Doctrines of "Nationalism", "Anti-Colonialism", "Irredentism", Etc.

©Lucio Mascarenhas.
Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles
Catholicism has no worse enemy than a bad Catholic!

The nations began as tribes. The word "nation" has its root in the Latin word natus, "born" or "birth". A nation, therefore, implies a common birth or genetic relationship in descent from relatively proximate common ancestors (Adam & Eve being the remote common ancestors of all mankind).

However, as time went on, communities mixed and new societies arose, that were not pure or unmixed. That is, they did not share relatively proximate common ancestors. This trend became common world-wide, so that it is impossible to find anywhere any people of pure descent, without any admixture.

In the beginning, states were either local communities or tribes. Local communities with mixed populations came to dominate and thereby exclusive tribal communities disappeared from the scene. Thus began the city states.

We know of the Greek city states. However, many overlook the fact that the Bible also records that Canaan, from the time of Abraham to the Israelite Conquest, was also organized in the form of city states.

The Bible also records the consolidation of these city-states into "Countries" — Egypt, Syria (Aram), Lebanon, Assyria, Chaldea, etc. This development also inaugurated the Age of Empires.

The "Country" is the logical extension of a city state dominating other city states and rural communities to form an empire. Such a process naturally destroys any remaining adherence to a exclusionary racialism or tribalism among the citizens and subjects of the State, except perhaps for some fringe communities.

Over time, and due to continuous upheavals, and alterations of power from one ascendancy to another, the peoples of such an empire came to be fused into a single Social Community, which again, was not a pure race community.

The word "Nation" applied to the Social Community of such states, then is, strictly speaking, a misnomer; the word "Society" is more appropriate.

In more modern times, the word "nation" originally also meant a people with a common descent: the Germans, and the Angles, Saxons, etc., who were sub-tribes of the German community. In England, after the invasion of the Angles & Saxons and after they had overthrown the natives — Romanized Britons — and displaced them, England was populated by these ethnic groups: Picts, Britons, Angles, Saxons. Later came the Danes. After the consolidation of England, following the Norman Conquest, there came the non-violent immigration of the Flemings. Under the Normans, these peoples were fused into one Social Community, the English, who were, perforce of very mixed ancestries.

The same process occurred all over the globe: Iberia, the Italian peninsula, Germany, France, the Balkans, etc.

The Nazis like to pretend that the Germans are of a pure stock. However, during the time when the Germans were on the run from the Huns and fled in precipitate flight for the illusory security of the Roman Empire, it is impossible to say, in the confusion, which exact people settled down together with and commingled with the Germans, even within the boundaries of modern Germany proper. Even before this, the Germans have had to co-exist with the Celts, themselves for a time a very powerful people whose military might reached as far as Asia Minor, where Celtic colonists established the country of Galatia, the Slavs, the Scythians and other peoples of diverse origins.

In relatively modern times, the idea has been propagated that Societies are "Nations". This particularly infelicitious usage is customary among American journalists, who always and religiously refer to any political state as a "Nation". This becomes particularly ridiculous when, for example, one applies such a custom to, say Germany or Yemen.

Following the Protestant Schisms, the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans was practically splintered into innumerable de facto independent principalities. After the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna, the independence of most of these states became a reality. Were each of these states "Nations"? And then, following the Prussian campaigns, as Prussia consolidated much of North Germany by aggression and annexation, did these "nations" cease to exist, all of a sudden, and become part of a Prussian "nation"?

Despite German unification, Germans and the German homeland is divided into at least four parts: Germany proper, Alsace & Lorraine, Switzerland and Austria. Are there, then, four German "nations"?

From 1945 till 1991, Germany proper was divided into West and East Germany. Did the one German "nation" of the former Weimar and Nazi Republics become two nations? And then, did these two nations become one nation in 1991?

Let us take the case of Yemen. North Yemen remained under the suzerainty of the Turkish Caliphate. The South, after a period under Portuguese domination, passed under English domination, as separate princely states. Were each of these princely states "nations"? Then, the princely states of South Yemen which were under English protection, and administered from British India, were persuaded to federate under English auspices, into South Yemen. Did these "nations" thereby fuse into one nation? For long, thereafter, there remained two Yemens, the former Turkish North, pro-Capitalist and Western, and the former English South, Communist dominated. Were the two Yemens two nations? And when they merged into one Yemen in the 1990s, did the two Yemenese "nations" become one nation?

