Good sense vs. stupidity.
Tom Sunic makes good points about the need for pan-European cooperation and against narrow and divisive ethnonationalism.
Here are Sunic’s main points:
My main point is that various European national identities should from now on play a secondary role. I argue that our first priority should be to what is sometimes conveniently referred to as our common biocultural identity, or to put it in different words, the salvaging of our common and collective heredity as represented by the broader family of interrelated European peoples...
…it is outdated for the Croats and Serbs, or for the Poles and Germans to wage war with each other or to dwell endlessly on their mutually exclusive historical grievances...
...European small-time nationalisms, with a flurry of national identities of sorts, inherited from the 20th century, must no longer play a crucial role in our new identity building process…This can best be observed in Ukraine and Croatia for instance, where a Croatian or Ukrainian nationalist often continues to frame his national identity on his anti-Serbian or anti-Russian sentiments respectively. Such obsolete and often conflict- prone “negative” identities are no longer acceptable in today’s Europe.
Please note that Sunic accepts the reality of narrow identities and states that such identities should be accepted:
For example a Flemish national cannot be a Walloon national – just as a South Tyrolean nationalist must not be denied freedom to show his German roots to his Italian nationalist colleague.
So, what is the ethnonationalist reaction to Sunic’s reasonable essay? We get this hysterical comment, emphasis added:
Yes, European cooperation is absolutely necessary. But different ethnic groups banded together to face off predation against other more unified powers, hence England unifying against the Vikings, Germany against the French &c. German dominance of the EU, by virtue of geography, size and industry, is a proof of the continuing legacy of ethnic division of power within Europe. Why should an Englishman want to be legislated for by Albanians or Kosovans, my European ‘brothers’?
These national divisions are reinforced by language. The United States does not contain groups of different nationalities speaking their own languages. Different ethnicities came to the U.S. and formed a new ethnic group, speaking English. If an American goes to Europe, people are not going to identify him as a genericised white, but as an American.
I can’t quite see where in Sunic’s essay that he states, suggests, or implies that Englishmen should be legislated for by “Albanians or Kosovans” or anyone else. It’s pure invention; unfortunately, someone reading the comment and not the essay would think that Sunic is advocating some sort of highly centralized European super-state smothering national identifies – rather than simply advocating “European cooperation” and accepting national identities. One reason I am so hostile to ethnonationalism is my long experience with ethnonationalists and other opponents of pan-Europeanism who are typically dishonest – fundamentally dishonest. Lies, distortion, strawmen, illogic, stupidity – the calling cards of the unrepentant ethnonationalist
And the idea that, under pan-European cooperation, Albanians or Kosovans (groups, as mostly Muslim Europeans, may not be part of the European biocultural group as defined by most WNs) are going to be browbeating Englishmen, is ludicrous. If any group has been dictating to the English, and other Europeans, it is the Germans. As Sunic states:
The political roots of this morbid “welcoming culture” (at the core of which is the culture of guilt) are not difficult to trace. The roots of these self-destructive policies are legally embedded in the decades following 1945. It is not difficult to imagine that the policy pursued by German Chancellor Merkel was formulated precisely to exorcise the ghosts of the nightmarish past. As a result, she may find herself compelled to shield herself by pursuing what might be called a destructive extremism going in the opposite direction.
But typical “movement” Nutzis are “not allowed” to criticize Germans, so we need to engage in fantasies about “Albanians or Kosovans.” The idiot quoted above admits that Germans dominate the EU (their industry! their industry!), but that’s used to justify narrow identity, while the “problem” of EU opposition to national sovereignty is from “Albanians or Kosovans.” Pathetic.
Then we have this stupidity:
The United States does not contain groups of different nationalities speaking their own languages. Different ethnicities came to the U.S. and formed a new ethnic group, speaking English. If an American goes to Europe, people are not going to identify him as a genericised white, but as an American.
What about a Negro “American” speaking English? So, obviously race is important, the White American will be identified as a White American. Finally, Sunic is giving a prescriptive argument, not a descriptive one, but don’t think that the ethnonationalists recognize the difference.
Until such time that ethnonationalists can conduct honest and intelligent discussions, they should be ignored and scorned.