The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"The Virtue of Nationalism" by Yoram Hazony
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new book review in Taki’s Magazine:

Israel is one of the intellectually freer nations, which helps explain how an Israeli political philosopher, Yoram Hazony, has suddenly established himself as perhaps the most interesting thinker of the post–Merkel’s Mistake era with his spectacular new book, The Virtue of Nationalism. …

He has a quotable prose style that reminds me a little of G.K. Chesterton, the unbelievably quick-witted English newspaper philosopher. In a century of trying, nobody has come close to Chesterton’s mastery of paradox, but Hazony sometimes is in the running. For example:

The nationalist, we may say, knows two very large things, and maintains them both in his soul at the same time: He knows that there is great truth and beauty in his own national traditions and in his own loyalty to them; and yet he also knows that they are not the sum of human knowledge, for there is also truth and beauty to be found elsewhere, which his own nation does not possess…. I say that this tension is a very great virtue in any individual….

Read the whole thing there.

And here is Park MacDougald’s review of The Virtue of Nationalism in New York magazine.

 
• Tags: Books, Israel 
Hide 122 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Do as we do, not as we say.

    Here’s how it’s going to go: The Mein Kampf prank in the social science papers is apposite.

    First the Jews become white, then the whites become Jews. We are talking about billions of people not concerned with Western distinctions between Christian and Jew.

    • Agree: utu
  2. But the real reason that nationalism is less likely to lead to war these days than in the past is that military conquest just doesn’t pay anymore. Merely defeating barbarians in Afghanistan in a permanent way seems to be something the incredibly expensive American military can’t do. And then what would it gain us to conquer the Hindu Kush?

    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.

    It was practical to have someone working the fields at threat of corporal punishment but who would want a slave lawyer?

    This means that, once the various historical grievances are ironed out and ABSENT MASS IMMIGRATION**, the various countries will have no excuse but to Make Themselves Great (Again).

    *Qatar and Equatorial Guinea stand out as countries still worth taking but huge natural resources and tiny populations are not a thing of the future.

    **mass immigration establishes multiple nations within one country. As the state is the most important economic resource, control of it becomes a rational and crucial national desire (of the many nations in one country). Conflict is thus incentivised in much the same way that a huge oil field crossing various international boundaries incentivises it.

    Even worse, democracy obviously encourages such demographic competition – “winning” becomes a demographic question.

    This is the tragedy of the liberal democracies – they’re born with the seed of their own demise.

    Or maybe not, perhaps they just need to stop with the perennially unpopular and ahistorical mass immigration and they can continue being democratic and liberal and with a state full of largesse…

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    This is fantasy land.

    who would want a slave lawyer?

     

    No one. Which is why they would go out into the Katyn Forest along with the rest of the New Class. They suspect this, which is why they're so frantically globalist.

    War will never be obsolete. Mother Nature likes it too much.
    , @Polynikes
    The US is quite capable of defeating the "barbarians in Afghanistan." All wars are political. We neither have the stomach or desire for the type of total war it would take to make them submit.

    Instead we do just enough to satisfy the hawks and fool ourselves with the noble delusion that such a people desire, or are capable of, a western style democracy. What a colossal waste.
    , @Saxon
    People were the most valuable resource when the Mongolians and others were extracting resources from them as well which is why the Khan didn't slaughter ALL of them, but not all people produce more than they consume.

    There are still contexts in which war and conquest make sense, but in some of those cases the objective for victory would just be the complete annihilation of those living in a territory and repopulating it with yours. If you wanted to "win" in Afghanistan for example, that would be the only way for a realistic victory but since the occupation is all about certain financial interests rather than a legitimate military goal you can see why no one talks about the actual conditions for victory. The people there aren't terribly useful to make vassals and extract some kind of resources from, as would have happened in some cases in the past.

    In any case this idea that war is obsolete is dumb. You can think of a lot of contexts in which it could happen. One example; Some country overpopulates and eyes others' territory to expand into.

    Also, "liberal democracy" of today is certainly not what the US founding fathers and the thinkers in England and other places thought of. They would have thought you insane if you had suggested multiracialism. The first US immigration policy was based on an understanding that this was for specific people. This revisionist nonsesnse of the last 50 years is the 100+ year work of a hostile Jewish elite that began with subversion like Boasian anthropology and worked from there. The entire set of ideas has been warped beyond recognition with a whole set of gibberish intended to bend it to serve the interests of those doing the distorting.

    I think democracy is a very bad system in general due to the inefficiencies, how easy it is to manipulate as well as the faulty assumptions it rests on, but you would probably need a homogeneous population in control of all of the important institutions (banks/money, media most importantly) to even give it a real try.

    , @Anonymous

    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.
     
    There are national groups around the world today whose national aspirations for self-determination would require some form or degree of conquest. Just as Israel's did. Moreover, unless you believe in a static state of affairs enforced by a higher, external authority, which would violate the principle of nationalism in the first place, it's simply not true that conquest doesn't make sense.
    , @L Woods
    White collar slaves were famously significant in ancient Roman society.
    , @Samuel Skinner

    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.
     
    You are assuming people care about absolute measures. No, they care about relative ones- their social position relative to others.

    Also, humans require food to live. Any situation with a positive growth rate will eventually lead to conflict to acquire more land in order to grow that food.
    , @map
    This is just rehashed Norman Angellism.
  3. Anon[724] • Disclaimer says:

    But the real reason that nationalism is less likely to lead to war these days than in the past is that military conquest just doesn’t pay anymore… Similarly, most nations these days don’t see much profit in occupying anybody.

    Invasions may not be profitable to nations as a whole but are lucrative to sectors that have elite connections. MIC or military-industrial-complex. Only elite power matters in most cases.

    Also, migration-invasions are very profitable to the hordes. Blacks and browns gain from invading the West. In cases of migration-invasions, it is less about national policy than global opportunity for the marauders. Even if African nations told their people to stay home, many will bolt for the West for the gibs and the girls. This invasion is met with ‘inclusion’ by the clueless.

    • Agree: F0337, Rosie
    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
    Also: if, like Israel, you can get the armies of other nations to do the invading for you, then it's all gravy.
    , @bomag

    This invasion is met with ‘inclusion’ by the clueless.
     
    And it's not even inclusion. By practice and policy, the newcomers are encouraged to set up little nations of their own. Thus central California is another Mexico; Somalia has an enclave in Minnesota, from which, with great fanfare, a first Somali policeman is recruited; etc.
  4. Anon[724] • Disclaimer says:

    Nationalism can’t succeed without natalism. This is where Israel has succeeded and Japan has failed. Feminism is utter poison.

    Also, nationalism is the only guarantee of ethno-socialism. Without nationalism, the elites will not see and treat fellow ethnic as Our People.

    Diversity destroys socialism. Even when Diversity votes for socialism, as in Venezuela and Brazil, the system fails due to lack of common trust and interest.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @Trevor H.
    Japan hasn't failed. It's kept out the flood of third world immigrants without engaging in the abject hypocrisy which is the stock in trade of Israel and her partisans.

    Meanwhile Japan retains its notably high standard of living, remains at peace with all its neighbors, and is known worldwide for its polite and civil populace. Just to name a few more distinctions.

    Finally, with over 125 million people and several very large, crowded cities Japan is in no danger of disappearing. Endless, out of control growth is characteristic of cancers, not healthy societies.

    , @Paleo Liberal
    I’m not so sure feminism is the main cause is the low birth rate in Japan.

    There are other reasons people aren’t having many kids. High real estate prices and long working hours to name two. Densely populated First World nations have always had this problem. No big city in the history of civilization has had a birth rate above the replacement rate. They have depended on people migrating from the countryside. Japan doesn’t have a lot of young families in the countryside these days.

    Nor is it so clear that Japan NEEDS more people. Maybe they would be happy with a smaller, and mostly older, population.
    , @Anon
    Birth and death will alternately dominate population cycles in any culturally healthy system that has finite resources.

    Island nations tend to have a clearer perspective on just how finite their resources are.

    It follows that Japan hasn't failed.

    It is merely in a part of its population cycle that the Western ((bankers)) and their sociopolitical allies have refused to embrace for western populations because:

    1. It isn't their population that they are destroying with mass immigration and

    2. why should they endure a shrinking population with a shrinking economy and a concomitant yet paradoxical rise in living standards for the poor?

    Again, it isn't their population at stake. Their Talmud tells them to treat us as a slave population, which is similar to an animal population.

    If your animal's job was to pull a minimum amount of weight around a field, would you suffer its population decline just to assure genetic purity and happiness for the animal? Of course not. You'd breed that bitch out and lower the work standards if necessary. Numbers overcome quality for such work.

    Japan will be just fine. Its population will again begin to increase when it has shrunk enough.

    , @Massimo Heitor

    Diversity destroys socialism.
     
    This is an argument for (ethnic/racial/identity) diversity. It is a primary argument of the libertarian open border movement.

    Even when Diversity votes for socialism, as in Venezuela and Brazil, the system fails due to lack of common trust and interest.
     
    Destroying socialism and delivering anarcho-capitalist utopia is great.

    Destroying socialism and delivering a failed state that leaves its population miserable is terrible.
  5. Yoram Hazony was an aide to Netanyahu in the early 1990s. I don’t know that they’ve had any contact in more recent times, but it’s certainly interesting that they appear to have undergone a parallel intellectual evolution.

    It mus be said that these things aren’t really part of the public debate in Israel. Most intellectuals in Israel are on the left and have an interest in portraying “Netanyahuism” as nothing but unprincipled opportunism.

    The profound anti-intellectualism of the Israeli political debate is a weakness but also a strength (for example, it has kept our politics immune to silly dogmas such as libertarianism).

    • Replies: @Jimi Shmendrix
    Seems a bit silly to label all Libertarianism as silly. Feiglin's Zehut party has a Libertarian bent (not to mention Nationalistic) which aims to rid us of some of the needless and rampant regulation and taxation which stifles so much of our economy. They've got my vote.
    , @Jimi Shmendrix
    Perhaps instead of a snarky LOL response, you could elaborate on what it is you find laughable.
  6. Well, Hazony is one of those kooky Orthodox Jews; weirdos who believe Judaism has a lot to do with being Jewish. Unlike many Reform Jews, who consider being Jewish a way to avoid getting looted by their “natural allies” when times go bad.

  7. Great review; succeeded in making me want to read the book.

    It’s good to see a G K Chesterton shout-out as well. I deeply respect his insights, which frequently cross into the profound, but he was so relentlessly verbally nimble and inventive that I find his books almost physically tiring to read. Reading Chesterton feels like trying to carry on a conversation over afternoon tea with someone who’s planted a string of Gandalf-grade pyrotechnics in your teacup.

    Anyway, comparing any author to Chesterton is high praise indeed.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2, Desiderius
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    "Gandalf-grade pyrotechnics in your tea-cup" made laugh - and reminded me of the White Rabbit 'n' stuff - the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers...
  8. For God’s sake, even our best defenses of nationalism are written by Jews. *throws hands up in the air*

    • Replies: @Pheasant
    Whatever would we do without the Jews. We need them to live whilst they im sure would get along just fine without us.

    Of course holding up a state that has cost more money to America than every other nation over the last fifty years combined and which is currently subsidised by every American taxpayer to the tune of $8000 (to say nothing of the extensive Jewish diaspora charity) is far from the best example of a sucessful autonomous nationalism but eh whaddaya gonna do.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Nah, just around here.

    There are plenty of stupid goys who make the same argument just as well. They just aren't as welcome in these parts.

    Civic Nationalists just need a Jewish path to Ethnic Nationalism. It makes them feel cleaner.

    But make no mistake, Civic Nationalism - sorry, but the kind that Steve advocates - is a dead-end. It won't worked. I have no idea what this country will be like in 50 or 100 years, but it won't be some multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural kumbaya of various tribes rallying around the Constitutional and civic nationalism.

    I think the world of Steve and believe that he's a national (my nation) treasure. God knows that he runs rings around me intellectually, but he's wrong about Civic Nationalism. Wrong in the way that only someone what wants to believe is wrong.

    I don't care how much propaganda is shoved down the throat of people via TV, movies, university and the internet. Ethnic nationalism will triumph over civic nationalism eventually the same way that I can only hold a chair over my head for so long. It's nature.
  9. “for there is also truth and beauty to be found elsewhere, which his own nation does not possess”

    But this is subjective, as well as aesthetic, and most people do not look elsewhere to find them outside of their own familiar world. Why does one undertake this subjective journey? To discover a path to true enlightenment? Inner well being? Why is the individual undertaking his personal journey, and what does he hope to find (or discover) in the world that his own nation does not possess?

    What IS Truth?

    Truth and beauty, via acquiring of knowledge, used to exist in one very specific place in his own nation: the local library. Now, one can find knowledge at the touch of a key stroke thru the World Wide Web without leaving one’s own personal space.

  10. @Anon
    But the real reason that nationalism is less likely to lead to war these days than in the past is that military conquest just doesn’t pay anymore... Similarly, most nations these days don’t see much profit in occupying anybody.

    Invasions may not be profitable to nations as a whole but are lucrative to sectors that have elite connections. MIC or military-industrial-complex. Only elite power matters in most cases.

    Also, migration-invasions are very profitable to the hordes. Blacks and browns gain from invading the West. In cases of migration-invasions, it is less about national policy than global opportunity for the marauders. Even if African nations told their people to stay home, many will bolt for the West for the gibs and the girls. This invasion is met with 'inclusion' by the clueless.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMdC45S79uQ

    Also: if, like Israel, you can get the armies of other nations to do the invading for you, then it’s all gravy.

  11. Do you know how crazy you guys are?

    No wonder you guys do not have romance and white forks pr fervNen of a Color

  12. @Tyrion 2

    But the real reason that nationalism is less likely to lead to war these days than in the past is that military conquest just doesn’t pay anymore. Merely defeating barbarians in Afghanistan in a permanent way seems to be something the incredibly expensive American military can’t do. And then what would it gain us to conquer the Hindu Kush?
     
    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.

    It was practical to have someone working the fields at threat of corporal punishment but who would want a slave lawyer?

    This means that, once the various historical grievances are ironed out and ABSENT MASS IMMIGRATION**, the various countries will have no excuse but to Make Themselves Great (Again).

    *Qatar and Equatorial Guinea stand out as countries still worth taking but huge natural resources and tiny populations are not a thing of the future.

    **mass immigration establishes multiple nations within one country. As the state is the most important economic resource, control of it becomes a rational and crucial national desire (of the many nations in one country). Conflict is thus incentivised in much the same way that a huge oil field crossing various international boundaries incentivises it.

    Even worse, democracy obviously encourages such demographic competition - "winning" becomes a demographic question.

    This is the tragedy of the liberal democracies - they're born with the seed of their own demise.

    Or maybe not, perhaps they just need to stop with the perennially unpopular and ahistorical mass immigration and they can continue being democratic and liberal and with a state full of largesse...

    This is fantasy land.

    who would want a slave lawyer?

    No one. Which is why they would go out into the Katyn Forest along with the rest of the New Class. They suspect this, which is why they’re so frantically globalist.

    War will never be obsolete. Mother Nature likes it too much.

    • Replies: @utu
    In Katyn Forest it was the New Class that killed the Old Class. But you right, the New Class knows a lot about killing.
    , @Tyrion 2

    This is fantasy land
     
    Many people have said stuff like this before and many times they have been wrong. Perhaps this time it will be different? That would be a wonderful thing.

    Regardless, people have also said a lot of that type of stuff because it works - otherwise you'd have never heard of them!
  13. Here’s a critique based more on Hazony’s methods than aims:
    https://www.liberalcurrents.com/a-nationalism-untethered-to-history/

  14. @The Last Real Calvinist
    Great review; succeeded in making me want to read the book.

    It's good to see a G K Chesterton shout-out as well. I deeply respect his insights, which frequently cross into the profound, but he was so relentlessly verbally nimble and inventive that I find his books almost physically tiring to read. Reading Chesterton feels like trying to carry on a conversation over afternoon tea with someone who's planted a string of Gandalf-grade pyrotechnics in your teacup.

    Anyway, comparing any author to Chesterton is high praise indeed.

    “Gandalf-grade pyrotechnics in your tea-cup” made laugh – and reminded me of the White Rabbit ‘n’ stuff – the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers…

  15. Why do people have such a hard time holding those two ideas in their heads simultaneously?

    … there is great truth and beauty in [one’s] own national traditions and in [one’s] own loyalty to them; and … that they are not the sum of human knowledge, for there is also truth and beauty to be found elsewhere, which [one’s] own nation does not possess…

    The analogy of one’s body is valid: different organs interacting with each other while maintaining their individual integrities.

    A complex system is a collection of subsystems, each containing its own, distinct complexities.

    The human world has long been a complex system arranged on the surface of a sphere. The velocity of interaction has changed, from foot to horse to trains and automobiles to jets.

    International trade has evolved from wooden sailing ships that took weeks to diesel powered cargo monsters of steel that power their way between continents in days.

    Migration now can happen through the air at 600 mph. Communication has gone from paper letters to data bits that move at the speed of light.

    But the human world has always been a system of subsystems.

    The subsystems have long interacted together, but they can’t function properly if their integrity is destroyed.

  16. Hazony’s a more respectable/palatable Moldbug.

  17. Great review, thanks.

    A Jew who defends the nation-state? – So Yoram Hazony walks in the traces of Isaiah Berlin, a Jew, who had been deeply disillusioned about Marx’ kind of imperialism modeled by Lenin and Stalin. As a true and heartfelt (=desillusioned) defender of the nation-state, Isaiah Berlin therefor was just not sexy in times, when the Western World seemed to become One World – WE ARE THE PEOPLE (add: The Universal people) – WE ARE THE POWER – or: Imagine there’s no countries/ It isn’t hard too, nothing to kill and die for/ and no religion too.

    Minor quibble: Kant is one of the official patron saints of the EU and the Kantian Schiller’s Ode to Joy is even the European hymn now. Alright on the surface.

    Then the going in your essay gets a little bit less easy. You quote Hazony:

    “In Western history, at least, imperialism has tended to be associated with a rationalist theory of knowledge.

    And this kind of critique exists indeed, but it comes from the Frankfurter School writers, who just were undecided whether (thanks Reg Caesar!) Kant was good or bad, since they stated indeed, that there is an inner (=systemic or ontological) connection between rationality and imperialism.

    That’s why they (especially the leader of this pack, the to some intimidatingly bright half-Jew Theodor W. Adorno) were modern anti-modernists: They stated, that there’d be a direct link from rationality and reason to imperialism and fascism and – – – NAZISM. It looks as if Hazony would address this Dialectic of Enlightenment of the classic Horkheimer/Adorno Frankfurt School with this sentence you quoted:

    “In Western history, at least, imperialism has tended to be associated with a rationalist theory of knowledge.”

    Ok – and insofar, as the Frankfurters formed the Kant-reception in postwar Europe at least, your assumption about Kant as being a transnationalist ist right.

    But the idea, that this sentence would contradict Kant is not right, as soon as you get rid of the (fundamental) Frankfurt critique of the enlightenment and look just at what Kant held dear and thought was right.

    The best way to get an idea of this Kant is to read What is Enlightenment a n d “Eternal Peace”. Because if you read these two (not too long, and quite accessible essays) together, it soon gets clear, that Kant’s ideas about the Nation State are sound and clear and that his idea of a universal world peace is a) definitely an utopia **** and b) rests on functioning nation-states all over the world, who – all of them, act rightfully and honestly – because then, and only then would a universalization of moral and juridical norms etc. be worthwhile to be considered. Then, and only thenIMAGINE that…: Could something like Eternal Peace become real.

    So – the official Kant of the European Union is different a) from the Kant of the classic Frankfurt School and b) from the Kant as he can be found in his books – and c) from the Kant in your essay. I’m not so sure about Hazony’s Kant. I might find out, while reading his book. Again: Thanks for making me quite interested in it!

    • Replies: @D. K.
    My Kant is the one who ate only one meal per day.
    , @Desiderius
    See Berlin’s:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Critics_of_the_Enlightenment

    I’m partial to Vico but Herder might be the one most relevant to this discussion.
  18. @Desiderius
    This is fantasy land.

    who would want a slave lawyer?

     

    No one. Which is why they would go out into the Katyn Forest along with the rest of the New Class. They suspect this, which is why they're so frantically globalist.

    War will never be obsolete. Mother Nature likes it too much.

    In Katyn Forest it was the New Class that killed the Old Class. But you right, the New Class knows a lot about killing.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    In Katyn Forest it was the New Class that killed the Old Class. But you right, the New Class knows a lot about killing.

     

    The Old Class tried to off Hitler a number of times. Probably the majority of the attempts on his life.

    Note it wasn't the top of the Old Class, but junior members in national service. Literally.
  19. @Anon
    But the real reason that nationalism is less likely to lead to war these days than in the past is that military conquest just doesn’t pay anymore... Similarly, most nations these days don’t see much profit in occupying anybody.

    Invasions may not be profitable to nations as a whole but are lucrative to sectors that have elite connections. MIC or military-industrial-complex. Only elite power matters in most cases.

    Also, migration-invasions are very profitable to the hordes. Blacks and browns gain from invading the West. In cases of migration-invasions, it is less about national policy than global opportunity for the marauders. Even if African nations told their people to stay home, many will bolt for the West for the gibs and the girls. This invasion is met with 'inclusion' by the clueless.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMdC45S79uQ

    This invasion is met with ‘inclusion’ by the clueless.

    And it’s not even inclusion. By practice and policy, the newcomers are encouraged to set up little nations of their own. Thus central California is another Mexico; Somalia has an enclave in Minnesota, from which, with great fanfare, a first Somali policeman is recruited; etc.

    • Replies: @Anon
    A kind of colonation.
  20. When did Taki’s Mag get deplatformed from Disqus?

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    I've heard that they deplatformed themselves.
    But whatever - Disqus is a problem - they censored numerous posts of mine on German blogs, not least ones refering to unz.om or isteve or the Intellectual Dark Web. I did complain, but they gave no answer.
    , @Song For the Deaf
    They didn’t. Taki’s decided to stop allowing comments because their commenters were too deplorable.
  21. Western democracies are rapidly becoming one big university campus.

    Money quote right there. This is why academia needs regular purges or it starts accumulating cat ladies and infecting the rest of society.

  22. I’ve never been much of a fan of philosophical arguments that can’t be reduced to a clear syllogism. I mean that quote is just a prolix way of saying “nationalists find value in their own culture as well as that of outsiders”. True but so what? The same is true of communists, globalists, liberals and others. It’s not a very profound conclusion.

    Long words and flowery speech are good until you have to read 5 pages to learn what could have been said in a single paragraph. Avid readers will know what I mean. It’s entertaining until it’s not.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    That is not true of globalists.
  23. The Dutch formed an empire, the British rather famously had one, and the Israelites were repeatedly subjected to various empires. Perhaps empire is inevitable, and the relevant question isn’t whether to have one but rather of what type. Will it be good like the Roman Empire or Christendom, or will it be bad like what we have now?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Will it be good like the Roman Empire or Christendom, or will it be bad like what we have now?
     
    The Roman Empire was the sad slow death of the Roman Republic.
  24. Patriotism is perhaps better than nationalism as a political slogan.

    Some big-brained Jew wrote a book saying the same thing, but for different reasons than the ones I would use, but, so be it.

    I have been using the PATRIOTISM vs GLOBALIZATION moniker for some time now, at least since 2013.

    Tweet from 2014:

  25. @Anon
    Nationalism can't succeed without natalism. This is where Israel has succeeded and Japan has failed. Feminism is utter poison.

    Also, nationalism is the only guarantee of ethno-socialism. Without nationalism, the elites will not see and treat fellow ethnic as Our People.

    Diversity destroys socialism. Even when Diversity votes for socialism, as in Venezuela and Brazil, the system fails due to lack of common trust and interest.

    Japan hasn’t failed. It’s kept out the flood of third world immigrants without engaging in the abject hypocrisy which is the stock in trade of Israel and her partisans.

    Meanwhile Japan retains its notably high standard of living, remains at peace with all its neighbors, and is known worldwide for its polite and civil populace. Just to name a few more distinctions.

    Finally, with over 125 million people and several very large, crowded cities Japan is in no danger of disappearing. Endless, out of control growth is characteristic of cancers, not healthy societies.

    • Agree: Malcolm X-Lax
  26. Merely defeating barbarians in Afghanistan in a permanent way seems to be something the incredibly expensive American military can’t do. And then what would it gain us to conquer the Hindu Kush?

    If American women were still actually having children I’m sure there is something we could do with an extra state roughly the size of Texas; but conquest in an era of 2.0 child/woman birthrates (and that number itself distorted by immigrant birthrates) makes pretty much zero sense. And conquest of a landlocked craphole like Afghanistan, which at its *best* looks like some of the more arid regions of the American Southwest, makes less than zero sense. And of course all that assumes massive ethnic cleansing of the natives, who are even more numerous than Texans. No one really wants to do that.

    Honestly, probably the best thing for Afghanistan would be for it to be annexed or conquered by Pakistan or Iran, but it’s unlikely the conquerors would treat them well, and there doesn’t seem to be much in it for them, either.

  27. OT and a re-run but since she’s back in the news denouncing Trump and his supporters:

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    Hillary back in the news. She's savoring being aggrandized by being mentioned by Judge Kavanaugh in his address to the Judicial Committee (apparently KAVANAUGH hates and fears Hillary CLINTON):

    https://youtu.be/k27sXcErJsI
  28. Meh. Chesterton wrote in his mother tongue. That’s easier.

  29. @Coemgen
    OT and a re-run but since she's back in the news denouncing Trump and his supporters:

    https://youtu.be/26-VzfBZg1w

    Hillary back in the news. She’s savoring being aggrandized by being mentioned by Judge Kavanaugh in his address to the Judicial Committee (apparently KAVANAUGH hates and fears Hillary CLINTON):

  30. @Tyrion 2

    But the real reason that nationalism is less likely to lead to war these days than in the past is that military conquest just doesn’t pay anymore. Merely defeating barbarians in Afghanistan in a permanent way seems to be something the incredibly expensive American military can’t do. And then what would it gain us to conquer the Hindu Kush?
     
    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.

    It was practical to have someone working the fields at threat of corporal punishment but who would want a slave lawyer?

    This means that, once the various historical grievances are ironed out and ABSENT MASS IMMIGRATION**, the various countries will have no excuse but to Make Themselves Great (Again).

    *Qatar and Equatorial Guinea stand out as countries still worth taking but huge natural resources and tiny populations are not a thing of the future.

    **mass immigration establishes multiple nations within one country. As the state is the most important economic resource, control of it becomes a rational and crucial national desire (of the many nations in one country). Conflict is thus incentivised in much the same way that a huge oil field crossing various international boundaries incentivises it.

    Even worse, democracy obviously encourages such demographic competition - "winning" becomes a demographic question.

    This is the tragedy of the liberal democracies - they're born with the seed of their own demise.

    Or maybe not, perhaps they just need to stop with the perennially unpopular and ahistorical mass immigration and they can continue being democratic and liberal and with a state full of largesse...

    The US is quite capable of defeating the “barbarians in Afghanistan.” All wars are political. We neither have the stomach or desire for the type of total war it would take to make them submit.

    Instead we do just enough to satisfy the hawks and fool ourselves with the noble delusion that such a people desire, or are capable of, a western style democracy. What a colossal waste.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    We neither have the stomach or desire for the type of total war it would take to make them submit.
     
    The worst possible outcome in such a war would be that we would win.
  31. Trump should incorporate Hazony into his speeches – by name. Let the NY Times readership have their heads explode.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    That would be fun. It goes right to his question: Does Western Civilization have the will to survive? - the whole "sovereign states" idea already made heads explode. We need more head explosions, currently. Sarah just threw a grenade! Warrior...proud of her.
  32. @Anon
    Nationalism can't succeed without natalism. This is where Israel has succeeded and Japan has failed. Feminism is utter poison.

    Also, nationalism is the only guarantee of ethno-socialism. Without nationalism, the elites will not see and treat fellow ethnic as Our People.

    Diversity destroys socialism. Even when Diversity votes for socialism, as in Venezuela and Brazil, the system fails due to lack of common trust and interest.

    I’m not so sure feminism is the main cause is the low birth rate in Japan.

    There are other reasons people aren’t having many kids. High real estate prices and long working hours to name two. Densely populated First World nations have always had this problem. No big city in the history of civilization has had a birth rate above the replacement rate. They have depended on people migrating from the countryside. Japan doesn’t have a lot of young families in the countryside these days.

    Nor is it so clear that Japan NEEDS more people. Maybe they would be happy with a smaller, and mostly older, population.

    • Agree: Coemgen
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    I should add that SOME large cities have had birth rates above the replacement rate for limited periods of time, but it hasn’t lasted long. Will Salt Lake City break the mold?
    , @Anon
    Japanese women are clubbing whores. Japanese parents raised them spoiled and their main interest is having fun.

    The Japanese countryside has no women because they moved to cities to be clubbing whores.
    , @Samuel Skinner

    I’m not so sure feminism is the main cause is the low birth rate in Japan.
     
    Fertility did not drop during world war 2- it only started declining when women were emancipated during the occupation and followed relentlessly since.
    , @Ibound1
    Israel is a densely populated (pretty much) First World nation. And they have a birth rate far above replacement. Somehow they managed it. Japan does not need more people, and in that I agree with you completely. Japan will be far more pleasant with less people as long as those people are Japanese - which they will be.
  33. Nice review, Steve, but the rule for German nouns like Zeitgeist is: either italicize (this is a foreign word!) and keep the initial capital (required for nouns in German), or drop both italics and capital (this word is familiar enough we can treat it as English).

    Is this the nit-pickiest comment of the month or what?

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    The month is still young.

    Maybe someone can say the moon revolves around the earth and you can correct them by pointing out both bodies revolve around the center of mass. I did that in a comment once so I have you beat for nit picking.
    , @Dieter Kief
    I'm glad to see, that you are supportive of the way I wrote just a few hours ago in the comment section of the Donkey-post above: "paper about our zeitgeist".

    I had to look it up though since I was just writing along without much thinking and all, back then: I mean, I had forgotten, whether (thanks, Reg) I was really right; so in any case, it was occasionally or accidentally even, that I wrote how I wrote, as I don't hesitate here to admit. I think I don't have to - hesitate, that is, or have I? - No -not really, I really don't have to hesitate here, right?

    ("My night is as big as my errors - can you help me out?" - Hans Magnus Enzensberger, in his Summer Poem from 1964.
    , @Chrisnonymous

    the rule for German nouns like Zeitgeist is
     
    I'm so confused. What is the rule for German nouns unlike Zeitgeist?
    , @Anonymous
    Stop being a little bitch, Derb. Sailer doesn’t give a fuck about your nitpicking shit. Sailer is like Trump. Derb like Mitt Romney. If you wanna stay in our country then you’d better start respecting the way we roll, limey itchbay.
  34. @Paleo Liberal
    I’m not so sure feminism is the main cause is the low birth rate in Japan.

    There are other reasons people aren’t having many kids. High real estate prices and long working hours to name two. Densely populated First World nations have always had this problem. No big city in the history of civilization has had a birth rate above the replacement rate. They have depended on people migrating from the countryside. Japan doesn’t have a lot of young families in the countryside these days.

    Nor is it so clear that Japan NEEDS more people. Maybe they would be happy with a smaller, and mostly older, population.

    I should add that SOME large cities have had birth rates above the replacement rate for limited periods of time, but it hasn’t lasted long. Will Salt Lake City break the mold?

    • Replies: @Saxon
    Birth rates are probably largely down to two things which in any case are connected to economics. Peter Hitchens commented correctly so that in Britain, only the very rich and very poor can afford to have children. I'd add that those who are the preferred client groups of the state's wealth redistribution policies, too, which is why you see all of these 3rd world migrants put up in one million pound homes in cities like London and given enough resources to pop out a half dozen or more children.

    Forcing women into the workplace because a man's single income won't cut it, and also all of this economic globalism of outsourcing/offshoring/insourcing scab labour (so that a small number can get opulently rich) really just means that aside from the super rich and those who the state gives to, no one can really afford to have families anymore. If you're young now, the prospects of gainful employment are dismal and the costs of living are obscene compared to even just your parents day and age.

    Someone's getting rich from these policies, of course, but it's not you. The nation and its actual people suffer terribly under these policies, but the rootless internationalists can pocket enormous profits and it's not like they care if the host country goes belly up.
    , @Desiderius
    SLC or Tel Aviv.

    Looks like it’s pro-choice or pro-Chosen.

    Choose wisely.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I should add that SOME large cities have had birth rates above the replacement rate for limited periods of time, but it hasn’t lasted long.

     

    My mother was one of seven in Queens, her mother was one of seven in Brooklyn, and her mother was one of at least three in lower Manhattan.

    The birth rate fell off dramatically in roomier Upstate.
  35. @John Derbyshire
    Nice review, Steve, but the rule for German nouns like Zeitgeist is: either italicize (this is a foreign word!) and keep the initial capital (required for nouns in German), or drop both italics and capital (this word is familiar enough we can treat it as English).

    Is this the nit-pickiest comment of the month or what?

    The month is still young.

    Maybe someone can say the moon revolves around the earth and you can correct them by pointing out both bodies revolve around the center of mass. I did that in a comment once so I have you beat for nit picking.

    • Replies: @utu
    "Both bodies [would] revolve around the center of mass" if there was no Sun. You used two body solution for the three body problem. Does it beat your nit picking?
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Jeff Flake is something that revolves around Uranus.
    , @Desiderius
    I’ve (re-)learned something interesting from both so the typical pedant has you both beat on a regular basis.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    The moon actually revolves around the Sun.

    It is a co-planet with Earth. At no point does the Moon's orbit become concave. It is always falling toward/around the sun in a convex curve, exchanging positions with Earth in relation to the shared center of mass. The Moon is a planet.

    How's that for pedantry? Whether or not I win, I love the loanword zeitgeist.
  36. @Tyrion 2

    But the real reason that nationalism is less likely to lead to war these days than in the past is that military conquest just doesn’t pay anymore. Merely defeating barbarians in Afghanistan in a permanent way seems to be something the incredibly expensive American military can’t do. And then what would it gain us to conquer the Hindu Kush?
     
    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.

    It was practical to have someone working the fields at threat of corporal punishment but who would want a slave lawyer?

    This means that, once the various historical grievances are ironed out and ABSENT MASS IMMIGRATION**, the various countries will have no excuse but to Make Themselves Great (Again).

    *Qatar and Equatorial Guinea stand out as countries still worth taking but huge natural resources and tiny populations are not a thing of the future.

    **mass immigration establishes multiple nations within one country. As the state is the most important economic resource, control of it becomes a rational and crucial national desire (of the many nations in one country). Conflict is thus incentivised in much the same way that a huge oil field crossing various international boundaries incentivises it.

    Even worse, democracy obviously encourages such demographic competition - "winning" becomes a demographic question.

    This is the tragedy of the liberal democracies - they're born with the seed of their own demise.

    Or maybe not, perhaps they just need to stop with the perennially unpopular and ahistorical mass immigration and they can continue being democratic and liberal and with a state full of largesse...

    People were the most valuable resource when the Mongolians and others were extracting resources from them as well which is why the Khan didn’t slaughter ALL of them, but not all people produce more than they consume.

    There are still contexts in which war and conquest make sense, but in some of those cases the objective for victory would just be the complete annihilation of those living in a territory and repopulating it with yours. If you wanted to “win” in Afghanistan for example, that would be the only way for a realistic victory but since the occupation is all about certain financial interests rather than a legitimate military goal you can see why no one talks about the actual conditions for victory. The people there aren’t terribly useful to make vassals and extract some kind of resources from, as would have happened in some cases in the past.

    In any case this idea that war is obsolete is dumb. You can think of a lot of contexts in which it could happen. One example; Some country overpopulates and eyes others’ territory to expand into.

    Also, “liberal democracy” of today is certainly not what the US founding fathers and the thinkers in England and other places thought of. They would have thought you insane if you had suggested multiracialism. The first US immigration policy was based on an understanding that this was for specific people. This revisionist nonsesnse of the last 50 years is the 100+ year work of a hostile Jewish elite that began with subversion like Boasian anthropology and worked from there. The entire set of ideas has been warped beyond recognition with a whole set of gibberish intended to bend it to serve the interests of those doing the distorting.

    I think democracy is a very bad system in general due to the inefficiencies, how easy it is to manipulate as well as the faulty assumptions it rests on, but you would probably need a homogeneous population in control of all of the important institutions (banks/money, media most importantly) to even give it a real try.

    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner

    They would have thought you insane if you had suggested multiracialism
     
    They had plenty of black slaves. They would have thought it insane to give black people power, but the founders also thought it was insane to give poor white people power. They were right in both cases, but it took even less time for the latter to be overturned.

    I think democracy is a very bad system in general due to the inefficiencies, how easy it is to manipulate as well as the faulty assumptions it rests on, but you would probably need a homogeneous population in control of all of the important institutions (banks/money, media most importantly) to even give it a real try.
     
    South Korea fits those criteria. It will also soon not exist because its birth rate is so low.
    , @Corvinus
    "Also, “liberal democracy” of today is certainly not what the US founding fathers and the thinkers in England and other places thought of."

    What our Founding Fathers put forth was enabling future generations to use our governmental principles in their own way, how they see fit, by way of the people.

    "They would have thought you insane if you had suggested multiracialism."

    Of course, because the thought process of the time period was "white people rule". But our nation was founded by diverse groups who just happened to be European.

    "The first US immigration policy was based on an understanding that this was for specific people."

    Not in perpetuity. At the time, that specific people were Europeans. But that decision was not cast in stone, since future generations were granted liberty, by way of Congress, to make changes reflected of the wishes of the people.

    "I think democracy is a very bad system in general due to the inefficiencies..."

    It's not the system of government, but the people running that system, that accounts for the inefficiencies and flaws, for the efficiency and successes. But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts that American citizens regardless of their race or ethnic background, whether they are able to trace their ancestors directly to the 1600's or the early 1900's, are able to comprehend.
  37. @Paleo Liberal
    I should add that SOME large cities have had birth rates above the replacement rate for limited periods of time, but it hasn’t lasted long. Will Salt Lake City break the mold?

    Birth rates are probably largely down to two things which in any case are connected to economics. Peter Hitchens commented correctly so that in Britain, only the very rich and very poor can afford to have children. I’d add that those who are the preferred client groups of the state’s wealth redistribution policies, too, which is why you see all of these 3rd world migrants put up in one million pound homes in cities like London and given enough resources to pop out a half dozen or more children.

    Forcing women into the workplace because a man’s single income won’t cut it, and also all of this economic globalism of outsourcing/offshoring/insourcing scab labour (so that a small number can get opulently rich) really just means that aside from the super rich and those who the state gives to, no one can really afford to have families anymore. If you’re young now, the prospects of gainful employment are dismal and the costs of living are obscene compared to even just your parents day and age.

    Someone’s getting rich from these policies, of course, but it’s not you. The nation and its actual people suffer terribly under these policies, but the rootless internationalists can pocket enormous profits and it’s not like they care if the host country goes belly up.

  38. @Paleo Liberal
    The month is still young.

    Maybe someone can say the moon revolves around the earth and you can correct them by pointing out both bodies revolve around the center of mass. I did that in a comment once so I have you beat for nit picking.

    “Both bodies [would] revolve around the center of mass” if there was no Sun. You used two body solution for the three body problem. Does it beat your nit picking?

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    You are the KING!

    Maybe Derb will follow up on this by now ancient thread and hand you his crown.
  39. @Paleo Liberal
    The month is still young.

    Maybe someone can say the moon revolves around the earth and you can correct them by pointing out both bodies revolve around the center of mass. I did that in a comment once so I have you beat for nit picking.

    Jeff Flake is something that revolves around Uranus.

    • Replies: @Sam Malone
    Ha!
  40. @Paleo Liberal
    The month is still young.

    Maybe someone can say the moon revolves around the earth and you can correct them by pointing out both bodies revolve around the center of mass. I did that in a comment once so I have you beat for nit picking.

    I’ve (re-)learned something interesting from both so the typical pedant has you both beat on a regular basis.

  41. @Dieter Kief
    Great review, thanks.

    A Jew who defends the nation-state? - So Yoram Hazony walks in the traces of Isaiah Berlin, a Jew, who had been deeply disillusioned about Marx' kind of imperialism modeled by Lenin and Stalin. As a true and heartfelt (=desillusioned) defender of the nation-state, Isaiah Berlin therefor was just not sexy in times, when the Western World seemed to become One World - WE ARE THE PEOPLE (add: The Universal people) - WE ARE THE POWER - or: Imagine there's no countries/ It isn't hard too, nothing to kill and die for/ and no religion too.

    Minor quibble: Kant is one of the official patron saints of the EU and the Kantian Schiller's Ode to Joy is even the European hymn now. Alright on the surface.


    Then the going in your essay gets a little bit less easy. You quote Hazony:

    "In Western history, at least, imperialism has tended to be associated with a rationalist theory of knowledge. "


    And this kind of critique exists indeed, but it comes from the Frankfurter School writers, who just were undecided whether (thanks Reg Caesar!) Kant was good or bad, since they stated indeed, that there is an inner (=systemic or ontological) connection between rationality and imperialism.

    That's why they (especially the leader of this pack, the to some intimidatingly bright half-Jew Theodor W. Adorno) were modern anti-modernists: They stated, that there'd be a direct link from rationality and reason to imperialism and fascism and - - - NAZISM. It looks as if Hazony would address this Dialectic of Enlightenment of the classic Horkheimer/Adorno Frankfurt School with this sentence you quoted:

    "In Western history, at least, imperialism has tended to be associated with a rationalist theory of knowledge."

    Ok - and insofar, as the Frankfurters formed the Kant-reception in postwar Europe at least, your assumption about Kant as being a transnationalist ist right.

    But the idea, that this sentence would contradict Kant is not right, as soon as you get rid of the (fundamental) Frankfurt critique of the enlightenment and look just at what Kant held dear and thought was right.

    The best way to get an idea of this Kant is to read What is Enlightenment a n d "Eternal Peace". Because if you read these two (not too long, and quite accessible essays) together, it soon gets clear, that Kant's ideas about the Nation State are sound and clear and that his idea of a universal world peace is a) definitely an utopia **** and b) rests on functioning nation-states all over the world, who - all of them, act rightfully and honestly - because then, and only then would a universalization of moral and juridical norms etc. be worthwhile to be considered. Then, and only then - IMAGINE that...: Could something like Eternal Peace become real.

    So - the official Kant of the European Union is different a) from the Kant of the classic Frankfurt School and b) from the Kant as he can be found in his books - and c) from the Kant in your essay. I'm not so sure about Hazony's Kant. I might find out, while reading his book. Again: Thanks for making me quite interested in it!

    My Kant is the one who ate only one meal per day.

  42. @Paleo Liberal
    I should add that SOME large cities have had birth rates above the replacement rate for limited periods of time, but it hasn’t lasted long. Will Salt Lake City break the mold?

    SLC or Tel Aviv.

    Looks like it’s pro-choice or pro-Chosen.

    Choose wisely.

  43. @John Derbyshire
    Nice review, Steve, but the rule for German nouns like Zeitgeist is: either italicize (this is a foreign word!) and keep the initial capital (required for nouns in German), or drop both italics and capital (this word is familiar enough we can treat it as English).

    Is this the nit-pickiest comment of the month or what?

    I’m glad to see, that you are supportive of the way I wrote just a few hours ago in the comment section of the Donkey-post above: “paper about our zeitgeist”.

    I had to look it up though since I was just writing along without much thinking and all, back then: I mean, I had forgotten, whether (thanks, Reg) I was really right; so in any case, it was occasionally or accidentally even, that I wrote how I wrote, as I don’t hesitate here to admit. I think I don’t have to – hesitate, that is, or have I? – No -not really, I really don’t have to hesitate here, right?

    (“My night is as big as my errors – can you help me out?” – Hans Magnus Enzensberger, in his Summer Poem from 1964.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Eyeing dangling hook with squirming worm... approaching...

    I’m glad to see, that
     
    No comma.

    I had forgotten, whether
     
    No comma.

    so in any case, it was
     
    Add or drop a comma.

    occasionally or accidentally even, that
     
    Add or drop a comma.

    that I wrote how I wrote, as I don’t
     
    "that I wrote as I wrote, as I don’t" (more in your style?)

    hesitate, that is, or have I?
     
    "or do I?"

    I think I don’t have to – hesitate, that is, or have I? – No -not really, I really don’t have to hesitate here, right?
     
    "I think I don't have to–hesitate, that is. Or do I? No, not really. I really don't have to hesitate here, right?"
  44. @Paleo Liberal
    I’m not so sure feminism is the main cause is the low birth rate in Japan.

    There are other reasons people aren’t having many kids. High real estate prices and long working hours to name two. Densely populated First World nations have always had this problem. No big city in the history of civilization has had a birth rate above the replacement rate. They have depended on people migrating from the countryside. Japan doesn’t have a lot of young families in the countryside these days.

    Nor is it so clear that Japan NEEDS more people. Maybe they would be happy with a smaller, and mostly older, population.

    Japanese women are clubbing whores. Japanese parents raised them spoiled and their main interest is having fun.

    The Japanese countryside has no women because they moved to cities to be clubbing whores.

    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Whiskey, is that you posing as an Anony, or is this comment from a Russian bot? I suppose it's the same thing...
  45. @Dieter Kief
    Great review, thanks.

    A Jew who defends the nation-state? - So Yoram Hazony walks in the traces of Isaiah Berlin, a Jew, who had been deeply disillusioned about Marx' kind of imperialism modeled by Lenin and Stalin. As a true and heartfelt (=desillusioned) defender of the nation-state, Isaiah Berlin therefor was just not sexy in times, when the Western World seemed to become One World - WE ARE THE PEOPLE (add: The Universal people) - WE ARE THE POWER - or: Imagine there's no countries/ It isn't hard too, nothing to kill and die for/ and no religion too.

    Minor quibble: Kant is one of the official patron saints of the EU and the Kantian Schiller's Ode to Joy is even the European hymn now. Alright on the surface.


    Then the going in your essay gets a little bit less easy. You quote Hazony:

    "In Western history, at least, imperialism has tended to be associated with a rationalist theory of knowledge. "


    And this kind of critique exists indeed, but it comes from the Frankfurter School writers, who just were undecided whether (thanks Reg Caesar!) Kant was good or bad, since they stated indeed, that there is an inner (=systemic or ontological) connection between rationality and imperialism.

    That's why they (especially the leader of this pack, the to some intimidatingly bright half-Jew Theodor W. Adorno) were modern anti-modernists: They stated, that there'd be a direct link from rationality and reason to imperialism and fascism and - - - NAZISM. It looks as if Hazony would address this Dialectic of Enlightenment of the classic Horkheimer/Adorno Frankfurt School with this sentence you quoted:

    "In Western history, at least, imperialism has tended to be associated with a rationalist theory of knowledge."

    Ok - and insofar, as the Frankfurters formed the Kant-reception in postwar Europe at least, your assumption about Kant as being a transnationalist ist right.

    But the idea, that this sentence would contradict Kant is not right, as soon as you get rid of the (fundamental) Frankfurt critique of the enlightenment and look just at what Kant held dear and thought was right.

    The best way to get an idea of this Kant is to read What is Enlightenment a n d "Eternal Peace". Because if you read these two (not too long, and quite accessible essays) together, it soon gets clear, that Kant's ideas about the Nation State are sound and clear and that his idea of a universal world peace is a) definitely an utopia **** and b) rests on functioning nation-states all over the world, who - all of them, act rightfully and honestly - because then, and only then would a universalization of moral and juridical norms etc. be worthwhile to be considered. Then, and only then - IMAGINE that...: Could something like Eternal Peace become real.

    So - the official Kant of the European Union is different a) from the Kant of the classic Frankfurt School and b) from the Kant as he can be found in his books - and c) from the Kant in your essay. I'm not so sure about Hazony's Kant. I might find out, while reading his book. Again: Thanks for making me quite interested in it!

    See Berlin’s:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Critics_of_the_Enlightenment

    I’m partial to Vico but Herder might be the one most relevant to this discussion.

    • Replies: @Sergeant Prepper
    Yes, that's a fine collection of essays. Berlin's take on counter-Enlightenment thinkers like Herder and De Maistre is almost as interesting as his essays on Russian writers. In case you've got access to JSTOR, you might enjoy the following anthology: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20020351.pdf .
    , @Dieter Kief
    "I’m partial to Vico but Herder might be the one most relevant to this discussion."

    I

    I loved an essay by Herder when I was young - and I still remember it, it was in one of my textbooks at school, and I still have it in my library, about 5 m away, I'll be back in a minute, ok: "Die Sprache überhaupt betrachtet ("On Language in General"). Herder got the cultural and the bodily part of language right, something which suited me (obsessed with The Beatles, Fairport Convention, Bach (Cembalo Suites), Eric Dolphy, John Coltrane, The Allman Brothers, The Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan at that time) well. But something, which is completely obsolete to all formal linguists nowadays (a terrible omission).

    Maybe Robin Dunbar ("Grooming Gossip and the Evolution of Language") owes more to Herder than he is willing to admit (or I remember from reading it, ca. two decades ago). At least Dunbar and Herder are neighbors in my mind because they both make sense of the idea of limits/borders/and cultural distinctions.


    Georg Büchner followed Herder in that bodily respect especially and that - I think - is one of the reasons, Büchner looked through the radical idealism of the French Revolution as something disastrous at its core (see his "Danton" - and remember, that Büchner did get only 23 years old, and that he not only rebelled in Hessen together with Ludwig Weidig and wrote two more theatre-plays and a really insightful novella about a schizophrenic and/or deeply depressed writer ("Lenz"), but managed to write a PhD-dissertation about fish-nerves and get it published in Paris and have a love-live and fled into French exile and worked in Zürich- - - ).

    II

    Hamann and the "lying Baron" - of Münchhausen (cf. the movie by Terry Gilliam)

    Hamann is interesting as well, because, of course: Subjectivism is part of our linguistic experience, and therefore necessarily all of these individual hindrances such as emotions, hesitations, bodily feelings... - no way to escape these conundrums via a simple formula (and may it stem from Descartes) - with the one exception of the Baron of Münchhausen. The lying Baron, as he was called with a laugh. This Baron von Münchhausen managed to escape from the restrictions of reality: By rescuing himself from the swamp and at the same time from the iron cage of rationality, by tearing himself out of the swamp via his own hair, for example... so these are all reasonable hints at the shortcomings of all kinds of ideas which were indeed brought to the public via the enlightenment. And Herder, Hamann, Vico are all rightfully named by I. Berlin, whereas the playful G. A. Bürger and his 18th-century Fantasy-Hero Münchhausen should be added here as a big force in this armada against the idea of pure reason (think of PURITY now)...

    III

    1) But - 2) but, 3) but: BUT 1) Wittgenstein and Hamann go together pretty well, and Wittgenstein and Herder too. And Berlin didn't get these language-philosophy things, which had happened right before his nose in Cambridge and Oxford. Therefore, he is mostly overlooked nowadays, when these linguistic hindrances in the field of the clear and sober thoughts of the enlightenment are being discussed.

    BUT 2) - Understood properly, it is clear, that Kant's thinking encompasses (= includes) these by and large practically (history and culture as forms of practicality in the case of Vico) oriented counter-arguments against pure reason, because Kant's system consists not only of pure reason but of the practical and the judgemental side of reason as well.

    Plus faith. Not to forget.

    BUT 3) - Kant declared at times even, that an important purpose of his three Critiques was to make room for faith. Many a Kant reader thought, that this should not be true, or was not the case at all or whatsoever the arguments for and/ or against Kant in this case were.

    But 3') - The simple truth is: He did make the claim, that he was in favor of faith with all his Critiques, and if you read the best writers about Kant today, such as Jürgen Habermas (Between Naturalism and Religion, for example, a copy of which lies right at hand here on my desk, so I can look up the date of appearance: 2005) and Thomas Rentsch ("Gott" (=God)), you will find that they support the idea, that Kant was right: That he indeed made room for faith with his Critiques, and that there is nothing wrong with an understanding of enlightenment, that allows God, so to speak, or enables him, or bows its head in front of his existence - the differences between these three are, in my mind at least, up to individual tastes and make no big difference at all, no matter what Sam Harris or Steven Pinker or Christopher Hitchens, for example, might think about this stuff: If their toughts include the idea, that Kant is against God, they're wrong. It's as easy as that, I'd hold.

    Ahh - I've left out Derrida and Heidegger. But that's no big omission because they fit into the above-mentioned thoughts quite well (Heidegger more, Derrida less so - for those interested, they might want to have a look at: Thomas Rentsch, "Heidegger und Wittgenstein").

    , @Steve Sailer
    Hazony quotes Herder at length in The Virtue of Nationalism.
  46. Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant might be the patron saint of the European Union, while conservative political philosopher Edmund Burke tends to appeal to its skeptics

    Maybe skeptics in the English speaking world turn to Burke for inspiration, but on the Continent, it is arguably German counter-Enlightenment figures like Herder and Hamann, who have had most influence. They did tend to display the same sort of skepticism towards reason. Frederick Beiser explained it elegantly:

    “The disputes between left and right in Germany then became enmired in epistemological issues concerning the powers of reason. Can reason determine the fundamental principles of the state? And, if so, does it have the power to motivate people to act on these principles? The battle lines between left and right were drawn according to their conflicting answers to these questions. The left defended its liberal principles by stressing the powers of reason, while the right criticized these principles by emphasizing the limits of reason.” The sharpest critics, like Herder, did not attack the purported link between liberal principles and the power of reason, but rather denied that there was any necessary relation between the two.

    If you can get hold of it, there are many fine essays on these topics in “Isaiah Berlin’s Counter-Enlightenment”, edited by Mali and Wokler.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    A simple duck duck search turns up the latter in readable form.
  47. @Desiderius
    See Berlin’s:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Critics_of_the_Enlightenment

    I’m partial to Vico but Herder might be the one most relevant to this discussion.

    Yes, that’s a fine collection of essays. Berlin’s take on counter-Enlightenment thinkers like Herder and De Maistre is almost as interesting as his essays on Russian writers. In case you’ve got access to JSTOR, you might enjoy the following anthology: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20020351.pdf .

  48. @Desiderius
    This is fantasy land.

    who would want a slave lawyer?

     

    No one. Which is why they would go out into the Katyn Forest along with the rest of the New Class. They suspect this, which is why they're so frantically globalist.

    War will never be obsolete. Mother Nature likes it too much.

    This is fantasy land

    Many people have said stuff like this before and many times they have been wrong. Perhaps this time it will be different? That would be a wonderful thing.

    Regardless, people have also said a lot of that type of stuff because it works – otherwise you’d have never heard of them!

  49. @Paleo Liberal
    The month is still young.

    Maybe someone can say the moon revolves around the earth and you can correct them by pointing out both bodies revolve around the center of mass. I did that in a comment once so I have you beat for nit picking.

    The moon actually revolves around the Sun.

    It is a co-planet with Earth. At no point does the Moon’s orbit become concave. It is always falling toward/around the sun in a convex curve, exchanging positions with Earth in relation to the shared center of mass. The Moon is a planet.

    How’s that for pedantry? Whether or not I win, I love the loanword zeitgeist.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    How’s that for pedantry? Whether or not I win, I love the loanword zeitgeist.
     
    Do you love the loanword zeitgeist, or do you love the loanword "zeitgeist?"
    , @bomag
    Last night I watched a youtube on epicycles, and this was mentioned.
  50. Great article.

    William of Orange is a character in the enjoyable TV show Versailles:

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Likewise Churchill’s Marlborough
  51. @Dieter Kief
    I'm glad to see, that you are supportive of the way I wrote just a few hours ago in the comment section of the Donkey-post above: "paper about our zeitgeist".

    I had to look it up though since I was just writing along without much thinking and all, back then: I mean, I had forgotten, whether (thanks, Reg) I was really right; so in any case, it was occasionally or accidentally even, that I wrote how I wrote, as I don't hesitate here to admit. I think I don't have to - hesitate, that is, or have I? - No -not really, I really don't have to hesitate here, right?

    ("My night is as big as my errors - can you help me out?" - Hans Magnus Enzensberger, in his Summer Poem from 1964.

    Eyeing dangling hook with squirming worm… approaching…

    I’m glad to see, that

    No comma.

    I had forgotten, whether

    No comma.

    so in any case, it was

    Add or drop a comma.

    occasionally or accidentally even, that

    Add or drop a comma.

    that I wrote how I wrote, as I don’t

    “that I wrote as I wrote, as I don’t” (more in your style?)

    hesitate, that is, or have I?

    “or do I?”

    I think I don’t have to – hesitate, that is, or have I? – No -not really, I really don’t have to hesitate here, right?

    “I think I don’t have to–hesitate, that is. Or do I? No, not really. I really don’t have to hesitate here, right?”

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Wow! - As I said: My night is as big as my errors - can you help me? - And my pledge with the words of the poet did work; - a veritable iSteve miracle of sorts! A wonder! Thanks!!
  52. @Buzz Mohawk
    The moon actually revolves around the Sun.

    It is a co-planet with Earth. At no point does the Moon's orbit become concave. It is always falling toward/around the sun in a convex curve, exchanging positions with Earth in relation to the shared center of mass. The Moon is a planet.

    How's that for pedantry? Whether or not I win, I love the loanword zeitgeist.

    How’s that for pedantry? Whether or not I win, I love the loanword zeitgeist.

    Do you love the loanword zeitgeist, or do you love the loanword “zeitgeist?”

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    I think I love both. Good point. You are now the Pedant-of-the-Month so far. I hand the baton to you.
  53. @John Derbyshire
    Nice review, Steve, but the rule for German nouns like Zeitgeist is: either italicize (this is a foreign word!) and keep the initial capital (required for nouns in German), or drop both italics and capital (this word is familiar enough we can treat it as English).

    Is this the nit-pickiest comment of the month or what?

    the rule for German nouns like Zeitgeist is

    I’m so confused. What is the rule for German nouns unlike Zeitgeist?

    • Replies: @John Derbyshire
    Man standing helpless-looking at foot of escalator. Passer-by: "It's working fine. Why don't you get on it?" Man: "Look at the sign! It says DOGS MUST BE CARRIED." Passer-by: "Yeah, so?" Man: "But I don't have a dog!"
  54. Mass immigration establishes multiple nations within one country. As the state is the most important economic resource, control of it becomes a rational and crucial national desire (of the many nations in one country).

    Conflict is thus incentivised in much the same way that a huge oil field crossing various international boundaries incentivises it.

    Sam Francis

    Thomas Hobbes

    Managerial State

    Leviathan

    Tweet from 2014:

  55. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    But the real reason that nationalism is less likely to lead to war these days than in the past is that military conquest just doesn’t pay anymore. Merely defeating barbarians in Afghanistan in a permanent way seems to be something the incredibly expensive American military can’t do. And then what would it gain us to conquer the Hindu Kush?
     
    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.

    It was practical to have someone working the fields at threat of corporal punishment but who would want a slave lawyer?

    This means that, once the various historical grievances are ironed out and ABSENT MASS IMMIGRATION**, the various countries will have no excuse but to Make Themselves Great (Again).

    *Qatar and Equatorial Guinea stand out as countries still worth taking but huge natural resources and tiny populations are not a thing of the future.

    **mass immigration establishes multiple nations within one country. As the state is the most important economic resource, control of it becomes a rational and crucial national desire (of the many nations in one country). Conflict is thus incentivised in much the same way that a huge oil field crossing various international boundaries incentivises it.

    Even worse, democracy obviously encourages such demographic competition - "winning" becomes a demographic question.

    This is the tragedy of the liberal democracies - they're born with the seed of their own demise.

    Or maybe not, perhaps they just need to stop with the perennially unpopular and ahistorical mass immigration and they can continue being democratic and liberal and with a state full of largesse...

    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.

    There are national groups around the world today whose national aspirations for self-determination would require some form or degree of conquest. Just as Israel’s did. Moreover, unless you believe in a static state of affairs enforced by a higher, external authority, which would violate the principle of nationalism in the first place, it’s simply not true that conquest doesn’t make sense.

  56. @Chrisnonymous

    How’s that for pedantry? Whether or not I win, I love the loanword zeitgeist.
     
    Do you love the loanword zeitgeist, or do you love the loanword "zeitgeist?"

    I think I love both. Good point. You are now the Pedant-of-the-Month so far. I hand the baton to you.

  57. @Ibound1
    Trump should incorporate Hazony into his speeches - by name. Let the NY Times readership have their heads explode.

    That would be fun. It goes right to his question: Does Western Civilization have the will to survive? – the whole “sovereign states” idea already made heads explode. We need more head explosions, currently. Sarah just threw a grenade! Warrior…proud of her.

    • Replies: @Ibound1
    Speaking of that:

    https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/09/27/commission-eu-must-curb-national-sovereignty-kill-populism/

    The European Union (EU) must bring an end to national sovereignty over finance with the creation of a “eurozone budget” in order to kill off populist politics within the euro region, according to the Commission.
     
  58. @Paleo Liberal
    I’m not so sure feminism is the main cause is the low birth rate in Japan.

    There are other reasons people aren’t having many kids. High real estate prices and long working hours to name two. Densely populated First World nations have always had this problem. No big city in the history of civilization has had a birth rate above the replacement rate. They have depended on people migrating from the countryside. Japan doesn’t have a lot of young families in the countryside these days.

    Nor is it so clear that Japan NEEDS more people. Maybe they would be happy with a smaller, and mostly older, population.

    I’m not so sure feminism is the main cause is the low birth rate in Japan.

    Fertility did not drop during world war 2- it only started declining when women were emancipated during the occupation and followed relentlessly since.

  59. @Tyrion 2

    But the real reason that nationalism is less likely to lead to war these days than in the past is that military conquest just doesn’t pay anymore. Merely defeating barbarians in Afghanistan in a permanent way seems to be something the incredibly expensive American military can’t do. And then what would it gain us to conquer the Hindu Kush?
     
    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.

    It was practical to have someone working the fields at threat of corporal punishment but who would want a slave lawyer?

    This means that, once the various historical grievances are ironed out and ABSENT MASS IMMIGRATION**, the various countries will have no excuse but to Make Themselves Great (Again).

    *Qatar and Equatorial Guinea stand out as countries still worth taking but huge natural resources and tiny populations are not a thing of the future.

    **mass immigration establishes multiple nations within one country. As the state is the most important economic resource, control of it becomes a rational and crucial national desire (of the many nations in one country). Conflict is thus incentivised in much the same way that a huge oil field crossing various international boundaries incentivises it.

    Even worse, democracy obviously encourages such demographic competition - "winning" becomes a demographic question.

    This is the tragedy of the liberal democracies - they're born with the seed of their own demise.

    Or maybe not, perhaps they just need to stop with the perennially unpopular and ahistorical mass immigration and they can continue being democratic and liberal and with a state full of largesse...

    White collar slaves were famously significant in ancient Roman society.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  60. @Chrisnonymous

    the rule for German nouns like Zeitgeist is
     
    I'm so confused. What is the rule for German nouns unlike Zeitgeist?

    Man standing helpless-looking at foot of escalator. Passer-by: “It’s working fine. Why don’t you get on it?” Man: “Look at the sign! It says DOGS MUST BE CARRIED.” Passer-by: “Yeah, so?” Man: “But I don’t have a dog!”

  61. @Tyrion 2

    But the real reason that nationalism is less likely to lead to war these days than in the past is that military conquest just doesn’t pay anymore. Merely defeating barbarians in Afghanistan in a permanent way seems to be something the incredibly expensive American military can’t do. And then what would it gain us to conquer the Hindu Kush?
     
    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.

    It was practical to have someone working the fields at threat of corporal punishment but who would want a slave lawyer?

    This means that, once the various historical grievances are ironed out and ABSENT MASS IMMIGRATION**, the various countries will have no excuse but to Make Themselves Great (Again).

    *Qatar and Equatorial Guinea stand out as countries still worth taking but huge natural resources and tiny populations are not a thing of the future.

    **mass immigration establishes multiple nations within one country. As the state is the most important economic resource, control of it becomes a rational and crucial national desire (of the many nations in one country). Conflict is thus incentivised in much the same way that a huge oil field crossing various international boundaries incentivises it.

    Even worse, democracy obviously encourages such demographic competition - "winning" becomes a demographic question.

    This is the tragedy of the liberal democracies - they're born with the seed of their own demise.

    Or maybe not, perhaps they just need to stop with the perennially unpopular and ahistorical mass immigration and they can continue being democratic and liberal and with a state full of largesse...

    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.

    You are assuming people care about absolute measures. No, they care about relative ones- their social position relative to others.

    Also, humans require food to live. Any situation with a positive growth rate will eventually lead to conflict to acquire more land in order to grow that food.

    • Agree: bomag
  62. @Saxon
    People were the most valuable resource when the Mongolians and others were extracting resources from them as well which is why the Khan didn't slaughter ALL of them, but not all people produce more than they consume.

    There are still contexts in which war and conquest make sense, but in some of those cases the objective for victory would just be the complete annihilation of those living in a territory and repopulating it with yours. If you wanted to "win" in Afghanistan for example, that would be the only way for a realistic victory but since the occupation is all about certain financial interests rather than a legitimate military goal you can see why no one talks about the actual conditions for victory. The people there aren't terribly useful to make vassals and extract some kind of resources from, as would have happened in some cases in the past.

    In any case this idea that war is obsolete is dumb. You can think of a lot of contexts in which it could happen. One example; Some country overpopulates and eyes others' territory to expand into.

    Also, "liberal democracy" of today is certainly not what the US founding fathers and the thinkers in England and other places thought of. They would have thought you insane if you had suggested multiracialism. The first US immigration policy was based on an understanding that this was for specific people. This revisionist nonsesnse of the last 50 years is the 100+ year work of a hostile Jewish elite that began with subversion like Boasian anthropology and worked from there. The entire set of ideas has been warped beyond recognition with a whole set of gibberish intended to bend it to serve the interests of those doing the distorting.

    I think democracy is a very bad system in general due to the inefficiencies, how easy it is to manipulate as well as the faulty assumptions it rests on, but you would probably need a homogeneous population in control of all of the important institutions (banks/money, media most importantly) to even give it a real try.

    They would have thought you insane if you had suggested multiracialism

    They had plenty of black slaves. They would have thought it insane to give black people power, but the founders also thought it was insane to give poor white people power. They were right in both cases, but it took even less time for the latter to be overturned.

    I think democracy is a very bad system in general due to the inefficiencies, how easy it is to manipulate as well as the faulty assumptions it rests on, but you would probably need a homogeneous population in control of all of the important institutions (banks/money, media most importantly) to even give it a real try.

    South Korea fits those criteria. It will also soon not exist because its birth rate is so low.

  63. @Paleo Liberal
    I’m not so sure feminism is the main cause is the low birth rate in Japan.

    There are other reasons people aren’t having many kids. High real estate prices and long working hours to name two. Densely populated First World nations have always had this problem. No big city in the history of civilization has had a birth rate above the replacement rate. They have depended on people migrating from the countryside. Japan doesn’t have a lot of young families in the countryside these days.

    Nor is it so clear that Japan NEEDS more people. Maybe they would be happy with a smaller, and mostly older, population.

    Israel is a densely populated (pretty much) First World nation. And they have a birth rate far above replacement. Somehow they managed it. Japan does not need more people, and in that I agree with you completely. Japan will be far more pleasant with less people as long as those people are Japanese – which they will be.

  64. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:

    Hazony is basically a neocon in the mold of David P. Goldman aka “Spengler”, who is also a religious Orthodox Jew critical of more imperial minded neocons like Kristol and Krauthammer. Like Hazony, Goldman is also wary of Catholicism and Islam, as both claim to supersede Old Testament revelation and the Jews’ status as the Chosen People of God, with all the political and social implications this entails for Jewish life in seriously Catholic and Islamic polities.

    It is not accurate to say that Hazony is opposed to imperialism and supports nationalism in principle. Post-Cromwellian England, the United Netherlands, and America were expanding empires. Not only their Protestant, pro-Semitic character, but also their imperial and commercial expansion at the time attracted mobile Jewish financiers and migrants. And obviously it’s unlikely that Hazony is a fan of Nazi Germany on account of its nationalism.

    It’s equally unlikely that Hazony favors the same sort of nationalism Israel enjoys being allowed for all nations. He would not be a fan of English or Dutch nationalism if it became too stringent or exclusive in his eyes. Hazony, like Goldman, is not so much supportive of nationalism in principle for all peoples, but supportive of nationalism that is not too nationalistic, and imperialism that is not too imperialistic. Nationalism like that of Israel allowed for other nations is obviously not necessarily good for Jews, particularly diaspora Jews. While too much imperialism requires an imperial authority that supersedes all in the realm (like the imperial cult of Rome, the papacy, Islam, etc.) and imperils the privileges of smaller identities and allegiances like that of Judaism, and also includes many more constituents whose interests will not align with those of other minorities.

    Hazony and Goldman are more removed from the day to day politics (Hazony is based in Israel, Goldman works in finance) of the West and thus can see that things have moved too much in the imperial direction and are thus bad for their interests. More ordinary neocons like Kristol and Krauthammer are/were too much ensconced in policy that the bigger picture was less visible.

  65. @wiseguy
    The Dutch formed an empire, the British rather famously had one, and the Israelites were repeatedly subjected to various empires. Perhaps empire is inevitable, and the relevant question isn’t whether to have one but rather of what type. Will it be good like the Roman Empire or Christendom, or will it be bad like what we have now?

    Will it be good like the Roman Empire or Christendom, or will it be bad like what we have now?

    The Roman Empire was the sad slow death of the Roman Republic.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Anon
    Which in turn was the result of the death of the Roman Kin-gdom.
  66. @Saxon
    People were the most valuable resource when the Mongolians and others were extracting resources from them as well which is why the Khan didn't slaughter ALL of them, but not all people produce more than they consume.

    There are still contexts in which war and conquest make sense, but in some of those cases the objective for victory would just be the complete annihilation of those living in a territory and repopulating it with yours. If you wanted to "win" in Afghanistan for example, that would be the only way for a realistic victory but since the occupation is all about certain financial interests rather than a legitimate military goal you can see why no one talks about the actual conditions for victory. The people there aren't terribly useful to make vassals and extract some kind of resources from, as would have happened in some cases in the past.

    In any case this idea that war is obsolete is dumb. You can think of a lot of contexts in which it could happen. One example; Some country overpopulates and eyes others' territory to expand into.

    Also, "liberal democracy" of today is certainly not what the US founding fathers and the thinkers in England and other places thought of. They would have thought you insane if you had suggested multiracialism. The first US immigration policy was based on an understanding that this was for specific people. This revisionist nonsesnse of the last 50 years is the 100+ year work of a hostile Jewish elite that began with subversion like Boasian anthropology and worked from there. The entire set of ideas has been warped beyond recognition with a whole set of gibberish intended to bend it to serve the interests of those doing the distorting.

    I think democracy is a very bad system in general due to the inefficiencies, how easy it is to manipulate as well as the faulty assumptions it rests on, but you would probably need a homogeneous population in control of all of the important institutions (banks/money, media most importantly) to even give it a real try.

    “Also, “liberal democracy” of today is certainly not what the US founding fathers and the thinkers in England and other places thought of.”

    What our Founding Fathers put forth was enabling future generations to use our governmental principles in their own way, how they see fit, by way of the people.

    “They would have thought you insane if you had suggested multiracialism.”

    Of course, because the thought process of the time period was “white people rule”. But our nation was founded by diverse groups who just happened to be European.

    “The first US immigration policy was based on an understanding that this was for specific people.”

    Not in perpetuity. At the time, that specific people were Europeans. But that decision was not cast in stone, since future generations were granted liberty, by way of Congress, to make changes reflected of the wishes of the people.

    “I think democracy is a very bad system in general due to the inefficiencies…”

    It’s not the system of government, but the people running that system, that accounts for the inefficiencies and flaws, for the efficiency and successes. But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts that American citizens regardless of their race or ethnic background, whether they are able to trace their ancestors directly to the 1600’s or the early 1900’s, are able to comprehend.

    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner

    It’s not the system of government, but the people running that system, that accounts for the inefficiencies and flaws, for the efficiency and successes.
     
    All governments by their nature select for people who desire power. The system of government has a significant effect since it determines who this is channeled.

    But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts that American citizens regardless of their race or ethnic background, whether they are able to trace their ancestors directly to the 1600′s or the early 1900′s, are able to comprehend.
     
    They weren't universally held among Englishmen. The pursuit of happiness as a worthwhile goal is a recent invention and liberty meant something completely different for most of human history since egalitarianism is also recent.

    Their prevalence among other ethnicities is a function of how susceptible they are to insane propaganda. Many are too stupid to adhere to something so mind numbingly dumb.
    , @bomag

    At the time, that specific people were Europeans.

    ...

    It’s not the system of government, but the people running that system...
     
    Indeed
    , @Saxon
    White people should be able to rule our own countries in our interests and should not have to accept being inundated and compelled/pressured/forced to mix ourselves out of existence, just like everone else. What are you, some sort of craven genocidalist? You think it would be normal if Shanghai came to be populated by, say, Russians? Nope.

    Anyway the founding fathers didn't intend this and only really anti-white revisionists fully bought into the ideology claim otherwise.
  67. @Anon
    Japanese women are clubbing whores. Japanese parents raised them spoiled and their main interest is having fun.

    The Japanese countryside has no women because they moved to cities to be clubbing whores.

    Whiskey, is that you posing as an Anony, or is this comment from a Russian bot? I suppose it’s the same thing…

  68. @Buzz Mohawk
    The moon actually revolves around the Sun.

    It is a co-planet with Earth. At no point does the Moon's orbit become concave. It is always falling toward/around the sun in a convex curve, exchanging positions with Earth in relation to the shared center of mass. The Moon is a planet.

    How's that for pedantry? Whether or not I win, I love the loanword zeitgeist.

    Last night I watched a youtube on epicycles, and this was mentioned.

  69. @Desiderius
    See Berlin’s:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Critics_of_the_Enlightenment

    I’m partial to Vico but Herder might be the one most relevant to this discussion.

    “I’m partial to Vico but Herder might be the one most relevant to this discussion.”

    I

    I loved an essay by Herder when I was young – and I still remember it, it was in one of my textbooks at school, and I still have it in my library, about 5 m away, I’ll be back in a minute, ok: “Die Sprache überhaupt betrachtet (“On Language in General”). Herder got the cultural and the bodily part of language right, something which suited me (obsessed with The Beatles, Fairport Convention, Bach (Cembalo Suites), Eric Dolphy, John Coltrane, The Allman Brothers, The Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan at that time) well. But something, which is completely obsolete to all formal linguists nowadays (a terrible omission).

    Maybe Robin Dunbar (“Grooming Gossip and the Evolution of Language”) owes more to Herder than he is willing to admit (or I remember from reading it, ca. two decades ago). At least Dunbar and Herder are neighbors in my mind because they both make sense of the idea of limits/borders/and cultural distinctions.

    Georg Büchner followed Herder in that bodily respect especially and that – I think – is one of the reasons, Büchner looked through the radical idealism of the French Revolution as something disastrous at its core (see his “Danton” – and remember, that Büchner did get only 23 years old, and that he not only rebelled in Hessen together with Ludwig Weidig and wrote two more theatre-plays and a really insightful novella about a schizophrenic and/or deeply depressed writer (“Lenz”), but managed to write a PhD-dissertation about fish-nerves and get it published in Paris and have a love-live and fled into French exile and worked in Zürich- – – ).

    II

    Hamann and the “lying Baron” – of Münchhausen (cf. the movie by Terry Gilliam)

    Hamann is interesting as well, because, of course: Subjectivism is part of our linguistic experience, and therefore necessarily all of these individual hindrances such as emotions, hesitations, bodily feelings… – no way to escape these conundrums via a simple formula (and may it stem from Descartes) – with the one exception of the Baron of Münchhausen. The lying Baron, as he was called with a laugh. This Baron von Münchhausen managed to escape from the restrictions of reality: By rescuing himself from the swamp and at the same time from the iron cage of rationality, by tearing himself out of the swamp via his own hair, for example… so these are all reasonable hints at the shortcomings of all kinds of ideas which were indeed brought to the public via the enlightenment. And Herder, Hamann, Vico are all rightfully named by I. Berlin, whereas the playful G. A. Bürger and his 18th-century Fantasy-Hero Münchhausen should be added here as a big force in this armada against the idea of pure reason (think of PURITY now)…

    III

    1) But – 2) but, 3) but: BUT 1) Wittgenstein and Hamann go together pretty well, and Wittgenstein and Herder too. And Berlin didn’t get these language-philosophy things, which had happened right before his nose in Cambridge and Oxford. Therefore, he is mostly overlooked nowadays, when these linguistic hindrances in the field of the clear and sober thoughts of the enlightenment are being discussed.

    BUT 2) – Understood properly, it is clear, that Kant’s thinking encompasses (= includes) these by and large practically (history and culture as forms of practicality in the case of Vico) oriented counter-arguments against pure reason, because Kant’s system consists not only of pure reason but of the practical and the judgemental side of reason as well.

    Plus faith. Not to forget.

    BUT 3) – Kant declared at times even, that an important purpose of his three Critiques was to make room for faith. Many a Kant reader thought, that this should not be true, or was not the case at all or whatsoever the arguments for and/ or against Kant in this case were.

    But 3′) – The simple truth is: He did make the claim, that he was in favor of faith with all his Critiques, and if you read the best writers about Kant today, such as Jürgen Habermas (Between Naturalism and Religion, for example, a copy of which lies right at hand here on my desk, so I can look up the date of appearance: 2005) and Thomas Rentsch (“Gott” (=God)), you will find that they support the idea, that Kant was right: That he indeed made room for faith with his Critiques, and that there is nothing wrong with an understanding of enlightenment, that allows God, so to speak, or enables him, or bows its head in front of his existence – the differences between these three are, in my mind at least, up to individual tastes and make no big difference at all, no matter what Sam Harris or Steven Pinker or Christopher Hitchens, for example, might think about this stuff: If their toughts include the idea, that Kant is against God, they’re wrong. It’s as easy as that, I’d hold.

    Ahh – I’ve left out Derrida and Heidegger. But that’s no big omission because they fit into the above-mentioned thoughts quite well (Heidegger more, Derrida less so – for those interested, they might want to have a look at: Thomas Rentsch, “Heidegger und Wittgenstein”).

  70. @Jason Liu
    When did Taki's Mag get deplatformed from Disqus?

    I’ve heard that they deplatformed themselves.
    But whatever – Disqus is a problem – they censored numerous posts of mine on German blogs, not least ones refering to unz.om or isteve or the Intellectual Dark Web. I did complain, but they gave no answer.

  71. @Jason Liu
    When did Taki's Mag get deplatformed from Disqus?

    They didn’t. Taki’s decided to stop allowing comments because their commenters were too deplorable.

  72. @Chrisnonymous
    Eyeing dangling hook with squirming worm... approaching...

    I’m glad to see, that
     
    No comma.

    I had forgotten, whether
     
    No comma.

    so in any case, it was
     
    Add or drop a comma.

    occasionally or accidentally even, that
     
    Add or drop a comma.

    that I wrote how I wrote, as I don’t
     
    "that I wrote as I wrote, as I don’t" (more in your style?)

    hesitate, that is, or have I?
     
    "or do I?"

    I think I don’t have to – hesitate, that is, or have I? – No -not really, I really don’t have to hesitate here, right?
     
    "I think I don't have to–hesitate, that is. Or do I? No, not really. I really don't have to hesitate here, right?"

    Wow! – As I said: My night is as big as my errors – can you help me? – And my pledge with the words of the poet did work; – a veritable iSteve miracle of sorts! A wonder! Thanks!!

  73. @Polynikes
    The US is quite capable of defeating the "barbarians in Afghanistan." All wars are political. We neither have the stomach or desire for the type of total war it would take to make them submit.

    Instead we do just enough to satisfy the hawks and fool ourselves with the noble delusion that such a people desire, or are capable of, a western style democracy. What a colossal waste.

    We neither have the stomach or desire for the type of total war it would take to make them submit.

    The worst possible outcome in such a war would be that we would win.

  74. @Paleo Liberal
    I should add that SOME large cities have had birth rates above the replacement rate for limited periods of time, but it hasn’t lasted long. Will Salt Lake City break the mold?

    I should add that SOME large cities have had birth rates above the replacement rate for limited periods of time, but it hasn’t lasted long.

    My mother was one of seven in Queens, her mother was one of seven in Brooklyn, and her mother was one of at least three in lower Manhattan.

    The birth rate fell off dramatically in roomier Upstate.

  75. @John Derbyshire
    Nice review, Steve, but the rule for German nouns like Zeitgeist is: either italicize (this is a foreign word!) and keep the initial capital (required for nouns in German), or drop both italics and capital (this word is familiar enough we can treat it as English).

    Is this the nit-pickiest comment of the month or what?

    Stop being a little bitch, Derb. Sailer doesn’t give a fuck about your nitpicking shit. Sailer is like Trump. Derb like Mitt Romney. If you wanna stay in our country then you’d better start respecting the way we roll, limey itchbay.

  76. Yoram Hazony = Mr Zany Yahoo

  77. @Corvinus
    "Also, “liberal democracy” of today is certainly not what the US founding fathers and the thinkers in England and other places thought of."

    What our Founding Fathers put forth was enabling future generations to use our governmental principles in their own way, how they see fit, by way of the people.

    "They would have thought you insane if you had suggested multiracialism."

    Of course, because the thought process of the time period was "white people rule". But our nation was founded by diverse groups who just happened to be European.

    "The first US immigration policy was based on an understanding that this was for specific people."

    Not in perpetuity. At the time, that specific people were Europeans. But that decision was not cast in stone, since future generations were granted liberty, by way of Congress, to make changes reflected of the wishes of the people.

    "I think democracy is a very bad system in general due to the inefficiencies..."

    It's not the system of government, but the people running that system, that accounts for the inefficiencies and flaws, for the efficiency and successes. But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts that American citizens regardless of their race or ethnic background, whether they are able to trace their ancestors directly to the 1600's or the early 1900's, are able to comprehend.

    It’s not the system of government, but the people running that system, that accounts for the inefficiencies and flaws, for the efficiency and successes.

    All governments by their nature select for people who desire power. The system of government has a significant effect since it determines who this is channeled.

    But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts that American citizens regardless of their race or ethnic background, whether they are able to trace their ancestors directly to the 1600′s or the early 1900′s, are able to comprehend.

    They weren’t universally held among Englishmen. The pursuit of happiness as a worthwhile goal is a recent invention and liberty meant something completely different for most of human history since egalitarianism is also recent.

    Their prevalence among other ethnicities is a function of how susceptible they are to insane propaganda. Many are too stupid to adhere to something so mind numbingly dumb.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "All governments by their nature select for people who desire power."

    You mean all governments by their nature are created by people who desire the power to rule, with or without the consent of their citizens.

    "They weren’t universally held among Englishmen."

    Who are you trying to bamboozle here?

    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/rights-of-englishmen-in-british-america.html

    "The pursuit of happiness as a worthwhile goal is a recent invention..."

    Human beings have always pursued happiness.

    "and liberty meant something completely different for most of human history..."

    No. Liberty, at its core, means the same thing to people.

    "Their prevalence among other ethnicities is a function of how susceptible they are to insane propaganda. Many are too stupid to adhere to something so mind numbingly dumb."

    That would be Fake News.
  78. @utu
    In Katyn Forest it was the New Class that killed the Old Class. But you right, the New Class knows a lot about killing.

    In Katyn Forest it was the New Class that killed the Old Class. But you right, the New Class knows a lot about killing.

    The Old Class tried to off Hitler a number of times. Probably the majority of the attempts on his life.

    Note it wasn’t the top of the Old Class, but junior members in national service. Literally.

  79. @bomag

    This invasion is met with ‘inclusion’ by the clueless.
     
    And it's not even inclusion. By practice and policy, the newcomers are encouraged to set up little nations of their own. Thus central California is another Mexico; Somalia has an enclave in Minnesota, from which, with great fanfare, a first Somali policeman is recruited; etc.

    A kind of colonation.

  80. • Replies: @J.Ross
    The fact that this is the only thing Americans know about the leader of Malaysia and, for that matter, Malaysia itself (especially after recent events) is an indictment of American mass media and not Mahathir Mohamad. Bonus: the story was from "the Jerusalem desk."
  81. Israel is one of the most (if not the most) expansionist powers on the planet, whose borders increase in size every day. Not only has it dominated the Palestinians, it has encouraged the subversion of foreign governments, installed its own puppet regimes, and engaged in programs of political intimidation around the world – all forms of subjugation.

    If nationalism “inculcates an aversion to the conquest of foreign nations” then Israel is clearly not nationalist.

    • Replies: @Anon

    Israel is one of the most (if not the most) expansionist powers on the planet
     
    You could not be more wrong.

    Israel has remained the same size since 1967 when it increased in size by 2,000 sq miles in Gaza and West bank.

    Indonesia has increased in size by 138,000 square miles since occupying Papua.

    Morocco has increased in size by 103,000 square miles since occupying Western Sahara.

    You suck at Takkiyah.
    , @Moshe

    bahadur - Israel is one of the most (if not the most) expansionist powers on the planet, whose borders increase in size every day. Not only has it dominated the Palestinians, it has encouraged the subversion of foreign governments, installed its own puppet regimes, and engaged in programs of political intimidation around the world – all forms of subjugation.
     
    Bahadur, why can't you and people like you just accept your lower station in life? You're a goy. You're not one of God's chosen people whom he calls his children. You're a goy. That isn't a bad thing. You matter to God and your "people" matter to God. But you're not one of us.

    Now, if I may outhonest Hazony for you.

    Of course we are imperializing the world for our benefit. God wants, over and above all else, that his children enjoy this world that he made for them.

    Unfortunately he left us to our own devices, so occasionally Esau (White goyim) rules over us for a while or Ishmael banshee raids us.

    All as very clearly explained in the Bible. In Genesis in fact. Ishmael's hand is inneveryone else's business and eveyone else's hand is in his. And Esau is the property of Jacob but every so often Isaac's postscript comes to past (see WWII).

    So yeah, Hazony is bs'ing you. You don't matter to us. Some of us pretend to ourselves that you do, but you don't. I mean you bahadur, personally.

    I'm a gentelman of comfort so I rarely go out on raids but should the inclination so move me and I come to own what you now consider you and yours, you should know that I'm doing it by moral right. As a sinner, you probably will oppose God's will but all descendants of (metaphoric[?]) Noah have the soul in them to know the truth and that the Jewish People matter to God more than all of the rest of the nations of the earth combined.

    And so far as physical expansion is concerned, do you doubt that God's promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will not come to pass?

    Samuel famously referred to God by His Name, "The Eternity of Israel" but God Himself does it slightly more clearly. He defines both his Name and His Eternal reputation as The God Of The Jews.

    Read all of Exodus 3.

    But here's verse 15.


    15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

     
    Bahadur, you'll be happier is you accept God's Will and your correct place in it.
  82. Pheasant [AKA "Peasant"] says:
    @Song For the Deaf
    For God’s sake, even our best defenses of nationalism are written by Jews. *throws hands up in the air*

    Whatever would we do without the Jews. We need them to live whilst they im sure would get along just fine without us.

    Of course holding up a state that has cost more money to America than every other nation over the last fifty years combined and which is currently subsidised by every American taxpayer to the tune of $8000 (to say nothing of the extensive Jewish diaspora charity) is far from the best example of a sucessful autonomous nationalism but eh whaddaya gonna do.

  83. o.t.
    Where You Go I Go Too.

    Love it.

  84. @Jssh
    I've never been much of a fan of philosophical arguments that can't be reduced to a clear syllogism. I mean that quote is just a prolix way of saying "nationalists find value in their own culture as well as that of outsiders". True but so what? The same is true of communists, globalists, liberals and others. It's not a very profound conclusion.

    Long words and flowery speech are good until you have to read 5 pages to learn what could have been said in a single paragraph. Avid readers will know what I mean. It's entertaining until it's not.

    That is not true of globalists.

  85. @jim jones
    Malaysian PM says Jews Are ‘Hook-Nosed’:

    https://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/10/03/malaysian-pm-tells-bbc-jews-are-hook-nosed/

    The fact that this is the only thing Americans know about the leader of Malaysia and, for that matter, Malaysia itself (especially after recent events) is an indictment of American mass media and not Mahathir Mohamad. Bonus: the story was from “the Jerusalem desk.”

    • Replies: @Anon
    But but but but I thought that they love Jews and only have a problem with Zionist Israelis !!!! LoL at anyone that falls for Takkiyah. When did WN guys degrade to being takkiyah cucks and solely cheerleader cucks for Islam?
    , @Autochthon
    Netanyahu is on it.

    https://youtu.be/VrdS8mYtEh4
  86. @Lot
    Great article.

    William of Orange is a character in the enjoyable TV show Versailles:

    http://www.versaillestheseries.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/characters_s2_08_william.jpg

    Likewise Churchill’s Marlborough

  87. Anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bahadur
    Israel is one of the most (if not the most) expansionist powers on the planet, whose borders increase in size every day. Not only has it dominated the Palestinians, it has encouraged the subversion of foreign governments, installed its own puppet regimes, and engaged in programs of political intimidation around the world - all forms of subjugation.

    If nationalism "inculcates an aversion to the conquest of foreign nations" then Israel is clearly not nationalist.

    Israel is one of the most (if not the most) expansionist powers on the planet

    You could not be more wrong.

    Israel has remained the same size since 1967 when it increased in size by 2,000 sq miles in Gaza and West bank.

    Indonesia has increased in size by 138,000 square miles since occupying Papua.

    Morocco has increased in size by 103,000 square miles since occupying Western Sahara.

    You suck at Takkiyah.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    He could be referring to the "facts on the ground," the constant creep of koloniya consolidating their hold on territory he does not consider to be Israel's.
    , @Moshe
    Actually, Israel has radically decreased in size since 1967.
  88. @J.Ross
    The fact that this is the only thing Americans know about the leader of Malaysia and, for that matter, Malaysia itself (especially after recent events) is an indictment of American mass media and not Mahathir Mohamad. Bonus: the story was from "the Jerusalem desk."

    But but but but I thought that they love Jews and only have a problem with Zionist Israelis !!!! LoL at anyone that falls for Takkiyah. When did WN guys degrade to being takkiyah cucks and solely cheerleader cucks for Islam?

  89. @Sergeant Prepper

    Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant might be the patron saint of the European Union, while conservative political philosopher Edmund Burke tends to appeal to its skeptics

     

    Maybe skeptics in the English speaking world turn to Burke for inspiration, but on the Continent, it is arguably German counter-Enlightenment figures like Herder and Hamann, who have had most influence. They did tend to display the same sort of skepticism towards reason. Frederick Beiser explained it elegantly:

    "The disputes between left and right in Germany then became enmired in epistemological issues concerning the powers of reason. Can reason determine the fundamental principles of the state? And, if so, does it have the power to motivate people to act on these principles? The battle lines between left and right were drawn according to their conflicting answers to these questions. The left defended its liberal principles by stressing the powers of reason, while the right criticized these principles by emphasizing the limits of reason." The sharpest critics, like Herder, did not attack the purported link between liberal principles and the power of reason, but rather denied that there was any necessary relation between the two.

    If you can get hold of it, there are many fine essays on these topics in "Isaiah Berlin's Counter-Enlightenment", edited by Mali and Wokler.

    A simple duck duck search turns up the latter in readable form.

  90. @Samuel Skinner

    It’s not the system of government, but the people running that system, that accounts for the inefficiencies and flaws, for the efficiency and successes.
     
    All governments by their nature select for people who desire power. The system of government has a significant effect since it determines who this is channeled.

    But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts that American citizens regardless of their race or ethnic background, whether they are able to trace their ancestors directly to the 1600′s or the early 1900′s, are able to comprehend.
     
    They weren't universally held among Englishmen. The pursuit of happiness as a worthwhile goal is a recent invention and liberty meant something completely different for most of human history since egalitarianism is also recent.

    Their prevalence among other ethnicities is a function of how susceptible they are to insane propaganda. Many are too stupid to adhere to something so mind numbingly dumb.

    “All governments by their nature select for people who desire power.”

    You mean all governments by their nature are created by people who desire the power to rule, with or without the consent of their citizens.

    “They weren’t universally held among Englishmen.”

    Who are you trying to bamboozle here?

    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/rights-of-englishmen-in-british-america.html

    “The pursuit of happiness as a worthwhile goal is a recent invention…”

    Human beings have always pursued happiness.

    “and liberty meant something completely different for most of human history…”

    No. Liberty, at its core, means the same thing to people.

    “Their prevalence among other ethnicities is a function of how susceptible they are to insane propaganda. Many are too stupid to adhere to something so mind numbingly dumb.”

    That would be Fake News.

  91. @Song For the Deaf
    For God’s sake, even our best defenses of nationalism are written by Jews. *throws hands up in the air*

    Nah, just around here.

    There are plenty of stupid goys who make the same argument just as well. They just aren’t as welcome in these parts.

    Civic Nationalists just need a Jewish path to Ethnic Nationalism. It makes them feel cleaner.

    But make no mistake, Civic Nationalism – sorry, but the kind that Steve advocates – is a dead-end. It won’t worked. I have no idea what this country will be like in 50 or 100 years, but it won’t be some multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural kumbaya of various tribes rallying around the Constitutional and civic nationalism.

    I think the world of Steve and believe that he’s a national (my nation) treasure. God knows that he runs rings around me intellectually, but he’s wrong about Civic Nationalism. Wrong in the way that only someone what wants to believe is wrong.

    I don’t care how much propaganda is shoved down the throat of people via TV, movies, university and the internet. Ethnic nationalism will triumph over civic nationalism eventually the same way that I can only hold a chair over my head for so long. It’s nature.

    • LOL: IHTG
    • Replies: @Anon
    All true. The laws of political power, and thus of politics, are absolute. True political power can only be cultivated from ethnic nationalism. Everything else is a diversion / delusion. That's not a wishful statement. That's a statement that best reflects human social behavior and its real world political result.
  92. @Desiderius
    See Berlin’s:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Critics_of_the_Enlightenment

    I’m partial to Vico but Herder might be the one most relevant to this discussion.

    Hazony quotes Herder at length in The Virtue of Nationalism.

  93. @Chrisnonymous
    Jeff Flake is something that revolves around Uranus.

    Ha!

  94. @J.Ross
    The fact that this is the only thing Americans know about the leader of Malaysia and, for that matter, Malaysia itself (especially after recent events) is an indictment of American mass media and not Mahathir Mohamad. Bonus: the story was from "the Jerusalem desk."

    Netanyahu is on it.

  95. @Anon

    Israel is one of the most (if not the most) expansionist powers on the planet
     
    You could not be more wrong.

    Israel has remained the same size since 1967 when it increased in size by 2,000 sq miles in Gaza and West bank.

    Indonesia has increased in size by 138,000 square miles since occupying Papua.

    Morocco has increased in size by 103,000 square miles since occupying Western Sahara.

    You suck at Takkiyah.

    He could be referring to the “facts on the ground,” the constant creep of koloniya consolidating their hold on territory he does not consider to be Israel’s.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Actually what he said was very clear. And he is clearly very wrong. It was extremely easy to disprove him and expose his lies.He was wrong by an absolutely huge margin.

    3/10 cheerleading/bodyguard attempt by you. Gotta try harder, homie.
  96. @Corvinus
    "Also, “liberal democracy” of today is certainly not what the US founding fathers and the thinkers in England and other places thought of."

    What our Founding Fathers put forth was enabling future generations to use our governmental principles in their own way, how they see fit, by way of the people.

    "They would have thought you insane if you had suggested multiracialism."

    Of course, because the thought process of the time period was "white people rule". But our nation was founded by diverse groups who just happened to be European.

    "The first US immigration policy was based on an understanding that this was for specific people."

    Not in perpetuity. At the time, that specific people were Europeans. But that decision was not cast in stone, since future generations were granted liberty, by way of Congress, to make changes reflected of the wishes of the people.

    "I think democracy is a very bad system in general due to the inefficiencies..."

    It's not the system of government, but the people running that system, that accounts for the inefficiencies and flaws, for the efficiency and successes. But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts that American citizens regardless of their race or ethnic background, whether they are able to trace their ancestors directly to the 1600's or the early 1900's, are able to comprehend.

    At the time, that specific people were Europeans.

    It’s not the system of government, but the people running that system…

    Indeed

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Right. In our nation's founding, various ethnic groups from Europe ORIGINALLY helped to develop the American nation. However, the Founding Fathers enabled future generations to ensure that non-Europeans would be one of us. So this notion by some of the fine posters here that ONLY Europeans must be the "rightful owners" of the United States is other than accurate. Remember, certain Europeans, notably those groups from Eastern and Southern Europe, were considered to be "alien" and "morally bankrupt", and thus were to be NOT included in this process.

    They have to go back.
  97. @J.Ross
    He could be referring to the "facts on the ground," the constant creep of koloniya consolidating their hold on territory he does not consider to be Israel's.

    Actually what he said was very clear. And he is clearly very wrong. It was extremely easy to disprove him and expose his lies.He was wrong by an absolutely huge margin.

    3/10 cheerleading/bodyguard attempt by you. Gotta try harder, homie.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I wonder if this is the same JIDF anon coming back in with a different set of numbers. Could an army of anons be sockpuppeted by dedicated restarting, or resetting the IP in a VPN?
  98. I’m not too familiar with either but I’d be interested to see you compare the based Hazony, father of nine, with It Boy Yuval Harari, who is gay. Harari strikes me as a kind of Jewish Ta-Nehisi Coates – wildly overpraised, although he’s probably smarter than Coates.

  99. @Anon
    Actually what he said was very clear. And he is clearly very wrong. It was extremely easy to disprove him and expose his lies.He was wrong by an absolutely huge margin.

    3/10 cheerleading/bodyguard attempt by you. Gotta try harder, homie.

    I wonder if this is the same JIDF anon coming back in with a different set of numbers. Could an army of anons be sockpuppeted by dedicated restarting, or resetting the IP in a VPN?

  100. @Bahadur
    Israel is one of the most (if not the most) expansionist powers on the planet, whose borders increase in size every day. Not only has it dominated the Palestinians, it has encouraged the subversion of foreign governments, installed its own puppet regimes, and engaged in programs of political intimidation around the world - all forms of subjugation.

    If nationalism "inculcates an aversion to the conquest of foreign nations" then Israel is clearly not nationalist.

    bahadur – Israel is one of the most (if not the most) expansionist powers on the planet, whose borders increase in size every day. Not only has it dominated the Palestinians, it has encouraged the subversion of foreign governments, installed its own puppet regimes, and engaged in programs of political intimidation around the world – all forms of subjugation.

    Bahadur, why can’t you and people like you just accept your lower station in life? You’re a goy. You’re not one of God’s chosen people whom he calls his children. You’re a goy. That isn’t a bad thing. You matter to God and your “people” matter to God. But you’re not one of us.

    Now, if I may outhonest Hazony for you.

    Of course we are imperializing the world for our benefit. God wants, over and above all else, that his children enjoy this world that he made for them.

    Unfortunately he left us to our own devices, so occasionally Esau (White goyim) rules over us for a while or Ishmael banshee raids us.

    All as very clearly explained in the Bible. In Genesis in fact. Ishmael’s hand is inneveryone else’s business and eveyone else’s hand is in his. And Esau is the property of Jacob but every so often Isaac’s postscript comes to past (see WWII).

    So yeah, Hazony is bs’ing you. You don’t matter to us. Some of us pretend to ourselves that you do, but you don’t. I mean you bahadur, personally.

    I’m a gentelman of comfort so I rarely go out on raids but should the inclination so move me and I come to own what you now consider you and yours, you should know that I’m doing it by moral right. As a sinner, you probably will oppose God’s will but all descendants of (metaphoric[?]) Noah have the soul in them to know the truth and that the Jewish People matter to God more than all of the rest of the nations of the earth combined.

    And so far as physical expansion is concerned, do you doubt that God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will not come to pass?

    Samuel famously referred to God by His Name, “The Eternity of Israel” but God Himself does it slightly more clearly. He defines both his Name and His Eternal reputation as The God Of The Jews.

    Read all of Exodus 3.

    But here’s verse 15.

    15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

    Bahadur, you’ll be happier is you accept God’s Will and your correct place in it.

    • Troll: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @simon's blood
    for the likes of you, the only answer is a bullet
  101. @Anon

    Israel is one of the most (if not the most) expansionist powers on the planet
     
    You could not be more wrong.

    Israel has remained the same size since 1967 when it increased in size by 2,000 sq miles in Gaza and West bank.

    Indonesia has increased in size by 138,000 square miles since occupying Papua.

    Morocco has increased in size by 103,000 square miles since occupying Western Sahara.

    You suck at Takkiyah.

    Actually, Israel has radically decreased in size since 1967.

  102. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Nah, just around here.

    There are plenty of stupid goys who make the same argument just as well. They just aren't as welcome in these parts.

    Civic Nationalists just need a Jewish path to Ethnic Nationalism. It makes them feel cleaner.

    But make no mistake, Civic Nationalism - sorry, but the kind that Steve advocates - is a dead-end. It won't worked. I have no idea what this country will be like in 50 or 100 years, but it won't be some multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural kumbaya of various tribes rallying around the Constitutional and civic nationalism.

    I think the world of Steve and believe that he's a national (my nation) treasure. God knows that he runs rings around me intellectually, but he's wrong about Civic Nationalism. Wrong in the way that only someone what wants to believe is wrong.

    I don't care how much propaganda is shoved down the throat of people via TV, movies, university and the internet. Ethnic nationalism will triumph over civic nationalism eventually the same way that I can only hold a chair over my head for so long. It's nature.

    All true. The laws of political power, and thus of politics, are absolute. True political power can only be cultivated from ethnic nationalism. Everything else is a diversion / delusion. That’s not a wishful statement. That’s a statement that best reflects human social behavior and its real world political result.

  103. @Tyrion 2

    Will it be good like the Roman Empire or Christendom, or will it be bad like what we have now?
     
    The Roman Empire was the sad slow death of the Roman Republic.

    Which in turn was the result of the death of the Roman Kin-gdom.

  104. Anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Nationalism can't succeed without natalism. This is where Israel has succeeded and Japan has failed. Feminism is utter poison.

    Also, nationalism is the only guarantee of ethno-socialism. Without nationalism, the elites will not see and treat fellow ethnic as Our People.

    Diversity destroys socialism. Even when Diversity votes for socialism, as in Venezuela and Brazil, the system fails due to lack of common trust and interest.

    Birth and death will alternately dominate population cycles in any culturally healthy system that has finite resources.

    Island nations tend to have a clearer perspective on just how finite their resources are.

    It follows that Japan hasn’t failed.

    It is merely in a part of its population cycle that the Western ((bankers)) and their sociopolitical allies have refused to embrace for western populations because:

    1. It isn’t their population that they are destroying with mass immigration and

    2. why should they endure a shrinking population with a shrinking economy and a concomitant yet paradoxical rise in living standards for the poor?

    Again, it isn’t their population at stake. Their Talmud tells them to treat us as a slave population, which is similar to an animal population.

    If your animal’s job was to pull a minimum amount of weight around a field, would you suffer its population decline just to assure genetic purity and happiness for the animal? Of course not. You’d breed that bitch out and lower the work standards if necessary. Numbers overcome quality for such work.

    Japan will be just fine. Its population will again begin to increase when it has shrunk enough.

  105. @Tyrion 2

    But the real reason that nationalism is less likely to lead to war these days than in the past is that military conquest just doesn’t pay anymore. Merely defeating barbarians in Afghanistan in a permanent way seems to be something the incredibly expensive American military can’t do. And then what would it gain us to conquer the Hindu Kush?
     
    Exactly. Whether by cosmic grace, luck or some sort of inevitable conclusion of reason, we have reached a situation where nations conquering other nations mostly no longer makes any sense.* People are the most valuable economic resource and their genuine willing is required.

    It was practical to have someone working the fields at threat of corporal punishment but who would want a slave lawyer?

    This means that, once the various historical grievances are ironed out and ABSENT MASS IMMIGRATION**, the various countries will have no excuse but to Make Themselves Great (Again).

    *Qatar and Equatorial Guinea stand out as countries still worth taking but huge natural resources and tiny populations are not a thing of the future.

    **mass immigration establishes multiple nations within one country. As the state is the most important economic resource, control of it becomes a rational and crucial national desire (of the many nations in one country). Conflict is thus incentivised in much the same way that a huge oil field crossing various international boundaries incentivises it.

    Even worse, democracy obviously encourages such demographic competition - "winning" becomes a demographic question.

    This is the tragedy of the liberal democracies - they're born with the seed of their own demise.

    Or maybe not, perhaps they just need to stop with the perennially unpopular and ahistorical mass immigration and they can continue being democratic and liberal and with a state full of largesse...

    This is just rehashed Norman Angellism.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Didn't the 20th Century prove him right? Weren't the only winners of the wars those who stayed out or at least stayed out the longest?
  106. @IHTG
    Yoram Hazony was an aide to Netanyahu in the early 1990s. I don't know that they've had any contact in more recent times, but it's certainly interesting that they appear to have undergone a parallel intellectual evolution.

    It mus be said that these things aren't really part of the public debate in Israel. Most intellectuals in Israel are on the left and have an interest in portraying "Netanyahuism" as nothing but unprincipled opportunism.

    The profound anti-intellectualism of the Israeli political debate is a weakness but also a strength (for example, it has kept our politics immune to silly dogmas such as libertarianism).

    Seems a bit silly to label all Libertarianism as silly. Feiglin’s Zehut party has a Libertarian bent (not to mention Nationalistic) which aims to rid us of some of the needless and rampant regulation and taxation which stifles so much of our economy. They’ve got my vote.

    • LOL: IHTG
  107. @IHTG
    Yoram Hazony was an aide to Netanyahu in the early 1990s. I don't know that they've had any contact in more recent times, but it's certainly interesting that they appear to have undergone a parallel intellectual evolution.

    It mus be said that these things aren't really part of the public debate in Israel. Most intellectuals in Israel are on the left and have an interest in portraying "Netanyahuism" as nothing but unprincipled opportunism.

    The profound anti-intellectualism of the Israeli political debate is a weakness but also a strength (for example, it has kept our politics immune to silly dogmas such as libertarianism).

    Perhaps instead of a snarky LOL response, you could elaborate on what it is you find laughable.

  108. @bomag

    At the time, that specific people were Europeans.

    ...

    It’s not the system of government, but the people running that system...
     
    Indeed

    Right. In our nation’s founding, various ethnic groups from Europe ORIGINALLY helped to develop the American nation. However, the Founding Fathers enabled future generations to ensure that non-Europeans would be one of us. So this notion by some of the fine posters here that ONLY Europeans must be the “rightful owners” of the United States is other than accurate. Remember, certain Europeans, notably those groups from Eastern and Southern Europe, were considered to be “alien” and “morally bankrupt”, and thus were to be NOT included in this process.

    They have to go back.

  109. @Anon
    Nationalism can't succeed without natalism. This is where Israel has succeeded and Japan has failed. Feminism is utter poison.

    Also, nationalism is the only guarantee of ethno-socialism. Without nationalism, the elites will not see and treat fellow ethnic as Our People.

    Diversity destroys socialism. Even when Diversity votes for socialism, as in Venezuela and Brazil, the system fails due to lack of common trust and interest.

    Diversity destroys socialism.

    This is an argument for (ethnic/racial/identity) diversity. It is a primary argument of the libertarian open border movement.

    Even when Diversity votes for socialism, as in Venezuela and Brazil, the system fails due to lack of common trust and interest.

    Destroying socialism and delivering anarcho-capitalist utopia is great.

    Destroying socialism and delivering a failed state that leaves its population miserable is terrible.

  110. @Lagertha
    That would be fun. It goes right to his question: Does Western Civilization have the will to survive? - the whole "sovereign states" idea already made heads explode. We need more head explosions, currently. Sarah just threw a grenade! Warrior...proud of her.

    Speaking of that:

    https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/09/27/commission-eu-must-curb-national-sovereignty-kill-populism/

    The European Union (EU) must bring an end to national sovereignty over finance with the creation of a “eurozone budget” in order to kill off populist politics within the euro region, according to the Commission.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    they're scared to death...pitchforks....crickets....more crickets. EU bureaucrats should really have an "exit plan" for their families.
  111. @utu
    "Both bodies [would] revolve around the center of mass" if there was no Sun. You used two body solution for the three body problem. Does it beat your nit picking?

    You are the KING!

    Maybe Derb will follow up on this by now ancient thread and hand you his crown.

  112. @Ibound1
    Speaking of that:

    https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/09/27/commission-eu-must-curb-national-sovereignty-kill-populism/

    The European Union (EU) must bring an end to national sovereignty over finance with the creation of a “eurozone budget” in order to kill off populist politics within the euro region, according to the Commission.
     

    they’re scared to death…pitchforks….crickets….more crickets. EU bureaucrats should really have an “exit plan” for their families.

  113. @map
    This is just rehashed Norman Angellism.

    Didn’t the 20th Century prove him right? Weren’t the only winners of the wars those who stayed out or at least stayed out the longest?

    • Replies: @map
    No. Norman Angell believed that war was impossible because of international trade.
  114. @Moshe

    bahadur - Israel is one of the most (if not the most) expansionist powers on the planet, whose borders increase in size every day. Not only has it dominated the Palestinians, it has encouraged the subversion of foreign governments, installed its own puppet regimes, and engaged in programs of political intimidation around the world – all forms of subjugation.
     
    Bahadur, why can't you and people like you just accept your lower station in life? You're a goy. You're not one of God's chosen people whom he calls his children. You're a goy. That isn't a bad thing. You matter to God and your "people" matter to God. But you're not one of us.

    Now, if I may outhonest Hazony for you.

    Of course we are imperializing the world for our benefit. God wants, over and above all else, that his children enjoy this world that he made for them.

    Unfortunately he left us to our own devices, so occasionally Esau (White goyim) rules over us for a while or Ishmael banshee raids us.

    All as very clearly explained in the Bible. In Genesis in fact. Ishmael's hand is inneveryone else's business and eveyone else's hand is in his. And Esau is the property of Jacob but every so often Isaac's postscript comes to past (see WWII).

    So yeah, Hazony is bs'ing you. You don't matter to us. Some of us pretend to ourselves that you do, but you don't. I mean you bahadur, personally.

    I'm a gentelman of comfort so I rarely go out on raids but should the inclination so move me and I come to own what you now consider you and yours, you should know that I'm doing it by moral right. As a sinner, you probably will oppose God's will but all descendants of (metaphoric[?]) Noah have the soul in them to know the truth and that the Jewish People matter to God more than all of the rest of the nations of the earth combined.

    And so far as physical expansion is concerned, do you doubt that God's promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will not come to pass?

    Samuel famously referred to God by His Name, "The Eternity of Israel" but God Himself does it slightly more clearly. He defines both his Name and His Eternal reputation as The God Of The Jews.

    Read all of Exodus 3.

    But here's verse 15.


    15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

     
    Bahadur, you'll be happier is you accept God's Will and your correct place in it.

    for the likes of you, the only answer is a bullet

    • Replies: @Anon
    Hey idiot.
    The guy is on your side.
    He is doing satire , posing as an obnoxious Jew.
    , @Moshe
    St. Simon didn't even require a bullet. We are able to extract Christian Blood for our diabolical purposes come passover time without recourse to guns. We support gun control because it neuters the enemy without effecting us. Besides, host torture is safer and more pleasurable than the process of acquiring Simon's Blood so we've pretty much just been sticking with that lately. I'm not shy so if there is a way to upload a 15 second video of my own participation in Host Torture on Corpus Christi I will be happy to share it with you.
  115. @simon's blood
    for the likes of you, the only answer is a bullet

    Hey idiot.
    The guy is on your side.
    He is doing satire , posing as an obnoxious Jew.

    • Replies: @simon's blood
    idk anon, seems legit
  116. @Anon
    Hey idiot.
    The guy is on your side.
    He is doing satire , posing as an obnoxious Jew.

    idk anon, seems legit

  117. @simon's blood
    for the likes of you, the only answer is a bullet

    St. Simon didn’t even require a bullet. We are able to extract Christian Blood for our diabolical purposes come passover time without recourse to guns. We support gun control because it neuters the enemy without effecting us. Besides, host torture is safer and more pleasurable than the process of acquiring Simon’s Blood so we’ve pretty much just been sticking with that lately. I’m not shy so if there is a way to upload a 15 second video of my own participation in Host Torture on Corpus Christi I will be happy to share it with you.

  118. see, anon[285]? he’s clearly on your side. he’s parodying my “idiotic” anti-semitic notions of jewish wickedness, playing up the absurdity of of the blood libel/host desecration accusations. it’s the old “I didn’t even get my invitation to the elders of Zion meeting this year!” routine. I’ve seen it a hundred times. never amusing, except to you never-againers.

  119. @Corvinus
    "Also, “liberal democracy” of today is certainly not what the US founding fathers and the thinkers in England and other places thought of."

    What our Founding Fathers put forth was enabling future generations to use our governmental principles in their own way, how they see fit, by way of the people.

    "They would have thought you insane if you had suggested multiracialism."

    Of course, because the thought process of the time period was "white people rule". But our nation was founded by diverse groups who just happened to be European.

    "The first US immigration policy was based on an understanding that this was for specific people."

    Not in perpetuity. At the time, that specific people were Europeans. But that decision was not cast in stone, since future generations were granted liberty, by way of Congress, to make changes reflected of the wishes of the people.

    "I think democracy is a very bad system in general due to the inefficiencies..."

    It's not the system of government, but the people running that system, that accounts for the inefficiencies and flaws, for the efficiency and successes. But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts that American citizens regardless of their race or ethnic background, whether they are able to trace their ancestors directly to the 1600's or the early 1900's, are able to comprehend.

    White people should be able to rule our own countries in our interests and should not have to accept being inundated and compelled/pressured/forced to mix ourselves out of existence, just like everone else. What are you, some sort of craven genocidalist? You think it would be normal if Shanghai came to be populated by, say, Russians? Nope.

    Anyway the founding fathers didn’t intend this and only really anti-white revisionists fully bought into the ideology claim otherwise.

  120. @Tyrion 2
    Didn't the 20th Century prove him right? Weren't the only winners of the wars those who stayed out or at least stayed out the longest?

    No. Norman Angell believed that war was impossible because of international trade.

  121. Thread:

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2