Book Notes: The Virtue of Nationalism, Part III

OK, here is another interesting insight from the book. The world order where many different nation-states exist is a world where everybody lives with an understanding and acceptance of difference. Things are done differently in Zimbabwe, China, Ukraine, Argentina, or France. We all know and accept it and don’t feel any need to make Nicaraguans or Moldovans adopt the US electoral system, our national holidays, or our marriage customs. It doesn’t feel intolerable that these differences exist.

The universal liberal empire, on the other hand, proceeds from the knowledge that it has found the Truth, the universal Truth, the one and only. Its emissaries can’t rest until everybody adopts their way of seeing the world because it’s the correct one.

A recent example from my life is the explosion of rage by the diversity commissars when I pointed out that non-US Hispanics tend to find words like Latinxs and mestizxs to be silly. I did respond to them with the words “imperialist mentality,” and after reading Hazony’s book I realize I was more right than I thought. There is an enormous similarity here between this self-righteous rage and the feelings that motivated the conquistadors to bring the one true word of God to the “backwards savages” of the New World. Curiously, even the people considered to be savages (not by me, obviously) are the exact same ones.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Book Notes: The Virtue of Nationalism, Part III”

    1. This is precisely the question that needs to be asked but he’s not doing it in the book. He didn’t mention the the word neoliberalism once.

      The universal liberal empire is the political framework and the ideological justification for neoliberalism. And that’s why it’s so potent.

      Like

  1. I have been noticing since the 90s that people do not understand that persons from Latin America are not from here. They assume every Chilean, etc., is a “U.S. Latinx” … it is maddening

    Like

    1. “They assume every Chilean, etc., is a “U.S. Latinx”

      They assume than any non-American is an immigrant, the US is a conversion-narrative culture and people just visiting and going back to their own cultures are regarded much the way an AA member going on a three day bender is…. Part of that is assuming that Latin Americans first assimilate into US Latino culture before abandoning that for the full mainstream.

      Like

      1. But they think Chileans IN CHILE are “Latino” the way US Latinos might be. Your point is valid, I’d say, but what I’ve noticed is that things are even worse than that. True that about the assumption of becoming US Latino first, too.

        Like

        1. “they think Chileans IN CHILE are “Latino” the way US Latinos might be”

          That reminds me of a some US politician (maybe in the W era?) who referred to Blacks in some other country as “African Americans”…
          Many people are just not very worldly and/or want to think in terms of as few categories of people as possible.
          Now tell me these are university professors (in Spanish departments) and I will despair.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.