The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
Europe Has Underestimated the Destructive Force of Nationalism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I started working as a journalist at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland, between 1972 and 1975, and then moved to Lebanon where the 15-year-long civil war was just beginning. I saw both countries as interesting but bloody and atypical, sad casualties of their divisive histories and out of keeping with the modern world.

Unfortunately, over the following 40 years it turned out that the Lebanese war was a foretaste of the violent sectarian, ethnic and social divisions that were to tear the Middle East apart. Nation states ruled by despots became more politically fragile by the year and foreign powers exacerbated civil wars by military intervention and by backing their local proxies. Extreme Islam flourished in conditions of chaos, replacing nationalism and socialism as the ideological vehicle for opposition to the status quo.

Just how Britain plunged into this morass without much idea of the dangers it was running should be illuminated at great length by the Chilcot Report when it is published next Wednesday, but the risks involved were obvious from the beginning.

Analogies between the break-up of Lebanon into warring factions, which I witnessed when I first arrived, and the disintegration of the Middle East today are clear cut and undeniable. There are currently at least seven wars and three serious insurgencies raging in the countries between Pakistan and Nigeria, with no signs of those conflicts ending. Over the years,

I periodically wrote doleful warnings about how the disintegration of Lebanon and Iraq, disasters that had once seemed to me to be so out of the ordinary, were spreading to neighbouring states and becoming the new norm.

By the way of contrast, Northern Ireland seldom provided useful parallels with developments in the rest of Britain or Western Europe; its violence and sectarian divisions made it feel more like a chunk of the Balkans that had accidentally lodged on the shores of the Atlantic.

It is only in the last couple of years that I began to notice similarities in tone and substance between Northern Ireland as I knew it in the 1970s and British politics today. The referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 and the electoral triumph of the Scottish Nationalist Party the following year, put the legitimacy and integrity of the British state in doubt on the mainland, with the same destabilising effect as it had always had in Northern Ireland. Equally disturbing was the way in which immigration moved to the centre of the political stage during the Brexit campaign.

One always knew that there were deep wells of xenophobia in England, but what was different about the last few months, and reminiscent of Northern Ireland, was the way in which mainstream politicians tolerated or promoted a racist message as their main instrument for mobilizing voters. British politicians once “played the Orange card” in Ireland with toxic results for its people; now they are playing “the immigrant card” at home with equally explosive potential.

I have always been suspicious of what I used to deride as “the department of shallow analogies” between superficially similar, but in reality very different, situations in different countries. I remember how much it used to annoy me when I was a correspondent in Moscow in the 1980s and visitors would assure me that the Soviet Union was just like South Africa, or some other country with which they were familiar.

But parallels between Ireland and England – it is difficult to speak of Britain any more for purposes of analysis – are useful because they have enough in common to illuminate divergent approaches and outcomes.

It is a difficult moment to look sensibly at the Brexit vote because most political, media and academic commentators wanted Britain to remain in the EU and enjoy a grim satisfaction in interpreting every development since the vote as a fresh sign of calamity. Many revel in exaggerations, such as the oft-quoted remark by the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, that “England has collapsed politically, monetarily, constitutionally and economically.” This is self-evidently absurd but has given a thrill to those who are open to all signs that their predictions of disaster, in the event of an anti-EU vote, are being fulfilled.

There is a real crisis, but, unlike the Northern Irish and Lebanese, the English are not used to living with instability and have a difficulty in assessing the gravity of the risks they are facing.

A further source of perplexity is that the political terrain has genuinely changed. Analysts of British politics are not used to assessing the significance of an empowered and newly visible English nationalism – always potent but with no reason to display its strength in the past because it was so wholly in control of a successful British state. This over-confidence led the Conservatives, Labour and other political parties to underrate the strength of Scottish nationalism over the last decade.

When it comes to immigration there is an interesting difference between the response of Ireland and England. About one in nine of the 4.6 million population of Ireland are foreign born, but there has not been the same hostile reaction against immigrants as in England. This may be because in Ireland Sinn Fein, which, whatever else it is, is not a racist party, speaks for extreme Irish nationalism and for much of the urban poor, a situation in sharp contrast to Britain where Labour has always been wary of nationalism seeing it as a phony diversion from social and economic demands.

But it is precisely when economic, social and nationalist demands combine, as appears to be happening in England and Scotland, that they become a powerful force, as occurred in Ireland in the 19th century when the tenant farmers hunger for their own land united with the drive for Irish self-rule.

ORDER IT NOW

The implosion of the centre-left, not just in Britain but in countries like Germany and Austria, is a feature of the present political landscape. Abandoning full scale state intervention, the social democrats have ceased to be a convincing alternative to the status quo since the 1980s and were unable to take advantage of the financial crash in 2008.

Even when the centre-left flourished, it has always been uncomfortable in coping with nationalism as a form of communal identity. Conservatives used to be good at appealing to English nationalism, but appear to have lost this ability as globalisation downgrades national solidarity in the interests of a transnational ruling elite, thus opening up a political vacuum that only the far right is ideologically prepared to fill.

There are parallels here with the Middle East as it started to disintegration about 15 years ago: it emerged that only sectarian and ethnic identities commanded enough loyalty to defend or advance the interests of communities. This was true of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which became the Praetorian Guard of the Shia community, and later of Isis and the al-Nusra Front, which bore the same relationship to Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Syria.

The secular opposition moderates, who briefly flourished in 2011, framed their grievances in terms of human rights, abandoning territorial nationalism which they generally saw as a self-serving justification for corrupt authoritarian regimes. By downgrading loyalty to the national state, they unwittingly opened the door to religious and ethnic movements as the only alternatives to discredited old regimes.

There are common features between Britain’s failure in Iraq between 2003 and 2009, which Chilcot Report will seek to describe and explain, and the crisis revolving around the British exit from the EU. It will be interesting to see what Sir John Chilcot makes of all this because the Iraq war was the last great test of the British political establishment and state before the Brexit vote and one that it demonstrably failed.

In the case of the Iraq war there was a prolonged unwillingness to recognise that mistakes had been made – witness the seven years it has taken for Chilcot to appear – or to learn from them. This does not fill one with confidence about Britain’s capacity to grapple with and overcome the consequences of Brexit.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Brexit, Britain 
Hide 29 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Europe Has UnderOverestimated its ability to contain the Forces of Nationalism Nature

    FTFY

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. 22pp22 says:

    Again my will and against the will of millions like me, my country has been turned over to Third World overspill. If I ever get the opportunity to properly express my disgust, I shall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Enoch Powell foresaw the current situation in Britain fifty years ago than this blathering idiot can comprehend it now. I’d advise Cockburn not to try shilling this shite on any street corner in Rotherham or any other place where vibrant, multicultural diversity has established a toehold in Great Britain. Heck, even within his safe nest in London, I’ll bet Cockburn understands that some areas are no-go zones for even the police. So, yes immigration is an important component in any explanation of the BREXIT vote. But not “because racisssm”. Rather the terrible impacts of immigration have become willfully obvious to all but those most blinded by ideology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @foo124

    Rotherham or any other place where vibrant, multicultural diversity has established a toehold in Great Britai
     
    But there is vibrant multicultural diversity that reduces crime, in fact has zero crime. Those are wherever the Indians/Hindus are. In fact, Indians are the biggest victims of terror in the world, with multiple holocausts from Muslims, over centuries.

    The "diversity" you reference, only refers to the Pakistanis/Muslims who are the ones behind all the terror and all of the Rotherham abuse.

    There is zero terror or abuse committed the (larger than Muslim) Indian community in the UK.

    Kinda..weird..that you are lumping "diversity" together in such a confused, muddled way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Finally I am convinced that P. Cockburn and Margolis are on the CIA’s payroll. We’ve experienced 20 years of the destructive force of globalism, and at the first sign of backlash, these guys warn of the evils of nationalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Cockburn's egregious father, Claude, was on Stalin's payroll in the 1930s and 40s. He was roundly condemned for this by George Orwell at the time of the Spanish Civil War.
    Nothing would surprise about the Cockburn shower.
    Ironically enough some years back, Patrick Cockburn won the Orwell Prize. Orwell must have been spinning in his coffin.
    , @Cavalier
    You have experienced more than just 20 years of globalism. 100 years at least ever since the International Communism instigated the First World War. It really ramped up after the anti-communist forces were defeated in WW2. Of course we were all bamboozled into fighting the wrong enemy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. This is gonna be fun.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. @landlubber
    Finally I am convinced that P. Cockburn and Margolis are on the CIA's payroll. We've experienced 20 years of the destructive force of globalism, and at the first sign of backlash, these guys warn of the evils of nationalism.

    Cockburn’s egregious father, Claude, was on Stalin’s payroll in the 1930s and 40s. He was roundly condemned for this by George Orwell at the time of the Spanish Civil War.
    Nothing would surprise about the Cockburn shower.
    Ironically enough some years back, Patrick Cockburn won the Orwell Prize. Orwell must have been spinning in his coffin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChrisD
    Correct. Claud Cockburn was a regular contributor to the Daily Worker under the pseudonym 'Frank Pitcairn'. Claud was also bloodthirsty for war with Hitler and took every opportunity to slam Chamberlain for not declaring war sooner.

    I don't know much about Patrick but this article is idiotic. Nationalism is the one cohesive force that will allow Britain to overcome the instability of Brexit, and far from being 'explosive', the 'immigrant card' as Cockburn says, is a reality that most working-class Brits have to deal with daily (although Cockburn wouldn't know anything about that of course).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Outwest says:

    Nationalism is a scalar force without a definite direction. For good or evil is a function of leadership. There’s no reason Great Britain can’t be by and for the British with no adverse influence outside Great Britain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Svigor says:

    From your lips, to God’s ears; a lot of stuff needs breaking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. foo124 says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...
    Enoch Powell foresaw the current situation in Britain fifty years ago than this blathering idiot can comprehend it now. I'd advise Cockburn not to try shilling this shite on any street corner in Rotherham or any other place where vibrant, multicultural diversity has established a toehold in Great Britain. Heck, even within his safe nest in London, I'll bet Cockburn understands that some areas are no-go zones for even the police. So, yes immigration is an important component in any explanation of the BREXIT vote. But not "because racisssm". Rather the terrible impacts of immigration have become willfully obvious to all but those most blinded by ideology.

    Rotherham or any other place where vibrant, multicultural diversity has established a toehold in Great Britai

    But there is vibrant multicultural diversity that reduces crime, in fact has zero crime. Those are wherever the Indians/Hindus are. In fact, Indians are the biggest victims of terror in the world, with multiple holocausts from Muslims, over centuries.

    The “diversity” you reference, only refers to the Pakistanis/Muslims who are the ones behind all the terror and all of the Rotherham abuse.

    There is zero terror or abuse committed the (larger than Muslim) Indian community in the UK.

    Kinda..weird..that you are lumping “diversity” together in such a confused, muddled way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    Not even Pakistanis, e.g. Punjabis, Lahore etc.
    Mirpuris (= "uh-oh, paddle faster, I can hear banjoes ..").

    Re: your "dot-Indians reduce crime" assertion.
    Thirty-forty years ago someone I know was subject to a (local chav witey) break-in, on return to his apartment after getting bladdered as usual (in the very same pub that Nigel Farage was forced to take refuge from antifa thuggees in, while electioneering a couple of years ago).
    No help could be found, police call handlers as deaf as a doornail as usual, so his girlfriend rushed out to a nearby still-open restaurant, howling in despair.
    The dramatic entrance of several heavily-bearded and turbanned Hindoo, armed with, I dunno, doner kebab swords or something, and in enthusiastic pursuit of the miscreants prompted his weary and sozzled expostulation
    "I said; fetch the coppers, darling. Not the bloody Bengal Lancers!"
    , @5371
    [zero crime. Those are wherever the Indians/Hindus are.]

    Tell me, what religion were those young fellers who raped and murdered the girl student on a bus in Delhi?
    , @Clyde
    Are the British allowed to have their nation the way Hindus/Indians have theirs? The way the Chinese do? Of course Hindus are much better in Britain than the Muslims but this does not change the fact that England must be for the English.
    Moving over to France which is 10% Muslim. Are the French allowed to have their own nation or must they submit to an immigration invasion in the name of some abstract justice?
    I live in America and if it were up to me there would be two choices. Zero immigration for the next 20 years or European only immigration for the next 20 years. To the uneducated: Prior to 1965 the only immigration into America was European because America was a 90% European nation. It should have remained this way because same as in your India, people prefer to live with their own kind where they don't have to explain themselves each day. With today's anti racism (code for anti-white) movements in America whites/Europeans are forced to explain themselves every day and to immigrant 3rd worlders who shouldn't be here in the first place. I am not including blacks who are descended from slaves although they too are in the demanding_explanations_business despite all the affirmative action rewards they reap.
    , @Bill Jones
    "But there is vibrant multicultural diversity that reduces crime, in fact has zero crime. Those are wherever the Indians/Hindus are."

    Tell that to the Sikhs.


    http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/01/16/the-truth-behind-the-amritsar-massacre
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says:

    True nationalism is stability and peace.

    True nationalism is about people ruling over their ancestral territory with deep roots.

    But imperialism created false nationalisms. Soviet Union was a false nation created by Russian/communist imperialism.

    Lebanon and many Middle Eastern nations were imperialist creations that bunched together people with little in common. So, those were false nationalisms that were really mini-imperiailsms where one ethnic group towered and ruled over others.

    Look at Yugoslavia. It was created into a false nation under imperialism.

    There was a bloody war in the 90s, but it led to true nationalism among ethno-states, and there is more peace now.

    But the problem is EU is a neo-imperialist entity. It is not even dominated by Europeans but by Euro-collabotors or Eurollaborators of the US that is ruled by Zio and Homo Globalists.

    So, EU has no means to defend itself from the African and Muslim tide.

    EU ideology is shaped by two ideologies and two idologies:

    Ideologies:

    (1) Leftist self-hatred that goes back to May 68 and fetish for Third World ‘authenticity’. This is also related to Holocaust Guilt and Imperialist Guilt. (Even nations like Sweden that had nothing to do with either are under this Imperialism of Guilt. It is imposed on all nations.)
    (2) Libertarian globalism that craves status and will sell anything(even one’s own nation) for careerism. These careerist cuck-elites will sell anything for a price, to rub shoulders with the ‘best’ people. They can be found on all sides: Blair and Cameron are the same.

    European Left is motivated by self-hatred. European ‘Right’(Merkel and Cameron) are motivated by self-interest and careerism in cocktail circles.

    Idologies:

    (1) Hollywood and American style culture of celebrity. That is Euro culture today. Mass and crass.
    (2) Negro Worship. With sports obsession and spread of porny culture, white folks worship the black woman’s fat ‘twerking’ ass and the black man’s British Broadcast Corporation. And the Negro’s muscle in sports and rapping rhythm. Look at French music today, and it’s all rap.

    Each European nation now finds its own history, heritage, and culture boring. The boys imitate rap and watch NBA. White girls shake their ass to rap and look for negroes in night clubs.

    And such ideologies and idologies have been imposed on the European masses by the only superpower, the US that is now controlled by Jews and Homos(and negroes in music and sports).
    In the past, American culture used to mean Faulkner, Hemingway, John Wayne westerns, Hitchcock movies. Or white rock and decent black music like Jazz and Motown.
    Now, American culture is tattoos, Lena Dunham, rappers, black thugs, mainstreaming of porn via Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga.

    Jews feel they have some toddgiven right to interfere in the politics, finance, and media of every nation. All nations better put out or else.
    Black males feel they have some toddgiven right to go to any nation and fuc* its women. And Jews promote this for every nation. Put out to the Negro stud or else you’re ‘racist’.
    Homos feel they have some toddgiven right to put on massive homo parades in every nation and demand homomania celebration. This is Globalist Imperialism.

    Only True Nationalism can save nations, and only true nationalism is the basis for good decent internationalism. Internationalism means each nation being independent and working with other nations in trade of goods and ideas.
    Globalism means all nations(except Israel) surrendering its independence and sovereignty to the NWO that is essentially dominated by the US that is controlled by Jews and their mini-me proxies the Homos.

    When people attack nationalism as the baddie, they fail to see that the ‘nationalism’ they are condemning really is a form of imperialism or was created under imperialism that increased diversity and/or redrew the borders.
    Imperialism = Diversity. Imperialism forces different people within a single domain.
    It also moves people from one place to another. It allowed tons of Jews to relocate to Palestine. British Imperialism moved many Asian Indians to Uganda and other British imperialist holdings in Africa.

    There never would have been a Northern Ireland if not for British Imperialism.

    So, the answer for all these problems is True Nationalism that says a people should rule over their ancestral homeland and EXCLUDE foreigners except as tourists, foreign guests, contract workers(who must go when contract runs out). Inclusion is Invasion. Exclusion is Survival. Israel certainly doesn’t allow just anyone to come and settle. It will no longer be Jewish State.

    Every true nation is the holy land for its own people.

    The problems of ‘nationalism’ is due to false nationhood created by imperialism that mixes up populations and increases tensions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChrisD
    Yes and this is why 'nationalism' in nations which have come into existing only by way of colonialism is rare and produces a cognitive dissonance (e.g. US/Australia/NZ/Canada etc). Those countries rarely, if ever, entertain 'nationalists' as politicians because it's seen as a taboo. Whereas older 'colonizer' nations such as Britain, France, Germany etc have many peaks and troughs of nationalistic sentiment (cf. Charles de Gaulle vs Francois Hollande; Adolf Hitler vs Angela Merkel; Enoch Powell vs David Cameron etc)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. While I support Brexit, and sympathize with Paleocons 7 times out of ten, the idea unchecked nationalism and ‘race realism’ won’t lead to something destructive is naive or sick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    #Brexitcaust #WhyAreTheHeavensNotDarkening #FaragesWillingExecutioners
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @foo124

    Rotherham or any other place where vibrant, multicultural diversity has established a toehold in Great Britai
     
    But there is vibrant multicultural diversity that reduces crime, in fact has zero crime. Those are wherever the Indians/Hindus are. In fact, Indians are the biggest victims of terror in the world, with multiple holocausts from Muslims, over centuries.

    The "diversity" you reference, only refers to the Pakistanis/Muslims who are the ones behind all the terror and all of the Rotherham abuse.

    There is zero terror or abuse committed the (larger than Muslim) Indian community in the UK.

    Kinda..weird..that you are lumping "diversity" together in such a confused, muddled way.

    Not even Pakistanis, e.g. Punjabis, Lahore etc.
    Mirpuris (= “uh-oh, paddle faster, I can hear banjoes ..”).

    Re: your “dot-Indians reduce crime” assertion.
    Thirty-forty years ago someone I know was subject to a (local chav witey) break-in, on return to his apartment after getting bladdered as usual (in the very same pub that Nigel Farage was forced to take refuge from antifa thuggees in, while electioneering a couple of years ago).
    No help could be found, police call handlers as deaf as a doornail as usual, so his girlfriend rushed out to a nearby still-open restaurant, howling in despair.
    The dramatic entrance of several heavily-bearded and turbanned Hindoo, armed with, I dunno, doner kebab swords or something, and in enthusiastic pursuit of the miscreants prompted his weary and sozzled expostulation
    “I said; fetch the coppers, darling. Not the bloody Bengal Lancers!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. What a confused article. At first, one wants to say that it’s about everything and nothing, but then you notice how it’s like the way Noam Chomsky sometimes writes: start off with the usual disclaimers (“xenophobia”, etc). Then about mid article, a kind of half-conscious peeking through (“Conservatives used to be good at appealing to English nationalism, but appear to have lost this ability as globalization downgrades national solidarity in the interests of a transnational ruling elite, thus opening up a political vacuum that only the far right is ideologically prepared to fill”) that sets up how the enemy may have a point, but one that’s more of a warning than the full admission (“But it is precisely when economic, social and nationalist demands combine, as appears to be happening in England and Scotland, that they become a powerful force, as occurred in Ireland in the 19th century when the tenant farmers hunger for their own land united with the drive for Irish self-rule.”).

