11 September 2018 ~ 3 Kommentare

The connection between self-determination, democracy and self-sufficiency. Part 1 – What is Self Determination

Geskryf deur Felix Eichberg

 

 

Is self determination of a people synomymous with Democracy?

 

Then:

 

What is democracy?

 

We understand democracy as the rule of the people, as opposed to the rule of a single ruler or the rule a few in form of a wealthy oligarchy.

 

Democracy is supposed to be the system which best serves the interests of the whole people instead of just those of a few, because it grants participation in the government to every single citizen.

 

What is mostly overlooked though is a crucial basic ingredient for democracy to work at all and that is ethnicity.

 

For debate and participation in the political process, communication is key. Therefore the democratically ruled state must speak one language. Knowing merely the basic vocabulary for small-talk however is not enough for engaging in the political process. Democracy requires us to have profound knowledge of our language. By the mastery of our language political debates are won. When proficiency and knowledge meet charisma, rhetoric skill and an honourable standing in society, that is when a speaker is able to persuade the minds of the public and therefore exercise his right of democratic participation to its full extent.

 

However there is even more to this. When engaging in political debate, it is crucial to narrow down the spectrum of possible issues, so that the time spent in the parliament can be used effectively and the most important issues discussed and solved pleasingly. When a parliament starts to discuss cultural issues like which language, religion or tradition should be taught in school or which festivals held publicly, then that is not a democratic debate. It as an international debate and as such a form of conflict and warfare and one has to wonder why it has to be conducted in the first place. If there are two peoples or nations who respect each others customs, trust in each other and value each others existance and right of self government, why would they want to meddle in each others interior affairs?!

 

Real democratic, political debate can only occur within a homogeneous ethnic group, which already agrees on the fundamental values and principles of its society, which shares a deep understanding of its common language and legacy. Only in such a mostly homogeneous group there is time for real and constructive debate on practical issues of government: How much tax should we impose? How should this money be spent? Should we improve the water supply, the transport network or build a bigger school for our children? Democratic debate can only concern internal affairs of a largely cohesive ethnic group. Only this cohesiveness can provide the basis for the second most crucial prerequisite of a functioning democratic society: a high level of education which nurtures a strong sense of loyalty, belonging and responsability towards the community in the younger generation.

 

It is interesting to observe, that democracy historically evolved only in rather small communities with such a high level of education and a sense of ethnic identity. It required a sense of identity that is amplified by a rich language, cultural and religious tradition and a zealous pride in its own independance which the people is willing to defend tenaciously even against overwhelming odds.

The prime example of such a place is the ancient Greece of roughly 2400 years ago. Specifically ancient Athens is regarded by modern, western historiography as the birthplace of democracy.

 

The smaller the community, the more easily ethnic and cultural homogeneity and therefore mutual understanding is preserved. This is why in modern times, countries like Sweden, Iceland or Finland, used to be good examples of well functioning democracies. A small and homogeneous population lived in a vast country which provided room for everybody and reduced friction and potential social unrest. All that has changed of course in times of accelerating urbanization and the transformation of European cities into multicultural melting pots.

 

To undestand the essence of a concept it is very valuable to indentify something that could be regarded as its opposite. In the case of democracy it is therefore tremdendously important to ask: what is its alternative or adversary. What threatens or opposes democracy? What is “not democracy”?

 

The democracies in Ancient Greece where decentralized. They thrived in city states, which were connected through trade, mutual agreements and religous and cultural festivities and gatherings, like the Olympic games. However connected through culture, these city states were each independantly governed, sometimes by vastly different political systems and codes of law.

 

The greatest rivals threatening the indepenance of these democracies, were gigantic Empires like Ancient Persia and Rome.

 

So democracy is the right of a distinct ethnic group to rule over its own affairs, live in its own territory and decide upon the usage of the resources of that territory to best suit the needs of its inhabitants.

 

Imperialism on the other hand is the exact opposite.

In an empire, a central government decides over the affairs of many different tribes with different cultures and languages. The administration manages and allocates the resources of all terrorities not for the benefit of each individual population, but for the the needs of the central authority or ruling oligarchy. Much of these resources are lost in the friction that is caused by the size of the Empire and its diverse populations. The funds have to be spent on an ever increasing bureaucracy and military to keep up the imperial dominion. Not at least the funds have to be spent in costly wars of expansion, to add new territories and tributaries to the state.

 

If an empire is by definition a multicultural state, then a multicultural state is by definition an empire. It is by definition an oppressive state in which the individual enjoys the least right of political participation imaginable. An empire is ruled by an oligarchic elite, not by the will of the people itself. That is a natural property of this kind of powerstructure, because all the nations and people included in the empire naturally tend to thrive for autonomy. Only through the oppression of the interests of the individual ethnic groups by the central government can the empire secure its existance against the forces which drive it apart.

 

I believe that individual expression is first and foremost ethnic. It is strongest in one’s own culture and language and nurtured by the depth of one’s and one’s ancestors connection to the nature of the homeland. Therefore, freedom of expression is at its lowest within the boundaries of an imperial powerstructure. In such a state people move around driven by the clockwork of the imperial economy instead of the eternal cycles of the seasons and the natural environment to which the locals belong.

 

Concerning all of that, a democratic, egalitarian society can only be an ethnically homogeneous one. A multicultural society can only be an imperial one based on opression by force and propaganda.

 

The oppressive force used to be exercised by the imperial military and the propaganda induced by the religious dogma of the church.

In our modern times however, the suggestive power of moving images and sound has reached an unprecedented scale. Therefore religious dogma has lost much of its importance in keeping the imperial dominion over different ethnic groups. Nowadays, religious dogma has been largely replaced by global consumerism which is fanatically spread by the media using buzzwords like tolerance, equality, human rights, freedom and democracy.

 

It is ironic, that multiculturalism and mass-migration is promoted with this same spirit of human-rights and democracy while it leads to a multi-ethnic, imperial society in which every citizen can only have less influence on the politics and the affairs of the state as ever before.

Such a mixed society can only be ruled by force and is therefore diametrically opposed to democracy, the very concept wich is nowadays used to justifiy and promote multiculturalism.

 

The reason for that is not only to be found in the diverting interests of the ethnic groups forming the society. It is also found in the erosion of the second prerequiste of a functioning democracy mentioned above: a sophisticated education system. The education must inevitably deteriorate in a multiethnic empire, because ultimately education is consciousness and it comes at first through learning the vocabulary of one’s own language and in this vocabulary the history and culture of one’s own ethnic group. Only by understanding the complexity of one’s own history in the context of the history of other peoples and nations, a sense of identity can be nurtured. Only with such a sense of identity comes a sense of responsability for the community at large, a will to participate in the political process altruistically. Only with a strong consciousness of one’s own identity a sense of respect and appreciation towards other cultures and tribal identities can emerge.

 

A person indifferent towards his own culture is also indifferent towards other cultures as he does not even know what to look for and appreciate in them. Such a person can only think in economical terms and terms of the short lived satisfaction of selfish needs.

 

But why can such a cultural consciousness not be nurtured in a multicultural state? Simply because it depends on education and naturally the quality and intensity of teaching must be divided by the number of ethnicities present in the class-room. If Germans, Arabs, Africans and Chinese or in South-Africa, Bantus, Boers, Zulus and English resepectively are sitting in a classroom, whose history and tradition should be taught and in whose language?

 

The only means for the imperial education system to solve this issue is to find the lowest common denominator between the people who are educated and this results in a very shallow teaching. This teaching however at the samte time creates the kind of citizen the empire needs to secure its rule. It creates a dumbed down subject with a sense of blind obedience to the central government, a lack of a sense of individual power to change anything, a lack of pride in the individual culture and a weak will of defending said culture. It creates a consumer with low expectations and a low productive value which leads to a low quality of the goods and services in circulation which must create a downward spiral that inevitably leads to the collapse of the empire as observed again and again throughout history.

 

Now what can be concluded from these observations in terms of self determination and self sustainability of a people?

 

Just as we in Germans in the European Union, the Boer people are living in the South-African Union. Both these Unions are imperial states driven by mechanisms of global trade and capitalism which can only have a corrosive and destructive influence on the individual nations that are subdued by the empire.

 

Since empires must inevitably collapse over time, as we have just concluded, the time is on the side of the nations within the empire who cherish their history and tradition and wish to survive and carry that tradition into the future.

 

Reestablishing their own institutions and education systems even under the foreign occupation of an imperial state is the first step towards securing the existance of one’s own tribe, of surviving the collapse of Rome. Within these institutions and schools, the national tradition and language can be taught and therefore the foundation for the future be laid. A rudimentary and independant form of government can be created that co-exists with the imperial government and challenges it, protecting the interests of the cultural group against the enthropy and decay of the power-structure.

 

In this regard Orania has apparently made considerable progress. It seems to have successfully created a sanctuary for the Afrikaaner people. Its existance is not only important for the people who manage to come and live here among their own kin. It’s existance also serves as a beacon of hope for all Afrikaaners who can not come here. It strengthens their resolve in continuing to teach their traditions to their kids and to keep up their cultural values. Also globally, Orania can emanate a strong symbolic value and give people hope and confidence in maintaining their traditional values in these troubled and alienated times.

 

Deel/Stuur

3 Reaksies op “The connection between self-determination, democracy and self-sufficiency. Part 1 – What is Self Determination”

  1. Edmund 11 September 2018 at 13:05 Permalink

    One of the best articles I have read written by a contemporary author. This document will be a relevant piece of literature for mamy years to come. Felix, commended.

  2. Ester le Roux 11 September 2018 at 13:56 Permalink

    Wat ‘n puik, weldeurdagte artikel! Insiggewend! Baie, baie dankie, Felix

  3. Esther Stieger 11 September 2018 at 17:07 Permalink

    Well written (with a few spelling mistakes). It explains why this so-called “Democratic” ANC regime has never felt, worked or looked like a true Democracy. It seems now that we are actually living closer to an Imperial state than a true Democracy!!!


Lewer Kommentaar

*