Internationalism is imperialism

#1
https://www.dailywire.com/news/35636/haz...daily-wire

“Liberal internationalism” is not merely a positive agenda for the erasure of national boundaries and the dismantling of the national states in Europe and elsewhere. It is an imperialist ideology that incites against nationalism and nationalists, seeking their delegitimization wherever they appear in Europe, or among nations such as America and Israel that are regarded having emerged from European civilization.

Why has the hatred emanating from liberal circles been so little discussed? It seems that this is because the existence of such a hatred does not fit within the Kantian paradigm, according to which reason should be moving mankind toward the abandonment of the independent national state, along with the hatred and violence that characterized the era of independent nations. According to this view, the coming international state will arise together with reason and peace.
...
Historically, every imperial theory with which we are familiar—whether Egyptian or Assyrian, Greek or Roman, Christian or Muslim, liberal or Marxist—has offered an ideology of universal salvation and peace. And each such imperialist ideology, as soon as it collides with a determined rejection of the salvation it offers, responds to this rejection with an intense and abiding hatred.
...
This is the story of Christianity’s hatred for the Jews, who rejected the Gospel’s message of salvation and peace. And it is the story of Europe’s hatred for modern-day Israel, which has rejected the European Union’s message of salvation and peace. Kant’s proposal to dismantle the national states of Europe and bring them under the rule of an international federation is, in other words, an Enlightenment recapitulation of an ancient Christian trope.
...
But the horror for the national and the particular, the hatred of emperors and imperialists, burns bright today among “liberal internationalists.” They have taken up the yearning for universal empire, believing in it as Christians once believed, and as Marxists once believed. The Jews will remain an object of special outrage for proponents of liberal empire, just as they were to their predecessors.
- Yoram Hazony, The Virtue of Nationalism

Reply
#2
You've got way too much time on your hands if you're worried about liberals dismantling the nations of the world.
Reply
#3
It starts with the open borders nonsense, but even European nations are getting tired of the EU...after their own open borders experiment went awry. And it's not that it's actually a threat of happening, it's that hate-fill leftists have already shown their violent streak.
Reply
#4
An open border is still a border. Why would immigrants come across it to work and live if it wasn't another nation with better job opportunities, a better economy, and better law enforcement? The concept of immigration kind of assumes a multinational world.
Reply
#5
(Sep 10, 2018 10:05 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: An open border is still a border. Why would immigrants come across it to work and live if it wasn't another nation with better job opportunities, a better economy, and better law enforcement? The concept of immigration kind of assumes a multinational world.

And? That's the point. The more porous the borders the faster bad cultures displace the shared social fabric and ultimately lower the opportunities, just by basic market pressure. Of course this is the overt goal of Democratic Socialists. The worse things get, the more people tend to look to government, which means it can grow with less scrutiny. Immigrants come here because our values are singular in the world. They only remain so as long as they aren't diluted.

But then the same people who want open borders also complain that the US is a horribly racist, bigoted place. Misery loves company?
Reply
#6
Quote:Immigrants come here because our values are singular in the world. They only remain so as long as they aren't diluted.

How do the values of freedom, tolerance, and diversity get "diluted" by more people coming here? Is there some maximum population after which our nation's values automatically break down? Why would that be? People who immigrate come here to adopt our own values. That's implicit in the strong drive to pick up and move to our country. And keeping their own cultural values doesn't conflict with American values. We are a pluralistic society, not a monolithic one.
Reply
#7
(Sep 10, 2018 02:29 PM)Syne Wrote: https://www.dailywire.com/news/35636/haz...daily-wire

“Liberal internationalism” is not merely a positive agenda for the erasure of national boundaries and the dismantling of the national states in Europe and elsewhere. It is an imperialist ideology that incites against nationalism and nationalists, seeking their delegitimization wherever they appear in Europe, or among nations such as America and Israel that are regarded having emerged from European civilization.

Why has the hatred emanating from liberal circles been so little discussed? It seems that this is because the existence of such a hatred does not fit within the Kantian paradigm, according to which reason should be moving mankind toward the abandonment of the independent national state, along with the hatred and violence that characterized the era of independent nations. According to this view, the coming international state will arise together with reason and peace.
...
Historically, every imperial theory with which we are familiar—whether Egyptian or Assyrian, Greek or Roman, Christian or Muslim, liberal or Marxist—has offered an ideology of universal salvation and peace. And each such imperialist ideology, as soon as it collides with a determined rejection of the salvation it offers, responds to this rejection with an intense and abiding hatred.
...
This is the story of Christianity’s hatred for the Jews, who rejected the Gospel’s message of salvation and peace. And it is the story of Europe’s hatred for modern-day Israel, which has rejected the European Union’s message of salvation and peace. Kant’s proposal to dismantle the national states of Europe and bring them under the rule of an international federation is, in other words, an Enlightenment recapitulation of an ancient Christian trope.
...
But the horror for the national and the particular, the hatred of emperors and imperialists, burns bright today among “liberal internationalists.” They have taken up the yearning for universal empire, believing in it as Christians once believed, and as Marxists once believed. The Jews will remain an object of special outrage for proponents of liberal empire, just as they were to their predecessors.
- Yoram Hazony, The Virtue of Nationalism


Only noticing the prefix of "inter-" preventing it from being misread as liberal nationalism. Or: I can see why the option of calling the latter "civic nationalism" would exist.

Yoram Hazony Wrote:The Jews will remain an object of special outrage for proponents of liberal empire, just as they were to their predecessors.


Elsewhere it looks like Hazony is also weaving Christian conspiracy motives in there, which seems especially offbeat with regard to religiously apathetic Europe. "The Jews" sounds too broad or all-inclusive. He wants to convey the impression of as many of his fellows at risk as possible, when it's probably Israeli policies drawing the rancor and the scattered proponents of such, in whatever other countries they reside as citizens of. Jewish leftist intellectuals, progressives, and neocons actually did their own part in the 20th century and beyond of engendering / contributing to the various shades of Global Kumbaya templates and propaganda.

Quote:“Liberal internationalism” is not merely a positive agenda for the erasure of national boundaries and the dismantling of the national states in Europe and elsewhere.

Setting aside Hazony putting his own ethnic / ideological POV spin on liberal internationalism, I don't see any direct mention of extermination of borders and local governments in this "let's play worldwide police and philanthropic agents" game as outlined by Wikipedia. (Though it could be construed as another sub-component of general Global Kumbaya, where that is an end destination). The Britannica entry emphasizes "supranational political structures" more, but it's again not clear whether 3 or 4 huge blocs gobbling-up local sovereignties is a final objective or merely using the convenience of rather pathetic EU and UN entities for approving slash implementing particular "worldwide policing and philanthropy" projects.

But these encyclopedia outlines of "liberal internationalism" sound too internally contentious to be suitable for a stable, generic, formal label I'm looking for as a replacement for tongue-in-cheek improvisations like "Global Kumbaya" or Global Integration Gospel / Preaching. I mean, if neoconservatism efforts can weasel out of the ascription on the grounds of their using liberal internationalism rhetoric but not sharing the same goals, then others can probably weasel out from being subsumed under it, too. I need an umbrella concept that can additionally embrace the various dimensions of globalism which are each clumsily contributing to Global Kumbaya in their own either unintended or very much deliberate way, not just the "worldwide policing and philanthropy" game.

~
Reply
#8
(Sep 10, 2018 10:41 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Immigrants come here because our values are singular in the world. They only remain so as long as they aren't diluted.

How do the values of freedom, tolerance, and diversity get "diluted" by more people coming here? Is there some maximum population after which our nation's values automatically break down? Why would that be? People who immigrate come here to adopt our own values. That's implicit in the strong drive to pick up and move to our country. And keeping their own cultural values doesn't conflict with American values. We are a pluralistic society, not a monolithic one.

Muslims advocating Sharia law, South Americans who are use to a high degree of crime and graft, etc.. People who do not have time to integrate into the culture, because there's enough immigration to form insular communities, end up voting like they did in their former countries...the places they're fleeing. People do not come here to adopt our values when there is a welfare incentive. And it doesn't take much of a drive to leave a shithole looking for "better job opportunities, a better economy, and better law enforcement". Many illegal immigrants leave their own children behind (marrying off their 10-13 year old daughters to middle-age men), or worse, seek to bring children to profit from human trafficking. Those values very much do conflict with American values...not to mention US law. No one said we were monolithic. It's obvious that many native US cultures are much worse than others. Bring in more shitty cultures isn't a solution.
Reply
#9
(Sep 10, 2018 11:03 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Sep 10, 2018 10:41 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Immigrants come here because our values are singular in the world. They only remain so as long as they aren't diluted.

How do the values of freedom, tolerance, and diversity get "diluted" by more people coming here? Is there some maximum population after which our nation's values automatically break down? Why would that be? People who immigrate come here to adopt our own values. That's implicit in the strong drive to pick up and move to our country. And keeping their own cultural values doesn't conflict with American values. We are a pluralistic society, not a monolithic one.

Muslims advocating Sharia law, South Americans who are use to a high degree of crime and graft, etc.. People who do not have time to integrate into the culture, because there's enough immigration to form insular communities, end up voting like they did in their former countries...the places they're fleeing. People do not come here to adopt our values when there is a welfare incentive. And it doesn't take much of a drive to leave a shithole looking for "better job opportunities, a better economy, and better law enforcement". Many illegal immigrants leave their own children behind (marrying off their 10-13 year old daughters to middle-age men), or worse, seek to bring children to profit from human trafficking. Those values very much do conflict with American values...not to mention US law. No one said we were monolithic. It's obvious that many native US cultures are much worse than others. Bring in more shitty cultures isn't a solution.

Yeah..now you sound your boy Trump. Remember how he referred to these other countries as shitholes? Racist much?
Reply
#10
(Sep 10, 2018 11:08 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Sep 10, 2018 11:03 PM)Syne Wrote: Muslims advocating Sharia law, South Americans who are use to a high degree of crime and graft, etc.. People who do not have time to integrate into the culture, because there's enough immigration to form insular communities, end up voting like they did in their former countries...the places they're fleeing. People do not come here to adopt our values when there is a welfare incentive. And it doesn't take much of a drive to leave a shithole looking for "better job opportunities, a better economy, and better law enforcement". Many illegal immigrants leave their own children behind (marrying off their 10-13 year old daughters to middle-age men), or worse, seek to bring children to profit from human trafficking. Those values very much do conflict with American values...not to mention US law. No one said we were monolithic. It's obvious that many native US cultures are much worse than others. Bring in more shitty cultures isn't a solution.

Yeah..now you sound your boy Trump. Remember how he referred to these other countries as shitholes? Racist much?

Objective facts are not racist. Simpleton much?
There are a ton of reasons why the flood of people is only coming one way, and only abject morons fail to appreciate that reality. People don't flee nice places to live.
And when imbeciles can't argue reality and have no other recourse, they uniformly resort to unsubstantiated accusations. And only the similarly bereft of reason buy into it.

(Sep 10, 2018 11:00 PM)C C Wrote: Only noticing the prefix of "inter-" preventing it from being misread as liberal nationalism. Or: I can see why the option of calling the latter "civic nationalism" would exist.
No such creature exists in the US, unless you curtail it to a secular religion focused on governmental power.
Quote:
Yoram Hazony Wrote:The Jews will remain an object of special outrage for proponents of liberal empire, just as they were to their predecessors.


Elsewhere it looks like Hazony is also weaving Christian conspiracy motives in there, which seems especially offbeat with regard to religiously apathetic Europe. "The Jews" sounds too broad or all-inclusive. He wants to convey the impression of as many of his fellows at risk as possible, when it's probably Israeli policies drawing the rancor and the scattered proponents of such, in whatever other countries they reside as citizens of. Jewish leftist intellectuals, progressives, and neocons actually did their own part in the 20th century and beyond of engendering / contributing to the various shades of Global Kumbaya templates and propaganda.
You're blind if you don't see the rampant antisemitism today, especially in Europe, and there have been enclaves of Christianity that harbored animosity toward Jews. Secular western Jews don't really diminish the genocidal intents of Israel's neighbors nor the justifying west.
Quote:
Quote:“Liberal internationalism” is not merely a positive agenda for the erasure of national boundaries and the dismantling of the national states in Europe and elsewhere.

Setting aside Hazony putting his own ethnic / ideological POV spin on liberal internationalism, I don't see any direct mention of extermination of borders and local governments in this "let's play worldwide police and philanthropic agents" game as outlined by Wikipedia. (Though it could be construed as another sub-component of general Global Kumbaya, where that is an end destination). The Britannica entry emphasizes "supranational political structures" more, but it's again not clear whether 3 or 4 huge blocs gobbling-up local sovereignties is a final objective or merely using the convenience of rather pathetic EU and UN entities for approving slash implementing particular "worldwide policing and philanthropy" projects.

But these encyclopedia outlines of "liberal internationalism" sound too internally contentious to be suitable for a stable, generic, formal label I'm looking for as a replacement for tongue-in-cheek improvisations like "Global Kumbaya" or Global Integration Gospel / Preaching. I mean, if neoconservatism efforts can weasel out of the ascription on the grounds of their using liberal internationalism rhetoric but not sharing the same goals, then others can probably weasel out from being subsumed under it, too. I need an umbrella concept that can additionally embrace the various dimensions of globalism which are each clumsily contributing to Global Kumbaya in their own either unintended or very much deliberate way, not just the "worldwide policing and philanthropy" game.

~
Just have to look at history, where governments always seek to amass more power, limit freedom, and consolidate more territory. Now do we have enough genetic memory to make up for the complete ignorance of that history and instinctively rebel against excesses of the UN, EU, NATO, multiculturalist utopian ideals, etc.. And the only truly cooperative force between nations, free trade (just look at all the business the US does with communist China), is routinely and roundly denounced. And it's those same kumbaya folks that are the most hateful. That's how unrealistic ideals work.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)