Sunday, May 19, 2013

A little bit will become a lot

Paul Martin was the Liberal Party Prime Minister of Canada from 2003 to 2006. There is a clip of a speech he made that was uploaded to YouTube in 2009 (I don't know when the speech itself was given). In the speech he talks about the necessity of nations giving up "a little bit of our sovereignty" so that the financial affairs of nations can be regulated at a global level. He believes that this will create "a very different world" and a "new era".

I've written often about how unstable a civic nationalism is. If you claim that your national identity is defined not by a shared ethnicity but by a shared commitment to liberal political institutions, then why shouldn't those institutions go global if you think there is a managerial advantage in them doing so?

As it happens, you have to doubt the claims about global regulation made by Paul Martin in his speech. He assumes that the Western nations are well regulated and that the threat to the international economies comes from the newer players such as China and India. But not only are these countries unlikely to accept Western regulation of their economies, the most recent failures have come from Western countries anyway.

Here is a transcript of Paul Martin's speech:
One more thing on this question of sovereignty. Very difficult for a large country to accept that someone is going to come in, like the United States or the Europeans, and is going to say “You’re not doing your regulation in a proper way”.

But what’s going to happen when China and India are economies as powerful as the United States or Europe? And what’s going to happen when there’s a mortgage meltdown in India? What’s going to happen when a Chinese hedge fund goes under? And the results of that tsunami don’t stop at the Chinese or Indian border? But that you find them at Idaho and Iowa and California? Who’s going to deal with that?

Unless we’re prepared to understand that in fact we’re all going to have to give up a little bit of our sovereignty in order to make the world work.

I think that we are really at the beginning of a very different era. 1944 the great minds of the world Dexter White, John Maynard Keynes and a bunch essentially laid the foundations for the Bretton Woods institution and the United Nations. And they built a system which functioned for over 50 to 60 years.

I think that it’s time to renew that vision. A very different world than one that (?) and independent nation states simply came together but could ignore what was essentially going on inside those countries. That day is over thanks to (?) I think we’ve got to take it one step further and we’ve got to say that in fact countries have responsibilities to their neighbours. And their neighbours are in every nook and cranny of the world. And I believe that that is going to become the debate of our generation.

Paul Martin was replaced as Canadian PM by the Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper. He made similar comments in a speech of his own ("there is going to have to be global governance"). So the policy seems to be one that Canadian political leaders are determined to pursue.


  1. The most vital policies are those that decide who will be part of the country in the long run. (This is life and death for the populations involved.)

    Even economically this is so. A country full of Japanese will have one kind of economy; a country full of Aborigines (with no whites) would have a different kind of economy.

    When international population policies were harmonized, theoretically, would this involve China bringing its population in line with white countries? Would the Chinese be effectively obligated to take mass immigration from non-Chinese countries, until the Chinese character of China was destroyed?

    Or would it be one-way traffic the other way?

    There's no need to guess. We can already see what liberal multiculturalism means for white countries: they cease to be white. And we can see that it imposes no obligations for non-white countries.

    Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, white countries for everybody.

    The loss of sovereignty Paul Martin calls for would be unilateral. Whites in white countries would have their rights further diminished. Politicians would say, we can't address your concerns about being overwhelmed and diminished by our population policies, because this is all determined by "international frameworks". These international frameworks would not be imposing any reciprocal obligations on the Chinese and other non-white populations. (And it wouldn't do us any good if they did.)

    As Mark points out, the whole thing is bogus because: "the most recent failures have come from Western countries anyway."

    I would suggest that anti-white multiculturalism has played a part in our increasing failures, particularly in America. The anti-democratic proclivities of the modern ruling class play another part in our decline.

    Both would be exacerbated by the internationalism Paul Harper approves of, and that the Canadian ruling elite seems determined to pursue regardless of the interests of whites in general and Canadians in particular.

  2. Enthusiasm for this kind of internationalism is an indication of the undemocratic character of the modern ruling class. They love institutions like the European Union, and spread and impose them as much as they can regardless of the resistance of voters, who reject them as every opportunity.

    If the game was honest, politicians would not be doing this, because theoretically these agreements and institutions diminish their power. But it is not honest. Politicians are well aware that these agreements and institutions are likely to impose liberal values that they approve of, while making it harder or practically impossible for alienated white voters to get remedies for their grievances. That is the point.

    (I emphasize "white" voters because in anti-white liberalism, masses of voters who are conscious of their collective interests voting for those interests are inherently illegitimate. One need feel no guilt about balking their intentions and acting to diminish their power, and liberal politicians do just that, in good conscience. This must contribute to the anti-democratic character of the modern ruling class.)

    Civic nationalism claims to be a higher, more moral kind of nationalism compared to ethnic nationalism. It pretends to be more concerned with preserving democracy. In reality, civic nationalism lends itself to the frustration and destruction of democracy.

  3. Mark, here's an agreement no one in Australia is even aware that the nation is negotiating, Transpacific Partnership.

    It's one thing to reduce sovereignty, it's another to do it secretly.

  4. Thanks for that link, Johnycomelately.

    "It was hard for the Japanese journalist to believe me when I explained that there is little awareness of the TPP here in the United States, because our media has hardly covered the subject."

    That's another way the modern, anti-white ruling class maintains its power and advances its values: media supremacy and strategic silence.

    People think they are good at seeing through media bias. They are wrong. You can't see through what you never heard about.

  5. I believe this is already in affect. Recently a UN representative (an Indian woman) traveled here to lecture Australia over its "racist" lack of open borders effectively.

    The world has regressed to a medieval state of affairs where we are now owned by foreign powers complete with ambassadors for this hidden regime coming to our country to us off for non-compliance.

  6. The ultimate aim of anti-white multiculturalism is a world without white people. Open borders for all white countries, non-white mass immigration and forced integration will have that effect.

    This is hostile to democracy. To carry this agenda forward, you want unaccountable elites in power, you want the white majority in all white nations excluded from explicit self-awareness and effective representation, you want ethnic nationalism replaced by "civic nationalism", and you want white families destroyed, throwing people onto dependence on the state. (Or making them a slave to the state that takes their money to pay for children that they have no access to.) State-sponsored culture in the "civic nationalist" state is about undermining white cohesion, and if "progressive" are is ugly to the point of being demoralizing and turning people off their national culture, so much the better. The kind of "religion" favored by the progressive state is also demoralizing. The ideal is to keep white majorities passive, non-cohesive and disempowered until they can be so thoroughly deconstructed they can never be majorities again, and then till they can be physically eliminated over time by forced blending away. Civic nationalist states are about "electing a new people". That's as anti-democratic as anything can get, even if the early steps in that direction are subtle, with no tanks in the streets needed.

    It's natural that white people without effective representation for their interests or a future - without freedom, in effect - wind up being talked down to by empowered foreigners, people of other races, and traitors who do not identify with their interests.

    According to progressive dogma, when this process reaches its ultimate end "we" will all be "vibrant", happy, beautiful, "multicultural" and free.

    Firstly, "we" white people will be gone. That's the point.

    Secondly, this paradise is the same sort of false paradise Communism held out. Let Lenin monopolize power and he will create the "New Soviet Man" who will create paradise! That plan doesn't work. We saw from the Soviet collapse how efficiently everything works when you move all important economic decisions up to the highest level. We can see from Haiti what happens after you genocide the whites. It's not paradise.

    Thirdly, all the way to this false paradise, you will have the debasing, demoralizing, economically and socially dysfunctional, faux-democratic charade we see developing.

    More people would protest against this if they weren't afraid of being called racists. More people would organize and more people would put their opinions under their own names if they weren't afraid of personal and professional consequences of they spoke freely. (Rightly afraid! As the Richwine witch-hunt shows, unfortunately.)

    This system, which ultimately aims at abolishing white people - at genocide - has nothing for us. It stays in power through fear and lies.

  7. It's the slippery slope tactic. The frog slowly boiled in the pot theme.

  8. alcestiseshtemoa: "It's the slippery slope tactic."
    More a slippery slope strategy I think. It's not one thing, it's a lot of things all moving in the same direction.

  9. The argument that we must give up national sovereignty as a way of making world finances work is nonsense.

    How about if a hedge fund in India goes under, we let Indians deal with the consequences for India, and any people in Austrialia, or the United States, or Scotland who lost money betting on that funds success simply receive a lesson about the risky nature of third-world investments.

    Full stop. There's no point at any stage in that scenario where giving up sovereignty is in any way a good idea for any first-world nation. If they give up sovereignty, they'll just be required to bail out third-world mistakes, which will impoverish the first world and possibly the third world as well by depriving them of the financial discipline that comes with owning your errors.

  10. "The world has regressed to a medieval state of affairs where we are now owned by foreign powers complete with ambassadors for this hidden regime coming to our country to us off for non-compliance."

    Exactly, we have an international elite who only have loyalty to themselves, and a mass of increasingly powerless serfs who have to swear eligence to foreign NGOs and multinationals.