Counter-Currents
The Counter-Currents 2014 Summer Fundraiser
Why I Support Scottish Independence
Greg Johnson
1,210 words
Since last week’s update on our Summer Fundraiser, we have received 14 donations totaling $1,477.00 in amounts ranging from $10 to $350. That amount will be matched by our Swedish benefactor, for a total of $2,954. Our total is now $31,547.94. We are $8,452.06 from our goal of $40,000 with 6 weeks to go — an easy goal to make, considering that we raised even more in just the last couple of weeks.
$234.06 remains on our matching grant, so if you want to make your donation go twice as far, now is the time to do it.
I want to thank all of our donors for their generosity, with special thanks to our matching grant benefactor.
* * *
I support Scottish independence because I am a nationalist, specifically I am an ethnonationalist. Ethnonationalism is the view that different peoples, nations, ethnic groups, etc. should have politically autonomous homelands.
The ethnonationalist argument is simple: identity matters. Different peoples are different because they have different histories, different cultures, different conception of the good life. These differences can be glorious. We would not want there to be a world without a France or an Italy or an England. But when different peoples have to share the same political system, such differences lead to conflicts, resentment, even violence.
Ethnic and racial diversity always lead to conflict, resentment, and violence. Diversity is not a strength, but a weakness. Therefore, the best way to insure peace and progress is to break up diverse societies into ethnically and racially homogeneous ones.
England and Scotland have many deep cultural and historical differences, but the main political issues that separate them are rather simple. Scotland is overwhelmingly in favor of the Labour Party, while England is not. Scotland is progressive, England conservative. Politically speaking, both countries would better get what they want by going their separate ways. White Nationalists needn’t worry too much about either outcome. Neither a socialist Scotland nor a capitalist England would have any problems that cannot be fixed by racial nationalism.
As an aside, I am rather dismayed at the discussion of this issue at American Renaissance. Jared Taylor is opposed to Scottish independence, because the Scots want to create another Nordic welfare state (complete with suicidal immigration policies). Many of his commentators seem to be free-market zombies, intoning dire predictions that socialism leads to poverty and oppression. (Like Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, for instance?) Further proof that White Nationalism desperately needs to free itself from free market dogmas. Too many White Nationalists still think that capitalism or conservatism or Christianity are more important than the national self-determination of white peoples. Our people will never be safe until white racial preservation — that is to say, white ethnonationalism — matters to us more than capitalism or socialism or conservatism.
As an ethnonationalist, I support Scottish secession on principle, meaning that I think that national self-determination produces the best outcomes for all peoples. Thus I also support independence for Wales, Cornwall, Ulster, the Isle of Man, . . . even England! I dream of the day when tiny Sark can return to its feudal system, overturned by English plutocrats and E.U. bureaucrats.
But I also think that there are more specific good outcomes promised by Scottish independence.
Without Scotland, the evil Labour Party, which has been caught red-handed “electing a new people” by flooding the UK with non-white immigrants, will never again rule over England. And since Labour has a solid lock on Scotland, they will not need to replace the Scots with non-whites (although they will probably try it on other grounds).
Of course the Tories are just a different kind of evil, but the UK without Scotland has a real chance of moving to the Right on immigration, and that is a good thing. A UK without Scotland also has a better chance of leaving the European Union, which would severely weaken one of the most insidious anti-European forces.
Scottish independence also undermines multiculturalism across the board. Because if people as similar as the English and Scots cannot share the same political system, how are the English going to fare with Pakistanis and Sikhs and Africans, who are far more different? These are questions that the multicultural establishment does not want people asking.
I find the arguments for Scottish independence to be compelling, except for one: their opposition to nuclear weapons. An independent Scotland should keep any English nukes within its borders. They should not make the same mistake as the Ukrainians, who traded the third largest nuclear arsenal on the planet for American and Russian promises to respect their territorial integrity. Ukraine would be intact today, not dismembered and bleeding, if they had relied on their own arms, not the promises of others. Never throw away a nuclear deterrent.
Of course both an independent Scotland and a slightly reduced UK still face common problems, the greatest of which is European man’s march to extinction due to low birth-rates and race-replacement through immigration. Neither country will be saved by politics as usual. Racially conscious Scots and Englishmen — and Welsh, and Cornish, and the other white peoples of the British Isles — need to replace the ethnocidal system that is destroying us. But the more independent European nations that exist, the greater the chance of a White Nationalist party coming to power in one of them.
Furthermore, independence does not preclude international cooperation. And ethnonationalism does not preclude pan-European consciousness. Indeed, independence actually promotes such values. Before whites can face our common enemies — and perhaps even cooperate in fighting them — we need to stop fighting one another over lesser issues. Because whether Scotland is socialist and England conservative is far less important than whether there will be white people on this planet in 200 years. Once the Scots and English stop fighting about those matters, perhaps both peoples can turn their attention to the question of common racial survival.
But the first step is national self-determination. England and Scotland need a divorce. It is painful to leave even a bad relationship. But once the pain is past, both parties will find renewed vitality, new energies that can be put to constructive uses, because they will no longer be wasted on frustrating and fighting and resenting one another.
I hope that Scottish independence is just the first step in the dissolution of the United Kingdom and the birth of new possibilities for the Scots and all European peoples.
* * *
If you have not made a donation to our Summer fundraiser yet, now is a good time. You can make two different types of donations:
- A single donation of any size.
- A recurring donation of any size.
Recurring donations are particularly helpful, since they allow us better to predict and plan for the future. We have several levels for recurring donations. Please visit our Donations page for more information.
We can also customize the amount of a monthly donation.
There are several ways to make one-time donations:
- The easiest is through Paypal. For a one-time donation, just use the following button:
- You can send check, money order, or credit card payment by mail. Just print out our donation form in Word or PDF.
- You can make a secure credit card donation direct from our Donation page.
Please give generously!
Thank you for your loyal readership and support.
Greg Johnson
21 comments
Do you fight for your race? Do you fight for nationalism? Do you fight for ethnonationalism? for real diversity? For a coherent and healthy racist? Donate now to Counter Currents, I’m sure you can avoid drinking your daily latte and expend a few bucks on helping out what it matters, the future of our race, our tradition, our culture, our blood calls the brave to fight.
I also support the the Scottish independence, mostly because we need a breakdown in the anti-White Anglosphere.
If the white race is to survive America must be destroyed.
Few things are more repulsive to me today than these petty provincialists and their pathetic little national ambitions, their killer argument in favour of those being that “they are stealing our money!” A state founded because of economic calculation. “Our GDP could rise by 2,5%!” All emblazoned by fantastic national mythologies that would make even the most imaginative of 19th century state-nationalists colour up in shame.
These delusions some people on the right have about a future of everlasting ethnic preservation, where every little tribe will get its own designated parcel and engage in joyful cultural exchange in the grand museum called earth, make me think a bit of the situation after the Great War. Rudolf Kjellen wrote then, that now that the formerly great powers are weakened and several new countries emerged, power in Europe would be decentralised and no new hegemon would establish itself. He was utterly wrong on that one of course. The explosive situation was resolved in merely two decades, the result being the rise of two global powers of an unprecedented scale, neither of them being based in Europe proper. Regardless of national elites serving foreign lands, the fact is that even countries who genuinely want to strike their own course cannot do so if they do not possess the means to back it up. Independence does not equal freedom. And while the decline of American foreign influence enables the large nations of the periphery to carve out their own zones of influence, Europeans are busy designing ever tinier administrative divisions of withdrawal for themselves. Some would like to see the comeback of the Concert of Europe, but unfortunately all its old instruments are out of sync and the other bands in town play on e-guitars and digital pianos.
That said, I do support the realisation of these secessionist projects. The weaker and divided this continent is, the easier it will be for one decisive force stemming from one united country to sweep over this rag rug and end this charade once and for all. Then will be the time to choose one’s ultimate loyalty. Having equally an ethno-tribal and an ethno-racial consciousness is the same as the proverbial having and eating of the cake, and that is of the left, not the right. Loyalty is indivisible. The chaos of thoughts and feelings stirring in every man allows only place for one identity at the top of its hierachy, there is no room for equal standings when it comes to what one values most.
Yuck
You are like Dante, dreaming of Empire as the age of Nations began. As the Alchemists said, things must be separated before they can be properly combined. A true Union preserves its constituent parts. Otherwise it becomes a gigantic Amoeba, which is the Ideal of the Globalists.
Scotland has produced some of the finest soldiers in the modern era. Yet they were fighting for England in the Crimea as their people where cleared off the land by the burgeoning Capitalist system and their complaint aristocrats. Scotland is viable but obviously there are going to have to be changes and the interim may be rough. But in the end it will be worth it for most – and for Europe and the White Race.
Liberalism in its idealistic form loses its taste for combat and conquest. As Justin said, let’s take
advantage of that and opt out before the whole thing collapses and the Barbarians from within and without, above and below, turn out the lights. I doubt Americans will be given this option. Meanwhile the lands Canada gave to the Inuit may be opened up to Chinese Capitalists. Hope they feel like the fools they are.
If anything, it seems more to me that the age of nations ended, seventy years ago. With America overstretched and the dollar reign nearing its end, the in part decades old regional economic and political alliances over the world will only grow closer together, intensifying their relations to the point of forming something you could term “continental blocks”.
One can think whatever one wants to of Dugin’s political project, and personally I do not subscribe to it, but the idea that multiple geopolitical poles are emerging around the globe is certainly sound and hard to dispute. It is a process faciliated by power being concentrated in ever fewer hands, in part due to the population surrendering their political privileges out of disinterest, in part due to technological advances improving the efficiency of administration (obviously there is more to this).
Of course one can ask where the nation state ends and the “civilisation state” begins, prime examples illustrating this problem being China and India. Regarding that question, somebody said in recent times that China is a civilisation masquerading as a nation (can’t remember the name though).
One doesn’t have to like this development, but one shouldn’t turn their eyes away from it either.
@ JHRP
With 92% Han-homogeneity China needs not to “masquerade” as a nation, it is a nation.
I wonder what would have happened just 100 years ago if Scotland would have tried to secede from England? My guess is that they would have gotten invaded. If the England of today doesn’t want to take that action, then I suppose they don’t deserve to keep Scotland. As for American Renaissance, I’m not surprised about their take on this. You’re right in calling them free-market zombies.
The views expressed here illustrate how difficult it is for White Nationalists from one country (the USA) to judge the situation in another country (the United Kingdom of Great Britain).
As a Briton, it is absolutely clear to me that the United Kingdom needs to be maintained. Great Britain (under a regenerated leadership) could be a great force for good for the White Race; particularly if it were allied to a regenerated France (under new leadership) and to a regenerated Germany (under new leadership).
If Scotland goes “independent”, Who gains ? : answer, the Internationalists of the European Union- no friends of the White Race.
RE is right. I have a few additional comments to make.
1. There is no great genetic difference between the Scots and the English. We have lived side-by-side for centuries, to our mutual benefit.
2. The SNP/Socialist politicians in Scotland are barking mad and are trying to impose some kind of socially-moulded utopia there. For example, it is illegal in Scotland to smack your own unruly child. Illegal, period. Regardless of its misbehaviour. What greater imposition on civil rights can there be but to prohibit the effective censure of your own children?
3. I have read somewhere (perhaps someone would check the matter) that those same Socialist/SNP-types are planning to import one million immigrants into Scotland. (And I don’t think was meant English immigrants.)
4. The UK national debt currently stands at about GBP 1.3 trillion. Scotland currently receives very favourable subsides from London under an arrangement called the “Barnett formula.” For true succession Scotland would have to buy itself out of the British national debt. (They would then be free to use any currency they liked, Euros, Pounds or even dollars). This is completely non-viable economically.
5. This whole thing stinks of the most astonishing short-sightedness and incompetence by our traitorous political class. It is safe to assume that every change they propose or execute is for the worse. My perspective is that Britain can’t go on like this for much longer — things are coming to a head.
I don’t think any of the objections to Scottish independence raised here have yet challenged Johnson’s basic premise: that distinct nations should have autonomy. This, of course, is the very essence of nationalism. Both RE and I strongly opposed Scottish independence and though this is a very late addendum I would like to address that matter of principle.
The answer, as usual, can be found by applying Procedural Analysis. During my primary investigations I concluded that the fragmentation of states was the product of feminine influence. The masculine preference is for large states, feminine for small ones. The extremes are having a ‘one world government’ and completely autonomous villages and towns, similar to early feudal kingdoms. (These latter spent much of their time at war with each other.)
Females prefer the word “community” while males prefer “society.” It’s a matter of the ‘Game of Opposites’ and scale. The DSoD Theory summarizes this, but it’s only a theory. DSoD stands for the Dishonest Submergence of Difference — making large differences smaller. There are four mechanisms.
A male strategy can be adopted for feminine ends, just as male technology is exploited to further feminine goals. The EU and Soviet Russia have attempted to expand (a masculine strategy) to include disparate races (a feminine strategy). They did so to enforce social engineering, communism and conformity. Using force is a masculine strategy, but it is used to apply feminine ones.
I would say that Scottish nationalists are making a small difference large, which is feminine.
“Great Britain under a regenerated leadership could be a great force for good.” Perhaps, but the key issue is that only be divesting itself of Scotland does England even stand a chance of acquiring a “regenerated leadership.” Scotland, as part of the U.K., forever pulls the U.K. to the Left.
It does not follow that the principle of ethno-nationalist states will protect whites as a whole. The crusade for white survival can be carried out though a framework of existing institutions. Indeed the United Kingdom is one of the greatest institutions which frail humanity has come up with. Under the Union of Crowns, what was to become the United States was put on the path to become a white country. Under the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and more also became white.
In other words, it is the explicit political culture related to white survival which matters, not the UK, NATO, the Maritime Treaty of the Sea, the EU, etc. Our enemies are policies and Jewish Pressure Groups within those organizations-not the organizations themselves.
While it doesn’t follow that ethno-nationalist states influence white survival white ethno-nationalist states can be a menace to each other. This article states the problem here, ” An independent Scotland should keep any English nukes within its borders. They should not make the same mistake as the Ukrainians, who traded the third largest nuclear arsenal on the planet for American and Russian promises to respect their territorial integrity.” Scotland’s only threat to it’s territorial integrity is from England. I find even the theory that Scottish nuclear mushroom clouds rising over the ruins of York, Carlisle, and Manchester caused by a dispute over the riverboat gambling taxes at Berwick-upon-Tweed an awful thought.
These petty antagonisms between whites is our greatest enemy. In 1290 King Edward expelled the Jews. There is a compelling argument that England became a financial superpower because the English got control of their own financial system and applied just Anglo-Saxon folkways to it. This a major accomplishment by King Edward that has benefited us even to this day.
And yet that great sovereign called himself “The Hammer of the Scots.”
“Free-market zombie” is a new insult for me, and I suppose I should cherish anything that is a change from “racist” or “white supremacist.”
I do prefer free markets to central planning, but I thought I made it clear in my article that I most oppose Scottish independence because the people leading it appear to have no conception of what a Scot is, and seem to be planning to fill their new country with non-whites.
As Mr. Johnson notes, disagreements about the role of the state can be worked out among fellow whites. Unscrambling the multi-racial omelet is much more difficult.
“Free market zombie” refers to some of your commentators, and I think aptly, since they are repeating cliches that bear little connection to present day reality. European social democrats gave up on central planning a long time ago. The real issue today is a generous welfare state vs. a less generous one, not East Berlin vs. West Berlin. And by most measures of well-being, the Nordic social democracies rate fare higher than England and the United States.
Current UK immigration policies are already bad. If Scotland chooses to preserve them, that is too bad. But I do not see how that cancels out other benefits of independence. Particularly since the Scots might decide not to increase immigration. But it should be their mistake to make. That’s what independence means.
Greg wrote: Particularly since the Scots might decide not to increase immigration.
The White Scots should be following this German Cardinal advice to Angela Merkel:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329471/Cardinal-Joachim-Meisner-says-women-babies-solve-countrys-population-crisis.html
“Many of his [Jared Taylor’s] commentators seem to be free-market zombies, intoning dire predictions that socialism leads to poverty and oppression. (Like Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, for instance?)” – Greg
I don’t think Greg called you a free-market zombie. He correctly identified many of your Nino’s (nationalist in name only) as “seeming” free-market zombies. What distinguishes the Nino from a genuine white nationalist? Simply take the existing Republican Party economic program, add reform or elimination of the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Immigration Acts, throw in obsequious truckling on behalf of – “They look white to me!” – jewry, and th..th..th..that’s ALL folks! Damn few populist pitchforks against a system created by and run for the benefit of the disproportionately jewish 1% are found at AmRen.
Thanks for the article. I’ve been wondering when the New and Alternative right abroad would address the matter of the Scottish Independence Referendum – my friends and I would have welcomed such food for thought during the (literally) hours of debate we have taken part in.
I am sympathetic to the views above and they would be my usual default position, however after a lot of thought I have decided to vote no, and Jared Taylor’s piece (not his commentators) actually captures my feelings the best.
I vote no with a heavy heart, because I do not love the UK establishment and fully understand the temptation a lot of my compatriots have to try and ‘sack’ them.
The reasons I have come to a no conclusion are:
1) I am genuinely worried about the capacity this issue has to divide our people and I do not see how any ordinary Scottish person could benefit from this division. According to almost all the opinion polls so far, more than 50% of Scots do not want this. It augurs poorly for a new state to begin life with such a divided populace. If there is a real urge for independence, more time and experiments in ‘home rule’ would be needed. If it is the right thing then now is not the time.
2) I believe the Independence on offer is an illusion – we are being offered a state with the same bankers, the same head of state and instead of London exercising an undue influence in our affairs, our politicians will rush headlong to offer us up to the bureaucrats of the European Union in Brussels.
3) The drive to independence has been driven almost entirely by the Left. I question their motives. It was Tony Blair’s Labour government that brought in the Scottish Parliament which has stoked the sense of division and separateness from London and which has brought us to this day. Also, the agenda of the Scottish independence movement is almost entirely Leftist. As Taylor rightly observes, ethnicity is off the table in arguments for independence – in fact the independence campaign has gone to nauseating lengths to chase the non-indigenous vote. If it’s possible to imagine a more pro-immigration regime than the one we already live under, I think it will happen in a Leftist independent Scotland.
4) I personally think that after over 400 years of close connection between Scotland and England, the two peoples have more in common than the things which divide them, culturally, linguistically and ethnically. The pro independence people make a big thing of “cultural” Scottishness which is why they fawn over immigrants who have acquired Scottish accents. They would have us believe that a Pakistani in a kilt is closer to us culturally than an English Cockney.
5) And this brings me to the big reason. White British people – English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh – like many other European peoples – are facing becoming minorities in their own ancestral homelands in the next 30 – 50 years. There are going to be bigger issues to deal with. Even in Scotland, untouched my large immigration until the 1970s, the most common baby boy’s name in Glasgow, its biggest city, is a variant of Mohammed. Is this really a good time to be separating ourselves from our kinsfolk (and they are kinsfolk and close ones at that) in England? Who benefits from the Balkanization of Britain? I really don’t want to become a foreigner in England, a land which I also consider part of my birthright.
I have come to the conclusion that we actually need our English neighbours – many of them are more ‘switched on’ than we are to the dangers of multiculturalism, having had to live with it for longer.
Well, I’m off to vote no. I know that I might be wrong, but if I am wrong, then I hope it is for the right reasons.
Which ever way Scotland votes tomorrow the result is a fraud. Scots in the Diaspora are forbidden to vote while Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Chinamen and God knows what living in Scotland ..are allowed to vote. The Scot went out of Scotland long ago and now the few remaining Scots are relying on the already mentioned Muslims. Jews Sikhs and so on to vote on whether to break the 300 year union with England. The Great was found in Britain when Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales worked in unison. If Mel Gibson is truly the son of Sutton Gibson then he knows damn well that when Wallace, at the height of Christendom in the medieval period was crying freedom he was not referring to freedom from England. Foreigners voting in Scotland, the land of John Knox, on our future is a disgrace and the leadership of the SNP is worthy of the fate of Quisling.
One problem with micro-states being nuclear armed is that there are many fingers on many nuclear triggers….Scotland should host England’s subs and nuke’s and sign with NATO.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment