapsing the peripheries of the empire as it harvested.
This collapse mechanism has been noted
throughout history, with every empire, no matter what its underpinning ideology
has been. Therefore, an obvious remedy is to not fight the forces who wish for
less porous borders for human labour. Reinforce this idea with strong borders
for capital as well, so that localised economies flourish that serve their
local communities. Providing for local communities will increase stability,
prevent brain drains from regions and allow for a myriad of cultures to
flourish, in a true reflection of multicultralism on the globe.
Of course surpluses of things will still be
produced in some areas, which are required in others, so there will always be a
mechanism of global trading in place. Also there should be no reason to suppose
that world tourist travel would be stopped. The ridiculous claims by the Remain
campaign, in Britain currently, that maintaining a sovereign nation, with
sovereign borders, suddenly means you can no long travel anywhere outside your
own country, is mindbogglingly ridiculous. British citizens are not in any supra
national union with South East Asia or the Indian Subcontinent. Yet many Brits
have been traveling there for holidays the entire post war period. Ridiculous
rhetoric, such as this, is clouding judgment on the issue.
The same arguments that Europe is now grappling
with, about the benefits of smaller nations and republics versus large supra
nationalist systems, was exactly the same debate that the American colonists
had at their first Constitutional Convention in 1787. The so called Anti
Federalists, of Jefferson's camp, put forward many of the same arguments for
the continent of North America that are now being made in Europe. One can not
really think of a more Progressive, Liberal than Thomas Jefferson. So it should
not be hard for modern Liberals, on the North American continent, to rediscover
this progressive history of which their own ideology draws.
The argument then arises to set in motion
the pan secession, which has been laid out in this brainstorming session.
History has proven the Jeffersonians to be correct. The over federalisation of
the District of Columbia's hold on the continent was a mistake, which must be
undone. It will trigger a renaissance on the continent. It will allow for true
multiculturalism, a reduction in the militarist ills of empire and a protection
against economic meltdown.
Building these myriad new nations will also
allow for a reset of the current crisis. The economy can be unburdened by its
debt load, as these new nations were not the legal entities which took them on.
Having a new nation building project, in each of these regions, will hopefully
also be a chance to heal the divides that are currently tearing apart the
societies on the North American continent, at the moment. Giving the whole
population a stake in building the new country, and giving them an exciting
project for history, may ease their boredom with the vacuous life Western
Civilisation has descended into and could be a powerful moment to once more
bring unity and end the catastrophic violence that will arise otherwise.
Currently there are some devious voices,
who are using the crisis to push for exactly the opposite agenda. They would
rather see all the borders, of the North American continent, erased completely
and the whole thing be subsumed to one, giant, Supra National, North American
Union. This is exactly the same model we are currently seeing be pursued in
Europe, to disastrous result. The Left should turn their back on these voices
and instead push for the decentralised power structure posited here. Think
Global Govern Local, should be the catch cry of the new NEW Left. This new new
Left could then also see that it has some bipartisan support, from the
Libertarian Right, on this issue.
If we put some of these ideas into practice
then maybe we can finally bring an end to the horrid Project For A New American
Century. Ironically this project has completely destroyed America. This is
probably because it was always based on a lie. It was never a project for a new
century of the Republican, Enlightenment ideal, which the original colonies of
the Union represented. Instead it was a call for a restoration of a Project For
A New European Imperial Century. The financial old guard of Europe used the
structures of Wall Street to project this new empire onto the globe. Manhattan
was behaving more as a New Amsterdam once more, than a New York.
The military and financial doctrines of
this empire all spoke of having torn up the tenants of Westphalia and the fact
that under Globalisation we had now entered a post Westphalian world. However
there was never any discussion with the peasant classes, as to whether this was
a change that was wanted. Disasters with
experimentation within this new model were bound to occur. The biggest disaster
of all has been the openly supra national, post Westphalian territory of the so
called Islamic Caliphate. Far from offering stability or wealth, to the peoples
of the global south, it has turned into a horror show of neo-colonial invasion
and genocide.
Because this post Westphalian system was so
at odds, with everything the American Republic was supposed to represent, it
has torn itself apart internally under the weight of its own cognitive
dissonance. So let us replace it with a Project For A New Westphalian Century.
Under a non interventionist, Westphalian system, conflict should decrease,
economies should once more go into restoration and a sustainable century can be
built, which is not predicated on any one super power attempting to convert the
entire world. Be that a Communist, Liberal or Islamic power, there will never
be room on the planet for only one system.
Now is the time. Decentralise or die!
