by GH Eliason
“Walled safely inside their gerrymandered districts, incumbents are insulated from general-election challenges that might pull them toward the political center, but they are perpetually vulnerable to primary challenges from extremists who pull them toward the fringes.”-Information Clearing House- Matt Tiabi
No matter where you look inside the CEEC or associated emigre voting blocs you will find the 1st generation emigres in America after WWII were for the most part Nazi SS, Axis counterparts, Prometheans, or their children.
From the late 1940’s until this current election cycle, they provided the foot-soldiers for all the political parties and in the primaries they consistently provide the majority of voters for the candidates. During general elections, they provide the most dedicated on the ground political activists and large bloc votes that determine election outcomes.
The emigres developed settlement patterns to facilitate this early on and gained a rapid and powerful presence in American politics. This is what made the gerrymandering process relatively easy and natural looking by guiding new immigrants into their bloc region or Congressional district.
This was set up in the post-WWII CEE immigration years when initially even the fledgling UN recognized that these hopeful emigres to the US and Europe were pre-war Nazi’s whose views hadn’t changed after the war.
Guiding the actual voting patterns is as easy as saying which candidate supports or will support whatever the emigre political leaders want to do or think is good for the “old country.” For the most part, that’s all it takes. The other rallying point for all the nationalist emigres is which candidate hates what they hate. During WWII it was the Soviet Union and Russia. Afterward, during the Cold War, it was communism and Russia. After the Cold War, it is Russia.
A direct example of this today is the Jewish-American vote. According to Gary Rosenblatt “A few years ago writers got in trouble for using the phrase “Israel Firster.” Now an outright supporter of Israel, Gary Rosenblatt, uses that phrase in the Jewish Week in a piece titled, “Israel-Firster’s Seen Edging Toward Trump.” Rosenblatt says that some voters care more about Israel than the U.S.
…It’s good that American Jews will begin openly saying of other Jews that their first loyalty is Israel. It makes such a stance untenable: it will make it impossible for people who act on “what they believe is best for Israel” to hold high positions in foreign policy-making in the U.S. government. It demonstrates that the neoconservatives are losing oxygen slowly. And that those critical of Israel are having greater influence in the discourse.” – “NY Jewish Week” speaks bluntly of “Israel firsters” in US politics- Phillip Weiss
The crux of the problem is the dual loyalty nationalism I have been describing over the past year. American foreign policy and very dangerously CEE, Russia, and China policy are being driven by ultra-nationalists that don’t care about America, American concerns, or consider them secondary. They push to drive policy based on their prejudices and how they view the “old country.”
This means they have no problem sacrificing American lives to fight wars America has no national interest in. Phillip Weiss’ article linked above includes the Iraqi war as part of this. Further in this article is the rest of that equation. In previous articles, I have shown unequivocally that the Korean and Vietnam wars were part and parcel of this.
In Ukraine, the Baltics, and the Balkans this chauvinism goes as far as determining what kind of people should inhabit the “old country” even though most of the emigres have never set foot there. If the people in the “old country” don’t measure up to the politics or nationalism of the emigre community,they need to be reformed or replaced. During the 60+ year direct communication gap of the Cold War between the emigres and the people that lived in the countries, radically different views developed over what it meant to be a good citizen from a particular country. The emigre view hardened considerably.
In 1991, the Ukrainian nationalists OUNb were at a loss at how to proceed. “Before the changes in Ukraine in 1991, as a political movement and an ideology Ukrainian nationalism could be active only in the emigration. Even in its splintered form it remained an explosive and vibrant force. It had great ideological difficulties, however, because of its confrontation with Western democracy, its inability to deal fully with the question of the political beliefs of Ukrainians in Ukraine, and its lack of contact with political processes there.” Encyclopedia of Ukraine- Nationalism article
At this point, the country of Ukraine was too “Sovietized,” which only means that all 18 nationalities that make up Ukraine got along equally. From then until now the nationalists used the education system and children’s groups to indoctrinate the population into Ukrainian nationalism.
What you see now playing out in Ukraine is a proxy war between the Ukrainian-American emigres and the local Ukrainians that reject nationalism/nazism. It was never about language. The Ukrainian-American emigres overthrew Victor Yanukovych and promised the presidency to whom ever would change the governmental form to hard nationalism.
According to an article in “Ukrainian Diaspora,” The diaspora is distinctive in several ways. For one, many in the group are preoccupied with historical victimization…Another unifying characteristic among some of the diaspora was an extreme anti-Russia sentiment, in both its Soviet and post-Soviet forms…A final characteristic is that, many Ukrainian American children, whether the first, second, or third generation, have been required by their parents and grandparents to learn Ukrainian and speak only in Ukrainian at home…”
The author, a 2013 Ukrainian immigrant to the US told a different view from actually live there. The article was written in 2015 and the author was still supportive of the Coup.
While in Ukraine, I was an avid supporter of Ukraine’s independence from Russia and an advocate for cultivating stronger ties with the West. I considered myself a Ukrainian patriot in spite of myself…Most of the people living in Ukraine hold somewhat more moderate views of Russia and the Ukrainian language. Despite the Ukrainian diaspora’s anti-Russia zeal, many in Ukraine realize that Ukraine and Russia are inseparable in many ways—especially when it comes to history, culture, and economy…
In terms of language, post-Soviet Ukrainian society is essentially bilingual…And most agree that the people of eastern and central Ukraine have the right to speak the language of their ancestors without having their Ukrainian identity and nationality called into question. Ethnic identity and national loyalty is not a zero-sum game. The statistics show that regardless of ethnicity or language, Ukrainians do not express particular loyalty to Russia…Further, the Ukrainian language is not under the threat of extinction and has not been for over two decades…The perceived threat to the Ukrainian language among the Ukrainian diaspora was revived in April 2012…-HOW THE UKRAINIAN DIASPORA SEES THE HOMELAND
The proxy war they are fighting is two-pronged. The non-nationalist Ukrainians are sent to the front and if they die, they die. The emigre’s fathers used this tactic during WWII when they went into villages and forced people to fight against the Soviets. The Ukrainian nationalists both then and now stood behind them and shot them if they broke ranks.
The rise of mass migration and mass communication in advanced capitalist societies has facilitated the rise of what Benedict Anderson calls “long-distance nationalism”(Anderson,Long-Distance Nationalism). He has noted that-It is not necessary to live in the country with which you feel connected. You can live some-where else and be more nationalistic then before. The greatest change, which globalization led to, was the emergence of a new form of nationalism.
There are people who live abroad, who do not feel fully accepted as a minority, and here there is a phenomenon which I call long-distance nationalism. . .The members of the diaspora create for themselves an image of the home land, which is a stronger emotional investment than the country in which they live…One negative consequence of the diaspora experience is the emergence of what Ander-son calls non-responsible politics: diaspora participation in the politics in the country with which they identify can often be toxic, and their impact can be felt through the funding of particular political figures, nationalist propaganda, and even weapons...( Multiculturalism, memory, and ritualization: Ukrainian nationalist monuments in Edmonton, Alberta- Pers Anders Rudling)
Directly after WWII,“The UNRAA (United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) in the US occupation zone of Germany argued that these anti-repatriation groups (later they became CEE emigres) are not the product of the democratic process but are remnants of pre-war regimes that reflect Nazi and fascist concepts.” (Anti-Communist Minorities in the U.S.: Political Activism of Ethnic Refugees, p 55-edited by I. Zake)
During WWII they were the people that made up the Axis armies. They staffed the concentration camps. They fought against the Allied effort. Even while some of the emigres were enlisting in Allied efforts, part of the emigre leadership were directly involved in support of and in the command structure of Axis armies. Yes, I am saying they were giving orders to SS Battalions we were fighting during the war.
After the war, these same armies immigrated to the west. The US and Canada became incubators for their nationalist politic and national aspirations. The emigres were re-labled anti-communists and provided most of the bad intelligence during the Cold War.
Today they represent their “country” at the US government level. Many set up governments in exile inside the USA with the support of Washington and until the Soviet Union broke up, most of their countries only existed as part of Public Law 86-90. Such was the case for Nationalist Ukraine. In short for CEE countries,WWII Nazi’s became the only representative leaders and groups the US knew about or spoke with. The only view Congress or the Executive Branch had of the different peoples or cultures that make up the CEE were the extremely angry losers of WWII.
The pay-off to CEE emigre leadership was to happen when their particular CEE country became “free.” The CEE emigre leadership would deliver the form of government the new country would use and be able to keep a modicum of control over it because they were that country’s US representation and lobby. In many cases, this included countries that never existed prior to the early 20th century Nazi experiment.
Did they deliver “Democracy” with a big “D” to their home countries? The answer is yes if and only if Nazi Germany was a shining example of democracy. Although each nationalism is geared to a specific state, the form of “democracy” remains the same.
“Authoritarian democracy is a form of democracy directed by a ruling elite of an authoritarian state that seeks to represent the different interests of society. Authoritarian democracy has also been called organic democracy by some proponents. In use for cases of fascism and Stalinism it has also been referred to as totalitarian democracy…Authoritarian democracy was promoted by fascists who presented fascism as a form of authoritarian democracy, it explicitly rejects the conventional concept of democracy as in a majoritarian democracy that assumes equality of citizens.
Fascist movements advocate a form of democracy that advocates the rule of the most qualified, rather than rule by a majority of numbers…Hitler denounced parliamentary and pluralistic electoral democracy but he repeatedly invoked democracy to describe Nazism, and called for a “German democracy”, once saying “National Socialism is the true realization of democracy” and another time saying “We wild Germans are better democrats than other nations.” (Authoritarian democracy – Omics International)
Sadly, if we take out the words fascism, Hitler, National Socialism, and Stalinism, America’s eyes were opened to the concept of “American Authoritarian Democracy” during the 2016 primary season.
As the CEE countries gained freedom, the emigres, and governments in exile delivered fascist governments with this sugar coating of democracy inside their own Nationalist framework. The flow of money to elect potential office holders in the US now comes from both the emigres and their CEE countries.
Ukraine today is a perfect example of this. The nationalism they adhere to today is the same as it was before and during WWII. And you need to consider the fact that Ukraine was not even a country, it was the borderland. The term “Ukrainian” was just the name of a nazi political movement that almost became a state in 1918. This same democratic nationalism was delivered by the Diaspora as the form of government when the Soviet Union collapsed. It did not exist in the country called Ukraine prior to 1991 except in small pockets. Albania is another example.
Almost all CEE countries are “Spring of Nations” countries and Wilson Doctrine countries. Almost all are voting in the CEEC bloc for war with Russia. In Bosnia, this type of violent nationalism is again on the rise with this election cycle. (Madison, Wilson, and East Central European Federalism -A Dissertation submitted to The Division of Research and Advanced Studies Of the University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment for the requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.) in the Department of Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences 2006 by Jonathan H. Levy)
Do the Diaspora groups whose primary allegiance to the old country puts the US secondary have large roles in foreign policy? Obviously, there have been a number of good write-ups on this. The question across all of them is should the Diasporas ignore the “greater good” for the US population and ply what they see as good only for the old country they actually call home?
“Within this contemporary context, Smith raises two questions about the role of diasporas in US foreign policy that are fundamental to the place of minority interest groups in a democratic polity: First, when can US government policy be characterized as either subservient to diasporic influence or consonant with the national interest? And second, what are the rights and obligations of diasporas toward the “reasonable construction of the common good”? While Smith points out the threats that diasporic conflicts of interest pose to national security and the extent to which legitimate security concerns have been dismissed by political commentators and in public policy debates, he does not pretend to be able to provide an authoritative or final resolution to the issues, which he believes are likely to remain with us so long as the United States has so dominant a role in world affairs. Rather, he concludes, the resolution of this difficult moral political quandary must come from citizen engagement in foreign policy debates over the relations between specific diaspora goals and national interests.” (Diaspora-Government Relations in Forging US Foreign Policies -Josh DeWind and Renata Segura)
The run-up to the Iraq war can be put into this context. All it took was for the Iraqi Diaspora (Iraqi National Congress) to develop ties with like-minded people from “The Project for the New American Century” that wanted regime change in Iraq. Many of the people associated with the PNAC crossed over into the Bush administration. The pushed the invasion.
Noted above, they had the full support of the Jewish Diaspora. At the government level, Saddam Hussein would have known about this. With his hands as full as they were it does address why he threatened to attack Israel. Because the Jewish-American emigres were out of reach and pushed the war on him, it seems he viewed Israel as the proxy he could attack.
Did the war enhance our national security? Was it for US national interests or Diaspora and special interests that over 1,000,000 people died in and as a result of that war?
“Walt Vanderbush’s essay, “The Iraqi Diaspora and the US Invasion of Iraq” (chapter 9), traces the collaboration between leaders of the Iraqi diaspora and neoconservative Americans, many of them linked to the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), to convince the US government to wage war and bring about “regime change” in Iraq…In marketing the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the diaspora lobby and like-minded government officials were able to frame debates as a choice between invasion or appeasement, thus sidelining alternative perspectives and silencing voices of opposition. The INC claimed credit for placing 108 articles in the news media, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Times (of London), during a nine-month period before the war.” – IBID
Why did we go to war again over a private Diaspora dispute over who should rule Iraq to the tune of 4500 US soldiers lives? That was what listening to Chalabi and his anti-American neocons cost US families.
As recently as today’s news, a like-minded American working with CEE nationalist interests decided to provoke a war between the US and Russia. I am referring to General Philip Breedlove, NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe.
Breedlove lied to the US Commander in Chief- POTUS- Barack Obama about Russian aggression and troop build-ups against Europe and the Ukraine. How is it this man is able to retire? Why does he have a pension?-Hacked Emails Confirm NATO Push To Provoke, Escalate Conflict With Russia- Tyler Durden
Had president Obama taken Breedlove seriously, we would now be engaged in a war with Russia. And you wouldn’t be liking it on Facebook.
Can teeny tiny Diaspora groups bloc voting alter the face of American government?
“BiH (Bosnia Herzegovina) Diaspora Has Already Effected US Election Results. The BiH Diaspora community is not large, but it is concentrated in a few critical election jurisdictions. While impossible to prove, it appears more likely that the BiH Diaspora new voters around St. Louis were the decisive votes in the election for the US Senate seat from Missouri, which in turn effected the whole shifting of the US Senate and Congress in favor of the Democrats. If this is not true, then see the below…the Diaspora did not form a substantially large voting block. Croat, Serb and Albanian Americans were a considerably larger and more visible block…
”Bosniaks have allowed others to define them, mostly those who either do not wish us well or do not care to know us. Even some of the “Bosniak” political leadership has sold itself to a new set of masters as those who would control the “white terrorists” on their behalf. -Congress of North American Bosniaks
No comments:
Post a Comment