PDA

View Full Version : The Dying Nation-State



Ahnenerbe
Monday, February 28th, 2005, 06:23 AM
Today, the nation-state has run the same course as the medieval Church, becoming corrupt, bloated and a drag on society. New weapons technologies are reducing the returns on violence. An inexpensive Stinger missile can bring down a multi-million dollar jet aircraft. The sprawling centralized systems of government and other industrial-age entities are increasingly vulnerable to terrorist attack using compact explosives, or even chemical, biological or mini-nuclear weapons. Very small groups or even individuals can wreak havoc if they wish. The sledgehammer approach of large industrial-age military forces is becoming obsolete. The authors also point out that pure information warfare within computer systems using "logic bombs" will be a part of future conflict, and they point out that Bill Gates and Microsoft Corporation, if they needed to, have far more computing resources for such action than most governments.

It is the computer revolution that provides the promise of a real-world Galt's Gulch. Still in its infancy, the cybereconomy will allow the successful practitioners of computer technology to escape the regular economy and the predations of governments. Widely available strong encryption tools like Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) are already allowing ordinary users to make it impossible for government to monitor their communications or decipher the contents of their hard drives or storage disks.

The Information Revolution will also bring us the death of politics as we know it. Participants in the cyber-economy will operate in the anarchic environment of the Internet, choosing who they will deal with, how and when. The morality of the marketplace will dominate the Internet, and private clubs with their own security procedures will arise to prevent theft by cybercriminals. Politicians will become increasingly irrelevant, as people bypass them and form new voluntary local institutions and virtual communities on the Internet.

The death blow to the nation-state will be digital cash, which has just become available. E-cash or even e-metal, using encrypted verifiable signals will allow individuals to make their transactions in secret on the Internet, and will destroy the ability of governments to exact wealth through the hidden tax of monetary inflation. Using financial institutions domiciled in tax havens, and using anonymous remailers, cybernauts will be able to largely avoid taxes and inflation, and thus amass wealth at a vastly accelerated rate.

Governments will starve. Their ability to exact large sums from the rich for transfer payments will disappear. If they are to survive, they will be forced to radically downsize, and treat their citizens like customers instead of livestock. And since their ability to police large territories will also decline due to weapons technology, there will be enormous pressures to break up nations into much smaller jurisdictions. The provision of protection will become a business service, and much more personalized, especially for the rich cyber-entrepreuners.

All will not be sweetness and light. Governments, like the Church before them, will not go without a fight. The authors predict that they will resort to large increases in consumption taxes, will greatly increase property seizures under civil-asset forfeiture laws, and in worst cases will kidnap rich people for ransom and launch attacks on known tax havens. They will have the support of the many people who will be falling behind in the Information Age – so expect a rise in populism and even neo-Luddite attacks on individuals and companies who are identified with the cybereconomy. The Sovereign Individual warns that these threats are most likely in the advanced industrial and welfare states of North America and Western Europe, and actually counsels successful people to get out now and move to places with strong free-market economies like Argentina and New Zealand.


http://www.isil.org/resources/libertydocs/sovereign-individual-book.html

Huzar
Monday, February 28th, 2005, 07:29 AM
Interesting analisys, in the complex. Obviously Nation -state concept is in danger today like in the past. It could not survive in this age.

Zoroaster
Monday, February 28th, 2005, 03:00 PM
Interesting article,

If the NWO criminals have their way, furture generations will be virtual slaves living on a global plantation.

Siegfried
Wednesday, May 24th, 2006, 02:51 PM
The Death of the Nation-State

by Patrick Buchanan


Yugoslavia is gone, forever. The country that emerged from World War I and Versailles as the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, land of the South Slavs, has passed into history.

Sunday's vote in Montenegro, a tiny land of fewer people than the Washington, D.C., this writer grew up in, voted Sunday to secede from Belgrade, establish a nation and seek entry into the European Union.

In 1991, Macedonia peacefully seceded. Slovenia and Croatia fought their way out, and Bosnia broke free after a war marked by the massacre at Srbenica and NATO intervention. Bosnia is itself subdivided into a Serb and a Croat-Muslim sector.

After the 78-day U.S. bombing of Serbia by the United States, and the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from the province in the wake of the NATO war, Kosovo is 90 percent Muslim and Albanian. Loss of this land that was the cradle of the Serb nation seems an inevitability.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia, the second partition of Czechoslovakia and the breakup of the Soviet Union into 15 nations – many of which had never before existed – seem to confirm what Israeli historian Martin van Creveld and U.S. geostrategist William Lind have written.

The nation-state is dying. Men have begun to transfer their allegiance, loyalty and love from the older nations both upward to the new transnational regimes that are arising and downward to the sub-nations whence they came, the true nations, united by blood and soil, language, literature, history, faith, tradition and memory.

Imperial and ideological nations appear, for the foreseeable future, to be finished. The British and French, greatest of the Western Empires, are long gone. Throughout the 19th and early 20th century, the Irish, though its sons had fought to erect and maintain the Victorian "empire on which the sun never set" – and defend it in World War I – fought relentlessly to be free of it. They wanted, and in 1921 won, a small nation of their own, on their own small island.

The Irish preferred it to being part of the British Empire.

The call of ethnicity, nationalism, religion, faith and history pulled apart the greatest of all the ideological empires, the Soviet Empire, and the Soviet Union, that "prison house of nations."

Transnational institutions, the embryonic institutions of a new world government to which the elites of the West and Third World are transferring allegiance and power, include the United Nations, the EU, the World Trade Organization, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, the International Seabed Authority, the Kyoto Protocol, the IMF and the World Bank.

The sub-nations, or ex-nations, struggling to be born or break free include Scotland, Catalonia and the Basque country of Spain, Corsica, northern Italy and Quebec in the West. Iraq, as we have seen, is a composite of peoples divided by tribe, ethnicity and faith – as are Iran, Pakistan and India. Jordanians are Palestinian Arabs, with a minority of Bedouins.

Lind argues that not only are nations subdividing, losing their monopolies on the love and loyalty of their peoples, but they are being superseded by "non-state actors" that are challenging the monopoly on warfare enjoyed by the nation-state since the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War.

Among the more familiar non-state actors are the Crips and Bloods, Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13, the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, the Zapatistas of Chiapas, the racial nationalists of MEChA, the white supremacists of Aryan Nations, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah, the Maoists of Nepal and the Tamil Tigers.

Among the central questions of our time is a central question of any time: Who owns the future?

Of late, the transnational vision has lost its allure. Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and most of Latin America reject the NAFTA vision of Bush and Vicente Fox. French and Dutch voted down the EU Constitution, which now appears dead. The Doha round of world trade negotiations is headed for the rocks. Hostility is rising to bringing Turkey into the EU.

Arabs and Turks in Europe identify more and more with the Islamic faith they have in common and the countries whence they came, not the one in which they live and work.

So, too, do millions of illegal aliens in the United States. They march defiantly under Mexican flags in American streets demanding the rights of U.S. citizens – while an intimidated political class rushes to accommodate and appease them, assuring itself this is but the latest reincarnation of Ellis Island.

As the Old Republic trudges to its death, less and less do we hear that incessant blather about the American Empire, "the world's last superpower" and "our unipolar moment."



[Source (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50338)]

Sigrid
Wednesday, May 24th, 2006, 04:30 PM
There is a gross anomaly here. What is the point of wanting independence as a nation state if all you really want to do is join the enormous Marxian superstate of the EU? :screwy

Ælfhere
Wednesday, May 24th, 2006, 06:10 PM
Among the central questions of our time is a central question of any time: Who owns the future?

We (whites) need to make sure we will own ourselves, and that any multinational organization we become part of exists to serve only our needs and not that of Muslims or Chinese. I have no problem with white nations banding together to better accomplish their goals. But it goes without saying the EU probably doesn't have the correct goals in mind (ethnic-cultural survival) and for the UN, well I don't even need to go there.

Ewergrin
Thursday, May 25th, 2006, 05:56 AM
We (whites) need to make sure we will own ourselves, and that any multinational organization we become part of exists to serve only our needs and not that of Muslims or Chinese. I have no problem with white nations banding together to better accomplish their goals. But it goes without saying the EU probably doesn't have the correct goals in mind (ethnic-cultural survival) and for the UN, well I don't even need to go there.
Such a "banding together" would require at the very least a temporary relinquishing of sovereignty by all of the nations involved, which would in turn require that sovereignty be placed in the hands of a select few, who would wield all of the power. Those with the power are, fundamentally speaking, incongruous to the common people. We would be in the same boat that we are already in.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The only way for "whites" to make sure that we own ourselves is to dissolve governments and reinstate small, "primitive" folk communities again. Western culture has completely eradicated probably one of the most important rituals of any folk society, which is the Rite of Passage. This would have to be reinstated as well. No longer are our children made to endure any rites proving their worth as they make the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Children are the number one targets of multi-culturalist propaganda. Television and mass media has taught our children to disrespect their parents and disgrace their families. Desensitization has made our children sterile to family values and virtue. Public rites of passage would fix that.

Sigrid
Thursday, May 25th, 2006, 08:26 AM
Agree, agree.

:dance:

But at present I am fighting for the reinstitution of sovereign nation states. The communities you so aptly describe could much more easily be built and sustained inside of these larger ethnically characterised political units. And the nation states can have alliances. This is the way to go. Folkish communities are the lifeblood of nations, so yes, must be done and I can hardly hear anyone yapping about the joys of multiculturalism the hooves of my horse are galloping so hard toward Vigrid.

Ælfhere
Thursday, May 25th, 2006, 03:03 PM
Ideally I favor nation states too, and even decentralization into the the small communities Evergreen talked about. Any multinational organization formed to deal with major threats would hopefully remain temporary.

Siegfried
Saturday, August 4th, 2007, 08:54 AM
The Death of the Nation-State

by Patrick Buchanan


Yugoslavia is gone, forever. The country that emerged from World War I and Versailles as the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, land of the South Slavs, has passed into history.

Sunday's vote in Montenegro, a tiny land of fewer people than the Washington, D.C., this writer grew up in, voted Sunday to secede from Belgrade, establish a nation and seek entry into the European Union.

In 1991, Macedonia peacefully seceded. Slovenia and Croatia fought their way out, and Bosnia broke free after a war marked by the massacre at Srbenica and NATO intervention. Bosnia is itself subdivided into a Serb and a Croat-Muslim sector.

After the 78-day U.S. bombing of Serbia by the United States, and the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from the province in the wake of the NATO war, Kosovo is 90 percent Muslim and Albanian. Loss of this land that was the cradle of the Serb nation seems an inevitability.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia, the second partition of Czechoslovakia and the breakup of the Soviet Union into 15 nations – many of which had never before existed – seem to confirm what Israeli historian Martin van Creveld and U.S. geostrategist William Lind have written.

The nation-state is dying. Men have begun to transfer their allegiance, loyalty and love from the older nations both upward to the new transnational regimes that are arising and downward to the sub-nations whence they came, the true nations, united by blood and soil, language, literature, history, faith, tradition and memory.

Imperial and ideological nations appear, for the foreseeable future, to be finished. The British and French, greatest of the Western Empires, are long gone. Throughout the 19th and early 20th century, the Irish, though its sons had fought to erect and maintain the Victorian "empire on which the sun never set" – and defend it in World War I – fought relentlessly to be free of it. They wanted, and in 1921 won, a small nation of their own, on their own small island.

The Irish preferred it to being part of the British Empire.

The call of ethnicity, nationalism, religion, faith and history pulled apart the greatest of all the ideological empires, the Soviet Empire, and the Soviet Union, that "prison house of nations."

Transnational institutions, the embryonic institutions of a new world government to which the elites of the West and Third World are transferring allegiance and power, include the United Nations, the EU, the World Trade Organization, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, the International Seabed Authority, the Kyoto Protocol, the IMF and the World Bank.

The sub-nations, or ex-nations, struggling to be born or break free include Scotland, Catalonia and the Basque country of Spain, Corsica, northern Italy and Quebec in the West. Iraq, as we have seen, is a composite of peoples divided by tribe, ethnicity and faith – as are Iran, Pakistan and India. Jordanians are Palestinian Arabs, with a minority of Bedouins.

Lind argues that not only are nations subdividing, losing their monopolies on the love and loyalty of their peoples, but they are being superseded by "non-state actors" that are challenging the monopoly on warfare enjoyed by the nation-state since the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War.

Among the more familiar non-state actors are the Crips and Bloods, Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13, the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, the Zapatistas of Chiapas, the racial nationalists of MEChA, the white supremacists of Aryan Nations, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah, the Maoists of Nepal and the Tamil Tigers.

Among the central questions of our time is a central question of any time: Who owns the future?

Of late, the transnational vision has lost its allure. Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and most of Latin America reject the NAFTA vision of Bush and Vicente Fox. French and Dutch voted down the EU Constitution, which now appears dead. The Doha round of world trade negotiations is headed for the rocks. Hostility is rising to bringing Turkey into the EU.

Arabs and Turks in Europe identify more and more with the Islamic faith they have in common and the countries whence they came, not the one in which they live and work.

So, too, do millions of illegal aliens in the United States. They march defiantly under Mexican flags in American streets demanding the rights of U.S. citizens – while an intimidated political class rushes to accommodate and appease them, assuring itself this is but the latest reincarnation of Ellis Island.

As the Old Republic trudges to its death, less and less do we hear that incessant blather about the American Empire, "the world's last superpower" and "our unipolar moment."



[Source (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50338)]

JFRevel
Sunday, August 19th, 2007, 02:09 AM
What the columnist writes opposes entirely the chosen title. The only conclusions we can – pardon the redundancy – conclude from the article, it’s that the nation-state it’s still breathing and couldn’t be more alive.

The idea of erecting super-states it’s an old kantanian idea to build a world citizenship. A melting pot where national obedience merge in a universal order. The idea has failed miserably as we can see in united nations and walks a tedious path in the European union promising to just stop in a dead end.

Obviously, the nation-state it’s not the single abstract form of pre-political belonging but probably the better one we have. But as logical nations change and states evolve




The sub-nations, or ex-nations, struggling to be born or break free include Scotland, Catalonia and the Basque country of Spain, Corsica, northern Italy and Quebec in the West. Iraq, as we have seen, is a composite of peoples divided by tribe, ethnicity and faith – as are Iran, Pakistan and India. Jordanians are Palestinian Arabs, with a minority of Bedouins.



Spain or united kingdom never were nations, but imagined communities linked by artificial borders. The british or Spanish status may one day evolve to new nation-states.

Taras Bulba
Monday, August 20th, 2007, 09:37 PM
The nation-state is dying? Good riddance to bad rubbish!

I wrote a commentary about this on my blog some time ago. When I have time I'll post it here.



Obviously, the nation-state it’s not the single abstract form of pre-political belonging but probably the better one we have.

I sincerely disagree with that assesment. The nation-state is indeed based upon an abstract understanding of nations, and the whole EU/universal Globalist state advocates correctly term their project as being "supranationalism"; since its pretty much the same basic logic of "nationalism" applied on a bigger scale.

JFRevel
Monday, August 20th, 2007, 11:48 PM
The nation-state is indeed based upon an abstract understanding of nations

Well I disagree. The nations are invented by states since states can not live without nations.


the whole EU/universal Globalist state advocates correctly term their project as being "supranationalism"; since its pretty much the same basic logic of "nationalism" applied on a bigger scale.

Yes, projects as EU or African Union have the desire to form nations. The new form of pre-political belonging grant a legal cover upon the new state and the new legal system.

In EU we can testify the forming of a new nation. That not means we will have a new "nation-state". Large number of Europeans rejects the idea of a European supra-state since doesn’t exist a mutual feeling that founds a community of neighbours sharing a religion, habits, land and the desire in common defence. Without a new nation, a nation that Europeans may embrace, EU will fail.

A global state in our days has no other space excepting bad fiction. A State can’t survive without a nation or a common ideology. And ideologies by definition will always be undemocratic.

Soldier of Wodann
Thursday, September 13th, 2007, 09:43 PM
Anyone who thinks of Spain, the UK, America or Yugoslavia (hahaha) as nation-states is flat out wrong. I strongly believe in Nation States that are legitimate, for example, Germany, Russia, Greece, Finland, etc. They have proven themselves legitimate, both in idealogy and blood.

Mercator
Thursday, September 20th, 2007, 05:56 PM
Spain or united kingdom never were nations, but imagined communities linked by artificial borders. The british or Spanish status may one day evolve to new nation-states.

What?, do you want more micro-states?:confused:, I'd prefer a sort of Iberic Commonwealth.