How is Intro-Colonization better than Extro-Colonization in the long run?
Extro-Colonization conquers and takes other people’s lands, like what Alexander the Great did. Or like what the Persian Imperialists did.
Intro-Colonization allows one’s own civilization, kingdom, or nation to be colonized and conquered by others.
Both lead to the demise and replacement of one people and culture(in their own homeland) by another or many others.
What happened to Palestinians as the result of mass Jewish immigration, which was both intro-colonization and extro-colonization? The ruling elites in Palestine allowed it, but these ruling elites were really foreigners, namely the British Imperialists.
Of course, Palestinians didn’t choose that path for themselves. It was chosen for them by the British elites who ruled that part of the world. British rule in Palestine allowed massive Intro-Colonization of Zionist Extro-colonists. The result was tragedy for Palestinians.
Extro-colonization or Intro-Colonization, it is a form of replacism and displacism. In our globalizing world where all nations are threatened with mass-conquest by others with ZERO respect for national borders, identities, and cultures, all people should be against demographic imperialism. Especially Jewish globalists have NO respect for any nation and its identity and culture. They seek to weaken and exploit any nation that possesses an ounce of sovereignty and autonomy with ‘multi-culturalism’, ‘diversity’, homomania, and minority-elite-supremacism.
And in the Golden Age of Universal Nationalism following the end of WWII, all peoples agreed on the ideal and necessity of National Sovereignty. European colonists in the Third World had to return home and mind their own business and preserve their own nations. And newly independent Third World nations guarded their own autonomy and sought to develop their own economies. All nations tried to respect one another even as they expanded world trade and exchange of ideas and expressions.
So, what destroyed this balance?
The process of massive Intro-Colonization pursued by Western elites, especially with the encouragement and pressure of Jewish elites. For the Western elites, Intro-Colonization meant cheaper labor and more consumers. For Jewish elites, it meant Diversity and divide-and-rule over the goyim. And for non-whites in the Third World whose main theme has been nationalism and autonomy following WWII, the siren call of abandoning their own nations, moving to the West, and enjoying better material lives was too much to resist. They betrayed the ideal of national autonomy by favoring narrow self-interest over the national good. In seeking entry into the West, they join with Jewish globalists to undermine the national sovereignty of Western nations. But this will boomerang on their own nations. If they argue that the West must ‘put out’ to the world as a moral imperative, then the same logic will apply to their own nations. Thus, globalism doesn’t merely undermine and destroy Western nations. It promotion the Western Rejection of National Autonomy as the New Ideal for all nations… with the exception of Israel.
So, globalism brought about the New Age of Mass Colonization. Elites sermonize about ‘principles’ to push this madness, but I’ll take their principles more seriously when they make the same demands for Israel as for Poland and Hungary.
-----------------
It’s not ‘supremacism’ if you defend your turf. It is ‘supremacism’ when you invade others and rule over them.
Japanese were not supremacist when they were only defending Japan. They became supremacist when they invaded China and tried to rule over Chinese.
Greeks keeping Hellas for Greeks was not the problem. The problem was Greek imperialism over others. But Kennedy is less bothered by imperialism than immigration, which can lead to reverse-imperialism or demographic imperialism by foreigners.
Btw, most slaves in Greece were white and fellow Europeans. It’s like virtually all slaves in past Japan were Japanese. So, how is that a form of ‘racial supremacism’? If Greeks were biased, it was about culture. Greeks thought barbarians had inferior culture.
But then, Kennedy’s argument is oddly western-supremacist too. By arguing that Western Civilization belongs to everyone and not just to whites, she is saying all the world should be ‘westernized’.
Now, given that the West did most to create the modern world, the world had indeed become ‘westernized’. But this IDEA-aspect of Westernization doesn’t need massive transference of peoples. Ideas travel through the minds. Japan, Turkey, and Germany don’t need Hollywood in their own nations to learn to make their own movies. You don’t have to invite an Italian into your house to make pizza. Just learn the recipe from a book.
----------------
We are told ‘cultural appropriation’ is bad. But non-whites must now appropriate Western Classical culture? What’s wrong with keeping and preserving their own culture? Why must they adopt Hellenic cultural identity?
Also, should the West be appropriating peoples from other parts of the world and turning them ‘western’, thus cutting them off from their own cultural roots? Sharing Western Culture with non-Westerners may sound generous and ‘inclusive’, but it cuts non-whites off from their own cultures and encourages them to pretend that they are Greek. It’s like converting heathens to Christianity. It may seem ‘inclusive’ and ‘nice’, but the missionaries are cutting non-Christian natives from their own roots, cultures, and spiritual belief systems.
Also, Kennedy seems not to understand what Steve King really meant. There is a difference between Western Ideas and Western Folks.
It’s true that Western Civilization’s achievements don’t belong only to the West. They belong to anyone who will draw inspiration from them and use them. So, even though cinema is an American(and French) invention, other peoples can use the technology and make Arab movies, Asian movies, and African movies. The gun belongs to anyone who learns how to make them and use them even if the modern firearm is a Western invention.
Also, anyone can enjoy Beethoven or Mozart, just like anyone can appreciate Chinese architecture or Hindu temples or the Taj Mahal.
But there is more to a people than their arts, ideas, science, and technology. There is a thing called ethnos, a sense of national family, and this is deeper than any set of abstract ideas or technological advances. And it is this sense that the West has lost.
This sense of people-hood is more important than high achievements. After all, there are many peoples and nations that didn’t produce anything great. If Azerbaijanis had never existed, it wouldn’t have mattered much to the world. Unlike Jews, Greeks, Chinese, Arabs(with Islam), and Asian-Indians, Azerbaijanis didn’t do anything that fundamentally changed the world.
Still, at least for Azerbaijanis, their history, culture, and sense of lineage/heritage surely mean something simply because they are unique & distinct and imbue Azerbaijanis with a sense of who they are, where they’ve settled as homeland, and how they remember their folklore & history. So, even if Azerbaijanis don’t matter much to the world in terms of ideas and science, their culture means everything to them because it defines what they are in terms of blood, soil, and story. It’s like Jews became a people and culture first before they gained greatness.
And this is why there is something deeper than this thing called ‘Western Civilization’. While it’s true that it did more than any other civilization to reshape the world — and therefore became the template for modern world civilization —, the fact remains that European peoples and cultures would still exist and still have value even without the high achievement. Suppose Germans had never produced people like Kant, Goethe, Beethoven, Heisenberg, and etc. German civilization would have meant far less to the world, but German sense of folk, memory, and culture would still have been of priceless value to Germans. Before greatness is possible, there must be a people and culture. When a people attain greatness, they’ve created something of world significance. If they fail to achieve such, they cannot change the world… BUT their culture, even if not great, has immense value as something that defines a people, guides them, and lends them a sense of where they came from. Consider the Greeks during the Dark Ages. This was before Greeks created a Great Civilization, the ideas of which would come to eventually change the world. But even in the Dark Ages, there was a folk who struggled to defend their land and told stories to keep the legends and memory alive. This is the Core of a People. Greatness is the fruits that grow and hang abundantly from a tree, but such growth of fruits is possibly only if there is tree with trunk and roots. Too often, people regard Western Civilization as the fruits without any regard to the trunk and roots of ethnos, narrative and mythos, and territory.
So, for people like King, the achievements of the West are of secondary importance to the existence and survival of Western peoples and their sense of who they are in terms of ethnos, memory, and territory. And this core sense of blood, soil, and story is one thing that great peoples and ungreat peoples can have in common. However great or however ungreat, there is more to a people than its achievements. It’s like West Germany achieved far more than East Germany when it came to science, technology, and economy, but East Germans were no less German in the sense of blood, soil, and story that goes back for centuries and even millenniums if we count the world of Germanic barbarians.
All peoples, great or ungreat, should have the right to preserve and defend the core of blood, soil, and story in their designated homelands. Whether it’s Great Britain or un-great Bulgaria, it should have the right to preserve its core ethnos, history, and territory.
Also, even though Western Civilization can be appreciated by any people and can inspire any individual around the globe, there is a racial basis to its rise and achievement. In the most basic sense, Western literature conveys European temperament and personality. Western music conveys European emotions and passions. Western arts depict European forms and expressions. If Greeks looked and felt like Africans or Chinese, their arts and expressions would have been different.
Even when a people borrow culture from another people, their genetics work on the material and make it their own. It’s like Christianity, originated by Near Eastern Jews, was expressed differently among Arabs, Europeans, and blacks. Black people took much of Western music and created ‘black music’, and whites too black music and made it into ‘white rock’.
No comments:
Post a Comment