Are the two Koreas two nations? Was the Spanish Empire one nation until the English instigated traitors, General St. Martin and Simon Bolivar, to balkanise Spanish America into a hundred banana republics, and then, thereafter, several nations? What distinguishes these Spanish speaking, Latin American banana republic "nations" from the "nation" of Iberian Spain?

Is Iberian Spain one nation, or are the Basque-Navarese, the Catalans and the Galicians separate nations? Are the Basque-Navarese, split between France and Spain, one nation, or two, parts of the "French" and "Spanish" nations? Are the Bretons and others non-French nationalities of political France distinct nations in their own right, or are they part of the "French nation"?

If we must admit "Irredentism", why should Portugal not lay claim to include and rule Galicia, which speaks but a dialect, instead of letting Galicia remain part of Spain? And how can the wishes of the Galicians themselves, who, despite speaking a language closely akin to Portuguese see themselves as historically Spanish — and who are intensely patriotic Spaniards, matter in this regard, to negate the "irredentist" rights of Iberian Portugal?

If we must admit "Irredentism", why should Pakistan, which owns all of Sindh, not levy claim upon Kutch, which is merely an extension of ethnic and linguistic Sindh, rather than of Gujarat, into which India has merged it? And how can the wishes of the Kutchi themselves, who, despite speaking a language closely akin to Sindhi are themselves intensely patriotic Indians, matter in this regard, to negate the "irredentist" rights of Pakistan's Sindh province?

The man of common sense will admit that this usage of the term "nation" is both wrong and tending to create grave mischief. It is the sloppy intellectual confusion of what defines a polity or state with what defines a nation.

Now, if the use of the word "nation" was made in a loose way, there would be no difficulty about it. But, unfortunately, the use of the word "nation" has not been shorn of its implication of common ancestry and common descent, so that the lie is put forward, for example, that the Italians are all from a common stock. This has been the basis of the movement for Italian Unification, which ended in the grave and utterly unjustifiable robbery from the Church of the Papal States.

Even here, the societies of most of the Europeans states are largely homogenized, so that the use of the word "nation" cannot jar much. But the same term and the same connotation is transferred unthinkingly to "states" created by European imperial powers in the rest of the world, and this is where most of the mischief begins.

That is because the peoples of these "states" are, by and large, not at all homogenized and integrated into one Society. Imperial powers conquered what territories they could, in rivalry with other imperial powers, and they fused their adjacent conquests into a single administrative unit for their own convenience. Yet, out of intellectual sloppiness and laziness, the term "nation" has been applied thoughtlessly to these territories and their peoples, with disastrous effect.

Modern "nationalism" propagates these twin errors: Every "people" and "nation" is entitled to self-determination and that Every "nation-state" is rigidly indivisibility. The formula of self-determination for every people that meets the qualification of nation is a recipe for sure chaos and anarchy all over the earth, in the entire human community.

As for the second error, it denies to persecuted peoples the right to protect themselves by seceding when secession is often the only means of securing themselves their individual and corporate right to life, a right which is God-given and therefore which cannot be denied under any circumstance!

Worse than these foolish pronouncements is that there is no rigid, scientific definition of what constitutes a "people", a "nation" and a "state".

Along with the mischief caused by this erroneous understanding of "Nation" is the confusion caused by the wrong use of the words "colony" and "colonialism" for imperial conquests and dependencies, leading to the error that is intimately associated with the modern error of "nationalism": the error of "Anti-Colonialism".

"Anti-Colonialism" involves three distinct errors: That these dependencies are colonies, and that they are nations. But the greatest error is that "Colonialism" is "sin" of which only the White Europeans, and by extension, the extensions of the White European peoples elsewhere, are capable!

Of course, to complete the hypocrisy, the Communist Russians were excluded from this definition, because, apparently, Communists are constitutionally incapable of imperialism, colonialism, genocide, etc., all factual evidence to the contrary notwithstanding!

This definition sedulously ignores the fact that migrations, "colonisations" and imperialism has been practiced by every single people on the face of the earth, at some time or the other.

Any sane man with merely a cursory acquaintance with history and geography, will immediately put his hand down on the world maps to show the greatest imperial and colonial power on Earth: Islamic Arabia. All the lands from Chaldea, Assyria, Aram (Syria), Phoenicia (Lebanon), Israel (Palestine), Egypt, Cyrenaica, Lybia (Libya), Ifriqiya / Africa Vetera (Tunisia), Numidia (Algeria), Mauretania (Morocco), and of Saharan Africa: Nubia (Sudan), Chad, etc., are Arab colonies.

It is true that for a time, under the paramountcy of the European powers, the Arab expansion was checked. But no sooner than that the Europeans withdrew than the Arabs have recomenced their imperialism, colonialism and genocide, moving into the fresh conquests of Southern Chad, Southern Sudan, etc.

Islamic Arab imperialists and colonists believe that they have a divine monopoly upon imperialism, colonism and genocide, and that when they perpetrate these, they are not vices but virtues, which are vices only when practiced by non-Muslims and non-Arabs! So much so, that the Muslim Arabs could not countenance being ruled by the Turks and a Turk Caliph, for, from the Arab viewpoint, all non-Arabs are racially inferior! When the Islamic Imperialism first began, the legal situation of non-Arabs, even when converts to Islam, was of subjects: the "Mawlahs"! But of course, Arab racism is NOT racism; it is a "virtue"!

China has colonised Yunnan, Guang-zhou and Hainan, and Manchuria, besides Formosa (Taiwan). China is even now feverishly colonising Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Uighuristan, which, in the case of Tibet is already largely an accomplished fact.

China, particularly, whines about "unequal treaties" by which it was forced to yield territories. It is a valid question to ask whether the "agreements" by which China acquired her conquests and colonies were "equal treaties." Of course, Chinese imperialists and colonists believe that they have a divine monopoly upon imperialism, colonism and genocide, and that when they perpetrate these, they are not vices but virtues, which are vices only when practiced by non-Chinese!

Japan has colonised the Ainu country of Jesso (Hokkaido).

Russia itself is an extensive catenation of colonies, from the west of the Urals, the lands of the Nenets, Mordvinians, and other aborigine nations, to the Asiatic territory of Siberia, the world's single largest colony in territorial extent!

The deliberately mischievous "anti-colonialism" of the United Nations does not extend to any of these colonialisms!

A State is a political being encompassing land and people, which are of equal importance. Every legitimate state has the right to the allegiance of its peoples, regardless of their ancestry and ethnic commonalities with others who belong to other states. A state must not be disturbed and dismembered unless it has become irretrievably involved in a scheme that threatens the very existence of the rebelling people. A people do not have the right to rebel and to secede and to constitute themselves into a distinct and separate state merely because of ethnic reasons. But a people have the right to rebel and to secede even from those with whom they share ethnic ties.

Thus the Swiss were forced to rebel from the Romano-German Empire, even though both the Swiss rebels and the rulers were both Germans.

The doctrine of "nationalism" carries with it the associated doctrine of "Irredentism". Irredentism celebrates land and glosses over peoples, their wishes and aspirations. It means that because the Swiss, the Alsatians and Lotharingians (people of Alsace & Lorraine), Austria, etc., are just as Germans as the Germans of Germany, that Germany has the right to march in and annex these territories, without so much as taking the permission of the peoples of these territories.

This attitude was the basis of the Sudenten problem which led to the Nazi dismemberment and occupation of the Czecho-Slovakian State. Yet, I do not blame the Germans and Sudenten Germans: for the Czechs too dismembered Austria-Hungary on the same moral basis of "nationalism", irredentism and all their attendant evils, and yet compelled the Sudenten Germans to live under Czech overlordship (however patronisingly tolerant) by that iniquitous fraud, the "treaty" of St. Germain, whereby the Sudentenland was detached from the rump Austria and placed under Czech overlordship.

History teaches us that the love of liberty is greater than the love of one's blood-relations! Throughout history, dominant and assertive men have herded peoples into empires, but the love of liberty has eventually overthrown them and set their captive peoples free. The History of Empires is, by and large, the history of their failures. The only empire — the Roman — that survived for long survived because it was the only empire ever in history to treat all peoples as equal and to absorb them and enfranchise them. The Roman Empire not only enfranchised all its peoples, it also had no compunction in accepting Roman Germans, or Roman Britons, or Roman Syrians, etc., as Emperors of the Roman Empire! It was this attitude that fused the Roman Empire into a de facto "nation" or Integral Social Community.

From the anthropological viewpoint, the world is full of more than 3,000 nations — a very conservative figure. If it is to be admitted that every nation has the moral right to secede and to self-determination, then the world would be overcome with chaos, and would be filled with petty and unstable states.

Again, the world is full of peoples, social communities of particular distinct geographical territories, who aspire to their own unique identity, not necessarily to an independent state, more often than not, NOT to an independent state, and if we extend the United Nations' definition and "rights of self-determination" to each such people, the world would be overcome by chaos!

In the USA, each of the "Red Indian" tribe is properly a nation in its own right, and if it is correct that each and every nation has the right to self-determination, the USA would be pockmarked with more than a hundred sovereign and independent enclave-countries populated by these aborigine nations!

Even India is a huge patchwork of nations as a quick look at the India page of the SIL website will demonstrate.

Just as the USA has been forced to recognize and accommodate the rights of its aborigine nations, the same holds true for Russia, which is covered with "reservations" for its aborigine nations: Mordvinians, Tartars, Kalmyks, Dagestanis, Chechens, Buryat Mongols, Sakas (the remnant of the ancient Scythians, in Yakutsk province), etc.

Modern "nationalism" claims that every contiguous territory is a "nation" and that its integrity cannot be questioned.

This "nationalism" is also frequently built upon "Anti-Colonialism".

This ideology leads inevitably to the political domination of the nations of these states by the nation that has managed to grab the levers of power, and to identify the state with itself. A refusal to abandon one's own national identity and to identify into the ruling nation's national identity, frequently than not, in an inferior position, is constituted as treason and is visited with brutality and persecution.

This is a formula for continuous civil war and strife, and for eternal political instability, as nations jockey for dominance and coup d'etat follows coup d'etat and genocide follows genocide.

The present situation that Catholicism finds itself in was largely the result of bad Catholics and their treason.

Firstly, Catholic states and their sovereigns went overboard in the "Renaissance", reviving without question, the ancient paganism of the pre-Christian Greeks and Romans.

Then, Joseph of Bragança, King of Portugal, the Bourbon kings and princes of France, Spain, Dos-Sicilies (Naples & Sardinia), Parma, etc., allowed themselves to be bewitched by the neo-pagans Judaizers-Protestants-Free Thinkers, such as the Marquis of Pombal, etc., to agitate for the suppression of the Jesuits, the Catholic order which did more than any other to contain and reverse the Protestant Schisms. In the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans, and in Tridentinia and Tuscany, etc., the Emperor Joseph of Habsburg augmented the efforts of these traitors.

Then, again thoughtlessly, and in direct opposition to their own moral duties, they aligned themselves with the Freemasons of New England in their war of secession and of social and cultural revolution against England, thus entrapping themselves in the domestic quarrels of the enemies of God. As a direct result of both of these moves, the Revolution came home to roost, in the form of the French Revolution, and the Wars that resulted thereby.

Once again, instead of relying purely and solely upon God, these bad Catholics relied upon the power of apostate, Freemasonic England to liberate their lands from the French Revolutionaries and from Napoleon, thereby providing the Freemasonic English an opportunity to back-stab the Spanish, Portuguese and other Catholic states in order to break out New Spain, New Granada, Brazil and other ultra-marine extensions into banana republics under the hegemony of Protestant and Freemasonic England and USA, and where the Freemasonic traitors — General San Martin, Simon Bolivar, Prince Peter of Bragança, the Crown Prince of Portugal and great grandson of that crowned imbecile, the Pombaline King Joseph, etc. — could operate with a particular free hand to weaken and even attempt the extermination of Catholicism.

While the enemies of God did not bring about the immediate dissolution of Austria-Hungary, the seeds were sown of those false and pernicuous heresies of "nationalism", "anti-colonialism" and "irredentism" that was to lead inevitably to the murder of Crown Prince Francis Ferdinand, ironically a Slavophile, and to World War I & II.

It is to be noted that with the crucial role of the Freemasonic English and the USA,Spain, which had done so much for the liberation of the USA, would not have been dismembered. When the traitorous Portuguese Crown Prince Peter declared Brazil independent under himself as Emperor Peter I, it was the English navy that prevented the Portuguese from recovering Brazil.

Again, during the time of Dom Salazar, it was the US and English Navies which protected the terrorists, murderers and pirates who had seized the Santa Maria in the Caribbean, and sailed her to Brazil.

The USA proclaimed the hypocritical "Monroe Doctrine" by which, Spain & Portugal were "disbarred" from attempting to recover their rebellious provinces, so that the USA could reduce them to its de facto dependencies and devour them at its leisure! Not content with the dismemberment of Spain, the USA contrived the dismemberment (balkanisation) of New Spain, New Granada, etc., into tiny, postage-stamp "republics" the better to prey upon them! The USA swallowed up Spanish Florida and Spanish Oregon under blackmail, the Louisiana Territory under fraud jointly with Napoleon, and a huge stretch of Mexico: from Texas to North California — easily one-third of Mexico!

It is alleged that the instability in the African territories that seceded from Portugal was due to the Portuguese. There is no truth in that allegation. The instability was integral to the very ideology of the secession of these territories and of their constitution as the "nations" of Angola, Moçambique, etc. None of these "nations" have had any kind of historical reality to stand upon. They were and are purely creatures of Portugal. Portugal brought them into being and sustained them in the form that they had. Secession from Portugal meant that they would have to contrive themselves a new identity; the pretension to constituting integral nations meant that they cursed themselves to eternal instability, with sub-ordinate nations chafing under the hegemony of dominant nations and contriving always to overthrow them, which continues in an eternal vicious cycle.

That the troubles of Angola, Moçambique, etc. are not due to the Portuguese is proven even more by the fact that these troubles are pan-African, and not merely restricted to Portuguese Africa.

In the case of the Indian Union, having pretended that it is a "nation", it was forced to the further pretension that "Hindi" (a language invented under the auspices of the English in the 1860s) is the "national language" of India! This necessarily disenfranchises and reduces non-Hindi nationalities of India to subject peoples, a source of dissatisfaction and of eventual sedition.

For the sake of sanity and stability, it is necessary to drop the pretension that a state is synonymous with "nation" and base states, not on "nationalism", but on territorialism and on the Social Community of peoples sharing a common loyalty to a common state.

The Case of Goa

The United Nations Organisation was established by the "Great Powers" who were aligned against Nazi Germany and its allies. The UN, under the direct movement by Russia, India, etc., moved to legislate that every dependency has the right to self-determination, to decide whether they wanted to be independent, or to merge themselves with some already existing state or to establish a subservient relationship called "association" with an already existing state.

This was nothing but moral hypocrisy at its worst. It was these malefactors who unilaterally and hypocritically defined which territories were "non-self-governing" and therefore "eligible" for exercising such rights. This privilege was not extended to all peoples and territories indiscriminately, but was aimed first of all and solely to dismember the remaining Catholic states, mainly Spain and Portugal, and thus to carry further the Jewish Agenda of World Empire, the policy of Solve et Coagula, through its catspaws the Communists and the WASP-Capitalist Complex.

Goa had already de facto entered into a relationship of "association" with Portugal centuries earlier, and had been integrated into the Greater Portuguese Community, happily and in contentment. Nevertheless, and without any consultation with Goans or their representatives, the UN insolently and unilaterally listed Goa as a "non-self-governing territory", and claimed that Goa had the right to secede from Portugal.

This was even more immoral because the UN had made it its own agenda to dismember legitimate states and to foster sedition among peoples; to alienate the affections of peoples from their legitimate governments and loyalties, and to seduce them into secessionism. Mark well that the UN did not claim that it merely sought that disaffected peoples should be allowed to agitate for constitutional reforms — she (the UN) boldly and shamelessly patronised sedition and secessionism!

[It is interesting that the UN pretended that Goa had the right, at least technically, to choose to remain with White, Iberian Portugal. Yet, the entire Indian campaign against Goa was based upon nothing less than the hysterical claim by Nehru that Goa could not, under any circumstances, even if the Goans wanted it, be integrated and associated with Portugal! Nehru arrogated to himself the "right" to exclude the White Portuguese from Goa, and Goa from its legal and constitutional relationship and dependency upon White Portugal, although he very "kindly" pretended that he would permit Goans the right to self-determination — which "pious" promise he just as piously threw into the dustbin once he had perpetrated his daylight brigandage over Goa!]

The UN pretended that "every nation has the right to self-determination" — a policy that it hypocrically and selectively applied, to further the program for a World Revolution.

In marked hypocrisy, this privilege was not extended to the nations enslaved by the Great Powers, such as the aborigines of the USA or of Russia. It did not apply to the nations that have been forced to be included, against their wills, in the Indian Union, and who had as much a moral cause not to be ruled by India, as the Indians alleged they had the right not to be ruled by the English: Peoples such as the Nagas, Mizos, Tamils, etc.

Lastly, the UN sealed its hypocrisy by its pretension that Goa has become "liberated" by the invasion and annexation at the hands of the Indian Union, and that thereby the Goan Question was permanently closed!
In the case of Goa, we note that Goa had voluntarily become a part of the Portuguese state and Social Community; that, despite some incompetence on the part of the central government in Lisbon, and in a somewhat White Racism adopted briefly late in the day when Hitler's star was shining very brightly, the Goans did not have any serious complaint, nor was there any true mass-based movement for secession. Therefore, given that there was no grievous provocation to secession, any pretension to a right to secede from the Portuguese community cannot be countenanced.

As far as the Indian Union is concerned, it had no more of a right towards Goa than that of and to act as a Good Neighbour: One who does not interfere in his neighbour's affairs and who does not intervene unless there is urgent cause.

India pretended to some kind of Irredentist right over Goa. But I have conclusively proven that India was not merited to make any such pretension, given that it formally did and does recognize the legitimacy of states that have been carved up and out from her in very recent times — 1937 & 1947, while Goa has been an integral part of Portugal since 1510!

Again, the claim of Nehru ("Anti-Colonialism") that the Europeans (Portuguese) had no right and business to rule any non-European territory, and that he was morally obliged to end this. I have already demonstrated that it was strictly the business of no other than the Goans, that the Goans did not either have urgent cause to secede nor did Goans, whether in Goa or elsewhere demand secession.

But even granting that Nehru and India had a right to intervene, did they have the right to annex Goa automatically?

It is Divine Law that no people must be indifferent to the plight of their neighbour; that they must come to the aid and relief of their suffering neighbour. The sovereignty of a state cannot mean that it has the right to exclude outsiders from coming to the aid of those of her subjects whom she unjustly victimizes.

On the basis of this moral right, and this alone, India could pretend to come to the aid of Goa. But there was never any persecution by Portugal of the Goans, and the Goans did not ask the Indians or anyone else to interfere.

On the contrary, the interference was purely on "ideological" grounds: That (West) Europeans ought not to rule any non-European territory (East Europeans, in the form of Russia, was given an exemption, to allow it to continue its empire in Siberia in Asia).

This interference, therefore, was without any basis in morality and law.

But even if we grant that India had a moral motive to interfere in Goa, supposedly to relieve the Goans from a fabricated persecution at the hands of Iberian Portuguese, it cannot give India any kind of right to pretend that Goa, upon being so "relieved", has become an automatic part of the Indian "motherland"!

That was and is sheer robbery. It does not bind anybody.

Therefore, we can conclude that the Indian pretension over Goa was based, first upon a false "Anti-Colonialism" and a bad-neighbour policy — of telling the Goans that they could not remain in a state of association and integration with Iberian Portugal, even when the Goans themselves were well content and did not seek any such interference; and secondly, from a bare-faced robbery based upon a pretended "irredentism" — that Goa was automatically an integral part of India, regardless of the rights of the Goans themselves!

This is actually and factually nothing more than or less than a pure, naked and undisguised Imperialism!

Lucio Mascarenhas
©Lucio Mascarenhas.
Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles
Hosted by