Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dumb_Ox
Is this supposed to be a bad point? Open allegiances are necessary for an open society.

But does allegence only mean being nationalist?

Readers, judge for yourself: Lepanto makes an appearance on this thread

From what I read of it, Orwell looks like he was right.

On Chesterton: I think perhaps Orwell got close to home with that one for some people here. By comparing political Catholicism with Communism, he wasn't talking about how the two would actually rule, but the effects on the thought of British intellectuals at the time of his writing and earlier. It was on that point only, the nationalist loyalty transposed to a "unit" outside of England, and the use of thought as just a means to score points for that unit.

Here is my problem: why precisely is Orwell speaking of internationalism as though it were the "good view"? He defines patriotism as "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people." So our local devotions are in no way to be infused into local law, lest we "force" our views on others? This is simply repeating that "cosmopolitain diplomacy" of English Labour gentlemen and American Liberals, and it is that internationalist democracy which motivates, for instance, our bombings in Yugoslavia or our forays in Somalia, or the UN's lobbying for "liberal" abortion laws. Not exactly "defensive," is it? Despite his disavowal of ComIntern, I fear Orwell would allow a castrated sort of localism only within the context of a worldwide government, thus destroying any possibility of Federalist republicanism. Has he written any "Notes on Internationalism"?

He's not, really, just noting that they don't have that view, if indeed such a view is possible. He talks about the "need for a Fatherland", so maybe he doesn't think it is possible. In spite of your jump to the conclusion that rejecting group membership as the big, or only, issue means world government, the more fanatical supporters of globalism fit into his analysis nicely. They also illustrate that the object of loyalty doesn't have to exist in the real world.

50 posted on 10/30/2001 8:56:06 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: A.J.Armitage
On Chesterton: I think perhaps Orwell got close to home with that one for some people here. By comparing political Catholicism with Communism, he wasn't talking about how the two would actually rule, but the effects on the thought of British intellectuals at the time of his writing and earlier. It was on that point only, the nationalist loyalty transposed to a "unit" outside of England, and the use of thought as just a means to score points for that unit.

Indeed. This is the classic British post-Reformation Establishment description of the English Catholic, and has been used to smear every convert since Newman(if not Campion) with charges of divided loyalty and intellectual dishonesty. I am understandably wary of any article that repeats such a tired trope.

54 posted on 10/30/2001 9:58:24 AM PST by Dumb_Ox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson