Sunday, November 16, 2008

Expatriation In Situ

Florence King, the venerable misanthrope at National Review, penned an excellent summary of the current state of affairs in America for the November 17th issue. She was writing before the election, mind you, so what she had to say seems even more poignant now (subscription required):

…Conservatives are incensed by the idea of American socialism but I think we have skipped it in favor of bigger and better despair. America will never be a socialist country per se because we are already globalists-in-training and will be full-fledged ones in the not-too-distant future. At the moment, we are undergoing some kind of 21st-century sociopolitical sea change, comparable to the transference stage in psychoanalysis that leaves people the same, but different.

Globalism is socialism without borders whereby the world’s moneymen practice unfettered capitalism among themselves while majority populations, lulled into brain death by the good life under the socialistic governments set up to keep them quiet, convince themselves that they live in capitalist countries. Not only do they get the “capitalist” part wrong, they get the “country” part wrong, too. Globalist Man doesn’t live in a country, he lives in what Teddy Roosevelt called a “polyglot boardinghouse.” This is how socialism and globalism differ. Socialism leaves conspicuous nationality alone, often because it’s good for the tourist trade. Globalism, on the other hand, cannot succeed unless people become foreigners in their own land. This is what is happening to “real” Americans in “real” America: Expatriation in situ is the enemy within, and it’s us.

[…]

Expatriation in situ is a fact. We are turning into our own foreigners, and it’s not pleasant to witness.


[Nothing follows]

27 comments:

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Nationality is nationalism is racism is evil.

The dictionary said as much...

Dymphna said...

ah, yes, Archonix, you are right. But what is national socialism then?

How do you think it differs from transnational socialism?

Which do you prefer?

Use spare and elegant prose, please.

[I deduct for errors in punctuation, but not for spelling mistakes since there is a demon in every keyboard.]

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Well... um... you see the thing is, there's... and, um uh, that is the... well... hey look, a nazi! *runs away*

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

All right, in all seriousness, I've been reading some very enlightening writing in recent weeks on the subjet of nationalism and nationality. One of Webster's definitions of "nationality" was in fact "nationalism", which I found pretty entertaining given the contortions people will go to. And I've covered that very subject in a post on my blog.

Part of my research brought me across an essay called The Zionist Idea" by someone called Arthur Hertzberg. He was a zionist. He was also a socialist, which is... unfortunate, but predictable given the heavy involvement of socialists in the zionist movement at the time he wrote. He had a lot to say about nationalism, but two things stuck out to me:

"We call a nation free when it can materially, intellectually, and morally develop itself, without any external trammels whatever being placed upon that development."

and

"These individuals, by the very fact that they have held out, suffered a constraint, since all peoples have an inevitable tendency to reduce the heterogeneous elements existing among them. Hence their freedom is diminished, and if they continue in their stubborn refusal to yield, they will be able to keep their individual liberty only on the condition that they are able to win back the collective liberty which they have lost. In short, the rebirth of their nationality is the prerequisite of their individual freedom."

It makes him a rather ironic national socialist. Or perhaps a social nationalist might be a better term.

xlbrl said...

Patriotism is a love of country and community. Nationalism is the abuse of patriotism and the love of power.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Now, you see, there'd I'd disagree. That's the Orwellian redefinition of Nationalism (from his essay "notes on nationalism"). The real definition (from Webster's again) is

"loyalty and devotion to a nation ; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups"

By that definition anyone who is a patriot, who believes in their nation, is also a nationalist.

The problem is not nationalism. The problem is collectivist thinking, that places the collective above the individual and argues that the individual submits their will to the collective. That is where the abuse and pursuit of power appears as, when you have a subservient collective, you must have a central authority to direct it.

Homophobic Horse said...

""loyalty and devotion to a the EU ; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting the EU above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups""

This applies par excellence to supra-national organisations like the EU.

We live in a time of disintegration, a time of reaction against traditional wisdom, of time of quantity and not quality - manifested in the all out attack on all forms of tradition be it religious, cultural or national.

Tradition consists of the orientation of the souls of individuals and nations to the transcendent source of life i.e. God.

Modern culture consists of the destruction of tradition. However, because one cannot live without tradition - as tradition is the transcendent source of life - tradition must now be counterfeited.

There are many examples of counterfeits:

1. Religion, Age of Aquarius and the New-Age movement exemplified by people like Oprah who believes that "God is a feeling".

2. Counterfeit culture: The British Parliament is currently deciding whether it should be lead with "multi-faith" prayers and abandon the Church of England opening of parliament. This example shall illustrate counterfeit "multiculture" and further elaborate on counterfeit religion. If one asks that mutlifaith prayers violate the first commandment one will be dismissed as a close minded bigot. Which just goes to show that the most important thing about multi-faith prayers is not god at all, but being "open" to "other people" - i.e. Worship of Man.

3. Counterfeit Holy Empire or Ancien Regime/Sanctum Regnum. A good example of this would be the EU's co-opting of "Ode to Joy", a paean to Universal Brotherhood. Another would be the UN.

4. Counterfeit family. Germaine Greer, radical feminist, having spent the last 4 decades destroying the traditional family now wants to create a counterfeit family - she suggests that motherhood be made a profession paid with tax money.

5. Homosexual "Bug-Chasers". A counterfeit cult of fertility. AIDS infected semen has a rich symbology and meaning for people who desire AIDS because it would solve their existential quandry of infertility/queerness.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Patriotism is a love of country and community. Nationalism is the abuse of patriotism and the love of power."

Xlbr,

It would be better for you to be aware of the meaning of both words.
Both words derive from Latin.

Patriotism deriver from the Latin Pater+ia (Father+land). That said, Patriotism is the love for the land, love for the soil.

Nationalism, on the other hand, derives from the Latin world Nasciu (to be born). Thus, Nationalism is the "love" for one's own people, one's own Natural Comunity.
But that would be very castrative in relation to Nationalism. The love - or apreciation - for one's own people will consequently lead to the love or apreciation, but really valorisation, of what that people has "done". Thus, Nationalism means also love for:
1) One's own people;
2) One's own (father)land (Patriotism);
3) One's own Culture;
4) One's own History;
5) One's own set of Transcendental Believes.

We can extrapolate those five elements and consider it: Tradition. Nationalism is therefore the love for one's own Tradition.

Yes, it is different from Conservatism. Traditionalism differs from Conservatism because Conservatism is more nihilistic. The aims of the Conservatives are to Conserve something. It does not really have to due with a Tradition. On the other hand, Traditionalism aims are to conserve something superior, Tradition.

If you want to debate honestly that, I think everybody welcomes your views here - as it is the norm. However, if you will insist in saying such nonesenses just because a Gramscian teacher told you that, I would personally think that your contribution is not being that honest and has a dark agenda behind it.

Afonso Henriques said...

"This (Nationalism) applies par excellence to supra-national organisations like the EU."

Oh Homofobic Horse, how I'd love to see you elaborate on that...

Zenster said...

Archonix: The problem is not nationalism. The problem is collectivist thinking, that places the collective above the individual and argues that the individual submits their will to the collective. That is where the abuse and pursuit of power appears as, when you have a subservient collective, you must have a central authority to direct it.

Bravo. Excellent distinction. You have correctly identified where people become servitors of the state, when the state's sole function is to serve the people.

All the more astonishing is that people even desire or accept collectivist thinking. Seeking such homogeneity of thought yields up a barren plauteau of social consciousness with an overall dearth of creative vitality. Far better to live in a society where we all agree that each is free to disagree.

Homophobic Horse: ... people like Oprah who believes that "God is a feeling".

You have got to be kidding? That monster raving loon actually said such a thing? Even as a devout agnostic, I can say with certainty that either God exists or He does not and most certainly not as "a feeling". As Montaigne observed:

"Man is certainly stark mad. He cannot make a worm yet he makes gods by the dozens."

Oprah is living proof of that. Also, thank you mentioning the "bug chasers". These have to be one of the single most demented outgrowths of modern society. Their sordid death wish makes the Muslims look like pikers.

Finally, speaking as a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, I have begun to find the actions of multi-national corporations increasingly suspect. Especially so with those of American origin which have unhesitatingly offshored their corporate headquarters solely for tax reasons and outsourced their labor base solely for the sake of profits.

Companies that spawned and feed at our nation's bosom had damn well better demonstrate some loyalty to those that made their existence possible. I rank this sort of betrayal right along side the Silicon Valley giants like Google and Cisco who, arising out of one of the most free and unencumbered entrepreneurial environments, have now set about helping to restrict those selfsame liberties in communist China. This is betrayal on a global scale and is nothing less than rendering aid and comfort to the enemy of all free people.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Collectivist thought works very well with globalism. They've bought into the idea of billions of identical, faceless "units" consuming, producing and completely interchangeable in the grand global corporation. At that level, money simply can't be the driving force any more. It has to be about control, with money and profit as just the currently most fashionable marker of how much control they have.

I think this might tie back to the "inversions" post from a week or so back. The collective is the inversion of the nation. In an ideal nation, everyone has their natural role and each role is, to a greater or lesser degree, unique. A nation becomes in that sense a body, with its heart, hands, eyes, ears and so on and so forth, each a part of the greater whole, but each absolutely essential and absolutely individual. Assuming the nation is perfect, of course...

Nothing ever is.

In the collective, on the other hand, there are only components. Each component is identical to the next and each is interchangeable and - ultimately - dispensable. There is no freedom in that.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

This applies par excellence to supra-national organisations like the EU.

The EU has no culture, no national consciousness. It is not a nation. They may try and create a nationalism of Europe but their understanding of what consists a nation, its make-up, is flawed by their immersion in collectivist thinking. They believe that a nation can be created by simply creating a new collective with institutions, a currency and an anthem and then calling it a "nation". Their ultimate failure is that there is no uniting thread, no single common element that unites Europeans in the way that their nation unites them. Germans won't be united with Spaniards, nor French with Latvians, because they are different and sometimes incompatible nations.

Misunderstanding the nature of Nationhood makes it very easy to just replace "nation" with "European Union" in that sentence, but it fails, in the end, because it is subverting the meaning of these words from the one I outlined, the one that people instinctively understand, but try to label as "patriotism" in order to avoid the naughty word "nationalism".

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Just to be clear, HH, I'mnot actually arguing with you. You're right in that the EU wants to do this, and all of your points mark a steady attempt to erode the nations and create this supernation of Europe. I'm just convinced that they will ultimately fail to do it. The more they press the more nationalistic people will become.

Homophobic Horse said...

Yes I know. That's why I called it a counterfeit. A sterile replacement for the real thing.

Conservative Swede said...

Excellently put by Florence King. This is precisely the point I have been making for a couple of years now. However I have referred to it as macro-Communism rather then Globalism, but it's the same general idea.

Here I explain the concept of macro-Communism, in an exchange with Auster:

"You are absolutely right about liberalism/neoconservatism being more extreme and more anti-reality than Communism. But there is an important similarity that I would like to add.

With liberalism/neoconservatism, this extreme kind of egalitarianism is being applied on the macro level, having as the goal to make every country of the world equal. But quite as the Communists promised to “build” a society where every man would be equally prosperous, and ended up with a society where every one turned out to be equally poor, so will the promise of liberals/neoconservatives to Westernize/democratize all countries of the world, end up just turning the Western countries into Third World countries.

This ideology is better understood if we label it macro-Communism. And the idea of “Invade their countries, while letting their people invade us,” makes perfect sense as a means to macro-Communist leveling of the world. Quite as Communism resulted in everyone being equally poor, macro-Communism will make all countries ending up as equally “Third World”.

PS. I’m glad to see you attacking the Nostra Aetate as much as you do. Don’t forget the Lumen Gentium §16 too (it’s part of the package and makes the statement about the salvation). And remember that the Church has acknowledged Muhammad as a messenger of the one Abrahamic God. You made some good points about Nostra Aetate in 2005 too, that I hadn’t read before."

Afonso Henriques said...

Archonix,

"The collective is the inversion of the nation. In an ideal nation, everyone has their natural role and each role is, to a greater or lesser degree, unique. A nation becomes in that sense a body, with its heart, hands, eyes, ears and so on and so forth, each a part of the greater whole, but each absolutely essential and absolutely individual. Assuming the nation is perfect, of course...
Nothing ever is."

Awesomely put!

I agree with you perfectly. However, isn't the system you described "colectivist" as well?

It seems it is a differnciated collectivism where everyone is an individual and part of the Nation simultaneously and above all.

This contrasts to a mechanical collectivism in which we are just servants of a State... non-individuals, non-beings, equal to all the other pieces of the machine...

What do you think? Is what you describe collectivism?

Dymphna said...

Traditionalism differs from Conservatism because Conservatism is more nihilistic. The aims of the Conservatives are to Conserve something. It does not really have to due with a Tradition. On the other hand, Traditionalism aims are to conserve something superior, Tradition.

Can someone please explain the above to me?

Conservatism looks to specific traditions, to precedent, in order to make extrapolations about a given act in the present and its possible outcomes.

How, precisely, is such observation "nihilistic"? What is it annhilating?

Thanks for any light commenters can shed on this puzzling remark...

Dymphna said...

BTW, I saw Oprah's name on a "One Hundred Greatest Americans" listing recently.

I saw her program once and found it pedestrian. It appeared to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. But she's in some poor soul's "100 Greatest"...obviously this person lives in a deep chasm where history hasn't penetrated yet.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Can someone please explain the above to me?"

I think it's not puzzling at all.

You see, one thing is Tradition. What I wanted to say is that Conservatism does not have to "look to" Tradition.

I'll elaborate. Take for instance France. Traditionally, France has been a monarchy. Nowadays, virtually all French "Conservatives" are an off spring of the ideas of the 1789 Revolution. Today it seems too distant. But, take for instance America. The NeoCONS apear to be the dominant "Conservatives". They don't care about "Tradition", do they?

You see, lately, when States suffer some Revolution, it apears that the Tradition that was hold untill that point is abandoned by "Conservatives".

You can always say that "oh, they are not really Conservative..." but then I think you would be being subjective. Who draws the line on who's conservative or not?

For instance, Portugal has been a Nation with a clearly defined Tradition. In the 1820s the Liberal Revolution triumphed and after the Civil War, nearly all the "Coservatives" had ceased to deffend part of the Tradition; in 1910, they ended the Monarchy and the Conservatives have at least since the 1920s abandoned another part of the Tradition... In 1974 they made the Carnation Revolution and today the auto-proclaimed centre-left parties are also auto-proclaimed Conservatives, just like the "extreme Conservatives" of a party that is called "Social Democracy of Centre", with an ideology close to the Spanish PP.
However, both Conservatives don't stand for half of the pre 1974 Traditions.

Conservatism does not have to mean Traditionalism.

Was I clear now?

"How, precisely, is such observation "nihilistic"?"

In my view, it is "nihilistic" as long as it is... "oportunistic". Conservatism can change and stand for whatever seems apropriate for the Conservatives to "conserve" weather it is Tradition or not:

I bet in 1960s Moscow there was also a "Conservative" faction within the Communist Party. I also bet it had nothing to due with Russian Tradition.

Was I able to make me understood?

Homophobic Horse said...

Russian folk art. Here's a good example of how tradition can be perverted and counterfeit for political ends.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Afonso:

I agree with you perfectly. However, isn't the system you described "colectivist" as well?

No. It's about the relationship between the parts and the whole. In a collective, each individual element is owned and controlled by the collective. You can take any element out of the collective and replace it without causing any problems. In a "body", like the ideal nation, each element, being essentially unique, can't be removed without damaging the body as a whole. Some are more important than others, and some are absolutely vital, but taking away any one part impoverishes the whole body. In other words the body-nation is owned by the individual elements, whereas the collective pseudo-nation owns the elements within it.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Homophobic Horse said...

Yes I know. That's why I called it a counterfeit. A sterile replacement for the real thing.


Sometimes I get so caught up in the rhetoric, I forget I'm talking with people who agree with me. :D

Czechmade said...

Afonso - a good one.

I approched an instituition in Prague which represents our 12 minorities.

One little office for our Russian minority is shared by two groups which can never merge together:

Czarist and bolshevik. Both are conservative if not dinosaurian and have little chances to appeal to normal Russians. Predictably they can spend their time fighting each other forgetting their very simplistic mission.

European conservatives will be experts in reviving old issues leading to more internal conflicts.

Apart of that they often offer a ready made product for consumption which does not appeal to would be conservatives and clearly contradicts Barons love of free examination, theorizing, discovery of new themes.

It would be better (in long term) to have a clearly non-leftist flexible platform inviting large number of people to study our fundaments and discuss every issue absorbing infinite number of possible solutions. The resulting conservativeness would be more natural, self-evident and not an issue of formal acceptance of a few rules with no further contribution requiered.

The image of a conservative as a dry chap with suit and tie, higher position in a company, cautious and reserved body language can attract only people of similar outlook. An easy target for "fun making" leftists.

The educational platform would be more difficult to hit and run, to target, since at every moment the adversary would exhibit his catastrophic ignorance and inability to define in a simplistic way our attitudes. Our influence could spread.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

On the subject of conservatism, Jon Ray puts it best here:

"So what is conservatism? Basically it is caution based on a perception that the world is an unpredictable, dangerous and often hostile place. So change is not rejected. It is in fact, as just said, sometimes desired. But it is approached in a skeptical, step by step, way to ensure that its effects are beneficial or at least benign. And an important criterion of what constitutes "benign" is how the change affects individual liberty. At a minimum, a conservative wants to ensure that change will not reduce his individual liberty."

Afonso Henriques said...

My point still stands. Conservatism and Traditionalism are not the same.

There are many kinds of Conservatism that don't take "Tradition" into account.

Now, if you want to debate what tradition is...

Czechmade said...

Keeping specific tradition can be by itself so engaging and time-taking that not much time or brain is left to think something conservative.

But conservatives can heavily rely on such a person...since he maintains certain milieu...which is neutre by nature and beneficient for all. Let it be a little festival in Holland for little kids.

Homophobic Horse said...

Tradition consists of the orientation of the souls of individuals and nations to the transcendent source of life i.e. God.