    Thus in the end, its usefulness is in getting to watch a writer go through a kind of intellectual tiptoeing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Wally says: • Website

    Nationalism for Jews, GOOD.
    Nationalism for Gentile whites, BAD.

    And we now know that American Indians were ‘xenophobic / racist’ for resisting European migrants.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. 5371 says:
    @foo124

    Rotherham or any other place where vibrant, multicultural diversity has established a toehold in Great Britai
     
    But there is vibrant multicultural diversity that reduces crime, in fact has zero crime. Those are wherever the Indians/Hindus are. In fact, Indians are the biggest victims of terror in the world, with multiple holocausts from Muslims, over centuries.

    The "diversity" you reference, only refers to the Pakistanis/Muslims who are the ones behind all the terror and all of the Rotherham abuse.

    There is zero terror or abuse committed the (larger than Muslim) Indian community in the UK.

    Kinda..weird..that you are lumping "diversity" together in such a confused, muddled way.

    [zero crime. Those are wherever the Indians/Hindus are.]

    Tell me, what religion were those young fellers who raped and murdered the girl student on a bus in Delhi?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. 5371 says:
    @Paulestinain
    While I support Brexit, and sympathize with Paleocons 7 times out of ten, the idea unchecked nationalism and 'race realism' won't lead to something destructive is naive or sick.

    #Brexitcaust #WhyAreTheHeavensNotDarkening #FaragesWillingExecutioners

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Rehmat says:

    Northern Ireland is an occupied country. Lebanon is an artificial state created out of Syria by the French and British colonialist on the basis of religious sectarianism; Muslim vs Christians.

    In Lebanon like Syria there was no “civil war”. It’s created by the US and Israel to occupy Southern Lebanon in order to steal water from Litani River. The Jewish army occupied its for over 20 years with the help of its locally trained and funded Christian militia ‘Phalange’ until the Jewish army was kicked out of Southern Lebanon by Hizbullah fighters in 2000.

    In 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hizbullah fighters made it Israel’s Vietnam. The Jewish army suffered the greatest loses in human and material in its history.

    After the victory, Lebanon’s Christian president called Hizbullah, FEDENDER of Lebanon.

    In 2010, Israeli Gen. Giora Eiland had admitted that Israel doesn’t know how to defeat Hizbullah. However, the coward Zionist Jew was very optimistic that in case of its coming third war with Hizbullah – Israel’s friends at the UN Security Council will call for a cease-fire after two days to save Israel from another military humiliation. “This would have the entire world crying out for a cease-fire within two days”, which would be more in the Israeli interest “than having to deal directly with every one of Hezbollah’s estimated 40,000 rockets”.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/06/13/israel-admits-hizbullah-rockets-will-hit-tel-aviv/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says:

    If not nationalism, there is globalism.

    The problem with globalism is the lie that it’s about equality and sharing of power by all the world.

    But in truth, globalism is centered in the US that is now dominated by Jews and homos.

    So, globalism is essentially Jewish-Homo or Jomo supremacism.

    ‘Diversity’ has been associated with ‘Equality’, but there is nothing equal about diversity in the US. Not all groups share power equally or even proportionately. Jews who are 2% dominate so much. And Homos, another minority, have tremendous privilege over others.

    If Diversity is about equal power for all groups, how come virtually all candidates of both parties sing hosannas to Israel and AIPAC but not to Palestinian-Americans and Palestinian issues? Indeed, both Trump and Hillary laugh at Palestinians in West Bank. They just serve AIPAC. Globalism is about power and money. It sounds like ALL THE WORLD COMING TOGETHER, but in truth, all the world just come under the power of Jomo domination centered in US.

    Diversity and Equality are not complementary. Diversity in the US means most ethnic and racial groups(even white majority) must serve the supremacist power of Jewish and Homo elites.

    If globalism is about the world sharing everything equally, how come American Rap and Hollywood and Wall Street and Silicon Valley gain power over all the world?
    Do you see massive parades in the US for ramadan or Buddha’ birthday?
    But we see homo parades in other nations. US dominates globalism and forces its agenda on other nations than vice versa.
    Sure, people from all over come to the US, but their kids are turned onto rap and homomania.
    They merely become cuck-collaborators of the US-dominated GLOB.

    After all, it is homo ‘pride’ parades that are spreading like cultural cancer from nation to nation.
    Globalism favors Jews and Homos. And its main culture is dumb Hollywood blockbusters(that rake in gazillions for Jews and Homos in Hollywood) and Rap music that promotes black thuggery as the standard of human behavior.

    Globalism is about the elites of all nations abandoning their own peoples for neo-aristocratic Elysium rule over the world. So, British elites are closer to African, Asian, and American elites than to British masses. Same in Japan, Nigeria, Mexico, Canada, and etc.

    But even within the realm of the globalist elite, not all elite groups are equal. Jews and Homos are MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. They set the template of what globalism must be, and the rest of the elites follow… regardless of the harm it may do to their people. French, Japanese, Polish, Mexican, Colombian, etc elites must take orders from the US Jomo elites.

    Children of French elites, Turkish elites, British Elites, Saudi Elites, American elites all attend elite colleges and form networks. They identify mainly with globalist privilege than with their own people who are seen as cattle, often interchangeable with cattle of other nations.

    The exception is Jewish elites who still care for Jewish people in Israel. That is the source of Jewish nationalist power, and Jews want it for no one else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. ChrisD says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Cockburn's egregious father, Claude, was on Stalin's payroll in the 1930s and 40s. He was roundly condemned for this by George Orwell at the time of the Spanish Civil War.
    Nothing would surprise about the Cockburn shower.
    Ironically enough some years back, Patrick Cockburn won the Orwell Prize. Orwell must have been spinning in his coffin.

    Correct. Claud Cockburn was a regular contributor to the Daily Worker under the pseudonym ‘Frank Pitcairn’. Claud was also bloodthirsty for war with Hitler and took every opportunity to slam Chamberlain for not declaring war sooner.

    I don’t know much about Patrick but this article is idiotic. Nationalism is the one cohesive force that will allow Britain to overcome the instability of Brexit, and far from being ‘explosive’, the ‘immigrant card’ as Cockburn says, is a reality that most working-class Brits have to deal with daily (although Cockburn wouldn’t know anything about that of course).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. ChrisD says:
    @Priss Factor
    True nationalism is stability and peace.

    True nationalism is about people ruling over their ancestral territory with deep roots.

    But imperialism created false nationalisms. Soviet Union was a false nation created by Russian/communist imperialism.

    Lebanon and many Middle Eastern nations were imperialist creations that bunched together people with little in common. So, those were false nationalisms that were really mini-imperiailsms where one ethnic group towered and ruled over others.

    Look at Yugoslavia. It was created into a false nation under imperialism.

    There was a bloody war in the 90s, but it led to true nationalism among ethno-states, and there is more peace now.

    But the problem is EU is a neo-imperialist entity. It is not even dominated by Europeans but by Euro-collabotors or Eurollaborators of the US that is ruled by Zio and Homo Globalists.

    So, EU has no means to defend itself from the African and Muslim tide.

    EU ideology is shaped by two ideologies and two idologies:

    Ideologies:

    (1) Leftist self-hatred that goes back to May 68 and fetish for Third World 'authenticity'. This is also related to Holocaust Guilt and Imperialist Guilt. (Even nations like Sweden that had nothing to do with either are under this Imperialism of Guilt. It is imposed on all nations.)
    (2) Libertarian globalism that craves status and will sell anything(even one's own nation) for careerism. These careerist cuck-elites will sell anything for a price, to rub shoulders with the 'best' people. They can be found on all sides: Blair and Cameron are the same.

    European Left is motivated by self-hatred. European 'Right'(Merkel and Cameron) are motivated by self-interest and careerism in cocktail circles.

    Idologies:

    (1) Hollywood and American style culture of celebrity. That is Euro culture today. Mass and crass.
    (2) Negro Worship. With sports obsession and spread of porny culture, white folks worship the black woman's fat 'twerking' ass and the black man's British Broadcast Corporation. And the Negro's muscle in sports and rapping rhythm. Look at French music today, and it's all rap.

    Each European nation now finds its own history, heritage, and culture boring. The boys imitate rap and watch NBA. White girls shake their ass to rap and look for negroes in night clubs.

    And such ideologies and idologies have been imposed on the European masses by the only superpower, the US that is now controlled by Jews and Homos(and negroes in music and sports).
    In the past, American culture used to mean Faulkner, Hemingway, John Wayne westerns, Hitchcock movies. Or white rock and decent black music like Jazz and Motown.
    Now, American culture is tattoos, Lena Dunham, rappers, black thugs, mainstreaming of porn via Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga.

    Jews feel they have some toddgiven right to interfere in the politics, finance, and media of every nation. All nations better put out or else.
    Black males feel they have some toddgiven right to go to any nation and fuc* its women. And Jews promote this for every nation. Put out to the Negro stud or else you're 'racist'.
    Homos feel they have some toddgiven right to put on massive homo parades in every nation and demand homomania celebration. This is Globalist Imperialism.

    Only True Nationalism can save nations, and only true nationalism is the basis for good decent internationalism. Internationalism means each nation being independent and working with other nations in trade of goods and ideas.
    Globalism means all nations(except Israel) surrendering its independence and sovereignty to the NWO that is essentially dominated by the US that is controlled by Jews and their mini-me proxies the Homos.

    When people attack nationalism as the baddie, they fail to see that the 'nationalism' they are condemning really is a form of imperialism or was created under imperialism that increased diversity and/or redrew the borders.
    Imperialism = Diversity. Imperialism forces different people within a single domain.
    It also moves people from one place to another. It allowed tons of Jews to relocate to Palestine. British Imperialism moved many Asian Indians to Uganda and other British imperialist holdings in Africa.

    There never would have been a Northern Ireland if not for British Imperialism.

    So, the answer for all these problems is True Nationalism that says a people should rule over their ancestral homeland and EXCLUDE foreigners except as tourists, foreign guests, contract workers(who must go when contract runs out). Inclusion is Invasion. Exclusion is Survival. Israel certainly doesn't allow just anyone to come and settle. It will no longer be Jewish State.

    Every true nation is the holy land for its own people.

    The problems of 'nationalism' is due to false nationhood created by imperialism that mixes up populations and increases tensions.

    Yes and this is why ‘nationalism’ in nations which have come into existing only by way of colonialism is rare and produces a cognitive dissonance (e.g. US/Australia/NZ/Canada etc). Those countries rarely, if ever, entertain ‘nationalists’ as politicians because it’s seen as a taboo. Whereas older ‘colonizer’ nations such as Britain, France, Germany etc have many peaks and troughs of nationalistic sentiment (cf. Charles de Gaulle vs Francois Hollande; Adolf Hitler vs Angela Merkel; Enoch Powell vs David Cameron etc)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The embedded ‘journalists’, is agent of the intelligence services and the “world government”. These enemies of humanity label people who are defending their countries and interests against the criminal invaders, ‘Destructive force of Nationalism’ who invade country after country staging FALSE FLAG OPERATION and propaganda lies to kill millions of people and force others out of their own lands as refugees for geopolitical gains.

    Good citizens will fight against the invaders and will destroy them ALL.

    LONG LIVE NATIONALISM AND DEATH TO ITS ENEMIES.

    The invaders must fu*k off from the region NOW. Down with zionism/Imperialsm.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. MJJB says:

    Prediction from 1996:

    [S]ooner or later, as the globalist elites seek to drag the country into conflicts and global commitments, preside over the economic pastoralization of the United States, manage the delegitimization of our own culture, and the dispossession of our people, and disregard or diminish our national interests and national sovereignty, a nationalist reaction is almost inevitable and will probably assume populist form when it arrives. The sooner it comes, the better… [Samuel Francis in Chronicles]

    http://theweek.com/articles/599577/how-obscure-adviser-pat-buchanan-predicted-wild-trump-campaign-1996

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Sean says:

    The SNP wants more immigration http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25910947 and by the way, http://www.upworthy.com/there-is-now-a-country-where-most-political-party-leaders-are-openly-gay-or-bi.

    The SNP has had campaigns quoting Burns in the interchangeability of the worlds population, and of extolling the non indigenous inhabitants of Scotland. The SNP are currently complaining about Brexit being so vilely racist that Scotland must separate from England.

    I challenge you to find a SNP politician complaining about immigration : they want much much more of it, Sinn Fein are anti immigrant in the sense they don’t like Protestants who arrived in Ireland several hundred years ago and pauperised the indigenous population.

    London went from virtually 100% indigenous to half non European in couple of generations with no reaction at all, none that called a halt at least. But in far less time, those objecting to East Europeans coalesced into an actual majority. The reason is perfectly plain, they were brought together not by some Cthulhu-like ideology of the netherworld, but simple self organisation on rational economic grounds; they are poor, and their ability to provide for their families is being compromised, so they form a powerful political community just like those Irish tenant farmers of the nineteenth century.

    Iraq became unstable due to adventurism by Saddam. He was not satisfied with Iraq as a normal country. The fault lines in Britain between poor and the those more fortunately endowed (with wealth, contacts and, yes, genes) by their family background are also being exposed by a reluctance to acept that Britain should mind its own business. Yes there is an upsurge in nationalism but it is from Labour supporters. The lower orders are more collective (nationalist) because they are so weak individually. Nation states are supposedly immoral because the great unwashed raise their voices to disagree with a morality that ignores how living standards will be unsustainable at current migrant inflow. The bread is being taken from their mouths and they are pawns of the far right for blanching in the face of unlimited arrival of competition from …. European Christians!.

    Conservatives used to be good at appealing to English nationalism, but appear to have lost this ability as globalisation downgrades national solidarity in the interests of a transnational ruling elite, thus opening up a political vacuum that only the far right is ideologically prepared to fill.

    Britain is probably going to be led by Theresa May, she of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasty_Party jibe. Nothing is going to change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Cavalier says:
    @landlubber
    Finally I am convinced that P. Cockburn and Margolis are on the CIA's payroll. We've experienced 20 years of the destructive force of globalism, and at the first sign of backlash, these guys warn of the evils of nationalism.

    You have experienced more than just 20 years of globalism. 100 years at least ever since the International Communism instigated the First World War. It really ramped up after the anti-communist forces were defeated in WW2. Of course we were all bamboozled into fighting the wrong enemy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Einstein warned humanity of the “New Religion” called nationalism and how Nationalism was the greatest threat to mankind. Man and his gods (homer Smith) forward by Einstein.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Clyde says:
    @foo124

    Rotherham or any other place where vibrant, multicultural diversity has established a toehold in Great Britai
     
    But there is vibrant multicultural diversity that reduces crime, in fact has zero crime. Those are wherever the Indians/Hindus are. In fact, Indians are the biggest victims of terror in the world, with multiple holocausts from Muslims, over centuries.

    The "diversity" you reference, only refers to the Pakistanis/Muslims who are the ones behind all the terror and all of the Rotherham abuse.

    There is zero terror or abuse committed the (larger than Muslim) Indian community in the UK.

    Kinda..weird..that you are lumping "diversity" together in such a confused, muddled way.

    Are the British allowed to have their nation the way Hindus/Indians have theirs? The way the Chinese do? Of course Hindus are much better in Britain than the Muslims but this does not change the fact that England must be for the English.
    Moving over to France which is 10% Muslim. Are the French allowed to have their own nation or must they submit to an immigration invasion in the name of some abstract justice?
    I live in America and if it were up to me there would be two choices. Zero immigration for the next 20 years or European only immigration for the next 20 years. To the uneducated: Prior to 1965 the only immigration into America was European because America was a 90% European nation. It should have remained this way because same as in your India, people prefer to live with their own kind where they don’t have to explain themselves each day. With today’s anti racism (code for anti-white) movements in America whites/Europeans are forced to explain themselves every day and to immigrant 3rd worlders who shouldn’t be here in the first place. I am not including blacks who are descended from slaves although they too are in the demanding_explanations_business despite all the affirmative action rewards they reap.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @foo124

    Rotherham or any other place where vibrant, multicultural diversity has established a toehold in Great Britai
     
    But there is vibrant multicultural diversity that reduces crime, in fact has zero crime. Those are wherever the Indians/Hindus are. In fact, Indians are the biggest victims of terror in the world, with multiple holocausts from Muslims, over centuries.

    The "diversity" you reference, only refers to the Pakistanis/Muslims who are the ones behind all the terror and all of the Rotherham abuse.

    There is zero terror or abuse committed the (larger than Muslim) Indian community in the UK.

    Kinda..weird..that you are lumping "diversity" together in such a confused, muddled way.

    “But there is vibrant multicultural diversity that reduces crime, in fact has zero crime. Those are wherever the Indians/Hindus are.”

    Tell that to the Sikhs.

    http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/01/16/the-truth-behind-the-amritsar-massacre

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Well, I aguess James Traub mobilized the elites. Cockdick heard the call and landed this POS on UNZ. Because I am ignorant, will some explain the difference between globalization and colonial America’s free trade policies?

    Read More
    • Replies: @YT Wurlitzer
    I might be the ignorant leading the ignorant but I'd make a couple of distinctions.

    Trade in the colonial America era was still primarily about goods. Adam Smith's theory was that everyone in the country producing those goods prospered as various suppliers, laborers, etc., took part.

    Globalization is more about labor arbitrage. Now the goods are produced elsewhere, so every time a worker spends a dollar on goods produced elsewhere, a dollar is extracted from that economy and sent abroad or to Wall Street. Wall Street no longer invests in that worker, but only seeks cheaper ones. And the old 'we're all share holders' excuse is now acknowledged to be more like the 1%.

    In theory, labor abroad prospers, but of course the prosperity is restricted and concentrates in the 'elites' or overlord class we see today showing such solidarity with each other at the expense of their own nations' underclass.

    Many in developing economies might still like that arrangement if it's better than what they had, but for the West it has been a systematic removal of the means of producing wealth and a systematic reduction in that wealth's distribution. Trickle down dried up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Luca Rivera
    Well, I aguess James Traub mobilized the elites. Cockdick heard the call and landed this POS on UNZ. Because I am ignorant, will some explain the difference between globalization and colonial America's free trade policies?

    I might be the ignorant leading the ignorant but I’d make a couple of distinctions.

    Trade in the colonial America era was still primarily about goods. Adam Smith’s theory was that everyone in the country producing those goods prospered as various suppliers, laborers, etc., took part.

    Globalization is more about labor arbitrage. Now the goods are produced elsewhere, so every time a worker spends a dollar on goods produced elsewhere, a dollar is extracted from that economy and sent abroad or to Wall Street. Wall Street no longer invests in that worker, but only seeks cheaper ones. And the old ‘we’re all share holders’ excuse is now acknowledged to be more like the 1%.

    In theory, labor abroad prospers, but of course the prosperity is restricted and concentrates in the ‘elites’ or overlord class we see today showing such solidarity with each other at the expense of their own nations’ underclass.

    Many in developing economies might still like that arrangement if it’s better than what they had, but for the West it has been a systematic removal of the means of producing wealth and a systematic reduction in that wealth’s distribution. Trickle down dried up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr