OSCE Warsaw: Using Democracy to Prevent Aggressive Nationalism

2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Thursday, 13 September 2018

Session 9: Using Democracy to Prevent Aggressive Nationalism

Intervention read by Henrik Clausen, representing Wiener Akademikerbund

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Below is the prepared text for Mr. Clausen’s intervention:

Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. I am Henrik Clausen, representing Wiener Akademikerbund. In accordance with the agenda for this session, let me talk about preventing aggressive nationalism.

Aggressive nationalism is a dangerous situation where the Rule of Law is challenged, and constitutes a threat to democracy itself. This also has scary historical connotations. Fortunately, the best solution is simple: More democracy. We see positive developments on this East of Vienna, in the Visegrad countries and in Russia.

Aggressive nationalism appears precisely when the government and the established elite disregard the concerns of the citizens, thus violating the principles of democracy. Democracy means “Rule by the people”. And implicitly, for the people.

Concerns of the citizens are simple: They are about rising crime rates, our cars and schools being burned down, about rape rates doubling and tripling. About the financial burdens of immigration. About the nuts and bolts of daily life.

Aggressive nationalism has appeal only when our representatives ignore such simple, reasonable concerns, or even try to silence them, as we have seen in some cases. Such neglect damages the confidence in our democratic institutions, and must be avoided.

Problems related to immigration exist to various degrees in all countries West of Vienna. We have thousands of ghetto areas (in French: Zones Urbaines Sensibles) where our secular laws cannot be effectively upheld, and where parallel societies outside our secular law are developing. This is bad.

To prevent extreme nationalism, we need to take care of our nations. Integrate the immigrants into our society, uphold our laws, and avoid granting special rights to any groups. One Law For All is a principle that we cannot compromise on.

Thus, Wiener Akademikerbund recommends:

  • That OSCE pS take concerns of their citizens seriously, even when roughly worded.
  • That OSCE pS governments focus on protecting the interests of their own citizens.
  • That governments ensure the effective upholding of national laws

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

14 thoughts on “OSCE Warsaw: Using Democracy to Prevent Aggressive Nationalism

  1. I find this very confusing. Nationalism is the focus on the interest and cohesiveness of your country. Who knows what “aggressive nationalism” means.

    But, then we see democracy posited as the counter to aggressive nationalism. Democracy will control immigration, eliminate crime by eliminating migrants, and get rid of the no-go zones where neither native police nor citizens can safely go.

    Democracy sure sounds like nationalism to me.

    Furthermore, we know, or have a pretty good idea, democracy simply doesn’t work when the IQ and possibly other character traits of a people fall below a certain level. A democratic process can be constructed so that a people will vote themselves out of existence. South Africa was far better off for all people, white and black, when the voting rights of blacks were restricted under apartheid. So, even the form of democracy is beneficial only in a society with certain characteristics, including a lack of diversity. However, and intelligent and homogeneous population is quite able to vote itself out of existence, and shown by Sweden.

    The biological characteristics of a population has got to be considered before prescribing a generally beneficial form of government. I’m not saying we know how to do it, but it’s the direction we need to be looking.

    • Let me clear up the confusion a bit. OSCE has an agenda to “Prevent Aggressive Nationalism” – in practice, they want to prevent assertion of national identity and self-determination by the peoples. This is a battle between national self-determination and globalism.

      So my suggestion to prevent ‘aggressive’ nationalism is to apply more nationalism, increase national self-determination. This is a counterattack on globalism.

      One cannot address all possible problems in 150 seconds, Sweden is a case in point. But then, a healthy nationalism is exactly what we need to prevent this development. Incuding the right to refuse migration.

      • I appreciate your reply, as well as the work you have obviously put into OSCE for the purpose of maintaining true freedom in Europe. Whether you succeed or not does not obviate the value of your efforts.

        If I understand you correctly, your intervention was actually a parody on the OSCE depiction of nationalism as dangerous. You are turning around the definitions used by the OSCE drones. The OSCE promotes “democracy” which apparently under its usage means to comply with the remote, unaccountable EU bureaucracy. “Aggressive nationalism” to the OSCE is simply putting the interests of the nation as first priority for its citizens. “Aggressive nationalism” seems the same as nationalism to me, except that adding “aggressive” to it is a dog whistle that nationalism is bad.

        So, you’re turning around the definitions, saying that democracy would actually prevent the nation-destroying actions of importing disruptive, unassimilable immigrants into a country, and “aggressive nationalism” actually implies acceding to the EU bureaucratic diktats.

        Works for me. Going by what the baron says, the OSCE is a lost cause for promoting any sort of freedom in Europe, so might as well have a bit of fun.

        • If I understand it correctly, the OSCE works to get the UN to accept its malign Red Queen definitions. With Donald Trump, we have some hope of getting out of the UN…not much chance right now, but there might be before his term is up.

          Fortunately, he has broken the mold of left-right professional pols ascending to the office. But he’s a singularity, so who knows what will follow his term in office?

          Among other things, leaving the UN would break up the power blocs that allow obscenities like the OSCE to continue their existence.

          Whatever transpires, I am glad to see a somewhat robust sector of sanity in there. The B doesn’t attend anymore, but I do remember his reports back in the day. IIRC, the Sane Group blocked the move to get “islamophobia” into the UN dictionary.

          • …”we have some hope of getting out of the UN”..
            I and We hope USA will just do that !
            This totally corrupted and alienated from the core of Humanity and World wide Cooperation ,Mafia style Organization .Must to in to History garbage bin of the ..ex cathedra !
            ps. It should be a highest priority ,to any sens National Government of Developed Nations to sign out from infamous UN

          • Back when John Bolton, currently Trump’s National Security Advisor, was an interim appointment to the U.N.* he said – after a few months there – that the whole building ought to be given over to public housing to aid the shortage of living quarters in NY.

            *(Bush Jr. got him in for as long as he could, knowing Bolton was too conservative ever to win COngressional approval)

      • Mr Clausen ,can you give us some exemple for the country pursuing “Aggressive Nationalism” SVP ?

  2. Have people been so effectively programmed they don’t even understand that the real meaning of the term ‘democracy’ is Oligarchical Collectivism? You need to understand that whenever one of these apparatchik cogs of the oligarchical collective uses the democracy term they use it to mean pushing their own ‘consensus’ by coercion through the various official and traditional arms of the STATE as they mandate it legally against the general population.

    Nationalism as well as ‘aggressive’ nationalism is nothing but the homogeny of any particular ethnic culture. German, French, British, Dutch, Austrian, Italian are all examples of aggresive nationalism. And they have to resort to their democratic socialism to destroy every ethnic culture in order for their new global citizen to emerge from the destroyed former ethnic groups. I would hope that people would understand that since we know this has been a long term goal of the oligarchical collective for at least the last half of the 20th Century.

    A true democracy is nothing more then mob rule and when that mob is nothing but a select small group of mobsters terrorizing and intimidating everyone who opposes them then you should quickly understand the new meaning of the term democracy. Nothing is what they say it is. It is nothing but the perfect Orwellian example of the destruction of words. But now evil is good because ‘democracy’ is good. Does anyone in Europe understand that? That the previous national socialists from 1933 to 1945 are now the new democratic socialists of the 21st Century? No you can’t because your programming won’t allow to understand it.

    • Actually, there’s a lot of sense in what you said. Orwell described the changing of language so definition to common words are fluid, but the words retain their original emotional impact. For instance, “democracy” brings out a positive response, so the cultural Marxist retain the word, but change the meaning to suit their purposes.

      I think one aspect of “1984” which doesn’t receive enough attention is that the government of Big Brother not only changes the meaning of words, but deliberately and systematically takes away the power of the individual to reason logically. The Inner Party destroyed reasoning through limiting the vocabulary of analysis (see the appendix to 1984); I don’t think even Orwell thought of massively changing the educational system, from kindergarten to post-graduate studies, so as to bring a violent response to an analytic approach. In other words, schools not only do not teach logic and analysis; they actively discourage any analytic thought.

      It’s not by accident that Hillary attracted the fringe groups (to the extent she can attract anyone), but Bernie Sanders attracted the college-educated crowd. Socialism sounds attractive to anyone who doesn’t reason out the economics of production and distribution. I would love to debate a socialist, but the socialists I know either scream at me when there’s a discussion, or just don’t maintain communication. They are reflecting the approach of reacting negatively to inconvenient assertions, rather than discussing them analytically.

    • Best clarification i ever read in last 30 years ! Thanks !
      ps. After all everyone forget that Hitler was Democratically appointed to rule by the vest majority of the Germans ..
      Of course after reading Main Kampf they do know perfectly what they signing for

      • In the 1933 election in Germany, there was considerable Nazi intimidation of electors likely to vote against them.

    • ..”And they have to resort to their democratic socialism to destroy every ethnic culture “..
      Bravo !!! Worth to say ,that mentioned ethnic entities wont give up their ethnicity and Culture… Medicine they applying is reserve for the “untermensch” ethnicity..

Comments are closed.