*
Leaving aside the question of whether or not it would be beneficial, is it likely that resurgent secular nationalism can unify the right and could reverse the cultural suicide of PC?
Because that seems to be an assumption among many of the US based conservative commentators, and an aspiration of rightist commentators from other countries.
But I will argue that a secular nationalism would nowadays have a strongly different character from most secular nationalisms of the past.
A modern nationalism might perhaps save the nation (probably at the cost of fracturing it into smaller nations) - but it would not save the national culture.
*
When nationalism was an effective political force, it was a movement which was already there, it did not need much encouragement.
In most counties - perhaps all of them - nationalism originated with the ruling elites - often the lower ranks of the elites (i.e. the most numerous ranks): people like school teacher and lower administrators, also journalists and artists.
In other words, past successful nationalisms were led by a high-cultural elite: it was a nationalism of clerks.
In other words, past effective nationalisms originated with exactly those groups which are nowadays the most politically correct, least nationalistic, most in favour of multi-culturalism.
Any modern nationalism would therefore need to be very different from past nationalisms.
*
The apparent exception of National Socialism is deceptive: German nationalism was a nineteenth century phenomenon, driven by the upper classes. At most the Nazis (who were lower class intellectuals, outside of the normal German elite of aristocrats and Professors) - hijacked this already-existing powerful nationalism: certainly they did not create it. And the Nazis did not so much promote German culture as destroy German High Culture - leaving behind only a much simplified and selective populist folk culture.
*
Of course new things can happen - and we are, after all, in an unprecedented situation: i.e. the new experience of deliberate, strategic, sustained, cultural and biological suicide by the intellectual elites, taking their nations and cultures with them.
Perhaps such a novel situation will inevitably lead to new and unforseen types of political response? - perhaps including a nationalism which is opposed by the exact groups which (in previous nationalisms) supported it?
*
In line with this, what does seem to be resurgent in the West (to some extent - maybe limited) is a lower class, populist nationalism.
What we are seeing is a nationalism led by the skilled working class rather than the teachers, lower civil servants and writers - we are seeing a nationalism of tradesman rather than clerks.
*
(And perhaps tradesman-led nationalism may be much bigger and more powerful than it seems, because it lacks a voice and the hostility of the communications personnel will naturally minimize and misrepresent it. Or maybe it is much smaller than it seems? - because the hatred and fear of the clerks towards the tradesmen leads to the clerks to perceive the threat of new nationalisms as bigger than it really is.)
*
To be successful, such a nationalism of the tradesmen would, surely, need to be be anti-intellectual and anti-upper class- would seek to replace the effete, irrelevant, decadent clerks with sensible skilled workers?
*
In such a society, warrior virtues would presumably predominate - courage, strength, loyalty, perhaps common-sense and concrete effectiveness; and there would consequently be few high status, ruling positions for intellectuals, high-artists and abstract thinkers.
In a tradesman-led nationalism, intellectuals would, rather, be allocated subordinate status as servants and functionaries.
(Recall that the bulk of intellectuals - clerks and teachers - in many past civilizations were often slaves, eunuchs and celibates.)
*
In sum, I do not think it likely that nationalism will again become powerful in modern societies, because the traditionally nationalist clerks are now anti-nationalist; the only possibility is a nationalism of the tradesmen.
But if I am wrong, and nationalism does again become powerful, it would have to be a new kind of nationalism. A new nationalism of the skilled working class: a nationalism of the tradesmen.
And (to mobilize support and maintain cohesion) any effective nationalism of the tradesmen would surely be openly and explicitly anti-intellectual and anti-upper class - which means that it would be 'anti-culture'.
*
More exactly, under a nationalism of the upper working class/ lower middle class, the complex upper middle class 'high culture' would be radically simplified and selected-from to generate (or regenerate) a popular folk culture which is suitable for the tradesman class - that is, a class who are only secondarily concerned with culture, who do not regard high culture as a primary matter bound up with their personal identity, status and livelihood.
Rather, the lower class leaders are likely to regard high culture with hostility, based on the suspicion (often accurate) that it is a tool for forcing the tradesmen class into subordinate status and for elevating the status of the clerks.
*
(Note: I have been talking here of secular nationalisms. There are other social possibilities for religious societies that I have not mentioned above.)
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Nationalism. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Nationalism. Sort by date Show all posts
Sunday 14 November 2010
Thursday 14 October 2010
Notes on cohesive (secular) nationalism
*
Secular nationalism was a big force in the world from the mid 19th century to the mid twentieth, because it led to larger and more powerful nations, like Germany (especially Germany).
In other words, this was the era whan secular nationalism was a strong cohesive and strengthening force.
(Indeed, all-but-secular nationalism arguably led to the USA differentiating itself from Great Britain even before this.)
*
But in more recent decades, secular nationalism has not been able to make big units cohere, but has instead been (merely) a force for fragmentation and weakening.
So there are two kinds of secular nationalism, in terms of effects: cohesive nationalism (which is strong and creates power) and fragmenting nationalism (which may be weaker and diminishes power).
*
Effective cohesive secular nationism requires that the ruling elite of a potential or actual nation (or a significant proportion of them) are seriously concerned with differentiating themselves (their culture) from another specific country.
So that Germany nationalism defined itself in terms of differences from the French, the USA was defined in terms of differences from the British.
And the pattern can be seen almost everywhere: nationalism differentiates-against.
Fragmenting nationalism has done the same: Irish and Scots and Welsh nationalists are almost exclusively concerned with differentiating themselves from England.
*
Sometimes nationalism tries to work in more than one direction: e.g. Canada tries to define itself against both the USA and the UK (and in the case of Quebec, against Anglophone Canada) - but this bi-directionality merely makes 'Canadian nationalism' very weak.
*
My reading of history is that nationalism does not keep its strength for more than about a generation, at most two. After this, some other factor is needed to maintain coherence.
In other words, nationalism is a phase in the life of a nation - not a permanent basis for organization.
*
But when the ruling elites do not have this concern to differentiate themselves, then nationalism is insignificant.
Nationalism is currently insignificant in England and in the USA - because they do not have this concern to differentiate their culture from another nation. Whether this is a good or bad thing, they just don't.
And if the ruling elites do not have this concern, then nationalism has no purchase, no strength, no power to cohere or re-shape.
*
So there is near-zero chance of a politically and culturally strong nationalism arising in either England or the USA.
People who are worried about resurgent English or US nationalism therefore need not worry; people who hope for resurgent English or US nationalism are going to find their hopes disappointed.
*
Secular nationalism was a big force in the world from the mid 19th century to the mid twentieth, because it led to larger and more powerful nations, like Germany (especially Germany).
In other words, this was the era whan secular nationalism was a strong cohesive and strengthening force.
(Indeed, all-but-secular nationalism arguably led to the USA differentiating itself from Great Britain even before this.)
*
But in more recent decades, secular nationalism has not been able to make big units cohere, but has instead been (merely) a force for fragmentation and weakening.
So there are two kinds of secular nationalism, in terms of effects: cohesive nationalism (which is strong and creates power) and fragmenting nationalism (which may be weaker and diminishes power).
*
Effective cohesive secular nationism requires that the ruling elite of a potential or actual nation (or a significant proportion of them) are seriously concerned with differentiating themselves (their culture) from another specific country.
So that Germany nationalism defined itself in terms of differences from the French, the USA was defined in terms of differences from the British.
And the pattern can be seen almost everywhere: nationalism differentiates-against.
Fragmenting nationalism has done the same: Irish and Scots and Welsh nationalists are almost exclusively concerned with differentiating themselves from England.
*
Sometimes nationalism tries to work in more than one direction: e.g. Canada tries to define itself against both the USA and the UK (and in the case of Quebec, against Anglophone Canada) - but this bi-directionality merely makes 'Canadian nationalism' very weak.
*
My reading of history is that nationalism does not keep its strength for more than about a generation, at most two. After this, some other factor is needed to maintain coherence.
In other words, nationalism is a phase in the life of a nation - not a permanent basis for organization.
*
But when the ruling elites do not have this concern to differentiate themselves, then nationalism is insignificant.
Nationalism is currently insignificant in England and in the USA - because they do not have this concern to differentiate their culture from another nation. Whether this is a good or bad thing, they just don't.
And if the ruling elites do not have this concern, then nationalism has no purchase, no strength, no power to cohere or re-shape.
*
So there is near-zero chance of a politically and culturally strong nationalism arising in either England or the USA.
People who are worried about resurgent English or US nationalism therefore need not worry; people who hope for resurgent English or US nationalism are going to find their hopes disappointed.
*
Wednesday 29 May 2019
The two faces of modern nationalism
I've written a lot about nationalism over the past decade, because it seems that far too many people have pinned their hopes on it in the belief that nationalism is a way-out from the incremental suicide of The West... It is not.
Nationalism is far too feeble a motivator in Western societies here and now; it amounts to little more than a lifestyle choice. And indeed nationalism has historically only been a strong motivator very temporarily, and for the first post-religious generation after Christianity was abandoned.
In our modern West, nationalism has two different faces -
1. Secular Nationalists/ Christian Nationalists
2. Nationalist Christians
The distinction is between those for whom nationalism is the bottom line - and who may be also be mainstream atheists, or Christians - or indeed neo-pagans; and those for whom Christianity is the bottom line. (In this respect is does not matter much whether the nationalists are secular, Christian or pagan - because their motivations are not religious; hence their motivations are inevitably feeble.)
In this modern world, all those for whom religion is Not the priority are all in the same category, which is: demotivated and doomed.
And on the other hand, those for whom Christianity is the bottom line, and whose nationalism appears within that context, are qualitatively different. A genuinely religious perspective is (almost always) an absolute requirement for a coherent (hence courageous) life.
Only when a (first) devoutly religious Christian (secondarily) becomes a nationalist, is nationalism given a solid base in motivation hence courage.
And only such nationalism is Good nationalism. Nationalism that is not rooted in religion is merely a variant of mainstream hedonic materialism - it is just a difference of opinion about which groups should be favoured by The System.
And for a Christian, it is mainstream hedonic materialism that is the primary enemy, the primary evil, the 'Ahrimanic' demonic side of our pervasive spiritual war.
And in that war, those who are primarily-nationalists are on the wrong side; even when they are not quite so bad as the globalist left.
Note added. Secular Nationalists will complain that all the mainstream Christian Churches are corrupted by Leftism (which is true); but they therefore decide not to have anything to do with Christianity. Yet these same people regard all the mainstream Political Parties as corrupted by Leftism (which is true) but in this instance, instead of having nothing to do with politics; they instead decide to expend considerable time, effort, resources in reading and thinking about Nationalism, trying to develop a more-correct political philosophy - and perhaps even working upon a new and less-corrupt Political Party. If someone was really serious about Christianity, he would not regard his relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ to be restricted and determined by the range of possibilities that happen to be offered by his current local churches. A serious Christian would put at least as much effort into developing a true personal faith in the face of (despite) church decline/ corruption/ treachery, as a serious Nationalist puts effort into following blogs, debating issues, reading magazines and texts, attending meetings, canvassing votes and planning direct actions. Our revealed preferences, our actual choices, show our underlying lack of seriousness about religion. For modern Man, the feeblest excuse is sufficient to give up entirely on Christianity. For example, many are eager to find an excuse to eject Christian faith because it constrains their sexual gratification. Instead of becoming a Christian outside any church; such eagerly declare themselves morally disgusted by 'the whole Christian thing', and promiscuously embrace whatever forbidden sexual practices happen to appeal under cover of 'right wing' idealistic nationalism.
Nationalism is far too feeble a motivator in Western societies here and now; it amounts to little more than a lifestyle choice. And indeed nationalism has historically only been a strong motivator very temporarily, and for the first post-religious generation after Christianity was abandoned.
In our modern West, nationalism has two different faces -
1. Secular Nationalists/ Christian Nationalists
2. Nationalist Christians
The distinction is between those for whom nationalism is the bottom line - and who may be also be mainstream atheists, or Christians - or indeed neo-pagans; and those for whom Christianity is the bottom line. (In this respect is does not matter much whether the nationalists are secular, Christian or pagan - because their motivations are not religious; hence their motivations are inevitably feeble.)
In this modern world, all those for whom religion is Not the priority are all in the same category, which is: demotivated and doomed.
And on the other hand, those for whom Christianity is the bottom line, and whose nationalism appears within that context, are qualitatively different. A genuinely religious perspective is (almost always) an absolute requirement for a coherent (hence courageous) life.
Only when a (first) devoutly religious Christian (secondarily) becomes a nationalist, is nationalism given a solid base in motivation hence courage.
And only such nationalism is Good nationalism. Nationalism that is not rooted in religion is merely a variant of mainstream hedonic materialism - it is just a difference of opinion about which groups should be favoured by The System.
And for a Christian, it is mainstream hedonic materialism that is the primary enemy, the primary evil, the 'Ahrimanic' demonic side of our pervasive spiritual war.
And in that war, those who are primarily-nationalists are on the wrong side; even when they are not quite so bad as the globalist left.
Note added. Secular Nationalists will complain that all the mainstream Christian Churches are corrupted by Leftism (which is true); but they therefore decide not to have anything to do with Christianity. Yet these same people regard all the mainstream Political Parties as corrupted by Leftism (which is true) but in this instance, instead of having nothing to do with politics; they instead decide to expend considerable time, effort, resources in reading and thinking about Nationalism, trying to develop a more-correct political philosophy - and perhaps even working upon a new and less-corrupt Political Party. If someone was really serious about Christianity, he would not regard his relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ to be restricted and determined by the range of possibilities that happen to be offered by his current local churches. A serious Christian would put at least as much effort into developing a true personal faith in the face of (despite) church decline/ corruption/ treachery, as a serious Nationalist puts effort into following blogs, debating issues, reading magazines and texts, attending meetings, canvassing votes and planning direct actions. Our revealed preferences, our actual choices, show our underlying lack of seriousness about religion. For modern Man, the feeblest excuse is sufficient to give up entirely on Christianity. For example, many are eager to find an excuse to eject Christian faith because it constrains their sexual gratification. Instead of becoming a Christian outside any church; such eagerly declare themselves morally disgusted by 'the whole Christian thing', and promiscuously embrace whatever forbidden sexual practices happen to appeal under cover of 'right wing' idealistic nationalism.
Thursday 21 June 2018
The NOT-danger/ hope of Western Nationalism
When the mainstream of Western politics - both Left and so-called Right (neither of which are Christian) - are united in saying that there is a resurgent Western nationalism, you can be sure that this is not really happening.
Real, original, nationalism was a tremendously powerful, grass-roots, bottom-up kind of movement; a kind of mania or instinctual welling of emotion and desire that was so strong that (once the spark had been applied) it was very difficult, often impossible, to contain.
This original nationalism, running from the middle 19th to 20th centuries, was such a powerful motivator that men would risk their reputations, livelihoods and lives for it. Nationalism burned briefly, in any country it was active only for a generation or so; but while it lasted it inspired almost (but not quite) religious levels of motivation.
Indeed, Nationalism in Europe and among the European diaspora was precisely a replacement for lapsed Christianity - as was communism - nationalism was the first post-Christian generations seeking a meaning and purpose in life.
But real, genuine, powerfully-motivating nationalism is long-since dead... obviously! dead and gone and never to be revived. It was a flash in the pan.
So anybody who pins their hopes of a better world, of a reversal of Western self-hatred and strategic suicide, of an escape from Western decline toward extinction, on a revival of nationalism is going to be disappointed.
It won't happen.
In fact, my conviction is that all previous possibilities are closed-off. Despite that in many ways - including just sheer viability - the past was better than the present; I am sure that any previous form of organisation is impossible, for all sorts of reason - but mainly because that is not what God wants of us.
How do I know what God wants? Isn't that a claim of extraordinary arrogance and pride? Well, I am not going to try and persuade you; because knowing what God wants is something that everybody needs to experience for himself. I am merely telling you what I know - and that claim is not a reason why you should believe it...
Yet before rejecting as sinful pride any claim to know the mind of God on a subject, you need to consider what can be known about this world, in light of what all Christians know of the nature of God.
What God wants is an objective fact of being; and it is (surely?) inconceivable that God the creator and our Father would make things such that his wishes were hidden from his children? (From any of his children who genuinely want to know them.)
So it is my task - your, task, every Christian's task - to discover what God wants; in respect to everything that matters. Discover for yourself, by all means available - including by direct insight (true intuition, of the real self).
Because we are all Sons and Daughters of God we all 'inherit' something of the divine, and a fully-divine potential; and it is this inheritance that enables us to know God, to know God's mind - and to love God as a person.
So this kind of knowledge of 'what God wants' is not something restricted by anything other than our own limitations. In principle, it is open to any person - at least, nobody is excluded a priori. (The main exclusion is that people don't really want to know.)
Those whose hopes require a resurgent Western nationalism simply need to discover for themselves whether this is the proper and intended divine destiny of the West...
Not by trying to infer God's mind indirectly from 'the evidence'; but know directly, by sincere and honest prayer and meditation - and that ought to settle the matter; because the 'evidence' will then become simply understandable, in light of that knowledge.
Real, original, nationalism was a tremendously powerful, grass-roots, bottom-up kind of movement; a kind of mania or instinctual welling of emotion and desire that was so strong that (once the spark had been applied) it was very difficult, often impossible, to contain.
This original nationalism, running from the middle 19th to 20th centuries, was such a powerful motivator that men would risk their reputations, livelihoods and lives for it. Nationalism burned briefly, in any country it was active only for a generation or so; but while it lasted it inspired almost (but not quite) religious levels of motivation.
Indeed, Nationalism in Europe and among the European diaspora was precisely a replacement for lapsed Christianity - as was communism - nationalism was the first post-Christian generations seeking a meaning and purpose in life.
But real, genuine, powerfully-motivating nationalism is long-since dead... obviously! dead and gone and never to be revived. It was a flash in the pan.
So anybody who pins their hopes of a better world, of a reversal of Western self-hatred and strategic suicide, of an escape from Western decline toward extinction, on a revival of nationalism is going to be disappointed.
It won't happen.
In fact, my conviction is that all previous possibilities are closed-off. Despite that in many ways - including just sheer viability - the past was better than the present; I am sure that any previous form of organisation is impossible, for all sorts of reason - but mainly because that is not what God wants of us.
How do I know what God wants? Isn't that a claim of extraordinary arrogance and pride? Well, I am not going to try and persuade you; because knowing what God wants is something that everybody needs to experience for himself. I am merely telling you what I know - and that claim is not a reason why you should believe it...
Yet before rejecting as sinful pride any claim to know the mind of God on a subject, you need to consider what can be known about this world, in light of what all Christians know of the nature of God.
What God wants is an objective fact of being; and it is (surely?) inconceivable that God the creator and our Father would make things such that his wishes were hidden from his children? (From any of his children who genuinely want to know them.)
So it is my task - your, task, every Christian's task - to discover what God wants; in respect to everything that matters. Discover for yourself, by all means available - including by direct insight (true intuition, of the real self).
Because we are all Sons and Daughters of God we all 'inherit' something of the divine, and a fully-divine potential; and it is this inheritance that enables us to know God, to know God's mind - and to love God as a person.
So this kind of knowledge of 'what God wants' is not something restricted by anything other than our own limitations. In principle, it is open to any person - at least, nobody is excluded a priori. (The main exclusion is that people don't really want to know.)
Those whose hopes require a resurgent Western nationalism simply need to discover for themselves whether this is the proper and intended divine destiny of the West...
Not by trying to infer God's mind indirectly from 'the evidence'; but know directly, by sincere and honest prayer and meditation - and that ought to settle the matter; because the 'evidence' will then become simply understandable, in light of that knowledge.
Saturday 2 March 2024
Nationalism versus Globalism? Merely totalitarianism versus chaotic evil
At present, it seems that there are no primarily Christian nations in the world.
(With the probable exception of the Fire Nation - but none in The West)
Therefore - all nationalism is evil: as are all secular polities.
In other words, the only good nationalism is one that is secondary to Christianity. Which means that the nationalism must function within Christian priorities and a Christian framework. In other words, to be good, nationalism must be part of a Christian theocracy.
Yet, I believe that a Christian theocracy is not desirable in the West (as well as being in practice almost-certainly impossible).
This undesirability/ impossibility of Western theocracy is for reasons I have discussed ad nauseam on this blog, to do with the changed nature of Western Consciousness - that is changed motivations, a changed mode of thinking, a changed relationship to divine reality etc.
Western people don't want it, cannot be made to want it, will not choose it, and would not tolerate it if it were imposed. So that the result of trying to impose theocracy would not be a Christian society, but merely secular totalitarianism using Christianized language and excuses.
In the Western World now, the nationalists are would-be totalitarian bureaucrats, exponents of Ahrimanic evil (whether they espouse "Christian values, or not).
The nationalists oppose the globalists who are Sorathic agents of spitefully destructive evil.
And that is the choice within the political arena. A choice between variants of the dominant globalist destroyers, or a backlash of nationalist totalitarians: there are no Good choices available.
Disillusion is not wisdom; because dis-illusion (as the name implies) is a double-negative - not a positive - value; and Good comes only from a positive affiliation to God and divine creation.
At present I perceive increasing numbers of disillusioned totalitarian bureaucrats among the national leadership class - people who have noticed that their worked-for totalitarian New World Order is being destroyed by strategic chaos imposed by the dominating multi-national globalists.
So we are getting (and indeed have been getting, since around the millennium) some of the more intelligent and insightful adherents of totalitarian-Ahrimanic evil embracing a nationalist agenda to some extent. Putting themselves forward as a "common sense" alternative to literally-insane inversion of the Sorathic globalists.
But nationalism is evil. Historically, nationalism arose after the decline of Christianity: nationalism was the ideological basis of the first truly secular states.
What the globalists call the "far Right" - or populist Right, often tacitly supported by a majority of Western population - are actually "local totalitarians": those who want to have what they regard as a strong, productive, efficient nation - more like the Western societies of the middle 20th century.
This agenda would entail some sensible and common sense controlled and reduced immigration, a degree of meritocracy (instead of "inclusion" or "equality"), a protected and planned economy, coherent laws, effective military and police etc.
Sounds great, you say? Not so.
From where we are now; such a society is not just impossible, but would anyway be evil - because inevitably totalitarian.
It would not have Christian foundations, would not be organized in accordance with God's will and divine creation, nor would it be Christianly motivated.
Therefore what we would actually get would be a version of "the Great Reset" - but on a national basis; and without the self-destroying elements such as "sustainability", antiracism, and the rest.
At best and temporarily, such a society would assert justifications that are this-worldly, and utilitarian. But since such abstractions are both humanly-feeble and irredeemably subjective - very soon selfish, short-termist corruption among the leadership class would inevitably take-over.
(Which is why They are keen on the idea!)
What I am saying is that "nationalism" is a delusion or a deception for The West, arising only as a consequence of in-fighting among the demon-serving ruling class.
Serious Christians should be wary of falling into the trap of supporting nationalism - since it will inevitably be unmasked as local totalitarianism - hence intrinsically evil.
Wednesday 20 March 2019
The corruption of Scottish Nationalism
I have been interested by Scottish culture - to varying degrees, sometimes very intensely - for forty years, when my family moved there. I have myself lived in Scotland 'solo' for more than three years, and family connections continue.
One thing has become clear is that Scottish Nationalism has been thoroughly corrupted over the past few decades - in a nutshell, it has moved from being (overall) based-on Patriotism, to being based on Resentment - specifically anti-English animus.
In other words it has gone from being rooted-in Love of one's own-country, to hatred of another-Country
This has often been the fate of Nationalism whenever it takes a political form - because it is much easier to encourage and sustain resentment than love.
Almost all nationalisms have been defined-against - in the sense that there is a threat to the culture that is resisted. Almost every nation has an excluded-other. For Germany and for England this was France (which annoyed Scotland and Wales, because they defined themselves against England) - for France it was England (which annoyed the Germans, who felt slighted).
It is interesting that the most notorious nationalism of recent years - Germany 1933-45 - was a fake nationalism, directed against a newly-invented rival-enemy distinctive only to the Party leadership. This suggests that the mass-popular roots of support for the National Socialist Workers' Party was quite probably genuine patriotism, i.e. love of country; as against the anti-patriotism and cultural destruction advocated by the rival forces of International Socialism/ Communism.
Scottish 'nationalism' (ie. loving patriotism) emerged after the Union of Parliaments with England and Wales, in 1707; and was most exemplified by people like Sir Walter Scott - who were strongly in favour of this Union. In other worlds, cultural patriotism was distinct from political Unionism. There followed a great era of Scottish creativity and intellectual attainment - during which Scotland was an international leader in philosophy, medicine, technology, science, universities; as well as literature (the likes of Byron, Burns, Scott, Stevenson). The Scots became cultural arbiters, and Edinburgh was known as the Athens of the North.
Modern political nationalism emerged, I think, due to the centralising and controlling tendency of the modern State from the late 1800s; which put ever increasing pressure on the social forms of distinctness.
For example, in Scotland, the Union into Britain exempted Scots Law, Education and the Church - but the modern State was continually eroding the autonomy of these institutions - and imposing a uniform centralised government.
So, the desire for political autonomy was understandable. But, because it was political, it was almost-certain to be operationalised towards maximising the benefits of politicans.
There was a referendum about increased Scottish devolution in 1979, which resulted in a majority in favour of devolution - but this was claimed (by the prior definition of margin required) to be too small a proportion of the population to lead to change.
Thus, the result was genuinely ambiguous - but instead of being clarified it was ignored - thereby contributing to a building anti-English resentment as the 'local' Scottish elites saw the opportunity for a power/ wealth grab, as putative leaders of a pseudo-independent Scotland: under the slogan of Independence In Europe. The idea was to separate from England, but remain a part of the European Union.
(At that time, the smaller-economy nations who joined the EU - e.g. Ireland, or Spain - were being bribed with pretty lavish public-works subsidies - mostly harvested by France from Germany, the UK and the Netherlands. Later bribery to lure nations into the Union became restricted to the pockets of decision-making elites.)
But I say this was 'pseudo'-independence because no Scottish patriot (no-one who loved Scotland - its people, its culture) would wish to stay within the European Union. Leaving Britain but remaining in the EU would make very little difference when most of the national laws and cultural changes derive from the EU.
More decisively, the EU is strategically-dedicated to obliterating national cultures and creating a single culture; a single 'zone' to be homogenised and colonised and overrun by massive and sustained migration and immigration.
The fact that Scottish 'independence' is envisaged within the EU reveals the dishonesty of any pretence of patriotism; and explains the escalation of explicit anti-English sentiment in the Scottish Parliament, mass media and social institutions.
For me, a threshold arrived just over a decade ago when the Scottish government abolished tuition fees in Scottish Universities. The plan was to offer free tuition to all European Union nations except for England (who, of course, supply most of the tax incomes to pay for this subsidy). In practice, Scotland was legally-compelled also to charge tuition fees to students from Wales and Northern Ireland - but officials apologised for this, because it was only England who was being targeted.
This, then, is a measure of the corruption of Scottish nationalism into a crude combination of anti-English resentment and servile rent-seeking: the cause of its basis in spiteful Schadenfreude rather than love; and the strategic desire for a life of subsidised hedonism rather than creative endeavour.
One thing has become clear is that Scottish Nationalism has been thoroughly corrupted over the past few decades - in a nutshell, it has moved from being (overall) based-on Patriotism, to being based on Resentment - specifically anti-English animus.
In other words it has gone from being rooted-in Love of one's own-country, to hatred of another-Country
This has often been the fate of Nationalism whenever it takes a political form - because it is much easier to encourage and sustain resentment than love.
Almost all nationalisms have been defined-against - in the sense that there is a threat to the culture that is resisted. Almost every nation has an excluded-other. For Germany and for England this was France (which annoyed Scotland and Wales, because they defined themselves against England) - for France it was England (which annoyed the Germans, who felt slighted).
It is interesting that the most notorious nationalism of recent years - Germany 1933-45 - was a fake nationalism, directed against a newly-invented rival-enemy distinctive only to the Party leadership. This suggests that the mass-popular roots of support for the National Socialist Workers' Party was quite probably genuine patriotism, i.e. love of country; as against the anti-patriotism and cultural destruction advocated by the rival forces of International Socialism/ Communism.
Scottish 'nationalism' (ie. loving patriotism) emerged after the Union of Parliaments with England and Wales, in 1707; and was most exemplified by people like Sir Walter Scott - who were strongly in favour of this Union. In other worlds, cultural patriotism was distinct from political Unionism. There followed a great era of Scottish creativity and intellectual attainment - during which Scotland was an international leader in philosophy, medicine, technology, science, universities; as well as literature (the likes of Byron, Burns, Scott, Stevenson). The Scots became cultural arbiters, and Edinburgh was known as the Athens of the North.
Modern political nationalism emerged, I think, due to the centralising and controlling tendency of the modern State from the late 1800s; which put ever increasing pressure on the social forms of distinctness.
For example, in Scotland, the Union into Britain exempted Scots Law, Education and the Church - but the modern State was continually eroding the autonomy of these institutions - and imposing a uniform centralised government.
So, the desire for political autonomy was understandable. But, because it was political, it was almost-certain to be operationalised towards maximising the benefits of politicans.
There was a referendum about increased Scottish devolution in 1979, which resulted in a majority in favour of devolution - but this was claimed (by the prior definition of margin required) to be too small a proportion of the population to lead to change.
Thus, the result was genuinely ambiguous - but instead of being clarified it was ignored - thereby contributing to a building anti-English resentment as the 'local' Scottish elites saw the opportunity for a power/ wealth grab, as putative leaders of a pseudo-independent Scotland: under the slogan of Independence In Europe. The idea was to separate from England, but remain a part of the European Union.
(At that time, the smaller-economy nations who joined the EU - e.g. Ireland, or Spain - were being bribed with pretty lavish public-works subsidies - mostly harvested by France from Germany, the UK and the Netherlands. Later bribery to lure nations into the Union became restricted to the pockets of decision-making elites.)
But I say this was 'pseudo'-independence because no Scottish patriot (no-one who loved Scotland - its people, its culture) would wish to stay within the European Union. Leaving Britain but remaining in the EU would make very little difference when most of the national laws and cultural changes derive from the EU.
More decisively, the EU is strategically-dedicated to obliterating national cultures and creating a single culture; a single 'zone' to be homogenised and colonised and overrun by massive and sustained migration and immigration.
The fact that Scottish 'independence' is envisaged within the EU reveals the dishonesty of any pretence of patriotism; and explains the escalation of explicit anti-English sentiment in the Scottish Parliament, mass media and social institutions.
For me, a threshold arrived just over a decade ago when the Scottish government abolished tuition fees in Scottish Universities. The plan was to offer free tuition to all European Union nations except for England (who, of course, supply most of the tax incomes to pay for this subsidy). In practice, Scotland was legally-compelled also to charge tuition fees to students from Wales and Northern Ireland - but officials apologised for this, because it was only England who was being targeted.
This, then, is a measure of the corruption of Scottish nationalism into a crude combination of anti-English resentment and servile rent-seeking: the cause of its basis in spiteful Schadenfreude rather than love; and the strategic desire for a life of subsidised hedonism rather than creative endeavour.
Sunday 14 November 2010
A nationalism of the NCOs, not of the officers?
*
To continue the argument of the previous post -
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/11/nationalism-today-nationalism-of.html
- another way to state the matter is that previous nationalisms have been originated and led by the officer class.
But nowadays, since the officer class is politically correct, if a nationalism were to arise (which seems unlikely) it would need to originate from and be led by the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) class: that is to say led by the Sergeants and Corporals; and not by the Majors and Captains.
*
All else being equal, under normal circumstances, an army led by Officers will be much more effective than an army led by NCOs.
But these are not normal circumstances.
*
The modern situation in the West resembles that of a city under siege.
The city is threatened by riots within and by the enemy without.
However, the officer class have become decadent.
The officers find uncouth, are bored-by, scared-of, and have come to loathe the NCOs and squaddies of their own city.
*
Periodically, groups of indigents approach the besieged city gates.
Some are hopeless cases - displaced peasants from the surrounding area, some are shrewd merchants from here and there - keen to work hard and make some money, some are petty criminals - others not-so-petty criminals.
And some of the indigents at the gate are enemy fifth columnists - who intend at some point in the future to inflict violence and mayhem to aid the besiegers.
Whoever the indigents are and whatever their intention, the officers invariably feel sorry for them, and always let them all in; and direct the NCOs to make sure the new arrivals are well taken care of - by allocating them a generous share of the squaddies rations and living quarters.
*
And within the cities own indigenous population are large mobs of sturdy vagrants who are either too feckless to be of any use, or simply refuse to help with the defense of the walls.
These beggars and barflys roam around robbing, having parties and staging riots.The NCOs are not forbidden to intervene but will be harshly punished if they transgress any of the very strict (and continually changing) rules of engagement.
On orders from the officer class, the sturdy vagrants receive a daily dole of bread and beer from the squaddies supplies.
*
This is roughly (and in a purely materialist sense - which leaves-put the vital spiritual and religious dimension) the situation of the modern West.
Nationalism is (at minimum) an attempt to make effective the defense of the city - first to stop admitting then to expel fifth columnists and parasites, and to suppress internal disorder.
But the officers will not do this.
So, if the city has not fallen first (and that is a big 'if') then at some point, perhaps, there may be an NCO mutiny - and the army will be taken-over and run by the senior sergeants.
Because a city will be better defended by an army led by loyal NCOs, than by an army led by traitorous officers.
*
If this kind of nationalism happens, it would surely, necessarily, be accompanied by a powerful anti-officer campaign - during which officers would be purged from all significant positions of leadership - and replaced by sergeants.
What would result would be a pretty shambolic form of army, of society. Yet it would not have to be well-organized; only better-organized than the forces which oppose it.
If nothing else happens first, at some point in the cultural decline that is political correctness the point will be passed at which a nationalist NCO-led army will be more effective than an army led by anti-nationalist officers.
*
Yet before this happens, it may well be that the city will fall to the enemy; and instead of being run by an NCO army of the indigenous population, the city will instead be taken-over by an officer-led army of invaders.
*
To continue the argument of the previous post -
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/11/nationalism-today-nationalism-of.html
- another way to state the matter is that previous nationalisms have been originated and led by the officer class.
But nowadays, since the officer class is politically correct, if a nationalism were to arise (which seems unlikely) it would need to originate from and be led by the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) class: that is to say led by the Sergeants and Corporals; and not by the Majors and Captains.
*
All else being equal, under normal circumstances, an army led by Officers will be much more effective than an army led by NCOs.
But these are not normal circumstances.
*
The modern situation in the West resembles that of a city under siege.
The city is threatened by riots within and by the enemy without.
However, the officer class have become decadent.
The officers find uncouth, are bored-by, scared-of, and have come to loathe the NCOs and squaddies of their own city.
*
Periodically, groups of indigents approach the besieged city gates.
Some are hopeless cases - displaced peasants from the surrounding area, some are shrewd merchants from here and there - keen to work hard and make some money, some are petty criminals - others not-so-petty criminals.
And some of the indigents at the gate are enemy fifth columnists - who intend at some point in the future to inflict violence and mayhem to aid the besiegers.
Whoever the indigents are and whatever their intention, the officers invariably feel sorry for them, and always let them all in; and direct the NCOs to make sure the new arrivals are well taken care of - by allocating them a generous share of the squaddies rations and living quarters.
*
And within the cities own indigenous population are large mobs of sturdy vagrants who are either too feckless to be of any use, or simply refuse to help with the defense of the walls.
These beggars and barflys roam around robbing, having parties and staging riots.The NCOs are not forbidden to intervene but will be harshly punished if they transgress any of the very strict (and continually changing) rules of engagement.
On orders from the officer class, the sturdy vagrants receive a daily dole of bread and beer from the squaddies supplies.
*
This is roughly (and in a purely materialist sense - which leaves-put the vital spiritual and religious dimension) the situation of the modern West.
Nationalism is (at minimum) an attempt to make effective the defense of the city - first to stop admitting then to expel fifth columnists and parasites, and to suppress internal disorder.
But the officers will not do this.
So, if the city has not fallen first (and that is a big 'if') then at some point, perhaps, there may be an NCO mutiny - and the army will be taken-over and run by the senior sergeants.
Because a city will be better defended by an army led by loyal NCOs, than by an army led by traitorous officers.
*
If this kind of nationalism happens, it would surely, necessarily, be accompanied by a powerful anti-officer campaign - during which officers would be purged from all significant positions of leadership - and replaced by sergeants.
What would result would be a pretty shambolic form of army, of society. Yet it would not have to be well-organized; only better-organized than the forces which oppose it.
If nothing else happens first, at some point in the cultural decline that is political correctness the point will be passed at which a nationalist NCO-led army will be more effective than an army led by anti-nationalist officers.
*
Yet before this happens, it may well be that the city will fall to the enemy; and instead of being run by an NCO army of the indigenous population, the city will instead be taken-over by an officer-led army of invaders.
*
Saturday 7 September 2019
Why nationalism must fail as a right-wing strategy
I've written often over the past decade about why it is a mistake for those in The West who oppose the Left to put their faith in nationalism.
Another reason I have not mentioned directly is a consequence of the universal corruption affecting all large and powerful Western institutions - their loss of specific functions, and their convergence into the single, global totalitarian bureaucracy of New Left Political Correctness.
The problem is simply that the nation is an institution. So, because it is an institution, the nation is Leftist.
This fact is often missed because the nation is not just an institution; a nation is also (potentially, and to a variable extent) a mystical entity. But it is a mystical entity only insofar as people are able and willing to recognise the reality and importance of mystical entities - which, in the case of modern states, is Hardly At All.
Nationalism was only a strong force in the immediate post-religious generations (from about the middle 19th to 20th centuries) when people were still capable of living by and from mystical beliefs.
But that time is long gone, and mystical nationalism is now far too weak, or non-existent - and what we are left-with is a corrupt, converged national institution, a Leftist national institution.
How can people then realistically hope that nationalism might defeat Leftism? Right-Nationalists are in the position of supporting, trying to build-up and make supreme an institution that solidly and increasingly opposes their goals.
It isn't going to work, is it?
The only genuine possibility, remote and slight though it is; would be a religious revival first, and then (but only then) all kinds of good things become possible.
Another reason I have not mentioned directly is a consequence of the universal corruption affecting all large and powerful Western institutions - their loss of specific functions, and their convergence into the single, global totalitarian bureaucracy of New Left Political Correctness.
The problem is simply that the nation is an institution. So, because it is an institution, the nation is Leftist.
This fact is often missed because the nation is not just an institution; a nation is also (potentially, and to a variable extent) a mystical entity. But it is a mystical entity only insofar as people are able and willing to recognise the reality and importance of mystical entities - which, in the case of modern states, is Hardly At All.
Nationalism was only a strong force in the immediate post-religious generations (from about the middle 19th to 20th centuries) when people were still capable of living by and from mystical beliefs.
But that time is long gone, and mystical nationalism is now far too weak, or non-existent - and what we are left-with is a corrupt, converged national institution, a Leftist national institution.
How can people then realistically hope that nationalism might defeat Leftism? Right-Nationalists are in the position of supporting, trying to build-up and make supreme an institution that solidly and increasingly opposes their goals.
It isn't going to work, is it?
The only genuine possibility, remote and slight though it is; would be a religious revival first, and then (but only then) all kinds of good things become possible.
Tuesday 28 May 2019
Iceland refutes nationalism
I went to Iceland 20 years ago, and became fascinated by the place such that I read about 40 books and read the online Iceland Review for a couple of years.
It seemed an unique place - almost every person was descended from the Viking settlement, almost everybody was related to everybody else and knew the exact degree of their relatedness. They have their unique language and a great literature - even in the 1990s the sagas were still a matter of everyday discussion. The population was about 270,000 and it was like a single extended family. It seemed to me that the future of Iceland's culture was assured, and that Icelanders would surely look after themselves - why not?
Well, it hasn't happened, Iceland has gone the way of everywhere else - just as bad as if they had been in the European Union. Their fertility rate is below replacement levels, yet the population has been bloated by the nations first significant immigration for hundreds of years - coming from all over the place - new arrivals will soon amount to 15% of the population. The population of this little island has increased by a staggering 25-30 percent - entirely from recent migrants.
Thus Iceland refutes nationalism. There couldn't be anywhere in the developed world that was more strongly nationalist than Iceland 20 years ago, that was more conducive to nationalism, and that had more cohesion. Iceland was among the wealthiest countries in the world, per capita; and had every imaginable reason to remain distinct and separate.
None of that made any difference whatsoever - Iceland are exactly as bad as everywhere else. Ergo Nationalism Is Useless. It's a waste of time. Forget it.
What is missing? Religion of course. Having abandoned Christianity (like everywhere else in The West) Iceland is destroying itself - strategically, purposefully, moralistically (like everywhere else in The West).
Man cannot live without religion, because without religion Man has no reason to live. The evidence is all around us - but our Godless assumptions render evidence ineffectual.
We will incrementally destroy ourselves unless we get religion, and the getting of religion must come first - because you couldn't get a more deep-rooted, biologically and culturally-based nationalism than Iceland - and it made No Difference At All.
Wednesday 8 August 2018
Patriotism versus Nationalism
William Wildblood (at Albion Awakening) has written a good piece on the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism; and how its good to be patriotic, but not (usually) a nationalist.
It is patriotism that is the opposite of being a globalist (ie. necessarily a bureaucratic totalitarian).
I can remember George Orwell saying something similar, somewhere - he regarded himself as a patriot, not a nationalist.
For me, nationalism is a first-generation post-religious ideology that is an attempt to provide some basis for social cohesion; but it never lasts beyond that first generation after apostasy. In The West, everywhere, we are now several generations removed from a sufficiently strong national belief in a single religion, which is why nationalism is everywhere small, weak and ineffectual.
Of course, religion is also small, weak and ineffectual - but at least religion has a record of multigenerational success as the basis for national life. However, religion cannot be used as a means to an end (or, not for long) - so if not just collapse, but purposive national suicide is to be avoided, then religion must come first.
The first question is which religion; and the second is whether the nature of that religion needs to be of a new form or the restoration of an old one...
It is patriotism that is the opposite of being a globalist (ie. necessarily a bureaucratic totalitarian).
I can remember George Orwell saying something similar, somewhere - he regarded himself as a patriot, not a nationalist.
For me, nationalism is a first-generation post-religious ideology that is an attempt to provide some basis for social cohesion; but it never lasts beyond that first generation after apostasy. In The West, everywhere, we are now several generations removed from a sufficiently strong national belief in a single religion, which is why nationalism is everywhere small, weak and ineffectual.
Of course, religion is also small, weak and ineffectual - but at least religion has a record of multigenerational success as the basis for national life. However, religion cannot be used as a means to an end (or, not for long) - so if not just collapse, but purposive national suicide is to be avoided, then religion must come first.
The first question is which religion; and the second is whether the nature of that religion needs to be of a new form or the restoration of an old one...
Wednesday 31 March 2021
What we have Now is Not 'fascism' (not even 'neo'-fascism) - what is it?
Some people have noticed that the current global totalitarian system is more like fascism than communism, specifically in terms of its relationship between the state and the corporations. (In the sense that communism has every-thing nationalized, and included in the state system, while in fascism the state and corporations are aligned by a single, compulsorily-enforced ideology, but not ownership...)
On this basis, it is being said that we live in a fascist system; here-and-now, in 2021...
Well, I am tempted to say "I wish!" - because what we actually have is far, far more evil than any of the fascisms.
A form of economic ownership and state-corporate relationships was hardly the defining feature of real-life fascism, as it briefly existed in mid-twentieth century Italy and Germany!
Fascism was characterized ideologically by being a secular, explicitly-leftist movement that was also strongly anti-communist (which meant, mostly, anti-nationalization). But hardly anybody notice that aspect of fascism (except for the owners of corporations, hence their support for fascism when it was the most viable alternative to communism)
Positively fascism was a dictatorship motivated by militaristic nationalistic pride.
The country was to be run on military lines, and the country was to be celebrated and glorified. That was was people saw, and liked, about fascism - and where it scored so heavily over communism.
The motivations of fascism were comprehensible, human, and non-paradoxical - whereas communism was - like mainstream modern leftism - negatively, oppositionally, motivated. The communist atrocities and purges were all 'against' something (the bourgeois, the Kulaks, the Jews, reactionary saboteurs...); whereas fascism was motivated by nation-building.
Of course, communists have since tried to reframe fascism as mainly 'about' racism. That clearly was not the case - but it is a telling projection; because if the communists had been running fascism, then it certainly would have been about racism!
In other words, to the communist-leftist mind, the only way to motivate people is in opposition; thus they cannot even imagine the kind of positive national pride that was crucial to the (brief) success of fascism. Communistic leftists can only suppose that nationalism was a mask for oppositional racism directed against some particular groups or groups.
Nationalism, including fascism, offered a kind of halfway house - a positive (but temporary) alternative to religion; briefly uniting the country around its positive celebration.
Nationalism/ Fascism still used habits of thinking and motivations derived from the Christian era - but as a secular society, it had no way of renewing these resources - so all nationalisms, everywhere, weakened and declined - and it has not proved possible to revive an effective nationalism anywhere in the world for several decades.
By this analysis, in 2021 we have something new and unprecedented.
What we have is nothing like fascism - except in the double-negative way that it has enlisted the mega-private corporations by Not nationalizing them; and by (for mow...) coopting their interests in the totalitarian world government (public-private partnership).
What we have is much more like communism than fascism - especially The Establishment's uncritical/ warm feelings towards the communist dictatorships of past and present. But this 21st century leftism is post-communist; and has shed the economic focus of Marxism.
(No more nationalization of banks, media and corporations! Come and sit at the high table! So the billionaires are kept wealthy, and 'happy'...).
Gone, too, now - are any positive notions of building a utopia; indeed, any attempt to represent a positive vision of the future sound like one of the fictional nightmare dystopias. We now have the implementation of post-1960s New Left oppositional-identity politics, which grew in the USA and is anti-nationalist, anti-military, anti-white, anti-men, anti-working class (aka. 'white nationalists') etc.
Consequently, They keep the masses focused on rotating negative, oppositional scares and crusades; without mentioning where all this is supposed to be going...
Anyway; the main point here is that what we have now is not fascism, neither is it communism - but is something new and different.
We have a regime built almost entirely on negative and oppositional motivations. We have a populace who do not require heavy-handed violent and physical coercion; because they are so profoundly demotivated, passive and short-termist; that they will believe and go-along-with almost anything that is suggested by their state-media-corporate rulers.
We have a world government of state-media-corporate rulers, we have a world ruled in conformity and global masses who are acquiescent to this totalitarianism ... yet there is no clear, simple, comprehensible positive ideology in which they are ruling.
We are not going-towards any-particular-thing - or maybe, we are pretending to go-towards dozens of particular but incompatible things, each pretense being maintained for a few hours, days or weeks... Then swapped-out for something else equally temporary and insincere.
The obvious but ignored fact is that we now (obvious since early 2020) have a world government for the first time, with an international scope for action...
But that government is not aiming to build anything in particular; instead it is being used* to destroy itself - partly by setting each against all; and partly by Just Plain Destruction... Stopping great swathes of the economy, stopping human interaction, stopping... almost everything.
Just Plain Destruction.
Not-doing, Stopping, Preventing... these are the huge facts of these times; and these times are fundamentally un-like any time or place before, ever.
*'Used' by whom? By the evil supernatural forces of evil - Satan, and the demons of destruction.
Saturday 8 June 2019
Materialist Nationalism - is Bad: Christian Nationism (i.e. Nation-ism) - is Good
A 1930s-ish Railway Poster of the Yorkshire Dales - illustrating a selection of British Light Music
- both poster and this type of music have significant (residual) elements of Christian Nation-ism
- both poster and this type of music have significant (residual) elements of Christian Nation-ism
The decisive problem of actually-existing political Nationalism - even in an ideal form - as a philosophy-of-life is that it entails a morality based upon a de facto assertion of the superiority-to-alternatives of a way-of-life; including that the likes of Theresa May as Prime Minister, Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury, the UK military in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and major social institutions such as the BBC, the NHS and the legal system... need to be endorsed as being representative major facets of the current nation.
This means that even when (as is the case) materialist Nationalism is a lesser evil than the EU/ Globalism, and when it is the best-available-alternative - it is Not Good Enough. This, simply because it is a type of the modern pathology of spiritual and Christian-denying materialism/ positivism/ reductionism.
(Materialist Nationalism is, in fact, merely a slightly moderated version of the exact anti-Christian, spirit-denying agenda of the evil of demonic Globalism.)
Christian Nationism (i.e.Nation-ism) could be a name for something altogether superior and Good.
Let's say that Christian Nationism expresses the reality of a mystical England of which each Englishman is mystically a member.
This means that the materialist manifestations of nation (such as Theresa May, the BBC and the NHS) can be recognised for what they are - anti-nationists, strategically opposed to and destructive of the spirit of Christian Nationism.
I would add that ultimately the Christian aspect of Christian Nationism needs to be a Romantic Christianity. Why? Because the materialist, institutional aspects of Christianity are very-fully corrupted and anti-national.
Therefore the Christianity of Nationism must be Romantic - that is to say based in, derived from, a personal, spiritual, intuitive knowledge of the reality and Christian destiny of the nation of England; this is something that each must feel and know for himself, not least because there is no solid, clear, unambiguous, external source from-which such values can be derived.
Wednesday 4 July 2012
Was British colonialism a good thing?
*
In terms of preventing endemic starvation, high prevalence of disease and widespread extreme violence - very obviously yes.
But, overall, not.
*
When it began there were two distinct reasons for colonialization (I mean distinct in terms of logic - although they were and are often conflated): Christian mission and economic exploitation.
When it began, colonialism was either Christian, or economic exploitation, or both.
*
What confused Christianity and economic expolitation was humanitarianism: people thought that humanitarian goals were the same thing as Christian goals - for example they imagined that the abolition of slavery was both and equally Christian and humanitarian; and abolition generally required invasion and imposition of British rule.
Yet by the time it ended, colonialism was clearly working mostly for the material benefit of the colonized; as is obvious from what happened afterwards. And when combined with the catastrophic decline of Christianity in Britain, this made colonialism unsustainable - there was nothing in it for the Brits.
Because the only valid justification for 'colonialism' was Christian mission; and for mission 'humanitarianism' is a stalking-horse for secular Leftism.
*
Also, the resentment of local elites in colonized countries at their second class status meant that no matter what the material benefits of British colonialism for the mass of people (benefits like having enough to eat, and not being mutilated, raped and murdered) these were trumped by 'Nationalism': the glorious freedom of being starved and violated by people of your own kind.
*
If you are unconvinced that Leftism is evil in its essence, the primary strategic activity of purposive evil in the world, then consider their unconditional approval of third world 'nationalism' and their absolute hatred of colonialism.
Leftism (being atheist, and denying spiritual realities and aims) purports to be driven by a simple, basic imperative to alleviate human suffering, yet the reality is that Leftism works to blind itself to the most blatant suffering and its obvious causes.
From the purportedly-Leftist perspective of alleviating suffering, colonialism is so obviously superior to the results of ethnic nationalism, that even to question which is better would be obscene. Yet from the actual Leftist perspective the opposite is true: it is colonialism that is the obscenity.
*
But the fact that this is not how people see things is solid data - I take it as indirect evidence that the material world is subordinated to the unseen spiritual warfare of of Good and evil.
If the material were primary, then then ex-colonies would have been begging for colonialism to continue, while the British firmly moved to extricate themselves from their obligations.
What we actually observe is almost the opposite - and the British continue to inject resources into ex-colonies but this time with the outcome of supporting and amplifying Nationalist elites who are agents for inflicting extreme material suffering on their populations.
This has had results which have at times approached being the worst of all possible worlds.
*
Humanitarian colonialism is an oxymoron: there is no such thing.
Indeed, colonialism is a bad thing.
If the colonialism is bad by intention (exploitative) then it is a bad thing; but if colonialism is good by intention (humanitarian), then it is also a bad thing.
*
Yet Christian Empire has often been a Good Thing - sometimes overall a very good thing... Christian Rome, Byzantium, perhaps the Holy Roman Empire.
I conclude that only if the goals are spiritual can colonialism be justified: the British Empire was tainted from its origin.
Because the example of the British Empire teaches us that no amount of material benefit, and no matter how obvious is that material benefit, can ever justify colonialism in the eyes of human beings as human beings are presently constituted.
*
Empires may be good when they are primarily Christian; but no material empire is ever good.
Because even when successful (as was the British Empire) it ends-up in the paradoxical state of coercively-imposing peace, comfort and prosperity on people who idealistically agitate for an autonomous state of continuous civil war, degradation and poverty.
*
In terms of preventing endemic starvation, high prevalence of disease and widespread extreme violence - very obviously yes.
But, overall, not.
*
When it began there were two distinct reasons for colonialization (I mean distinct in terms of logic - although they were and are often conflated): Christian mission and economic exploitation.
When it began, colonialism was either Christian, or economic exploitation, or both.
*
What confused Christianity and economic expolitation was humanitarianism: people thought that humanitarian goals were the same thing as Christian goals - for example they imagined that the abolition of slavery was both and equally Christian and humanitarian; and abolition generally required invasion and imposition of British rule.
Yet by the time it ended, colonialism was clearly working mostly for the material benefit of the colonized; as is obvious from what happened afterwards. And when combined with the catastrophic decline of Christianity in Britain, this made colonialism unsustainable - there was nothing in it for the Brits.
Because the only valid justification for 'colonialism' was Christian mission; and for mission 'humanitarianism' is a stalking-horse for secular Leftism.
*
Also, the resentment of local elites in colonized countries at their second class status meant that no matter what the material benefits of British colonialism for the mass of people (benefits like having enough to eat, and not being mutilated, raped and murdered) these were trumped by 'Nationalism': the glorious freedom of being starved and violated by people of your own kind.
*
If you are unconvinced that Leftism is evil in its essence, the primary strategic activity of purposive evil in the world, then consider their unconditional approval of third world 'nationalism' and their absolute hatred of colonialism.
Leftism (being atheist, and denying spiritual realities and aims) purports to be driven by a simple, basic imperative to alleviate human suffering, yet the reality is that Leftism works to blind itself to the most blatant suffering and its obvious causes.
From the purportedly-Leftist perspective of alleviating suffering, colonialism is so obviously superior to the results of ethnic nationalism, that even to question which is better would be obscene. Yet from the actual Leftist perspective the opposite is true: it is colonialism that is the obscenity.
*
But the fact that this is not how people see things is solid data - I take it as indirect evidence that the material world is subordinated to the unseen spiritual warfare of of Good and evil.
If the material were primary, then then ex-colonies would have been begging for colonialism to continue, while the British firmly moved to extricate themselves from their obligations.
What we actually observe is almost the opposite - and the British continue to inject resources into ex-colonies but this time with the outcome of supporting and amplifying Nationalist elites who are agents for inflicting extreme material suffering on their populations.
This has had results which have at times approached being the worst of all possible worlds.
*
Humanitarian colonialism is an oxymoron: there is no such thing.
Indeed, colonialism is a bad thing.
If the colonialism is bad by intention (exploitative) then it is a bad thing; but if colonialism is good by intention (humanitarian), then it is also a bad thing.
*
Yet Christian Empire has often been a Good Thing - sometimes overall a very good thing... Christian Rome, Byzantium, perhaps the Holy Roman Empire.
I conclude that only if the goals are spiritual can colonialism be justified: the British Empire was tainted from its origin.
Because the example of the British Empire teaches us that no amount of material benefit, and no matter how obvious is that material benefit, can ever justify colonialism in the eyes of human beings as human beings are presently constituted.
*
Empires may be good when they are primarily Christian; but no material empire is ever good.
Because even when successful (as was the British Empire) it ends-up in the paradoxical state of coercively-imposing peace, comfort and prosperity on people who idealistically agitate for an autonomous state of continuous civil war, degradation and poverty.
*
Thursday 31 January 2019
The importance of Resentment in modern materialist evil
It is Resentment that the Establishment uses to control us, and to keep us focused on the material world.
The first (attempted) major socio-political movement to come after the massive collapse of Western Christianity in the 19th century was Nationalism; which was a movement of Resentment, originating in the lower-upper classes; the high school teachers, journalists, clerks and others clinging to the margins of the ruling elite.
For a while, some Nationalist movements could create cohesion and motivation by inculcating a belief that prosperity, power and pleasure were due to if The Enemy could be thwarted. Nationalism worked best (albeit always temporarily) when there was such an historical enemy - a perceived 'oppressor', and not very well when there wasn't.
But at a deep level Nationalism is untrue, and indeed a lie; because it is materialist - that is, its implicit claim is that if material things can be sorted-out - then life will be Good (or, at least, as Good as Life can be...).
One would have supposed that the fact that is was Not true, and that material prosperity in the absence of spiritual meaning led to despair and nihilism ought to have been recognised by 1965 at the latest - since that recognition was the currency of much public discourse across the whole of The West from the middle 50s - Existentialism, the Beat generation, the 'Angry Young Men' etc.
My understanding is that the (evil, demonically-controlled) Establishment recognised the danger of a spiritual, ultimately Christian, rebirth; and decided to manipulate Western societies into mutual resentment; so people would be focused on the lie that 'if only' they could escape oppression (by the 'Bourgeoisie', men, white people, The English, Christian churches, 'heterosexual' married families, or whoever) then life would be... well, Good Enough.
Half a century later - we have never been less spiritual, less Christian, less Romantic - and almost everybody in The West is seething with Resentment against some group, or many groups.
To 'fix' the source of this Resentment in some material, literal fashion is, for almost everybody, the number one priority - but there are so many number one priorities that the societal quest is futile/ deceptive/ obviously-manipulative.
And if ever it was achieved in any single domain (which attainment could/ would, anyway, never be acknowledged) then such people would find themselves no further forward than The West circa 1965: a state of meaninglessness, purposelessness, superficiality - and despair, nihilism and death.
So beware making Resentment your guiding motivation - no matter how justified it may seem, no matter if it is (apparently) wholly-justified... because it is a demonic deception, the path to death and despair; and Resentment will seal you off from the true happiness of Life.
Note: We all feel Resentment, and none can truly prevent its emergence - especially in this world. But all Christians can repent what cannot be prevented - and Repentance of itself places resentment in a subordinate position in your life - and thus neutralises its ultimate evil.
The first (attempted) major socio-political movement to come after the massive collapse of Western Christianity in the 19th century was Nationalism; which was a movement of Resentment, originating in the lower-upper classes; the high school teachers, journalists, clerks and others clinging to the margins of the ruling elite.
For a while, some Nationalist movements could create cohesion and motivation by inculcating a belief that prosperity, power and pleasure were due to if The Enemy could be thwarted. Nationalism worked best (albeit always temporarily) when there was such an historical enemy - a perceived 'oppressor', and not very well when there wasn't.
But at a deep level Nationalism is untrue, and indeed a lie; because it is materialist - that is, its implicit claim is that if material things can be sorted-out - then life will be Good (or, at least, as Good as Life can be...).
One would have supposed that the fact that is was Not true, and that material prosperity in the absence of spiritual meaning led to despair and nihilism ought to have been recognised by 1965 at the latest - since that recognition was the currency of much public discourse across the whole of The West from the middle 50s - Existentialism, the Beat generation, the 'Angry Young Men' etc.
My understanding is that the (evil, demonically-controlled) Establishment recognised the danger of a spiritual, ultimately Christian, rebirth; and decided to manipulate Western societies into mutual resentment; so people would be focused on the lie that 'if only' they could escape oppression (by the 'Bourgeoisie', men, white people, The English, Christian churches, 'heterosexual' married families, or whoever) then life would be... well, Good Enough.
Half a century later - we have never been less spiritual, less Christian, less Romantic - and almost everybody in The West is seething with Resentment against some group, or many groups.
To 'fix' the source of this Resentment in some material, literal fashion is, for almost everybody, the number one priority - but there are so many number one priorities that the societal quest is futile/ deceptive/ obviously-manipulative.
And if ever it was achieved in any single domain (which attainment could/ would, anyway, never be acknowledged) then such people would find themselves no further forward than The West circa 1965: a state of meaninglessness, purposelessness, superficiality - and despair, nihilism and death.
So beware making Resentment your guiding motivation - no matter how justified it may seem, no matter if it is (apparently) wholly-justified... because it is a demonic deception, the path to death and despair; and Resentment will seal you off from the true happiness of Life.
Note: We all feel Resentment, and none can truly prevent its emergence - especially in this world. But all Christians can repent what cannot be prevented - and Repentance of itself places resentment in a subordinate position in your life - and thus neutralises its ultimate evil.
Tuesday 24 October 2017
Why I am dismayed by the materialism of the current international pseudo-right-wing backlash
Don't get me wrong - the enemies of the Brexit-Trump-Euronationalist backlash are much worse than the thing itself - but the backlash is in reality merely a different species of leftism: a more nationalist and efficiency orientated materialism. And materialism is what got us here.
The primary problem of the West is not the declining efficiency of the economy under political correctness, nor the destruction of mass immigration; the primary problem is that we have lost our religion hence sufficient reason for living.
All secular societies and peoples without any exceptions are well-advanced en route to self-chosen extinction... The average age of native English people is in the middle forties (ie. more than half the population are older than middle aged!), the average number of children per woman is nearer one than two - and among the most intelligent, wealthy, educated and capable women it is nearer a half-child than one. The average age of marriage and first child has passed thirty. There are half a million people aged 90 or over (of whom more than half have advanced dementia) - approaching one percent of the population! This situation is unique in the history of the world.
All this has happened in the context of the greatest and most-sustained-ever era of wealth, peace, prosperity, science, technology, comfort, convenience, amusement, and availability of education - so clearly material lack Is Not The Problem.
The problem is that we have no religion: specifcially we do not live by Christianity. We have rejected the Christianity of our grandparents and great grandparents, but we have not replaced it - hence we are bunch of short-termist, hedonistic cowards. Yet still we grasp after more stuff - and that is the promise of the New Right: even more stuff!
Nationalism cannot replace religion - the days of nationalism as a prime motivation in human affairs are long gone; but even in its heyday it could not sustain the population among the elites (i.e. the elite existentially-despaired, as could be seen from their art and philosophy); and nationalism was only able to hold nations together in a state of war or preparation for war - so the cure was at least as bad as the disease.
It is crystal clear that even in strictly biological terms, humans simply must have religion or we will despair and want to die and hope-for extinction. Against this the New Right is utterly powerless - or indeed counter-productive.
We are in a spiritual war, and in this war the New Right are on the same side as the Social Justice Warriors and the Establishment political mainstream; both wings are materialists against religion in general and Christianity in particular. They want a society run with a political/ economic/ utilitarian bottom-line; not religious. Do not be fooled by the tactical alliance between Political Correctness and the other great monotheism - there is nothing important in common; each is merely trying to use the other. Obviously.
You will say, and I will agree, that there is no sign of any spiritual Christian revival in the West. That is the current situation. But such an awakening is our only hope, and awakening starts with each individual person: with you, specifically.
Real Christianity cannot be adopted for expedience, it must be believed - it is not a route to more peace, prosperity, wealth and the rest of it. It cannot be a tool of politics. But you absolutely need to Know For Yourself whether or not Christianity Is True.
The churches are not going to be of help in this - because most of most self-identified Christian churches are on the other side from real Christianity.
You are going to have-to take responsibility for your own life, and for your own destiny and eternity; you are going to have-to Work It Out For Yourself, and to-your-own-satisfaction. You will need to find your own method and path - nobody else can help, because you do not (yet) know who you can trust.
This is urgent. Nothing is more important. For Heaven's sake - Get on with it!
The primary problem of the West is not the declining efficiency of the economy under political correctness, nor the destruction of mass immigration; the primary problem is that we have lost our religion hence sufficient reason for living.
All secular societies and peoples without any exceptions are well-advanced en route to self-chosen extinction... The average age of native English people is in the middle forties (ie. more than half the population are older than middle aged!), the average number of children per woman is nearer one than two - and among the most intelligent, wealthy, educated and capable women it is nearer a half-child than one. The average age of marriage and first child has passed thirty. There are half a million people aged 90 or over (of whom more than half have advanced dementia) - approaching one percent of the population! This situation is unique in the history of the world.
All this has happened in the context of the greatest and most-sustained-ever era of wealth, peace, prosperity, science, technology, comfort, convenience, amusement, and availability of education - so clearly material lack Is Not The Problem.
The problem is that we have no religion: specifcially we do not live by Christianity. We have rejected the Christianity of our grandparents and great grandparents, but we have not replaced it - hence we are bunch of short-termist, hedonistic cowards. Yet still we grasp after more stuff - and that is the promise of the New Right: even more stuff!
Nationalism cannot replace religion - the days of nationalism as a prime motivation in human affairs are long gone; but even in its heyday it could not sustain the population among the elites (i.e. the elite existentially-despaired, as could be seen from their art and philosophy); and nationalism was only able to hold nations together in a state of war or preparation for war - so the cure was at least as bad as the disease.
It is crystal clear that even in strictly biological terms, humans simply must have religion or we will despair and want to die and hope-for extinction. Against this the New Right is utterly powerless - or indeed counter-productive.
We are in a spiritual war, and in this war the New Right are on the same side as the Social Justice Warriors and the Establishment political mainstream; both wings are materialists against religion in general and Christianity in particular. They want a society run with a political/ economic/ utilitarian bottom-line; not religious. Do not be fooled by the tactical alliance between Political Correctness and the other great monotheism - there is nothing important in common; each is merely trying to use the other. Obviously.
You will say, and I will agree, that there is no sign of any spiritual Christian revival in the West. That is the current situation. But such an awakening is our only hope, and awakening starts with each individual person: with you, specifically.
Real Christianity cannot be adopted for expedience, it must be believed - it is not a route to more peace, prosperity, wealth and the rest of it. It cannot be a tool of politics. But you absolutely need to Know For Yourself whether or not Christianity Is True.
The churches are not going to be of help in this - because most of most self-identified Christian churches are on the other side from real Christianity.
You are going to have-to take responsibility for your own life, and for your own destiny and eternity; you are going to have-to Work It Out For Yourself, and to-your-own-satisfaction. You will need to find your own method and path - nobody else can help, because you do not (yet) know who you can trust.
This is urgent. Nothing is more important. For Heaven's sake - Get on with it!
Friday 19 April 2019
Terminal Demotivation is the problem of The West
From a comment I left at The Politically Incorrect Australian
Nationalism was powerfully motivating, but only for about one generation after the mass apostasy from Christianity began (this happened at different times in different countries).
As of now, nationalism is ineffectual; and it is a waste of time - and diversion from the real problem - to pursue it.
Nationalism is just one of a long series of failed attempts to motivate people after they have abandoned religion - this universal secular demotivation can be seen in the voluntary subfertility (subfertility in spite of material abundance) among all secular Western societies. The only groups in modern society with above replacement fertility are from among the religious, and only among the seriously religious (these seem to be only among Christians, Muslims and Jews - Eastern religions don't seem to work - certainly not outside of the East).
To be clearer, I think a large majority of people in The West are in favour of not being replaced by assorted immigrants; but they are (like all established secular populations) too morally incoherent and hence insufficiently motivated to anything about it - when doing something involves the slightest risk or disadvantage.
This affects everything, which is why totalitarianism is established and increasing its grip - almost nobody will say no, because almost nobody can believe-in any coherent alternative.
No belief, no motivation: Demotivation unto death, and beyond: Terminal demotivation...
Nationalism was powerfully motivating, but only for about one generation after the mass apostasy from Christianity began (this happened at different times in different countries).
As of now, nationalism is ineffectual; and it is a waste of time - and diversion from the real problem - to pursue it.
Nationalism is just one of a long series of failed attempts to motivate people after they have abandoned religion - this universal secular demotivation can be seen in the voluntary subfertility (subfertility in spite of material abundance) among all secular Western societies. The only groups in modern society with above replacement fertility are from among the religious, and only among the seriously religious (these seem to be only among Christians, Muslims and Jews - Eastern religions don't seem to work - certainly not outside of the East).
To be clearer, I think a large majority of people in The West are in favour of not being replaced by assorted immigrants; but they are (like all established secular populations) too morally incoherent and hence insufficiently motivated to anything about it - when doing something involves the slightest risk or disadvantage.
This affects everything, which is why totalitarianism is established and increasing its grip - almost nobody will say no, because almost nobody can believe-in any coherent alternative.
No belief, no motivation: Demotivation unto death, and beyond: Terminal demotivation...
Sunday 22 December 2013
Secular Reaction equals Fascism... but minus (Nationalism & Militarism)
*
The positive doctrines of modern secular Reaction are:
1. Dictatorship (ie. anti-democracy)
2. Strict formal hierarchy (i.e. anti-egalitarian)
3. Male domination of the public arena (i.e. anti-feminism)
*
Why is this different from 1920s/30s fascism?
It isn't - except that fascism was powerfully motivated by Nationalism and had a power base in the Military.
By contrast, modern Reaction is operating in world where Nationalism is extremely weak and the movement has no apparent support from the Military.
*
Therefore, modern secular Reaction is just weak fascism; or fascism minus the ability to take power.
*
Note: I use fascism here in a descriptive way. I don't regard fascism as the worst of all possible political systems - because that would be communism. However, I do regard fascism as a bad political system - mostly because it as fundamentally secular in nature; hence ultimately Leftist.
The positive doctrines of modern secular Reaction are:
1. Dictatorship (ie. anti-democracy)
2. Strict formal hierarchy (i.e. anti-egalitarian)
3. Male domination of the public arena (i.e. anti-feminism)
*
Why is this different from 1920s/30s fascism?
It isn't - except that fascism was powerfully motivated by Nationalism and had a power base in the Military.
By contrast, modern Reaction is operating in world where Nationalism is extremely weak and the movement has no apparent support from the Military.
*
Therefore, modern secular Reaction is just weak fascism; or fascism minus the ability to take power.
*
Note: I use fascism here in a descriptive way. I don't regard fascism as the worst of all possible political systems - because that would be communism. However, I do regard fascism as a bad political system - mostly because it as fundamentally secular in nature; hence ultimately Leftist.
Tuesday 12 January 2016
The age of ideology has finished (Get over it!)
When the age of faith began, rather obviously, to come to an end in the 19th century; there emerged an age of ideology - of 'secular religions', and initially the secular ideologies shared some of the strength of conviction, and capability of generating motivation, that is characteristic of religion.
The hallmark of motivation is self-sacrifice.
This led to the idea that ideology was, and could remain, a substitute for religion.
The earliest of these powerful ideologies was nationalism - which was strong enough to create regime changes all over Europe and Scandinavia, then later in places like India and Africa, due to the intense and sustained motivation of its adherents.
But in all cases nationalism faded after about a generation - and there have not been any powerful nationalist movements in recent generations.
Communism came along next; and the earliest communists were dedicated and motivated - it seemed as if communism had the same kind of power to evoke self-sacrifice as did religion.
But, as with nationalism, the motivational power of communism (and other types of socialism) faded after a generation - and modern Leftism is feeble, corrupt and pampered.
(Old-time communists accepted jail, violence and death for their faith; but a modern Leftist is regarded as an 'activist' if he attends a 'demonstration', or takes a make-work job as an 'organizer'.)
Since communism there have been no secular ideologies with the power to evoke self-sacrifice - the age of ideology is long-since over.
Nowadays, if you are not religious you are not motivated. If you are not religious you will not be capable of significant self-sacrifice for your beliefs.
We now know that there is no secular substitute for religion,
The future lies with one religion or another. It is a matter of choice between religions - ideology is not a valid choice.
The hallmark of motivation is self-sacrifice.
This led to the idea that ideology was, and could remain, a substitute for religion.
The earliest of these powerful ideologies was nationalism - which was strong enough to create regime changes all over Europe and Scandinavia, then later in places like India and Africa, due to the intense and sustained motivation of its adherents.
But in all cases nationalism faded after about a generation - and there have not been any powerful nationalist movements in recent generations.
Communism came along next; and the earliest communists were dedicated and motivated - it seemed as if communism had the same kind of power to evoke self-sacrifice as did religion.
But, as with nationalism, the motivational power of communism (and other types of socialism) faded after a generation - and modern Leftism is feeble, corrupt and pampered.
(Old-time communists accepted jail, violence and death for their faith; but a modern Leftist is regarded as an 'activist' if he attends a 'demonstration', or takes a make-work job as an 'organizer'.)
Since communism there have been no secular ideologies with the power to evoke self-sacrifice - the age of ideology is long-since over.
Nowadays, if you are not religious you are not motivated. If you are not religious you will not be capable of significant self-sacrifice for your beliefs.
We now know that there is no secular substitute for religion,
The future lies with one religion or another. It is a matter of choice between religions - ideology is not a valid choice.
Wednesday 12 January 2011
Secular utilitarians ought, if consistent, to mourn the end of colonialism
*
The national liberation movements that brought about the end of colonialism had at best dubious, and mostly clearly negative, consequences for the mass of people who they purported to help; while having very clear and definite benefits for the elites to whom power and wealth were transferred.
*
In mainstream political discourse the bottom line is hedonic, utilitarian: policy purports to aim at the greatest happiness of the greatest number and at the minimization of suffering.
And it is pretty uncontroversial that endemic violence and permanent starvation cause suffering.
Therefore mainstream political discourse ought to mourn the end of colonialism, and set-out restoring it.
*
The ending of colonialism in Africa is the clearest example of what I mean. In many places 'liberation' from colonialism had clear and immediate benefits for the local elites - who became top dogs instead of second fiddle to the colonial powers.
But the mass of the population suffered the most extreme starvation and violence yet seen on earth.
This outcome would generally considered to be the worst possible situation, yet of course the end of colonialism is seen by PC as a cause for celebration.
*
Something similar happened in India - exacerbated by the partition into Pakinstan, then re-partitioning into Bangladesh - each 'liberation' caused immense disadvantage to everybody... except the new elites.
*
But I do not advocate a return to colonialism, because clearly it leads to immense resistance from the colonized - proving that (in a this-worldly and hedonic sense) humans obviously do not know 'what is good for them'.
The repeated rebellion of colonials throughout history has demonstrated as a fact that people en masse act as if they have different and non-material goals from optimizing peace and prosperity (or else, more precisely, they can readily be manipulated to act in this way by local elites, which amounts to the same thing in practice).
The repeated successful pattern of 'liberation' from colonialism is therefore yet another proof of the poverty of secular materialism.
*
Secular materialism - utilitarian policy aiming at comfort for all - is weak, weak, weak.
People like it when they have it, but don't want to keep it strongly enough to lift a finger to defend it.
Even nationalism - such a feeble and artificial emotion compared with religion - is easily strong enough to defeat secular materialism.
*
[Note: The European Age of Nationalism was only possible due to the decline of religion - ethnic-Nationalism becoming (by default) the next-strongest force of social cohesion possible in that era.]
*
The national liberation movements that brought about the end of colonialism had at best dubious, and mostly clearly negative, consequences for the mass of people who they purported to help; while having very clear and definite benefits for the elites to whom power and wealth were transferred.
*
In mainstream political discourse the bottom line is hedonic, utilitarian: policy purports to aim at the greatest happiness of the greatest number and at the minimization of suffering.
And it is pretty uncontroversial that endemic violence and permanent starvation cause suffering.
Therefore mainstream political discourse ought to mourn the end of colonialism, and set-out restoring it.
*
The ending of colonialism in Africa is the clearest example of what I mean. In many places 'liberation' from colonialism had clear and immediate benefits for the local elites - who became top dogs instead of second fiddle to the colonial powers.
But the mass of the population suffered the most extreme starvation and violence yet seen on earth.
This outcome would generally considered to be the worst possible situation, yet of course the end of colonialism is seen by PC as a cause for celebration.
*
Something similar happened in India - exacerbated by the partition into Pakinstan, then re-partitioning into Bangladesh - each 'liberation' caused immense disadvantage to everybody... except the new elites.
*
But I do not advocate a return to colonialism, because clearly it leads to immense resistance from the colonized - proving that (in a this-worldly and hedonic sense) humans obviously do not know 'what is good for them'.
The repeated rebellion of colonials throughout history has demonstrated as a fact that people en masse act as if they have different and non-material goals from optimizing peace and prosperity (or else, more precisely, they can readily be manipulated to act in this way by local elites, which amounts to the same thing in practice).
The repeated successful pattern of 'liberation' from colonialism is therefore yet another proof of the poverty of secular materialism.
*
Secular materialism - utilitarian policy aiming at comfort for all - is weak, weak, weak.
People like it when they have it, but don't want to keep it strongly enough to lift a finger to defend it.
Even nationalism - such a feeble and artificial emotion compared with religion - is easily strong enough to defeat secular materialism.
*
[Note: The European Age of Nationalism was only possible due to the decline of religion - ethnic-Nationalism becoming (by default) the next-strongest force of social cohesion possible in that era.]
*
Sunday 26 January 2014
Is it correct to state that Neo-Reactionaries of the 'Dark Enlightenment' are 'Neo-fascists'?
*
The Neo-reactionary bloggers of the 'Dark Enlightenment' (e.g. those who regard 'Mencius Moldbug' as a guide and mentor) have been noticed by the mainstream mass media, and subjected to some hostile (albeit contradictory) rhetorical attacks.
In particular, they are being called Neo-fascists.
*
Is this correct? In a nutshell, my answer (below) is that yes it is correct, yes the N-Rs of the DE are Neo-fascist; but not for the reasons that the mainstream journalists give.
The mainstream Leftists regard fascism (whether Old- or Neo-) as bad because it is anti-Left; but as a Christian I oppose fascism (and hence oppose Neo-reactionaries of the Dark Enlightenment) because fascism is essentially non-Christian, and in practice strongly tends to be anti-Christian.
*
I have written fairly extensively against the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reaction from my perspective as a Christian who is fundamentally opposed to any secular anti-Christian ideology; and one who regards repentance as the absolutely-necessary first step towards any good political change.
(And yes, this makes me a pessimist.)
If you want to read the stuff, I suggest you word-search this blog.
Anyway, the present situation was one which I anticipated a few years ago.
*
The intellectual quality of the articles on the Neo-Reactionaries is, of course, poor: they are careless, ignorant and dishonest.
This is not exceptional, since that is the nature of the modern mass media.
But, when the Dark Enlightenment gets called Neo-fascist by these mainstream journalists this is interesting; because the name is strictly correct - albeit right for the wrong reasons.
(On those rare occasions that the Left is correct, it is almost always right for a wrong reason!)
*
The mainstream journalists have called the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reactionaries fascist because of their attitude to race, their 'race-realism'.
But this emphasis betrays that the journalists are engaging in gang warfare rather than analysis. Because fascism-as-such has in essence nothing necessarily to do with race. (Mussoloni - the first successful self-described fascist - was not racist when he took power.)
Actual fascism is historically a very recent ideology and has been very rare. Fascism is essentially a post-communist phenomenon - in practice only becoming powerful after the Russian Revolution of 1917 (although of course its roots can be traced further back).
*
On the other hand, Neo-fascism is indeed focused on race; but only because it is a reaction against the modern, mainstream, politically correct Left (the Left that rules the developed world - noting that 'the Left' includes all the mainstream 'conservative' or 'republican' parties): and of course PC is race-obsessed.
Thus any opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose politically correct anti-racism - not because this is a central focus to the the opposition, but because race is a central focus for the mainstream modern Left.
*
(In fact, on the whole racism was much more of a communist and Old Left thing than it was a fascist thing. Communist societies engage in all sorts of racism - albeit inconsistently; since communists are too unprincipled to be consistent when that is inexpedient - e.g. the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. In various phases, Soviet Russia tried to exterminate Christians and eliminate Christianity; and (mostly) killed, or long-term imprisoned, many thousands of bishops, monks and priests, plus some tens of millions of faithful believers (Yep, they did - it was a larger scale although less 'efficient' operation than the Nazi Holocaust.). They were also intermittently anti-semitic. And it was the Trades Union-dominated Old Left which preserved race-based policies and practices in the USA in the post Civil War era and up to the 1960s. It is only since the domination of the New Left - ruled by the upper class intellectuals with their 'personal' (not economic) issues such as feminism and sexual license - that anti-racism has been co-opted as a Leftist cause, and bigotry has become regarded as the worst of all possible sins.)
*
(By analogy, religious opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose the sexual revolution - not because traditional sexuality is a central focus to (or 'obsession' of) traditional religion; but because the sexual revolution is the major and most effective weapon used by the Left to weaken, subvert, colonize and invert traditional religion. Naturally, therefore, sexuality will become a major battleground.)
*
Neo-Reactionaries/ the Dark Enlightment are indeed fascist - because they are:
1. A secular Right wing movement
2. Intellectually in-reaction-against the Left
...hence they are 'fascist' - because that is what fascism is: it is secular anti-communism - a non-religious reaction-against communism.
Plus, Neo-Reactionary/ Dark Enlightenment bloggers are
3. Reacting against the New Left - i.e. the politically correct, post-nineteen-sixties Left - hence they are indeed 'Neo'.
*
So the label of Neo-fascist is accurate, albeit being applied for the wrong reasons.
Where the Left are objectively wrong is in lumping all their enemies into the fascist category - by putting the real fascists who are secular together with the religious Right.
(I know they do this, because when I was a Leftist it is exactly what I did too!).
The Religious Right is essentially utterly different from fascism, because it is religious! The Religious Right wants to put religion at the centre of national life (note: this is not synonymous with a system of 'theocracy' - theocracy is only one way of trying to make religion the focus of life).
This does not seem like an important difference to the Left; because the Left are secular and don't believe in religion, think religion is nonsense, and therefore don't take religion seriously.
*
(For example the Left always explain-away religious martyrdom as being due to either social/ economic factors or mental illness - they cannot believe that religion is a real, powerful motivation - indeed the most powerful motivation - because they themselves do not share it. This is another thing I know from personal experience; when I was an atheist, I simply could not believe that religion was a real cause of anything significant - but I always looked to some other explanation for human behaviour, such as class differences, nationalism, economic self-interest, organized crime... I saw religions as merely a mixture of wishful thinking fantasy and rationalized hatred; hence not the kind of thing which could motivate extreme commitment.)
*
A few years ago I predicted that the Left would call any secular Right movement fascist, and that in doing so they would be broadly correct.
I also predicted that so long as the secular Right denied the fascist label they would be powerless, but if they ever felt strong enough to accept the fascist label openly and explicitly and were able to survive the backlash... then that would be the time to worry about them.
Therefore, when mainstream Leftist journalists call the Dark Enlightenment Neo-fascist, they are testing it; testing whether the movement is likely to be dangerous.
If Neo-Reactionaries fight the fascist label - then that is fine: they are revealed as lacking clarity and self-awareness, as craving acceptance, as having insignificant commitment, motivation and power.
To reject the fascist label demonstrates to the ruling Leftist elites that Neo-Reactionaries can easily be controlled by some mixture of mockery and demonization, and subversion by recognition, and buying-out (and this latter may be a motivation for some of the leading N-Rs of the DE - they are covertly hoping to sell-out and be co-opted by the mainstream!).
But if, when tested, the fascist label was accepted; then the response would be serious suppression by the usual Leftist means. This would be hard/ impossible for the Dark Enlightenment to survive - but if the Neo-Reactionaries did become explicitly fascist AND also survived the consequent suppression; then it would be a case of Be Afraid: Be Very Afraid for the Leftist elites.
**
I predicted this current situation when I wrote my book Thought Prison: the fundamental nature of political correctness
I have emphasized the relevant passages in bold.
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk
(...)
*
This list suggests that secular modern politics boils down either to political correctness or what could be (and almost certainly would be) termed a kind of ‘fascism’.
Maybe at some point the secular Right will eventually stop fighting the ‘fascist’ label and become openly and explicitly fascist - but distancing themselves from the National Socialist type of (semi) fascism?
*
The religious Right is not fascist: fascism is secular hence modern; and the religious Right is pre-modern and much more ancient than fascism. Indeed the religious Right was pretty much all there was in pre-modern times: conflict being between different varieties of religious Right.
The huge difference between religious Right and secular Right is that the religious Right seeks to rule society primarily by religious principles, by religious goals. By contrast the common sense secular Right (fascism) is justified on the basis of this-worldly common sense goals: such as the aim to make its supporters happier and richer; to provide a glorious national or ethnic purpose; to forge a new community of the heart.
(...)
*
The Neo-reactionary bloggers of the 'Dark Enlightenment' (e.g. those who regard 'Mencius Moldbug' as a guide and mentor) have been noticed by the mainstream mass media, and subjected to some hostile (albeit contradictory) rhetorical attacks.
In particular, they are being called Neo-fascists.
*
Is this correct? In a nutshell, my answer (below) is that yes it is correct, yes the N-Rs of the DE are Neo-fascist; but not for the reasons that the mainstream journalists give.
The mainstream Leftists regard fascism (whether Old- or Neo-) as bad because it is anti-Left; but as a Christian I oppose fascism (and hence oppose Neo-reactionaries of the Dark Enlightenment) because fascism is essentially non-Christian, and in practice strongly tends to be anti-Christian.
*
I have written fairly extensively against the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reaction from my perspective as a Christian who is fundamentally opposed to any secular anti-Christian ideology; and one who regards repentance as the absolutely-necessary first step towards any good political change.
(And yes, this makes me a pessimist.)
If you want to read the stuff, I suggest you word-search this blog.
Anyway, the present situation was one which I anticipated a few years ago.
*
The intellectual quality of the articles on the Neo-Reactionaries is, of course, poor: they are careless, ignorant and dishonest.
This is not exceptional, since that is the nature of the modern mass media.
But, when the Dark Enlightenment gets called Neo-fascist by these mainstream journalists this is interesting; because the name is strictly correct - albeit right for the wrong reasons.
(On those rare occasions that the Left is correct, it is almost always right for a wrong reason!)
*
The mainstream journalists have called the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reactionaries fascist because of their attitude to race, their 'race-realism'.
But this emphasis betrays that the journalists are engaging in gang warfare rather than analysis. Because fascism-as-such has in essence nothing necessarily to do with race. (Mussoloni - the first successful self-described fascist - was not racist when he took power.)
Actual fascism is historically a very recent ideology and has been very rare. Fascism is essentially a post-communist phenomenon - in practice only becoming powerful after the Russian Revolution of 1917 (although of course its roots can be traced further back).
*
On the other hand, Neo-fascism is indeed focused on race; but only because it is a reaction against the modern, mainstream, politically correct Left (the Left that rules the developed world - noting that 'the Left' includes all the mainstream 'conservative' or 'republican' parties): and of course PC is race-obsessed.
Thus any opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose politically correct anti-racism - not because this is a central focus to the the opposition, but because race is a central focus for the mainstream modern Left.
*
(In fact, on the whole racism was much more of a communist and Old Left thing than it was a fascist thing. Communist societies engage in all sorts of racism - albeit inconsistently; since communists are too unprincipled to be consistent when that is inexpedient - e.g. the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. In various phases, Soviet Russia tried to exterminate Christians and eliminate Christianity; and (mostly) killed, or long-term imprisoned, many thousands of bishops, monks and priests, plus some tens of millions of faithful believers (Yep, they did - it was a larger scale although less 'efficient' operation than the Nazi Holocaust.). They were also intermittently anti-semitic. And it was the Trades Union-dominated Old Left which preserved race-based policies and practices in the USA in the post Civil War era and up to the 1960s. It is only since the domination of the New Left - ruled by the upper class intellectuals with their 'personal' (not economic) issues such as feminism and sexual license - that anti-racism has been co-opted as a Leftist cause, and bigotry has become regarded as the worst of all possible sins.)
*
(By analogy, religious opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose the sexual revolution - not because traditional sexuality is a central focus to (or 'obsession' of) traditional religion; but because the sexual revolution is the major and most effective weapon used by the Left to weaken, subvert, colonize and invert traditional religion. Naturally, therefore, sexuality will become a major battleground.)
*
Neo-Reactionaries/ the Dark Enlightment are indeed fascist - because they are:
1. A secular Right wing movement
2. Intellectually in-reaction-against the Left
...hence they are 'fascist' - because that is what fascism is: it is secular anti-communism - a non-religious reaction-against communism.
Plus, Neo-Reactionary/ Dark Enlightenment bloggers are
3. Reacting against the New Left - i.e. the politically correct, post-nineteen-sixties Left - hence they are indeed 'Neo'.
*
So the label of Neo-fascist is accurate, albeit being applied for the wrong reasons.
Where the Left are objectively wrong is in lumping all their enemies into the fascist category - by putting the real fascists who are secular together with the religious Right.
(I know they do this, because when I was a Leftist it is exactly what I did too!).
The Religious Right is essentially utterly different from fascism, because it is religious! The Religious Right wants to put religion at the centre of national life (note: this is not synonymous with a system of 'theocracy' - theocracy is only one way of trying to make religion the focus of life).
This does not seem like an important difference to the Left; because the Left are secular and don't believe in religion, think religion is nonsense, and therefore don't take religion seriously.
*
(For example the Left always explain-away religious martyrdom as being due to either social/ economic factors or mental illness - they cannot believe that religion is a real, powerful motivation - indeed the most powerful motivation - because they themselves do not share it. This is another thing I know from personal experience; when I was an atheist, I simply could not believe that religion was a real cause of anything significant - but I always looked to some other explanation for human behaviour, such as class differences, nationalism, economic self-interest, organized crime... I saw religions as merely a mixture of wishful thinking fantasy and rationalized hatred; hence not the kind of thing which could motivate extreme commitment.)
*
A few years ago I predicted that the Left would call any secular Right movement fascist, and that in doing so they would be broadly correct.
I also predicted that so long as the secular Right denied the fascist label they would be powerless, but if they ever felt strong enough to accept the fascist label openly and explicitly and were able to survive the backlash... then that would be the time to worry about them.
Therefore, when mainstream Leftist journalists call the Dark Enlightenment Neo-fascist, they are testing it; testing whether the movement is likely to be dangerous.
If Neo-Reactionaries fight the fascist label - then that is fine: they are revealed as lacking clarity and self-awareness, as craving acceptance, as having insignificant commitment, motivation and power.
To reject the fascist label demonstrates to the ruling Leftist elites that Neo-Reactionaries can easily be controlled by some mixture of mockery and demonization, and subversion by recognition, and buying-out (and this latter may be a motivation for some of the leading N-Rs of the DE - they are covertly hoping to sell-out and be co-opted by the mainstream!).
But if, when tested, the fascist label was accepted; then the response would be serious suppression by the usual Leftist means. This would be hard/ impossible for the Dark Enlightenment to survive - but if the Neo-Reactionaries did become explicitly fascist AND also survived the consequent suppression; then it would be a case of Be Afraid: Be Very Afraid for the Leftist elites.
**
I predicted this current situation when I wrote my book Thought Prison: the fundamental nature of political correctness
I have emphasized the relevant passages in bold.
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk
(...)
Could a party of ‘common sense’ replace political correctness?
With
the profound weakness of mainstream Christianity in the West (due to
subversion by Leftism and subordination to PC), and with the weakness of
old-style nationalism (led by the lower levels of the upper class –
teachers, minor civil servants and journalists - who are now the most
zealous of the politically correct), and with the unlikeliness of a new
nationalism of the tradesman/ NCO class – then the most likely
opposition to political correctness (especially in the USA) currently
comes from populist, reactionary, secular groups based on common sense.
From
a Christian perspective, such groupings are seriously sub-optimal - at
best a temporary expedient. Nonetheless, supposing that common sense
secularism was actually to become powerful - what then? Could it, would
it provide a better alternative future than PC? What would that future
be?
This can be predicted by considering the probable characteristics of such a grouping - and weighing-up the pros and cons.
*
Since
so much of Western society is now corrupted by Liberalism and
implicated in PC, such a group would have to come from outside this -
and in rejecting the psychotic delusionality of PC it would need to
offer a common sense alternative which would be obvious to plain,
middling, productive people outwith the intelligentsia and their
underclass of state-dependents.
And since a common sense party would be reactive against PC, we can infer its main features.
*
Here
is a non-exhaustive list (in no particular order) of characteristics of
a possible Common Sense (CS) party contrasted with the politically
correct (PC) party.
CS v PC:
1. Natural and spontaneous versus Human designed
2. Reality is real and fixed versus Reality is relative and plastic
3. Coercive force versus Propaganda
4. Face to face versus Mass media
5. Concrete versus Abstract
6. Immediate versus Utopian
7. Instinctive versus Educated
8. Native versus Immigrant
9. Popular culture versus High art
10. Practical versus Theoretical
11. Invention versus Science
12. White versus Non-white
13. Heredity versus Culture
14. Apprenticeship versus Formal education
15. Men versus Women
16. Recognition versus Certification
17. Selfish versus Altruistic
18. Personal authority versus Bureaucratic procedure
19. Heterosexual versus Homosexual
20. Heart versus Head
21. Gut versus Intellect
22. National versus International
23. Tribal versus Outcast
24. Family versus Universalist
25. Real versus Ideal
26. Morality versus Law
27. Natural law versus Moral inversion
28. Courage versus Tolerance
29. Loyalty versus Subversion
30. Useful versus Useless
31. Duty versus Self-development
32. Productive versus Ideologically-sound
33. Money-grubbing versus Parasitic
34. Responsibilities versus Rights
35. Charity versus Needs
36. Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism
*
This list suggests that secular modern politics boils down either to political correctness or what could be (and almost certainly would be) termed a kind of ‘fascism’.
In other words fascism is approximately what you get when political correctness is opposed with common sense.
Of course, the Left has been calling the Right fascist since the mid-1960s: I am suggesting that in doing this the Left are broadly correct.
However, there are two important qualifications 1. that the fascist label properly applies only to the secular Right – not the religious Right; and 2. fascism is not synonymous with the Nazis - who were substantially a socialist and Leftist party, as the name of National Socialism implies.Maybe at some point the secular Right will eventually stop fighting the ‘fascist’ label and become openly and explicitly fascist - but distancing themselves from the National Socialist type of (semi) fascism?
*
The religious Right is not fascist: fascism is secular hence modern; and the religious Right is pre-modern and much more ancient than fascism. Indeed the religious Right was pretty much all there was in pre-modern times: conflict being between different varieties of religious Right.
The huge difference between religious Right and secular Right is that the religious Right seeks to rule society primarily by religious principles, by religious goals. By contrast the common sense secular Right (fascism) is justified on the basis of this-worldly common sense goals: such as the aim to make its supporters happier and richer; to provide a glorious national or ethnic purpose; to forge a new community of the heart.
(...)
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)