I agree completely - for 'nation states' though, I would want to see much smaller countries each of which is mainly defined by the majority of the inhabitants (say, 90-95% at least) sharing the same cultural or social group identity. That doesn't necessarily mean 'racial' identity - or any other identity for that matter.
I agree completely - for 'nation states' though, I would want to see much smaller countries each of which is mainly defined by the majority of the inhabitants (say, 90-95% at least) sharing the same cultural or social group identity. That doesn't necessarily mean 'racial' identity - or any other identity for that matter.
I think there has been too much (deliberately manufactured) focus on 'national identity' as 'racial' identity, when it should rather be defined as 'cultural' identity. Yes, it is also true to a great extent that (at least with the older countries) historically there was never much distinction or difference between 'racial' and 'cultural', simply because 'a people' tended to stick to their own ancestral homelands - e.g. 'Welsh Celts', 'Cornish Celts', Scottish, Irish Celts, Anglo-Saxons (once arrived in Britannia that is) etc. Today, people readily confuse these two concepts 'racial' and 'cultural' - plus they are provided with a self-serving image of that 'national identity' by the Establishment - which does foster resentment to 'others'. Ironically the 'British' Establishment are not native - they are effectively Norman (they brought feudalism with them in order to subjugate the native population - which is still in place today of course).
So, yeah - I am a big believer in each 'cultural identity' having their own 'autonomy' or 'national sovereignty' - but I guess what we really need, in order to get people understanding this distinction is to put cultural studies on the national curriculum.
We should also note that because of normal human psychology, being social animals, people of the same social group tend to behave well to each other (partly through fear of ostracism) - thus, in a more homogenous cultural nation state you would be able to have far more liberal laws, and less of them too. And with 'self-confidence' (and lack of external or internal threat) in that identity, there would far less 'fear of the other' and thus less 'racism' or 'identity politics' or its antagonist.
Thanks for subscribing, btw - I shall have to do some more for the liberal socialism section soon (and the classified K for that matter), as I have a lot of subscribers who like that kind of thing...
Thank you for your reply. I am interested in the history of Britain so will look into your comment re. the British establishment being effectively Norman. Quite why so many of the powerful call themselves Jewish I don't know, but maybe that is just the ones we know about!
When I say the British Establishment are 'Norman' I'm not actually talking about ethnicity/race, but rather 'cultural identity'. Or even just 'identity', if we define identity in a kind of ideological, or 'attitude towards other social groups', or personality-terms.
So, what I am saying is that the 'identity' of the current British Establishment (and American too, interestingly) is the same as the identity of the original Normans who invaded and occupied Britain in 1066. So these foreign invaders/occupying forces became the 'Establishment', and this lasted pretty much until 1485, when Henry Tudor and his cronies carried out their coup d'etat (interestingly, an act of treason which arguably renders every subsequent 'monarch' and thus every parliament and every law, technically and legally illegitimate!).
The Norman 'identity' is/was characterised by barbarism, fascism (i.e. feudalism as it was called then - an oligarchy, essentially), colonialism, warmongering, terrorising the native population into submission, resource theft, and all those other attributes you would be familiar with when we talk about the globalist cabal. As such, they saw the native population (Celts and Anglo-Saxons) as their subjugated possessions/serfs/slaves/units of economic productivity/cannon fodder for wars, and so on. The native population, in other words, are the 'other', because we have a very different 'cultural identity' to the occupying Normans. The Normans, I should've added, were also deeply racist, most obviously to the native population.
Ironically they didn't actually have much in the way of what most people would understand as 'culture' - they weren't, after all, exactly 'civilised' now, eh!
You can probably see where I'm going with this - what I am saying is that in the centuries since, the 'ethnicity' (or race) of the 'Establishment' may have changed, so it's no longer purely Norman, but the cultural identity has not. The Establishment has always had the same identity since 1066, regardless of its genetic makeup. This, naturally, absolutely explains their attitude towards the 'common people' - the 'common people' are essentially the 'native population' in a piece of land (the island of Britain) which the Establishment see as their property by right of historical conquest etc.
The Establishment still treat the people in the same way the Normans did. Obviously they have to disguise this - under the Norman occupation (similarly under the Roman occupation - cf. Boudicca) it would've been obvious to every Anglo-Saxon that they were an occupied people. Today, if the Establishment actually came out and said this overtly, then they would not be able to contain the revolution. Thus, they have to lie and 'pretend' that they too are 'British' - but if we define 'British' as an 'identity', then we are talking about pre-Norman, and we are talking about the 'common people'/'native population'.
Likewise, this 'Establishment' have their own 'narrative' about history - and this is the one they project onto the common people, deceiving the common people into thinking they have a shared historical narrative. This is why they often bang on about 'Churchill' and 'WW2' and 'Blighty' and all the rest of it. The 'British' Empire, however, was nothing whatsoever to do with the native population - it was the 'post-Norman Establishment's Empire', with the island of Britain as their effective HQ. Similarly, I would also perhaps suggest that the 'HQ' may have simply been moved to 'Washington' since WW2. But they are the same people, in terms of their 'cultural or social group identity'.
By extension, of course, this also explains the attitude of the globalist cabal to the entire peoples of the world. It's exactly the same as the Normans vs. the English. They see us as 'the other', as 'an occupied people to be exploited' etc.
Once we start thinking in terms of 'cultural identity' in this way, then we can see this big picture far, far more clearly.
Oops - that was a bit long! It was quite good though - I've been meaning to find a good way to say all of that for a while now. Hmm, maybe I should copy it and paste it into a little post for my site. What do you think?
I think I definitely will, as like I said I have been meaning to do a post about it. You have happily prompted me into finding the right way to say it I think. So I shall do that hopefully for sometime during the coming week.
I think the basic point is that when we think of the globalist cabal we need to start thinking in terms of stuff like 'social group psychology' and how that relates to 'identity', and how we should recognise different social group identities, and how they relate to each other. I have come to very simply see the cabal as a distinct social group identity, which views 'everyone else' as 'the other' from a distinctly racist perspective - this does explain their attitude towards the global population. From their point of view 'any crime against someone not part of our social group is not a crime as far as we are concerned'. In other words, their ideology has effectively de-humanised all of us, meaning they have no conscience to worry about where we are concerned.
This also explains why membership of that social group/the cabal is not restricted to any race, ethnicity, nationality and so on (that's also a convenient way to avoid suggestions that they all come from a certain ethnic group - which may answer that other response you did but I think you then deleted it). Membership of the group is simply defined by a person's attitude/ideology/psychology (and obviously having the right connections to get invited/inducted - which is admittedly often family-related), not necessarily their ethnic origin.
But certainly once we start to see the cabal in this light of 'social group psychology' then it does become a lot clearer, and in particular it demystifies the cabal. Instead of seeing them as some kind of all-powerful almost supernatural force, we can simply see them as an evil social group whose racist attitude is a threat to the entire human species. And their desire for totalitarian control is perhaps just a 'group survival strategy' - they must know, after all, that if the rest of the world's population saw them for what they really are, then the reaction would be final and the cabal wouldn't survive, simply through sheer numerical superiority.
Anyway - I must contain my tendency to ramble on! Perhaps a hot chocolate might help.
Ah - I should probably clarify what I'm on about here actually!
This is kind of what I'm getting at when I try and make a distinction between 'racial' identity and 'cultural' identity. 'Cultural' can of course encompass an 'attitude' and an 'ideology' even. This is certainly arguable if we're talking about Jews - if we define a Jew as someone who practises 'Jewism'. i.e. Judaism - this is a linguistic thing with regards to English, in which the person 'Jew' doesn't have the 'd' in it. In German, ironically, it's much clearer as the word for the person 'Jude' obviously relates to the -ism 'Jude-ism' (Judaismus is the actual German). This may of course explain the historical German attitude towards Jews (i.e. 'followers of Judaism') - given the critique of monotheism/Judaeo-Christianity inherent in 'the Enlightenment', which was very prominent in Germany of course, it kind of explains the development of anti-Judaism in Germany. In that sense, it also suggests that the definition is not based on 'ethnicity' or 'race', but on 'ideology'. And naturally it's perfectly acceptable to criticise an ideology, because it's not perceived as 'personal' - although, foolishly imho, an ideology that is dressed up to look like a 'religion' is suddenly granted the status of a 'protected characteristic' for the purposes of 'hate crimes'. What they call 'hate speech' carries an exemption if you say it's part of your 'religion'. If your ideology doesn't claim to be a religion, however, you don't get that exemption under the hate speech laws. That seems pretty incongruous to me, to put it mildly, especially given the obvious other-ism in all the Abrahamic ideologies.
Anyway - that was a bit of an intended digression - I'll tackle the Norman/British Establishment thing separately otherwise this will be a TLDR-possibility.
Another interesting thought you just prompted me with actually (thanks!), with my Medieval Historian's hat on, does concern that medieval history of the Jews in Britain and the Normans. I would have to do a little research to verify it, but I'm fairly certain that before 1066 there weren't any Jews in Britain. After Hastings, though, the Normans did allow (or bring, even) Jews into the country, where they formed their own enclaves/communities etc. This continued until the late 13th century when they were all expelled (partly following the reaction to rumours about blood sacrifices and such like in places like York - what they now call 'blood libel' - even though there is some historical evidence to suggest that some of these incidents did actually happen - like with St. Simon of Trent, 1475 - one can still argue these were isolated incidents though of course, so from a certain perspective it is a libel to accuse all the Jews of doing it - most of them didn't do such things. But still - it would've been seen as a 'pretext' for expelling them and not having to pay back all the debt etc.).
Anyway, then there followed about 200 years of Britain without any Jews until after 1485, when the Tudors allowed them back in again. Arguably, those 200 years are marked by a lot of social, economic, and intellectual progress, but that's another matter.
I was thinking though that this would make an excellent topic for a medieval history thesis/book. Someone might have written it already though. I don't know. I doubt I'll ever get round to it, more's the pity.
Anyhow - that was the thought you prompted me about. So I had to mention it.
My quest for knowledge has led me to you so make of that what you will! If I want to know, I am sure others will. It helps make sense of today and puts things into perspective.
I agree completely - for 'nation states' though, I would want to see much smaller countries each of which is mainly defined by the majority of the inhabitants (say, 90-95% at least) sharing the same cultural or social group identity. That doesn't necessarily mean 'racial' identity - or any other identity for that matter.
I think there has been too much (deliberately manufactured) focus on 'national identity' as 'racial' identity, when it should rather be defined as 'cultural' identity. Yes, it is also true to a great extent that (at least with the older countries) historically there was never much distinction or difference between 'racial' and 'cultural', simply because 'a people' tended to stick to their own ancestral homelands - e.g. 'Welsh Celts', 'Cornish Celts', Scottish, Irish Celts, Anglo-Saxons (once arrived in Britannia that is) etc. Today, people readily confuse these two concepts 'racial' and 'cultural' - plus they are provided with a self-serving image of that 'national identity' by the Establishment - which does foster resentment to 'others'. Ironically the 'British' Establishment are not native - they are effectively Norman (they brought feudalism with them in order to subjugate the native population - which is still in place today of course).
So, yeah - I am a big believer in each 'cultural identity' having their own 'autonomy' or 'national sovereignty' - but I guess what we really need, in order to get people understanding this distinction is to put cultural studies on the national curriculum.
We should also note that because of normal human psychology, being social animals, people of the same social group tend to behave well to each other (partly through fear of ostracism) - thus, in a more homogenous cultural nation state you would be able to have far more liberal laws, and less of them too. And with 'self-confidence' (and lack of external or internal threat) in that identity, there would far less 'fear of the other' and thus less 'racism' or 'identity politics' or its antagonist.
Thanks for subscribing, btw - I shall have to do some more for the liberal socialism section soon (and the classified K for that matter), as I have a lot of subscribers who like that kind of thing...
Thank you for your reply. I am interested in the history of Britain so will look into your comment re. the British establishment being effectively Norman. Quite why so many of the powerful call themselves Jewish I don't know, but maybe that is just the ones we know about!
Ok - this is the reply I intended to do.
When I say the British Establishment are 'Norman' I'm not actually talking about ethnicity/race, but rather 'cultural identity'. Or even just 'identity', if we define identity in a kind of ideological, or 'attitude towards other social groups', or personality-terms.
So, what I am saying is that the 'identity' of the current British Establishment (and American too, interestingly) is the same as the identity of the original Normans who invaded and occupied Britain in 1066. So these foreign invaders/occupying forces became the 'Establishment', and this lasted pretty much until 1485, when Henry Tudor and his cronies carried out their coup d'etat (interestingly, an act of treason which arguably renders every subsequent 'monarch' and thus every parliament and every law, technically and legally illegitimate!).
The Norman 'identity' is/was characterised by barbarism, fascism (i.e. feudalism as it was called then - an oligarchy, essentially), colonialism, warmongering, terrorising the native population into submission, resource theft, and all those other attributes you would be familiar with when we talk about the globalist cabal. As such, they saw the native population (Celts and Anglo-Saxons) as their subjugated possessions/serfs/slaves/units of economic productivity/cannon fodder for wars, and so on. The native population, in other words, are the 'other', because we have a very different 'cultural identity' to the occupying Normans. The Normans, I should've added, were also deeply racist, most obviously to the native population.
Ironically they didn't actually have much in the way of what most people would understand as 'culture' - they weren't, after all, exactly 'civilised' now, eh!
You can probably see where I'm going with this - what I am saying is that in the centuries since, the 'ethnicity' (or race) of the 'Establishment' may have changed, so it's no longer purely Norman, but the cultural identity has not. The Establishment has always had the same identity since 1066, regardless of its genetic makeup. This, naturally, absolutely explains their attitude towards the 'common people' - the 'common people' are essentially the 'native population' in a piece of land (the island of Britain) which the Establishment see as their property by right of historical conquest etc.
The Establishment still treat the people in the same way the Normans did. Obviously they have to disguise this - under the Norman occupation (similarly under the Roman occupation - cf. Boudicca) it would've been obvious to every Anglo-Saxon that they were an occupied people. Today, if the Establishment actually came out and said this overtly, then they would not be able to contain the revolution. Thus, they have to lie and 'pretend' that they too are 'British' - but if we define 'British' as an 'identity', then we are talking about pre-Norman, and we are talking about the 'common people'/'native population'.
Likewise, this 'Establishment' have their own 'narrative' about history - and this is the one they project onto the common people, deceiving the common people into thinking they have a shared historical narrative. This is why they often bang on about 'Churchill' and 'WW2' and 'Blighty' and all the rest of it. The 'British' Empire, however, was nothing whatsoever to do with the native population - it was the 'post-Norman Establishment's Empire', with the island of Britain as their effective HQ. Similarly, I would also perhaps suggest that the 'HQ' may have simply been moved to 'Washington' since WW2. But they are the same people, in terms of their 'cultural or social group identity'.
By extension, of course, this also explains the attitude of the globalist cabal to the entire peoples of the world. It's exactly the same as the Normans vs. the English. They see us as 'the other', as 'an occupied people to be exploited' etc.
Once we start thinking in terms of 'cultural identity' in this way, then we can see this big picture far, far more clearly.
Oops - that was a bit long! It was quite good though - I've been meaning to find a good way to say all of that for a while now. Hmm, maybe I should copy it and paste it into a little post for my site. What do you think?
Yes, go for it! It was tremendously helpful.
I think I definitely will, as like I said I have been meaning to do a post about it. You have happily prompted me into finding the right way to say it I think. So I shall do that hopefully for sometime during the coming week.
I think the basic point is that when we think of the globalist cabal we need to start thinking in terms of stuff like 'social group psychology' and how that relates to 'identity', and how we should recognise different social group identities, and how they relate to each other. I have come to very simply see the cabal as a distinct social group identity, which views 'everyone else' as 'the other' from a distinctly racist perspective - this does explain their attitude towards the global population. From their point of view 'any crime against someone not part of our social group is not a crime as far as we are concerned'. In other words, their ideology has effectively de-humanised all of us, meaning they have no conscience to worry about where we are concerned.
This also explains why membership of that social group/the cabal is not restricted to any race, ethnicity, nationality and so on (that's also a convenient way to avoid suggestions that they all come from a certain ethnic group - which may answer that other response you did but I think you then deleted it). Membership of the group is simply defined by a person's attitude/ideology/psychology (and obviously having the right connections to get invited/inducted - which is admittedly often family-related), not necessarily their ethnic origin.
But certainly once we start to see the cabal in this light of 'social group psychology' then it does become a lot clearer, and in particular it demystifies the cabal. Instead of seeing them as some kind of all-powerful almost supernatural force, we can simply see them as an evil social group whose racist attitude is a threat to the entire human species. And their desire for totalitarian control is perhaps just a 'group survival strategy' - they must know, after all, that if the rest of the world's population saw them for what they really are, then the reaction would be final and the cabal wouldn't survive, simply through sheer numerical superiority.
Anyway - I must contain my tendency to ramble on! Perhaps a hot chocolate might help.
Ah - I should probably clarify what I'm on about here actually!
This is kind of what I'm getting at when I try and make a distinction between 'racial' identity and 'cultural' identity. 'Cultural' can of course encompass an 'attitude' and an 'ideology' even. This is certainly arguable if we're talking about Jews - if we define a Jew as someone who practises 'Jewism'. i.e. Judaism - this is a linguistic thing with regards to English, in which the person 'Jew' doesn't have the 'd' in it. In German, ironically, it's much clearer as the word for the person 'Jude' obviously relates to the -ism 'Jude-ism' (Judaismus is the actual German). This may of course explain the historical German attitude towards Jews (i.e. 'followers of Judaism') - given the critique of monotheism/Judaeo-Christianity inherent in 'the Enlightenment', which was very prominent in Germany of course, it kind of explains the development of anti-Judaism in Germany. In that sense, it also suggests that the definition is not based on 'ethnicity' or 'race', but on 'ideology'. And naturally it's perfectly acceptable to criticise an ideology, because it's not perceived as 'personal' - although, foolishly imho, an ideology that is dressed up to look like a 'religion' is suddenly granted the status of a 'protected characteristic' for the purposes of 'hate crimes'. What they call 'hate speech' carries an exemption if you say it's part of your 'religion'. If your ideology doesn't claim to be a religion, however, you don't get that exemption under the hate speech laws. That seems pretty incongruous to me, to put it mildly, especially given the obvious other-ism in all the Abrahamic ideologies.
Anyway - that was a bit of an intended digression - I'll tackle the Norman/British Establishment thing separately otherwise this will be a TLDR-possibility.
Another interesting thought you just prompted me with actually (thanks!), with my Medieval Historian's hat on, does concern that medieval history of the Jews in Britain and the Normans. I would have to do a little research to verify it, but I'm fairly certain that before 1066 there weren't any Jews in Britain. After Hastings, though, the Normans did allow (or bring, even) Jews into the country, where they formed their own enclaves/communities etc. This continued until the late 13th century when they were all expelled (partly following the reaction to rumours about blood sacrifices and such like in places like York - what they now call 'blood libel' - even though there is some historical evidence to suggest that some of these incidents did actually happen - like with St. Simon of Trent, 1475 - one can still argue these were isolated incidents though of course, so from a certain perspective it is a libel to accuse all the Jews of doing it - most of them didn't do such things. But still - it would've been seen as a 'pretext' for expelling them and not having to pay back all the debt etc.).
Anyway, then there followed about 200 years of Britain without any Jews until after 1485, when the Tudors allowed them back in again. Arguably, those 200 years are marked by a lot of social, economic, and intellectual progress, but that's another matter.
I was thinking though that this would make an excellent topic for a medieval history thesis/book. Someone might have written it already though. I don't know. I doubt I'll ever get round to it, more's the pity.
Anyhow - that was the thought you prompted me about. So I had to mention it.
My quest for knowledge has led me to you so make of that what you will! If I want to know, I am sure others will. It helps make sense of today and puts things into perspective.