anybody up for another oz? another make believe country? yugoslavia, anyone? bangladesh?

yugoslavia anyone?  bangladesh?

a rose by any other name would smell so sweet.

yes.  true enough.  but, another name might not be so descriptive.

take for instance, the phrase “multiculturalism” as a descriptor of nation.  what does the word “yugoslavia” tell us that the word “multiculturalists” doesn’t?  what for instance is revealed in the words “baluchis,” arabs, “azeris,” “ kurds,” turkmens, persians, sunnis, shi’as, zoroastrians, … , and, history, … , that is concealed in the word “iran?”

what import does the fact that kurds live in turkey, syria, iraq, iran and g_d knows how many other places, including los angeles, californa and that they are a very industrious, community and business oriented people, … , yet the word kurdistan does not exist, … , have for regional stability.

yet there are those who would make yugoslavia a world norm.  who would use multiculturalism to fracture the nature of nationhood.  and, for purposes of this essay at this blog, are all related to the threat of islam, would turn europe and the united states into 3^rdworld countries.  it seems a mystery to me, but the euros, after contending with the mess of yugoslavia from its birth to its death, now intend to manufacture an entire european yugoslavia, in the membership of the euro union states: they intend to recreate every fissure, division, racial & ethnic rivalry, every religious animosity & schism that destroyed yugoslavia, in their own neighborhoods.  they succeed admirably.--

there are many nation states constructed by international fiat upon the disintegration of the european colonial system.  and, likewise upon the fall of the ottoman, austro-hungarian and russian empires.  none work or have worked very well, and most have failed in some form or another, primarily because they were artificial constructs superimposed upon, …. , well, nothing particularly cohesive, as it worked out.

the middle east and eastern europe have been particularly beneficiary of this process, as well as the various african countries largely doomed to failure. 

first, let us take a very quick, cursory and once over lightly view of what a nation or a society is.—

the essential features of societies, countries, nations, that make them functional over time, and give them the ability to withstand sectional and political strife are pretty straightforward, and should be accessible to almost any contemplative or open intellect, ... , they are things such as ethnic affinity, common values, heritage, culture, a place in a long functioning civilization,  and the like which predate the state and are not artificial creations of the mythology of the state (which tend to fracture easily under stress), nor are they imposed or assumed by powers without the state. the things that make states viable over the long term, such as respect for the rule of law and a very firm adherence to the concepts of civic and private virtue, do not violate the above, compliment them, and are in some sense derivative of them.

obviously, history and ethnicity are very important.  it is comforting to be around people who look like you, like the same foods, and share the same outlook.  but, that does not insure nation, does it, as no fight is quite like a family fight, or a family feud.  the thing that holds cultures, societies and nations together are the respect for rules and laws, the respect for heritage, and, respect and adherence to civility, honesty, piety and rectitude.  and, going out on saturday and getting blasted, and going to las vegas twice a year to look at naked dancing girls.   we cannot get so damned pious that we cannot have a good time, eh?

in an successful nation there is an overriding sense of identity and community amongst its citizens.  of belonging.  absolute consensus is not required, so long as their exists faith that one and one’s family and one’s kinship will be considered and treated fairly.

and, then, there is the matter of the flag.  i don’t understand it, but if a flag does not exist as symbol of a nation, the nation is in trouble.  It is something beyond explanation, like rising to sing the national anthem.  If no one rises, there is not a nation.

the features described above, though the description perhaps not as learned as some would like, more or less describe stable nations that function, have functioned well in the past, and are likely to survive into the future, though history teaches that no society or people are free from discord or divisiveness, nor from political and sectarian violence from time to time.

all is not tranquil amongst groups of people, never has been, and never will be.

but, nations exist because their peoples have learned to deal with these things, and because the essential elements of national identity hold them together through it all.

this business of identity, so symbolized by flag, is a bedrock of nationhood.—

there are those who criticize the european & american nationalists for having the temerity to voice these concepts, and for criticizing and opposing those political elites in the euro union who would turn each member state into yugoslavia, or iran, e.g., a hopelessly fractionalized, divided and fractionalized entity with no hope of functioning with a common identity or purpose.

like all romanticized radical conceptualizations, the euro leftist elites posit the notion that they will create something better and stronger by destroying the modern nation state, that from its ashes will rise, phoenix like, a high order of being.  they will do this upon the vehicle of muslim fundamentalism.

this notion, this triumph of wishful thinking over the lessons of history, is doomed to failure.  the result so this tinkering, of this asinine concept of multiculturalism, is foreseen by history.  it is called yugoslavia.  It is called the middle east, home to the sorriest examples of artificially imposed “communalism” on earth.

charles johnson unthinkingly excoriates “nationalism” in europe at little green footballs at every conceivable turn.  to johnson there is something vaguely sinister in a sentiment that would extol national unity based on values, culture, affinity and history over and above the forced disintegration of a society premised upon extremely unwise immigration and social policy.  the word “hitler” is accompanied by a one note drum beat.

yet, johnson is silent about washington, jefferson, franklin, walt whitman, thomas paine, the nationalists who shepherded the united states into being; he breathes not a word of gandhi who birthed india; and, his silence is resounding on garibaldi, or simon bolivar, or charlemagne, or martel and the others who have given identity to a people, and who founded nations and national movements.  of the good prince hal, and, yes, of falstaff?

and, charles johnson, and his little pea head and his little pea-headed followers, are ominously silent on the subject of joan of arc, who rose against her country's invaders, and who helped her people defeat them, in the name of nation.  and, people.  nor the rest, nor the all, who have died to defend the nobility embodied in nation.  johnson just will not see.  he will not see that nathan hale did not give "... but one life, for multiculturalism."

premised on notions of nationalism, and patriotic fervor devoted to values, fair process, and an elevated notion of the fate awaiting political man participating in national rule.

in my view, charles johnson is something of an idiot on this topic, no less and no more so than other idiots who would see the world become a collection of yugoslavia's, and the like.

it makes no sense to me.

john jay @ 1026.2009

p.s.  i think i have said about all i can say on the substantive topics that interest me enough to write these essays.  so many others say it better, i think, and my voices adds little rationality or order to the general cacophony.

so, in large measure, i don’t see the utility of continuing to write things that are not very much read, when others do a better job this than i, and have much larger readership.

so, i think that i am going back in a more focused manner to my original mission, and that is the tactics of the fight against jihad when it flares into open battle.  the mission:  http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2007/12/the-goal-of-thi.html   but, first, i am gonna take a nap.

Comments

[baldilocks]

Thanks for the education...and not just this post.

I hope you reconsider about future essays.

JAO

[john jay]

baldilocks:

thank you for your very kind remards.

they are very much appreciated. very much, indeed.

john jay

[john jay]

baldilocks:

better make that thank you for your very kind remarks.

laughing.

i need an "editing" angel hovering over my shoulder. always have. or, at least a "proof reading" angel.

john jay

[Robert]

I suspect Charles Johnson of LGF may think of "nationalism" as George Orwell used the term in an essay of his to describe those who want to see their country dominate other countries. Orwell seemed to be describing colonialism or imperialism with one country dominating and controlling another, not nationalism as the term is used in the above essay.

[john jay]

robert:

i find it very hard to discern what charles johnson "thinks."

it is very easy to understand what he "opines" and what he "edicts", as that is largely the substance of what he writes.

but the intellectual or even thought process lying behind that which he opines is not only "hidden", but absent.

as a result his writing totally lacks any persuasive power to me. remember the "proofs" we had to do in high school geometry and algabra? charles johnson's work is totally without proof or persuasion, and these are elemental requirements for convincing exposition in my book.

as to orwell.-- if you would be so kind as to provide the "link," or the citation to the piece, i would be most happy to read it. i suspect orwell provides a bit more insight into whatever it is that he is getting to, or examining.

john jay

[john jay]

robert:

perhaps "pronounces" is a bette word than "edicts," ... , but, i still like "edicts" though i am not convinced that it is proper.

laughing.

john