Posted on 09/10/2018 8:11:41 PM PDT by OddLane
Marxism has its place in civilized discourse, as do questions about the morality of nuclear weapons. Even torture, slightly euphemized, is a suitable topic for debate; there are two sides at least, each with something to say. But next to nothing can be said for nationalism, which is all but a synonym for racism, persecution and war. Nationalism was responsible for World War I. Nationalism was behind the Nazis. And so on.
Yoram Hazony, an Israeli political theorist, will have none of this. Over the past two years Hazony’s byline has appeared frequently in the Wall Street Journal , where he has challenged many of the assumptions of modern liberalism, including the idea that there is such a thing as “illiberalism.”
In the pages of the quarterly journal American Affairs , Hazony and his Herzl colleague Ofir Haivry have set out to construct a new genealogy of Anglo-American conservatism, one in which John Fortescue and John Selden loom larger than John Locke. The Virtue of Nationalism draws together many threads of Hazony’s recent work, weaving them into a larger tapestry—a picture of nationalism and its alternatives, above all the worst alternative, as Hazony sees it: universal empire...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
I guess I don’t understand Nationalism.
Weren’t the NAZIs the ones who invaded many other Countries? Why didn’t they stay in their own borders and only worry about themselves?
NAZISM seems much like Globalism to me. Hmmmm?
It was the Communists which were more isolationist...
Both were patriotic.
The Nazis wished to incorporate suitable soulmates into their greater Germany and to pact with other of the blood peoples and even to non European dna they admired out of pragmatism for an Axis Europe but make no mistake they were indeed nationalistic
Commies are only nationalistic when it suits them....war and purges
Otherwise they detest their history and heritage demonizing it to replace it with messianic utopia.....sound familiar today ?
Commies didn’t venerate the Czars or their foundation in the Orthodox religion...Russia’s true strength which had transcended centuries
“It was the Communists which were more isolationist...”
No way! Communists were all about expanding worldwide, like Islam.
Even their anthem was called “the international”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Third-International
Why isn’t “unimaginable stupidity” one of the available topics?
Nationalism was the foundation of every European country.
GFY McCarthy
What is a nation? It is a group of people who share a common culture, language, and some degree of genetic heritage. A people who consider themselves to have some degree of kinship.
What is nationalism? It is caring about the people of your nation more than the people who are not of your nation.
Communists are islationalist? You’re kidding right?
Nationalism succeeds if communication systems and transportation systems are inadequate.
But the communication and transportation systems of today are extensive, which makes internationalism or globalism more feasible and reasonable.
In a world market economy where capital is moving all over, goods(raw and finished) and services are moving all over, and there is a lot of mobility of labor, nationalism is passe'.
The negatives of fossil fuels & boom/bust cycles will be replaced with cheaper, cleaner and more stable alternatives and the nationalist imperative of protecting the oil supply will end.
I wouldn't bother to read the book.
Even their anthem was called “the international”
Yep - there was a "list of conditions" for admission to the Comintern, but basically it's as you say - aggressively globalist.
The American left is totally in line with those Twenty-One Conditions.
I wasn’t familiar with them - thanks for the reference.
What’s ironic is that when the soviet union fell everyone thought the scourge of communism had been defeated. Instead it’s come back with a vengeance wihin the very country that thought it had defeated it, camouflaged as “progressives”.
I really think there is a “communist” (egalitarian) gene that a sizable portion of humanity possesses that will always rear its ugly head in any society.
People with that trait are what Nietzsche called “the tarantulas”.
http://www.returnofkings.com/132071/what-nietzsche-had-to-say-about-social-justice
And what Jean Raspail in “The Camp of the Saints” called “the beast’.
Good definitions.
If by nationalism you mean the supremacy of a nation-state, and the subordination of individuals to the collective identity, then I'm not a nationalist.
But if your definition is a kinship between those that comprise a nation and have mutual interests based upon that and by mutual consent align with one another as a society, e.g. Catalans, Jews, Kurds, Finns, Frenchmen, etc., then nationalism is not only correct but innate, and the attempt by multiculturalists and globalists to erase it are foolhardy.
You really are quite the scholar, Ben!
I’m a foreign policy realist and this Natl Interest is a Realist group.
What a dumb assumption.
Why we need tariffs and strong border control to stop human trafficking.
Have you told the Philippinos, Afghans, Angolans, Cubans, Granadans, Koreans...and dozens of others about your theory of Communist isolationism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.