I came across old notes on Robertson's book, “The Ethnostates,” and remembered how wise he was in his approach to ethnostates, although I do not agree with his idea of ethnostates seceding from the union. I think States Rights within the United States Constitution can include the concept of ethnostates without radical change.
Robertson said he was speaking of a time not in the present but in the future when Americans and Europeans will have reached the point where they have to choose between ethnostates or no states at all.
He felt that overpopulation and matters affecting the environment would demand international recognition of regional control and regulation.
Robertson thought the worst crime after genocide is culturecide, and the second crime to military aggression is cultural aggression.
He insisted on the sequence of “education, arouse, act” in that order, because acting before education and arousal are invitations to failure.
Robertson believed that a countries greatness does not depend on the wars it has won, or the wealth it has produced or the territory it has grabbed. A countries greatness is determined by the genius of its people and by applying that genius to unique achievement in the arts, sciences and government. (I would add religion.)
He advocated the criminalization of war, other than ethnostatist defense. Military aggression against another ethnostate should be a high crime. Empire-building is the opposite side of ethnostates.
The goal of future global bodies would be to guard the independence and sovereignty of ethnostates, not as the United Nations trying to keep the peace by bringing people together.
Robertson suggested an historical scheme different from Marx, where feudal fiefdoms (thesis) evolve to huge multi-racial political agglomerations (antithesis) eventually resolving into ethnostates (synthesis). The Marx scheme was feudalism-capitalism-communism.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment