Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Liberty and Nationalism

The entire quote is:

Nationalism is not a sufficient condition for liberty, but it is a necessary one. Most nations do not have, do not value, and do not demand liberty. So if you want liberty you have to keep them out. Furthermore, diversity and multiculturalism breed friction, tension, and ethnic strife, which increase demand for authority. If you want to employ other means than authority, of adjudicating disputes, or managing commons, the more homogeneity - normative, cultural, religious, or ethnic - the better. — Eli Harman

That's hard to argue with. But many, especially libertarians, will argue long and loud. Some have told me that nationalism is the problem. This while globalism is ripping traditional nations to pieces and removing what institutions we have left to protect us against things that transcend the nation, like Islam, which certainly knows no borders, and the likes of George Soros. 

A post or two back, John Derbyshire explained at least one reason why nationalism is held in low regard [link], and I might as well reprint his quibcag quote here while I'm at it.  Of course, the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) is always eager to assist in breaking down the nation-state, because it gets in the way of their big plans to dominate humanity with multinational corporations, a much more effective method than the feeble communist plan, and to cram ethnic groups together when they don't belong together and make them fight. If each group had its own nation, they might cooperate against the globalists, heaven forbid, instead of fighting one another within states.

Just imagine it. A world of great and small nation-states, each contributing to the beauty and creative urge of mankind. Enlightened nation-states, matured beyond the need to fight one another, but ready to cooperate against international destructive ideologies, like Islamism, communism, and globalism.

And, as Eli suggests, the freedom ethic that reaches its peak in the United States, but which is also valued in Britain somewhat less so (maybe), and in a slightly different way in France (hence the illustrations on the top quibcag), and to some extent throughout Europe and Russia and all Euro-derivitive nations, like Australia, Canada, Argentina, etc., is not a viable system outside the protection of a nation, hence the incontrovertible fact that a nation, therefore nationalism, is essential for the protection and propagation of freedom.

Now, I've been using "nation" here as synonymous with "nation-state," which may be somewhat confusing. A nation is a group of people that share ancestry, religion, culture, history, etc. A state is a group of people who share a government. The ideal is the nation-state, where an entire nations has a shared government, and that government governs only that nation. Obviously, it's an ideal that can only be approached. because there are little nations that find themselves under the jurisdiction of the government of a big nation. Both the US and Canada, for example, contain dozens of American Indian nations. France and Spain contain parts of the Basque nation. India, depending on how you look at it, contains a number of nations, none really dominant. Nation-states that come close to including only one nation, like Japan, are rare.

Well, I've gotten off-message here, as I often do. The most important thing to take away from this post is Eli's quote.
Quibcags: The first is illustrated by the Hetalia mascots for the US, France, and the UK, the three countries that, more than any other, include a freedom ethic in their self-image. The second is an illustration I found at


  1. In this case, Nationalism must be at first a proposition or culture of liberty, and anything else like race secondary. Liberty must exist on some soil, and must have borders keeping out the malignant unfree, and otherwise defended within.

    Cultural Marxism and multiculturalism don't worry about race.

    The fundamental problem is that a single race, no matter how narrowly defined, can be multicultural.

  2. Liberty only exists in time and space. If you have someone at your door ready to take your life or liberty, whether they be barbarians or agents of the current "civilization", and can't or won't be able to defend yourself against them, liberty doesn't exist

  3. Derbyshire is a nitwit. The Axis powers were not despotic. They fought against the despots! Remember communism? Now that was despotic! It was the gigantic despotism of the 20th century. And who fought on the side of despotic communism and against nationalism? Idiot Americans and Brits like Derb who, seventy years later, are still soaked in war propaganda.

    Here's a clue for Derb. Anybody noticed that the USA and Britain have become more and more despotic as they have moved away from nationalism?

    1. I don't know if he's a nitwit or not. He's using the usual concept of WWII to make his point about the virtue of nationalism, whether he accepts that concept or not. Which I kind of did at second-hand by reprinting his stuff, and _I_ certainly don't accept it. My understanding is rather more like yours. But I reprinted it because I thought it useful in rehabilitating the idea of nationalism in popular understanding. And I've been trying to rehabilitate it for quite some time. Anything you can write or recommend that would help do that, I'm listening.

  4. Sorry, my criticism was meant to be directed to pussyfooting cowards like Derb and Taylor, not you. I appreciate the context you posted it in but took liberty with that to grab their throats, beyond whence all but their 'Dems-r-the-real-racists' crap can't seem to advance. Just another effort in destroying the false opposition.

    I realize that many would still not see someone like Derb as false opposition but as long as he employs the myth of WWII he is one of them.

    1. I follow you, and agree, I really do. Next time I reprint that sort of thing, I'll try to make your points in the commentary. Do continue to comment, and, again, I'm open to recommendations for reprints.