Sentences (#51)

Nationalism is far more of an Alt-Right than an NRx priority, but this was still an absolute jaw-dropper:

Globalists are motivated by humanitarian impulses. For them, the rights and well-being of the world’s people supersede the rights and well-being of the American populace. Indeed, as writer Robert D. Kaplan has observed, the liberal embrace of universal principles as foreign-policy guidance “leads to a pacifist strain … when it comes to defending our hard-core national interest, and an aggressive strain when it comes to defending human rights.” (Ellipsis in original, XS emphasis.)

Sacrifice only for matter of zero (or negative) self-interest, then. Looking back, it’s going to be hard for people to understand how this was ever politically saleable.

ADDED: They still think they can sell it, though.

May 5, 2016admin 15 Comments »


15 Responses to this entry

  • Ahote Says:

    It doesn’t have that much to do with nationalism, as much as with common sense. Didn’t nationalism, in fact, start with invasion of the world in order to spread “human rights”?


    smg Reply:

    I believe we were ‘making the world safe for democracy’.



    Posted on May 5th, 2016 at 3:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    lol since when did globalism get lumped in with humanitarianism? Critics of globalization argue it’s the opposite , that is exploits workers, displaces jobs, causes pollution and deforestation, lowers wages, etc


    RxFerret Reply:

    You’re conflating economic globalism (neoliberalism) with political globalism (citizens of the world). The first tends to be held onto by mainstream conservatives, while the latter is a libprog thing.


    John Reply:

    > You’re conflating economic globalism (neoliberalism) with political globalism (citizens of the world).

    They’re different departments of a single org. Humanitarianism is the marketing/PR division while economic globalism is finance/operations. That’s why conservative v. liberal fake opposition worked so well. The voting rubes get the illusion of choice and globalism always win.


    Posted on May 5th, 2016 at 7:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Uriel Alexis Says:

    meaning Deleuze was right about the Left being about “starting with the world … and then coming to the individual”


    4candles Reply:

    As the Left’s unthinking corruption of Deleuze, yes, but then it’s more accurately ‘starting with the individual … and then coming to the world” (Majority is nobody, minority is everybody. That is what it is to be from the left, that is to know that minority is everybody and that’s where occur the becomings phenomenas.)


    Posted on May 5th, 2016 at 7:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Seth Largo Says:

    Insofar as “nationalism” is closer to dynamic geographic governance than open borders globalism, then nationalism is, from my standpoint, a purely strategic ideological stance to take. Of course, nationalism is closer than globalism to patchwork governance the same way agnosticism is closer to Catholicism than atheism. Not saying much.


    Posted on May 5th, 2016 at 8:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    We still -barely- have nations to defend.

    We have no patchwork and if we did we’d have to defend from greater weakness.

    If you can’t take back your nation you’ll never hold any patch of ground to work.

    This is eternally true.


    Posted on May 6th, 2016 at 2:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Programmatic liberalism, installed through Disney-style feelings. An infantilized populace drove the others out of politics, now the insane speak for the rest.


    Posted on May 6th, 2016 at 3:12 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    Nationalism itself is changing. It used to have a strongly universalist character, looking at how German or Italian unification was of that type, how Bellamy style nationalism in the US meant largely pan-national socialism and so on. It had a democratic streak, as democracy as an ideology means the rulers and ruled are the same thus national sovereignty was linked to it, and it had a liberal streak in the form of equal rights and duties.

    Today it is ethnicism, not nationalism as such. The most striking example was the replacement of Yugoslavian nationalism with Serb, Croatian etc. ethnicisms. You can see these sub-national level ethnicism growing everywhere, Flemish, Scottish, North Italian, Catalonian etc. independence movements, although due to the New Migration Period there is also a quasi-universalistic white nationalism or pan-European resistance growing.

    In many ways this ethnicism is the *opposite* of nationalism. Back in the era of nationalism, flying an Austrian flag in South Tyrol or a Mexican flag in the US was very strongly frowned upon (although losing territory and native population in war is entirely different from immigration, but anyway), as *assimilation* was the No. 1 drive of nationalism. A nationalist wanted to assimilate the *them* into the *us* thus tended forbid minorities expressing their identity and tried to push the national identity on them one way or another.

    Today my impression is that ethnicists are almost *relieved* when they see foreign flags proudly flown, something along the lines of “yes, you guys are really not one of us, sort of thanks for actually admitting that”. Instead of a national community written large and assimilating all kinds of elements, they are happier with a smaller but purer community.

    You could say that they are Identitarians. I still haven’t read Markus Willinger’s book (is it an interesting one? did anyone around here read it?) but my impression is that today people with firm, strong ethnic identities are more suspicious and disliking of people whose ethnic identity is too vague, they are more respectful – even if in a respect-your-enemy way – if an ethnic minority firmly declares their differing identity.


    michael Reply:

    personally i dont trust people who claim no ethnicity they tend to be liberals which they also deny


    Posted on May 6th, 2016 at 7:34 am Reply | Quote
  • wu-wei Says:

    Seems salient to quote some classic Moldbug:

    “It should feel good to be infected. It should improve the host’s self-esteem, making them feel like a better, happier person. If they need to make sacrifices for their faith, if they suffer for it, fine. They are doing what’s right.

    At a certain level, euphoria graduates into full-on anesthesia. Anesthetized hosts can endure horrific suffering, or the moral pain of inflicting suffering on others, in the name of the faith. Did a wolf come into your house and eat your baby? You have been blessed. The wolf is the sacred animal of Rome. Your baby now dwells with the gods of the city. If the wolf comes again, pet him and speak to him sweetly, and at least give him a hamburger or something.

    Indiscriminate and total anesthesia constitutes ovinization. An ovinized individual never imagines responding to any kind of threat with any kind of defensive action, certainly not violence. To the ovinized, anything bad that happens is either (a) an accident, or (b) the result of some sin or other moral error. The concept of an “enemy” does not exist.


    Needless to say, euphoria, anesthesia and ovinization all greatly inhibit the ability of our hosts to react against their parasite and eject it – and its followers – from their lives. But sometimes this is not enough.


    Therefore, diversionary hysteria is another essential tactic in our parasite’s bag of tricks.


    One approach is to maintain a neutered false opposition. This gang of tolerated heretics, against whom our wise philosophers speak out at every opportunity, must be unable to establish a replicative cycle of their own.”



    Posted on May 6th, 2016 at 1:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    That NR article you’ve added is remarkably stupid. This multi-layered non sequitur is a masterpiece of the form:

    “[Hillary and Trump would] both seek to destroy their political opponents, and they’d probably both wield the levers of power to do so and to reward their friends. In other words, they’re both fundamentally corrupt.”

    …The rest of the article isn’t much better. The NR’s editorial board is so rabid in its opposition to Trump that it’s losing its grip on reality and sanity — to say nothing of decorum.


    Posted on May 6th, 2016 at 3:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Walter Oleg Says:

    On the alt-right and what it should do


    Posted on May 7th, 2016 at 4:09 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment