Nation-states, happiness, identity, and rootlessness

“The nation state has taken the place of God. Responsibilities for education, healing and public welfare which had formerly rested with the Church devolved more and more upon the nation state … National governments are widely assumed to be responsible for and capable of providing those things which former generations thought only God could provide – freedom from fear, hunger, disease and want – in a word: “happiness”.”

― Lesslie Newbigin, The Other Side of 1984

There is, I think, a great deal of truth to this!

The problem is magnified still further now, though, by the fact that nation-states are under attack by stateless globalism which seeks to supersede them, and that claims to be driven by “progressive values” – but in fact is driven largely by economics (the progressives who have allied themselves with globalism are among the “useful idiots” of whom Stalin spoke, back in Soviet days).

Nation-states at least are / were somewhat organic, in most cases relatively local, with their own identity and cohesion. They share(d) ties of language, culture, ethnicity, and often, religion. Globalism promotes – ostensibly in the name of “equality,” but actually because it makes people easier to manipulate – a stateless, rootless, amorphous mass of humanity, entirely lacking in cohesion, identity, and therefore the ability to successfully resist the strings of the puppeteers.

Now, the globalists may one day learn that a tool sometimes turns in the hand of its wielder; that amorphous mob may one day turn on them! But the result seems unlikely to be a return to “normalcy” as it used to be understood – depending, of course, on how far things have degenerated by then – but rather a further descent into a newer and truer Dark Age. I fear for the future of humanity…

Advertisements

British academic and journalist Douglas Murray schools pro-immigration activists on immigration – YouTube

I have to confess, I had not even heard of Douglas Murray, that I can recall, until literally a few days ago. But in my opinion, he’s brilliant. Very, very well said, Sir!

Heck, you want to talk colonialism? It’s not just the Ottoman Empire – although he is completely right to point to them as a prime example. It’s the whole sweep of Islam across the Middle East, North Africa, and southern Europe, including the Iberian Peninsula in the 7th and early 8th centuries, and far beyond later on, all the way to India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines… If that’s not colonialism, I don’t know what is!

I like what one Indian commentator had to say on the subject (ellipses are in the original):

Bravo. As an Indian, I’ve noticed everyone loves to blame the British, while conveniently forgetting Muslims (Turkish mainly) that have destroyed and robbed India. The British used India as a business to generate their wealth and in turn ended up building functional infrastructures still in use.

What the Muslims did was erect f_cking monuments of oppression… and mosques over desecrated Temples and completely eradicate our history in many places. British only tried to enslave us while empowering some locals.. but Muslims not only enslaved us but killed us and very strongly tried to change our identities. British came here and learnt from India.. but Muslims came and robbed our knowledge to claim it as their own and burnt the rest.

People need to stop thinking every f_cking thing against Muslims is Islamophobia…. In the new age, you are able to stand freely against colonialism / anything else really when it comes to the “West” … but if it were still Islamic, you’d be silenced swiftly like an animal (as the Muslims boast in their taunts towards free speech activists).

Indeed. The double-standard is strong in the Left! Especially ironic, since they’d be among the first against the wall, tossed from tall buildings, or beheaded, if Islam ever actually did come to power in the West…

And yes, the “alt-right” is correct: as promoted and practiced by many (most) Left-wing activists today, “diversity” and “multi-culturalism” are indeed code words for being anti-white, anti-European – for rejecting and seeking to overthrow the West, both culturally and demographically. That may not be a popular view in many quarters, but it is a fact, and readily apparent if you’re paying attention.

Moscow is our friend. Honest. – The Boston Globe

“Anti-Russia sentiment is deeply anchored in the American psyche” … unfortunately.

Source: Moscow is our friend. Honest. – The Boston Globe

Somewhat surprised to see this, coming from the Boston Globe! But as my dear father used to say, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” Of course, the author, Stephen Kinzer, has to take a few digs at the Trump administration. But in general, I think he is pretty squarely on:

“Russia does not threaten any vital American interest. Its policies in Syria and the rest of the Middle East are in line with America’s stated desire to crush militant fanatics. Its wariness of China matches our own. As for charges that Russia intervened in an American election, they are serious and deserve investigation — but hardly the basis for howls of anger from a country that is the world champion in manipulating foreign elections.”

Touché! Kinzer goes on to point out,

“The Russia ‘scandal,’ as we are being told to consider it, plays perfectly into the hands of Washington power. It is the ideal distraction. Republicans love it because as long as it dominates the news, there is less space for coverage of stories like the effect of new immigration policies or the rollback of environmental regulations. Democrats are just as happy, for another reason. Embracing the fantasy that Russian interference cost them the 2016 election allows them to avoid facing the reality that their defeat was really the result of presenting a widely loathed candidate and a set of policies far distant from the concerns of ordinary voters…

“Our interests are to lure Russia away from a possible strategic partnership with China; establish a security architecture in Europe that protects both NATO countries and Russia; and work with Russia to stabilize the Middle East. When emotion and prejudice are put aside, Russia is revealed as a potential partner of ours, not an enemy. In the present political climate, however, making that argument is almost suicidal. Washington’s mighty megaphone has told us that Russia is our greatest global foe. By treating it that way, we create an enemy where none exists.”

Amen!