The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Let's Cherish Our Nations. Let's be Nationalists!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
nobellecture

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
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL 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 once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

[Adapted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively on VDARE.com.]

Nationalism is definitely a Thing right now—so much so that National Public Radio on November 14th declared “nationalist” to be the Word of the Year for 2018. [Opinion: 'Nationalist' Arises, With Myriad Connotations, As The Word Of 2018, by Geoffrey Nunberg, November 14, 2018]

A few reasons:

  • At a pre-election campaign rally in Texas, President Trump had declared himself a proud nationalist. Apparently in response to this, at a ceremony in Paris last Sunday to commemorate the Armistice that ended World War One a hundred years ago, French President Emmanuel Macron laid in to nationalism: “Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.”
  • That Armistice Day, November 11th, is also, as it happens, Poland‘s National Independence Day, a public holiday—the Polish July Fourth, as it were. This year is the centenary not only of the Armistice, but also of modern Polish independence, which Poles seized as the empires of Russia, Germany, and Austria were disintegrating all around them in 1918.
  • In Britain, the most significant nationalist event of the past few decades was the 2016 vote by referendum to leave the European Union—Brexit. Negotiations between the British government and the EU on the terms of departure have dragged on for two and a half years, but the matter now seems at last to be coming to a head.
  • There is talk of building a new European Army independent of NATO. German Chancellor Angela Merkelchimed in with agreement. We American nationalists would like nothing better than for the U.S.A. to withdraw from NATO. That would be a great boost to ournationalism, American Our nationalist President, however, disagrees: he scoffed at Macron’s idea.
  • Yoram Hazony’s book The Virtue of Nationalism, published in September, has been widely reviewed and discussed.

Nationalism is highly relevant to our mission here at VDARE.com: to promote thoughtful, well-informed discussion of the U.S.A.’s National Question, with special attention to issues of demographics and foreign settlement.

I have to say I find Macron deeply unimpressive. None of his recorded remarks has struck me as very intelligent or memorable. The French themselves seem to agree with me: Macron’s party is polling poorly, below twenty percent—behind Marine Le Pen‘s nationalists. [French far-right overtakes Macron in EU parliament election poll, by David Chazan, Financial Times, November 4, 2018]

It’s characteristic of mediocrities like Macron to be in thrall to the shallow clichés of the generation that came before them. For Macron in particular to be in thrall to the generation before him would actually be less surprising than the average, as he is married to a member of that generation. Mrs. Macron’s generation is also mine, more or less—she is eight years younger than I am—so I can speak with authority about those shallow clichés that were in the air during the decades after WW2.

One of those clichés was that while patriotism was good, nationalism was bad. Patriotism, the talking heads all told us in 1960 and 1970, was the warm, loving feeling you have for your country, with no malice or prejudice against anyone else’s country. Where there was such malice—or disdain, or contempt, or aggressive intentions—that was nationalism.

So nationalism was patriotism with attitude.

That was what all Goodthinking people believed through my young adulthood, and Mrs. Macron’s. It’s not hard to figure why we believed that. The aggressor powers in WW2, Germany and Japan, had state ideologies of militaristic imperialism, of which nationalism was undeniably a component. Setting out to conquer Europe and Asia, the Germans and Japanese felt justified in doing so because their nations were best.

Nationalism-wise, there’s a contradiction in there, though. As militaristic imperialists, the Germans and the Japanese had no time for anyone else’s nationalism. They both knew, as imperialists have known since civilization began, that nationalism is the bane of imperialism.

The Germans and Japanese who fought WW2 were not fans of Polish nationalism or Korean nationalism. They strove very mightily and brutally to extinguish those nationalisms. They were imperialists. Nationalist impulses may be harnessed by imperialism, but imperialism is fundamentally anti-nationalist. Ask a Tibetan.

That nationalism can be harnessed to the service of militaristic imperialism is not an argument against nationalism; it’s an argument against militaristic imperialism. The bonds of family loyalty and affection can be harnessed to the service of organized crime, as we see with the Mafia. That’s not an argument against family loyalty and affection.

So the conventional wisdom of 1970—patriotism good, nationalism bad—while it was understandable after the mid-century horrors, left much unsaid.

Now the things then left unsaid are being said. Here am I saying some of them.

So what does distinguish patriotism from nationalism?

One answer: nothing. The words “patriotism” and “nationalism” are synonyms.

If true, that’s kind of annoying. Why cumber ourselves with two words for the same thing? I am anyway resistant to it. Cyril Mortimer taught my primary-school class back around 1955 that there are no true synonyms; that even words closely related in meaning have different shades of color, different usages and connotations. Mr. Mortimer was right.

But then, if—contra President Macron—if there is a healthy and harmless style of nationalism, with nothing negative in it towards other nations, how does such a nationalism distinguish itself from attitude-free patriotism?

I would seek the answer in the complexity of our feelings about our nation and others. Let me offer some literary references.

  • In 1783 James Boswell said, of his hero Samuel Johnson, that he was “a stern true-born Englishman, and fully prejudiced against all other nations.” [The Life of Samuel Johnson, Volume 2] So was Dr. Johnson a nationalist, or a patriot? (Yes, yes, Johnson was also the man who said, quote: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” His target there was scoundrels, though, not patriots.)
  • In 1805 Sir Walter Scott wrote:

Breathes there the man with soul so dead

Who never to himself hath said

“This is my own, my native land!”

Definitely patriotic, right? No attitude there, right? We-ell … Read the whole poem. [Lay of the Last Minstrel, Canto VI, [My Native Land] There’s a depth of feeling there that I think goes beyond once-a-year salute-the-flag bland patriotism.

  • Frank Richards told George Orwell in 1940 that “I have lived in many countries, and talked in several languages: and found something to esteem in every country I have visited. But I have never seen any nation the equal of my own.” Patriot or nationalist?

Discussing this topic with a learned friend, she told me something about the situation here in the U.S. that I hadn’t heard before: In the names of organizations, she said, the word “national” has generally been preferred by the political Left, while the Right favors the word “American.”

So, on the Left you have the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Organization of Women, while on the right you have the American Legion and the Daughters of the AmericanRevolution.

But a different friend, he observed that two of this country’s leading political magazines both have “nation” in the title: The Nation on the left but National Review on the right!

Patriotism; nationalism; left; right; at this point my head’s beginning to spin.

Let me just step back and see if I can extract some final sense from all this.

First, let me express some skepticism towards the idea of a bland, harmless patriotism, with malice towards none and charity for all.

Human nature just isn’t like that. To ask that I have a strong love for my country with no negativity whatsoever towards other countries, is to ask too much.

ORDER IT NOW

In the vapid dualism of today’s ruling ideology, according to which if you don’t approve something whole-heartedly you must hate, hate, hate it, this understanding has been lost. All the intermediate emotions between swooning love and seething hate are no longer fit subjects for discussion. Mild disapproval; amused mockery; grudging tolerance; good old utter indifference; nobody has such feelings any more, according to the guardians of our state ideology. If you don’t love Big Brother, you must hate him.

Back in 1940, or 1805, or 1783, we had a better understanding of our nature. When Boswell wrote that Johnson was “fully prejudiced against all other nations,” nobody would have understood it to mean that Johnson wanted to invade and occupy those other nations, or persecute their citizens. He just didn’t like their ways much, because they differed from the English ways he was accustomed to.

In the same letter in which Frank Richards expressed his patriotism to George Orwell, Richards also wrote the following thing:

As for foreigners being funny, I must shock Mr. Orwell by telling him that foreigners are funny. They lack the sense of humor that is the special gift of our own chosen nation.

That’s patriotism, but it’s not blandly neutral towards foreigners. Richards thinks they’re funny. It’s not neutral, but it’s not aggressive. He doesn’t hate foreigners, or want to enslave them. He just wants to laugh at them.

This is human nature in all its convolutions and anfractuosities. If you try to encompass it with the infantile simplicities of Cultural Marxism, you will fail.

Second: I think it comes down to this—the word “nationalism,” whatever anyone thought it meant in 1970, has a new currency now because it is a handy way to refer to the opposite of globalism.

Globalism has been the grand theme of the past few decades. For one thing, globalist organizations came up after the World Wars. Some of them came up in reaction to the horrors of those wars; the United Nations most obviously. Some were products of the Cold War, like NATO. Some were originally mercantile leagues, like the EU.

For another thing, it’s just gotten much easier to move around the world, and there are way more people who want to do the moving. So mass immigration from poor countries to rich ones has been rising steeply. There have been winners and losers from this. And the winners have naturally taken up a globalist outlook.

The rise of globalism has generated a reaction. Those big globalist organizations have exhibited bureaucratic arrogance, not to mention corruption. Mass immigration has depressed wages and left many people feeling like strangers in their own countries. ['I feel like a stranger where I live’, by Jane Kelly, Telegraph, January 29, 2013] This reaction needs a name, and the word “nationalism” is lying around, not much used, so we’ve taken it up as a name for the anti-globalist outlook.

The word “nationalism” wasn’t taken up at random. Public discourse in the civilized world is controlled by globalists. They naturally want to put resistance to globalism in as bad a light as possible.

To people who don’t think much, people like Emmanuel Macron, the word “nationalism” has that tinge of darkness, that frisson of Hitlery-Hitlery-Hitler that commends it to the globalists for purposes of vituperation.

There are some contradictions here that globalists would much rather you didn’t think about: for example, the tricky matter of Israel.

I earlier mentioned Yoram Hazony’s book The Virtue of Nationalism. Hazony [email him] is an Israeli scholar, President of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem. He makes the point that Israeli nationalism is in a way the archetypal nationalism, forged over long centuries in opposition to great empires: the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Roman, Ottoman, and, yes, British.

It’s not very surprising that Israel today is a beacon of nationalism, or that a best-selling book titled The Virtue of Nationalism should have an Israeli author.

It is, though, hard to square with those Hitlery-Hitlery-Hitler connotations of the word “nationalism” that are so dear to globalists like President Macron. If “nationalism” is a Hitlery-Hitlery-Hitler sort of word, what sense does it make to talk of Israeli nationalism?

Israel’s intense nationalism is also a problem for Jewish immigration romantics in the U.S.A.: people like Max Boot, John Podhoretz, David Brooks, Bret Stephens, Michelle Goldberg.

Reading these pundits, you sometimes get the impression they were happier with the older situation, before the modern state of Israel came up, when Jews were, in the Soviet phrase, “rootless cosmopolitans.” Boot, Podhoretz, Brooks, & Co. are not really against nationalism, you find yourself thinking: they’re just against goy nationalism.

Well, the Jewish immigration romantics will have to find their own way out of that maze. It’s their problem, not mine. I’m happy that nationalism has settled in as a Thing, that the word “nationalism” has been anointed as Word of the Year even by a CultMarx outfit like National Public Radio, and that books praising nationalism are finding a good market.

Globalism is not a contemptible idea. Of course, civilized nations should strive to get along with each other, to avoid wars, and to contain, as best they can, the non-civilized. Probably there need to be some transnational organizations to help all that along. And yes, we should try, like Frank Richards, to find something to esteem in other countries we visit.

The nations of the world are our natural homes, though. They are not, in my lifetime or yours, going to merge into a caramel-colored uniformity, speaking the same tongue, eating the same food, worshipping the same gods, laughing at the same jokes. That’s a fantasy, and not a benign one.

Let’s cherish our nations. Let’s be nationalists!

2010-12-24dl[1]John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjectsfor all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him.) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT(also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Globalism, Nationalism 
Hide 50 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Great Solzhenitsyn quote.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @silviosilver
  2. It’s nice that Derb is tackling the Jewish hypocrisy question here. But I wouldn’t call them immigration romantics. That suggests they have a soft spot in their hearts for the downtrodden. No, what they’re engaged in is the cold calculus of immigration warfare and displacement because it’s good for the Jews. Or so they think, what with their big brains. Of course, as Israel shows, those big brains sometimes misfire and they end up with a neurotic, isolated, paranoid ethnostate requiring 24/7 hasbara to keep the haters in line.

  3. DB Cooper says:

    “Nationalist impulses may be harnessed by imperialism, but imperialism is fundamentally anti-nationalist. Ask a Tibetan.”

    This is so true, and this is why India has been so heavy hand on South Tibet. For years South Tibet is restless and the people there are seething with anger and India knows it. This is the reason India imposes the notorious AFSPA on South Tibet. AFSPA (Armed Force Special Power Act) is a law dating back to the Raj times and it gives the state the power to detain or kill anyone with impunity. It is a law meant to suppress dissent and intimidates the locals. It is imposed on area India deemed ‘disturbed’, such as South Tibet, the northeast and Kashmir.

    https://thediplomat.com/2015/07/indias-controversial-armed-forces-special-powers-act/​​

    https://freepresskashmir.com/2018/03/20/no-plans-to-amend-remove-afspa-from-jk-says-govt-of-india/​​

    Recently South Tibet is in the boil again. And it is the same old reason. Rape. Raping of Tibetan girls by Indians in South Tibet has been a festering problem for years. Last year a mob of Tibetans overran a prison holding two Indian rape suspects and lynched the suspects. This is of course deplorable because the two suspects deserve to have their fair trial but it only shows the frustration of the general public living under oppressive Indian rule. A couple of weeks ago two jawans allegedly molested two Tibetan girls in a festival and was detained by the local police (make up of local Tibetans) and held in a police station. The Indian army (make up of Indian occupiers), probably feared that the two jawans would be lynched and so it ransacked the police station and the army chief warned the local police to ‘keep their hands off of their boys’. The situation detoriates so bad that the Indian defense minister has to fly in to personally deliver a stern warning to the Tibetans that the army has the full support of the federal government.

    So how did this all happened? How come these Tibetans are now living under Indian rule? To answer this question we need to go back a century and listen to how the story begin.

    Once upon a time a thug from out of town show up uninvited in South Asia and squatted there for over two hundred years. During those two hundred years the thug focus on one thing that it did best. And that is land grab. After two hundred years of land grab a country began to take shape which sets the foundation of modern day India. By the beginning of the last century the thug, usually referred to as the Raj, has nowhere to expand but up and hence the land grab began to intrude into the Southwestern part of China and set in motion the land grabbing of China from the Southwestern side (euphemistically called Younghusband expedition into Tibet) and in the process massacred several thousands of Tibetans.
    ​​
    And so Tibet became the next target the expansionist Raj wants to seize from China (that was the heyday of colonialism and by that time many treaty ports on China east coast were already ceded to various Western countries including Britain and Hong Kong was already a British crown colony for over a century) and it uses all kinds of methods to weaken China’s hold to Tibet with some success. So unlike India, which was created and built up by the British over two centuries, what Britain seek in China was its dismemberment, as is evidence in this Winston Churchill speech he gave in 1902 in which he said : ​​
    ​​
    “I think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them…. I believe in the ultimate partition of China—I mean ultimate.”​​
    ​​

    https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-159/wsc-a-midnight-interview-1902/​​

    ​​
    China at that time was beaten, bullied and carved up the Western powers and by the middle of the last century the country was pretty much on life support and China’s hold to Tibet was tenuous at best. Then after World War II Britain was exhausted and left South Asia and bequeath the new country it tried so hard to build up over the last two centuries to its former subjects. The rulers of the new country, instead of looking at its neighbors with empathy and camaraderie because after all they themselves were at the receiving ends of the same thug not so long ago, immediately style their new country as the new imperial power in the block and continue the land grab of the Raj without missing a beat. ​​
    ​​

    http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2582.html​​

    ​​
    Nehru for example shortly after the Raj has left visited India’s smaller neighbors like Sikkim(subsequently annexed by India in 1975)​

    http://nepalitimes.com/issue/35/Nation/9621#.UohjPHQo6LA​

    http://www.passblue.com/2015/07/22/a-small-himalayan-kingdom-remembers-its-lost-independence/​​

    http://www.amazon.com/Smash-Grab-Annexation-Sunanda-Datta-Ray/dp/9383260386​​

    http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Indian-hegemonism-drags-Himalayan-kingdom-into-oblivion​​


    and Bhutan (currently in a semi-occupation state by India) and told them that India is their new master from then on. ​​
    ​​

    http://wangchasangey.blogspot.com/2017/07/to-all-within-and-outside-bhutan-and.html​​

    ​​
    In other words the big thug Britain has spawned the little thug India and the little thug India is still menacing its smaller neighbors to this day.​​
    ​​

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/BHUTANESE-News-&-FORUMS-278156858950985/permalink/1118711044895558/​​

    ​​
    In 1951, four years after the British has already left India invaded South Tibet. South Tibet includes historic Tawang, birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama and home to the four hundred years old Tibetan monastery the Golden Namgey Lhatse.​​
    ​​

    http://kanglaonline.com/2011/06/khathing-the-taking-of-tawang/​​

    ​​
    Tawang and South Tibet is indisputably part of China as shown by numerous maps including this National Geographic map published in 1912:​​
    ​​

    https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:x633f939c​​

    ​​
    One needs to know that despite the British left South Asia in 1947 vanishing any territorial ambitions Britain once has in Tibet, it doesn’t mean Britain has no utility in Tibet. Britain still has interest in Tibet because by keeping Tibet in the boil Britain can use it as a leverage in case China wants to take back Hong Kong:​​
    ​​

    http://orientalreview.org/2013/08/12/arms-and-the-elephant-i/​​

    ​​
    And the modus operandi of Britain (or the United States for that matter) to keep a country in the boil is to find/nurture local people/rebel groups as opposition force to destabilize and create havoc for the country. To this end the British and the American has serendipitously bagged the leader of the biggest religious sect, the Dalai Lama as its asset and to do its bidding.​​
    ​​

    https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/02/world/world-news-briefs-dalai-lama-group-says-it-got-money-from-cia.html​​

    ​​
    Despite the public persona of the Dalai Lama as a man of moral authority, nothing is holy about His Holiness. WikiLeaks has revealed that the Dalai Lama has been sending underage orphans under his care to go to war for India against Pakistan. ​​
    ​​

    http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-dark-side-of-dalai-lama/​​

    ​​
    And as a self styled leader of an ‘oppressed’ people, His Holiness certainly shows no sympathies for people who are really oppressed. ​​
    ​​

    http://www.taylor-report.com/gallery/index.php?id=5​​

    https://read.dukeupress.edu/positions/article-abstract/18/1/89/21515/Vegetarian-between-Meals-The-Dalai-Lama-War-and?redirectedFrom=fulltext​​

    ​​
    After the successful annexation of South Tibet in 1951, the little thug India began pushing north in an attempt to grab more land from China which culminated in the brief month long border war between China and India in 1962. ​​
    ​​

    http://gregoryclark.net/redif.html​​

    http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/podcasts/renewed-tension-indiachina-border-whos-blame​​

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8FuHxRDJcU​​

    ​​
    India was soundly defeated and in typical Indian sophistry the Indian government lies to its people and to the world that innocent India was invaded by China unprovoked. To this day India is still feigning victimhood with the constant complaining of ‘intrusion’ from China.​​

    http://www.eurasiareview.com/10022012-an-india-china-military-conflict-analysis/​

    ​​
    In 1987 in an attempt to fool the worlds of its illegal land grab India renamed South Tibet to the so called Arunachal Pradesh and made it a state. The government of mainland China and Taiwan both protest India such treacherous act. One needs to know that the Nationalist government of Taiwan was the government of the whole of China before it retreated to the island Taiwan when it was defeated in the civil war in 1949. Before that the Nationalist government has been repeatedly sending diplomatic protests to the British Raj of its intrusion into Tibet which was duly ignored by the British. After the British left South Asia the intrusion by India continues and the Nationalist government in turn has been repeatedly sending diplomatic protests to New Delhi, which were again duly ignored. When Communist China came into existence India was one of the first countries to recognize it as the legitimate government of China and in one full stroke permanently shut off the many pesky diplomatic protests issued by the Nationalist government. When India renamed South Tibet and made it a state the Nationalist government of Taiwan put out a statement vehemently denouncing India’s action:​​
    ​​

    https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-40862957​​

    ​​
    Here is an excerpt (translated from Chinese):​​
    ​​
    “In regards to the issue of the Indian government illegal occupation of our country’s territory and establishes the so called ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ the foreign ministry of the Republic of China put out this announcement in midnight as follows:​​
    ​​
    India illegal occupation of our country’s territory, the government of the Republic of China has repeatedly stated that it will not recognize. Recently the congress of India unilaterally pass the establishment of the ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ on the south of the so called McMahon Line. India government also made it into a state, the government of the Republic of China once again solemnly proclaim: the government of India intend to legitimize its illegal occupation of the territory of China, the government of the Republic of China regards this as illegal, void and absolutely not recognized.”​​
    ​​
    The Peoples Republic of China for its part has reiterated numerous times that it did not recognize the so called Arunachal Pradesh. In other words both the Communist party in mainland (People’s Republic of China) or the Nationalist party in Taiwan (Republic of China) do not recognize India’s so called Arunachal Pradesh. Also note the used of the term “so called McMahon” Line in the pronouncement by the Nationalist government in Taiwan. This is because the McMahon Line itself is based on a diplomatic forgery which shouldn’t come as a surprise given the many colonial duplicities Britain have committed in the past.​​
    ​​

    https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2041970/british-forgery-heart-india-and-chinas-tibetan-border-dispute​​

    http://www.shandilya.org/preface/mcmahon-line-reality/​​

    ​​
    At the end of 2008, a little over a decade after Britain handed Hong Kong back to China, Britain finally has no stake in Tibet and can afford to be honest for once. The British government put out a statement recognizing China’s sovereignty of Tibet (before it was suzerainty, not sovereignty) and in one fell swoop trashes whatever rationale India has on its claim on South Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh), however ridiculous and illegal it was to begin with. The statement, supported by both the conservative and labor parties, is remarkable in its honesty in conceding that Britain did at one time have design on Tibet and is almost apologetic in tone. Here is an excerpt:​​
    ​​
    “…But our position is unusual for one reason of history that has been imported into the present: the anachronism of our formal position on whether Tibet is part of China, and whether in fact we harbour continued designs to see the break-up of China. We do not.​​
    Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geopolitics of the time. Our recognition of China’s “special position” in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China. “​​
    ​​

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081029/wmstext/81029m0001.htm

    ​​
    In 2009, sensing Britain has pull a rug underneath India in regards to its illegal occupation of South Tibet the Indian government cooked up a scheme to ascertain India’s claim on South Tibet in a back door manner. It applied for an infrastructure loan to the ADB (Asia Development Bank) on behalf of South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh. The idea was that if the loan was granted by the ADB, a United Nation agency, it can be construed that the United Nation recognizes India’s sovereignty on South Tibet. The outcome however backfired badly and was the opposite of what India intended. The ADB rejects India’s application because of China protest and India was unable to produce any evidence that it has ownership of the territory. In other words on the record India’s occupation of South Tibet is not recognized by the United Nation.​​
    ​​
    Today Indian likes to muddle the issue and put China in the defense by claiming all these human rights violation in Tibet. The corporate media of course is also complicit in this nonsense but there are always academics with integrities reporting the situation like it is. Here is one:​​
    ​​

    http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2013/10/bia_20131016.mp3​​

    ​​
    The Dalai Lama on its part has been spewing this nonsense of massive human rights violation of Tibetans in China for years. However His Holiness himself has been called out by one of his supporters, an ex-president of a ‘Free Tibet’ shop based in London no less, in all but calling him a liar. ​​
    ​​

    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/22french.html​​

    So Britain in effect screwed the Tibetans twice. The first time by direct invasion and slaughtering when Britain has an empire in South Asia. The second time by being complicit of its protégé India when it invaded South Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh) in 1951 and condemn the Tibetans to live under the mercy of this thuggish Indians. I agree with Mr. Derbyshire, it is time to ask a Tibetan, a South Tibetan.

  4. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Having a nation means there is ONE place in the world where you can feel at home.

    Hungarians can have a nice time all around the world, but they can’t feel at home in most of the world. They are only guests. But in Hungary, they can feel ‘home’.

    It’s like people visit other homes but they have their own homes or private residences too. So, there is one place where they are not guests but residents. There is one place where they can feel at home.

    If all nations are open to all, then no one will have a sense of home. It’s funny that the people who did most to regain their homeland, the Jews, are now doing the most to rob others of their homelands.

    Globalism will turn all the world(except Israel) into Guestopia. It’s good to have a nation that belongs to your and your people. Such is Owneria. One place owned by your people.

  5. It’s characteristic of mediocrities like Macron to be in thrall to the shallow clichés of the generation that came before them.

    Qu’est-ce qu’un bobo parisien ?

  6. And I assume Frank Richards expected people in other countries to feel the same way about his people and their sense of humor, at the least the self-respecting ones.

    Patriotism is funny that way: I believe my country is better than the other guy’s and I would expect him to feel the same way about his country. I wouldn’t respect him if he didn’t.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  7. Cyril Mortimer taught my primary-school class back around 1955 that there are no true synonyms; that even words closely related in meaning have different shades of color, different usages and connotations. Mr. Mortimer was right.

    Not even furze and gorse?

    • Replies: @dearieme
  8. llloyd says: • Website
    @DB Cooper

    My eyes glazed over when I found out the thug was the British Empire. The best run Chinese States today are Hong Kong and Singapore. The Pearl river emporium of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Guangzhou are a real pearl compared with the still coprophilic conditions up north. You have to get up to Japanese created Harbin in Manchuria before you find decent hygiene again.

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
    , @llloyd
  9. The aggressor powers in WW2, Germany and Japan, had state ideologies of militaristic imperialism,…

    It would help if you read some real history, instead of the bullshit propagated by the Holocaust industry.

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
  10. dearieme says:

    “Cyril Mortimer taught my primary-school class back around 1955 that there are no true synonyms”: aha, I was better taught. Or at least taught otherwise. We were told there were two cases of exact synonyms. One was whins/gorse. (Would furze count too?)

    But I can’t remember the other one.

    Given my memory it’s a near miracle that I remember a primary school episode at all.

  11. dearieme says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Aha: we were both better taught. See my comment #10.

  12. JLK says:

    I like living in a relatively affluent safe place that has a responsible honest government, with sociable neighbors. The sole utility of nationalism in my mind is to preserve what we have left of that.

  13. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Song For the Deaf

    And I assume Frank Richards expected people in other countries to feel the same way about his people and their sense of humor, at the least the self-respecting ones.

    Sounds nice but in practice there is nothing the typical nationalist hates more than a taste of his own medicine. Case in point: John Derbyshire and his breathless columns denouncing “Sino-Fascism” after some Chinese person says he has a big nose or tries to charge him a higher “foreigner rate” to take the ferry (so much for the self-proclaimed freedom-of-association absolutist! I guess discrimination by business owners is only OK when it’s directed against blacks or gay couples).

  14. DB Cooper says:
    @llloyd

    Most Brits today don’t see their colonial past as the proudest moment in British history. But the sad fact is that India has been schooled in the art of thuggery by Britain and behave just like colonial Britain when it comes to its neighbors. I mean land grabbing and bullying. Here I repost one of the links I posted earlier and you will see how Bhutanese sees India. This kind of sentiment is common across India’s smaller neighbors.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/BHUTANESE-News-&-FORUMS-278156858950985/permalink/1118711044895558/

    “The Pearl river emporium of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Guangzhou are a real pearl compared with the still coprophilic conditions up north. You have to get up to Japanese created Harbin in Manchuria before you find decent hygiene again.”

    I am sure you haven’t been to China recently. I am sure Hangzhou, Chengdu, Dali, Kumming, Xiamen, Qingdao, Dalian….are much better than Harbin.

  15. Anon[214] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    A MICHAEL CLAYTON scenario?

  16. Yes Derbyshire, you need to be a nationalist – in China!!! You have written that Asians are smarter than whites. You cherish the East, not the West. You and your Chinese family need to go back to China and make it great again!!!

  17. Zumbuddi says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Agree

    Or, simple logic:

    It was NATIONAL Socialism, of the GERMAN people,

    who saw the evils and intentions of
    INTERNATIONAL Bolshevic Vommunism and sought to vanquish it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  18. Jason Liu says:

    “Enlightened nationalism” is surprisingly hard though.

    Most nationalists have an asshole streak that prevents them from getting along with other nationalists for very long. Eventually they end up offending, hating, even attacking each other based on differences or paranoia based on exaggerated threats. It’s like putting a bunch of anti-social men in a room. Eventually they’re gonna fight about something, usually something stupid.

    Sometimes it can be as minor as a small cultural trait or an unfounded rumor. Hyper-vigilance and conspiracy seem to be the nature for most tribalists, especially the uneducated working class types. And if given the chance, some DO believe in conquest for the sake of conquest.

    Cherishing our nations sounds nice but you can’t change human nature. Over the last century, nationalists fighting each other is what allowed globalism to rise in the first place. The global left is more united. A new kind of nationalist ideology has to emerge for the global right to win.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    , @densa
  19. @Anon

    If all nations are open to all, then no one will have a sense of home. It’s funny that the people who did most to regain their homeland, the Jews, are now doing the most to rob others of their homelands.

    It’s funny too, that the Jews in Israel are ferociously againstt the UN-compact on Migration.

    Them Jews sure are a funny bunch a lads all together!

  20. @Jason Liu

    Peaceful nationalism took it’s time to come into existence, but then, it seemed to work. If I look at – – – – Sweden, Finnland, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Japan (1945 ff.), Switzerland (no more wars since the early nineteenth century – and the last wars something, which should be studied very closely indeed, because: The world has hardly ever seen such wars as the ones between Basel County against Basel Town or Zürich against his neighbors – – – very interesting, almost bloodless happenings – gatherings under weapons often times, with very little fighting involved and quite a few messages exchanged.
    Gottfried Keller distilled the essence of the process, which turned Switzerland into a peaceful place in his Novella collection The People from Seldwyla. – One of the best reasons to study German, that I could think of.

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
  21. @DB Cooper

    I don’t think the British could teach the Chinese or Indians a thing about thuggery or invasion or slaughter. The warlords of China and India were cruel and cold hearted enough on their own. Their savagery stood on its own merits.

    Don’t get into black people’s habit of blaming others for your own faults and shortcomings; that’s a dead end road. Sure, it’s immediately gratifying and some will pity you, but pity doesn’t build confidence and fortitude. You don’t want to end up like black people, wallowing in their self imposed helplessness, the perennial basket cases of humanity. White women will offer them charity but that’s not respect for an equal, it’s a type of contempt.

    Learn to stand on your own two feet. When you blame others you keep yourself in a dependent position relative to them; you admit that they are more powerful and superior to you. Don’t give your adversaries that advantage.

    Do as the Japanese have done. Look within, marshal your resources, plot your own course and develop yourself. The past is the past. Chin up. Stop feeling sorry for yourself.

  22. DB Cooper says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Japan is hardly peaceful nationalism. Japan has territorial disputes with every single of its neighbors. And they are all extremely dubious.

  23. DB Cooper says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Who said I feel sorry for myself? I feel sorry for the South Tibetans living under India occupation. And I am blaming the British for that.

  24. DB Cooper says:
    @ThreeCranes

    “Do as the Japanese have done. Look within, marshal your resources, plot your own course and develop yourself. The past is the past. Chin up. Stop feeling sorry for yourself.”

    And stop lecturing. Who do you think you are?

  25. Derbyshire, 2018: “Nationalism-wise, there’s a contradiction in there, though. As militaristic imperialists, the Germans and the Japanese had no time for anyone else’s nationalism. They both knew, as imperialists have known since civilization began, that nationalism is the bane of imperialism.

    The Germans and Japanese who fought WW2 were not fans of Polish nationalism or Korean nationalism. They strove very mightily and brutally to extinguish those nationalisms. They were imperialists. Nationalist impulses may be harnessed by imperialism, but imperialism is fundamentally anti-nationalist. Ask a Tibetan.

    That nationalism can be harnessed to the service of militaristic imperialism is not an argument against nationalism; it’s an argument against militaristic imperialism. The bonds of family loyalty and affection can be harnessed to the service of organized crime, as we see with the Mafia. That’s not an argument against family loyalty and affection.”

    Derbyshire, 2001: “No, I’m not a Paleo. Republic or Empire? Empire, please.

    I understand, of course, that Americans at large, even those who have never even heard of the Republic vs. Empire debate, are schizophrenic about the matter. Huge numbers of Americans couldn’t care less about the world beyond their shores. They want nothing to do with it. They go to Florida for their vacations, or at the very furthest Hawaii. Passport? Who needs it? I am talking about un-intellectual Americans — decent, good-hearted, Christian family-loving folk, who just can’t see why the affairs of Albania or Zimbabwe are any damn business of theirs, much less why they should send off their beloved children to be killed in such places.

    Yet there are other Americans who understand, what I believe is true, that the Republic option is, at bottom, an empty fantasy. Public opinion supported the Vietnam war almost to the end of it; it was the elites and the intellectuals who turned against it, not ordinary Americans. People understand, I think, that however much Americans might wish to leave the world alone, the world will not leave America alone. Great wealth and great success generate great envy and great hatred. And America’s high ideals, if clutched jealously to America’s chest, while those abroad who believe them are hunted down and slaughtered without help, will wither and die. Idealism, like terrorism, has — can have — no borders….

    Some Americans — I speak as the father of two Americans — will have to get killed attacking their countries. (Oh, yes, they have countries.) Some of those Americans, likewise, will be proud and happy to do so, on behalf of the nation they love. Dirty business, running an Empire. Dirty business, defending civilization against barbarism. Barbaric business, sometimes — there’s a paradox to ponder … But don’t think you’re the first to ponder it. It was a Roman who said oderint dum metuant, and a Roman who rebuked him for saying it. Dirty business, dirty business. But then, there is always the Surrender Option.”

    Now we should be nationalists? After 15 trillion in the hole playing empire, with “Derb” in his National Review days beating the drum for empire? (I suppose he means we should be Exceptionally American about it, and be both at the same time. Or maybe he sees no contradiction; more’s the pity).

    Maybe we should have surrendered; Derb could have gone in the first prisoner exchange, to the benefit of both our civilizations. I understand the Muslim world is in dire need of someone to quote Boswell at them.

  26. DB Cooper says:
    @ThreeCranes

    By the way past is not past. The Tibetans in South Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh) are still paying the price everyday under brutal India rule because of British travesty. Karma is a bitch and Britain will eventually pay.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  27. @Zumbuddi

    who saw the evils and intentions of
    INTERNATIONAL Bolshevic Vommunism and sought to vanquish it.

    By occupying their territory. Not particularly national of them, was it?

    • Replies: @Svigor
  28. Svigor says:

    Solzy’s right. We must destroy the men who would destroy what God wrought.

  29. Svigor says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Too Nationalist.

    Anything can be taken too far, perverted.

  30. Svigor says:
    @DB Cooper

    LoL, fuck you, shitbird. India’s long since taken over any responsibility on that score.

    Stop spreading the idea that Indians are subhuman by denying them agency.

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
  31. Svigor says:

    http://patriotism.askdefine.com/

    Noun
    1 Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one’s country

    http://nationalism.askdefine.com/

    1 love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [syn: patriotism]

    They’re the same bloody thing. The most salient difference is that Globo-homo-gayplex has decided to make Nationalism bad because Globo-homo-gayplex is anti-Nationalist, anti-Patriotic, anti-Religious, anti-Human, and anti-anything else that stands in the way of its stupid doomed project. If Globo-homo-gayplex eliminates Nationalism, it’ll start in on Patriotism next (one thing the left/Globo-homo-gayplex does well is divide-and-conquer).

    • Replies: @Coemgen
  32. llloyd says: • Website
    @llloyd

    The term thug actually comes from India. British Empire exterminated the thugees in a brilliantly worked out plan of genocide and then coined that word to justify it. Basically the civilised areas of China are where the people have twentieth century habits of hygiene. Nice architecture, no relieving in the street. They are the same areas colonised by the European powers and Japan. Otherwise China runs well in an alliance of Confucianism and socialism.

  33. Svigor says:

    Israel’s intense nationalism is also a problem for Jewish immigration romantics in the U.S.A.: people like Max Boot, John Podhoretz, David Brooks, Bret Stephens, Michelle Goldberg.

    A problem? In what way? Conceptually? Jews ignore those not observed in )))others(((.

  34. DB Cooper says:
    @Svigor

    Nope. I don’t even know what a subhuman is supposed to mean. Only Indian knows. They called them the untouchables. Am I right?

    All I am saying is that India should get out of South Tibet. That’s all.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  35. KenH says:

    Patriotism and nationalism aren’t mutually exclusive. Wacky Macky said nationalism means I hate your country but if that’s so then globalism means I hate all white super majority nations and turn them into multiracial pigsties. We know that Macron hates France because it’s peopled by Frenchman and he wants to replace them.

  36. Coemgen says:
    @Svigor

    Patriotism and nationalism are respectively derived from the Latin words for father and birth.

    Patriotism has more of a tribal, love for the fatherland, quality

    Nationalism has more of a love for one’s place of birth quality

    If only Macron spoke Spanish instead of French, he may not have a made such a fool of himself last week.

  37. szopen says:

    Patriotism is a feeling towards your patria, fatherland, your country.
    Nationalism is a feeling towards your nation.

    You English are confused because you sometimes do not differentiate between the nation and the state. There can be several nations in one state. There can be nations without state.

  38. @Anon

    It’s funny that the people who did most to regain their homeland, the Jews, are now doing the most to rob others of their homelands.

    No, it’s perfectly logical.

    Jews want as safe a planet as possible for Jews. Step 1, secure a homeland. Done. However, there remain millions of Jews living around the world. In addition, who’s to say that Israel will always be available. Thus, we move to Step 2. Make Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia as safe for Jews as possible and open to Jews fleeing to those countries if necessary. How to achieve this.

    Well, Jews know that racially/ethnically homogeneous countries are not as safe for Jews as multi-whatever countries. In a homogeneous society, Jews stick out. In a multi-everything society, Jews are just another group. So, let’s turn the West into multi-everything societies. This also solves the issues of having an escape hatch for Jews. By being open to immigration and refugees, the West will be open to Jews in case they need to emigrate to these countries.

    What’s happening to the West makes perfect sense from a Jewish perspective. Now, am I saying that there’s some organized Jewish conspiracy to accomplish these goals? No. But when you have very powerful people and groups all working independently toward the same goal, it works just about as well as a single, organized conspiracy. Actually, it probably works betters. It’s more robust.

  39. Corvinus says:

    “At a pre-election campaign rally in Texas, President Trump had declared himself a proud nationalist.”

    He made this “fact” known because his handlers said it would resonate with his base. It’s a clown show.

    “Back in 1940, or 1805, or 1783, we had a better understanding of our nature.”

    Nostalgia has a funny way of making this better than what they seem.

    “Nationalism-wise, there’s a contradiction in there, though. As militaristic imperialists, the Germans and the Japanese had no time for anyone else’s nationalism. They both knew, as imperialists have known since civilization began, that nationalism is the bane of imperialism.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> As militaristic imperialists, Europeans and the Japanese had no time for anyone else’s nationalism.

  40. @DB Cooper

    Man I get it you are a Chinese nationalist. Between the hindoos and the chinese, on a personal gut level, I’d choose the chinese to engage in business or pleasure with (your women are way ahead of indian women as far as caucasians are concerned or perhaps it’s my yellow fever talking here). Overall you are better behaved and relatively less prone to creepiness and crime unlike the hindoos. Let me be clear I am not advocating mindless sex here, just being candid.

    But you do know that the western natiionalist has NO BEEF with either of y’all, be it the hindoo or the chinese. Except in excessive immigration under the cover of “legal” immigration (mostly hindoos and some chinese), industrial espionage (china), using the alphabet soup of visas to corner and ultimately dominate entire industries and operate them like a clan allowing except a few americans the chance to be a part (i’m looking at the indians here). UR is the den of (mostly) white folks against endless wars and unchecked immigration. So I wonder whom are you addressing here and how can we really help?

    except that, we understand that there’s a lot of bad blood between y’all. The two of you are fundamentally a very different people. The Indians are an argumentative lot, with lots of passive aggressive tendencies and chutzpah in spades. The chinese on the other hand are kind of opposite and when faced with an opponent, are stoic and relentless. The thing that are common to the both of you are in-group strategies and insularity.

    Since you are so bitter about India, I presume you must be a Singaporean chinese. I know the chinese from singapore are fuming because the LKL government is undermining the underlying demographic and leadership balance in s’pore (Chinese > Malay > Indian) perhaps under pressure from the ZUS government. Which is what prompts you to release your frustration here. But in the longer term you may wish to connect with like-minded chinese nationalists and perhaps include the malays if you wish to have any success with the indians. The Indians are a cunning people, especially when it comes to international relations and these days are on very good terms with the real rulers of the west (aka the zionist globo homo oligarchs).

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  41. dvorak says:

    Our nationalist President, however, disagrees: he scoffed at Macron’s idea.

    Derbyshire’s habit of skimming the news may have failed him here. Our President felt insulted by Macron’s aside, that the European army should be prepared to resist nationalists including, potentially, the USA.

    That is rather insulting in light of our anti-fascist occupation of Germany & Italy & England ever since 1945. I mean, we’re invited to stay there, but it’s still an occupation.

  42. @TRASH(NOT)

    “Overall you are better behaved and relatively less prone to creepiness and crime unlike the hindoos.”

    Funny and true. The “hindoos” are certainly creepy, and scheming; plotting to make America great for Kali.

  43. Lagertha says:

    It is too late to care. No one cares. I have heard this same bullshit since I was a Girl Scout in 1970. People, and govts, suck, you know that…that is why you write and plead stuff – they don’t deserve to live since they always want the negative, the opposition – this is reality. I have no hope of human beings behaving honorably…I have no hope.- please, don’t make it a joke, yet, again. I want people to wake other people to the idea that there are many people who see only Dystopia.

  44. The opposite of patriotism?

    Treason.

  45. densa says:
    @Jason Liu

    As Derb pointed out, that was imperialism, not nationalism. The solution of globalism is to create one giant, unassailable nation that will be forever benevolent. I refer you back to your remark on human nature.

    If we do not have nations, we do not have national government, that is a government responsible to the people it represents. No nation, no democracy. Democracy in a global context is 7 billion wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. It cannot in any meaningful way empower citizens to run their own affairs.

  46. One of the finest expressions of nationalism from the 20th century that I have read is the Indian leader Jawaharlal Nehru’s The Discovery of India. He conjured up a nation out of thin air, modern India, from his love of blood, soil and history of the Indian sub-continent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discovery_of_India

    Frank Richards would have approved. Or, as one of his fictional characters, Hurree Jamset Ram Singh, aka Inky, might have said, “the conjuring-upfulness is most esteemable.”

  47. @John Gruskos

    Great Solzhenitsyn quote.

    Sounds like hokey bullshit to me.

    Ask yourself: would you really care if there were no more Nigeria or no more Pakistan? Really?

    Personally, I couldn’t even begin to care if those nations vanished off the face of the earth tomorrow. I’m not going to do anything to hasten their disappearance, but if they do disappear, I won’t feel any poorer for it.

    The most rational attitude for a non-aggressive 21st century is something like: I want my nation to exist, and I will gladly allow your nation to exist too – I don’t necessarily care whether it does or doesn’t, but I will gladly allow it to.

    • Replies: @Normie-American
  48. @DB Cooper

    Are you for real? People here have way far more urgent problems than worrying about the plight of south Tibet, lol.

  49. Derb should clarify that he’s talking about civic nationalism.

    So this post should have been titled: “Let’s cherish our nations, let’s be civic nationalists.”

    Even that – woefully inadequate though it is from any kind of racialist perspective – would be a big step forward today, so I’m inclined to support it. If it’s achieved, there’s no way I’d be stopping there though.

  50. @silviosilver

    Ask yourself: would you really care if there were no more Nigeria or no more Pakistan? Really?

    The quote does not posit the extermination of nations but the erasure of distinctions between them. Yes I would notice and object to Nigeria or Pakistan suddenly becoming part of what I thought was my own, different nation that could enforce border controls.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS