2015 January 02 Friday
Our Enemy The Empire

Daniel Greenfield has written an essay Two Empires We Must Defeat. Recommended reading. I excerpt a couple of pieces below.

The argument between the establishments of the right and the left is over two different kinds of empires. The Republican establishment in America and its various center-right counterparts abroad have attached themselves to the liberal vision of a transnational empire of international law so much that they have forgotten that this vision came from the left, rather than from the right.

Yes, the upper class Republicans and upper class Democrats are really just arguing over what sort of empire we will have. Our rulers do not maintain our government for the classical Hobbesian reason any more, to protect us from the absence of government. Rather, it is a tool for their broader ambitions.

I've been reading a lot of books about the collapse of empires lately and I think Greenfield is right. I think of Peter Turchin on asabiyah and John Bagot Glubb on the fate of empires and think the loss of common shared identity and interests is fatal to the health of a republic or of any state.

This is the empire that feeds armies of foreign immigrants through our countries. It's also the empire that pays allegiance to Islam because empires have to diversify to expand. Diversity isn't the source of our strength. It is the source of imperial expansionism which has to absorb many more peoples.

To empires, people are interchangeable. If the natives have a low birth rate and a long lifespan, then workers with high birth rates and lower lifespans are brought in to replace them. If the natives are reluctant to pay higher taxes, immigrants from countries that are fine with voting for high taxation are imported. That is how empires, not nations, do business.

This is what the political establishment in most countries believes. This is what tearing them apart.

I offer some evidence for his argument. The empire-loving New York Times just published an article In Sweden, the Land of the Open Door, Anti-Muslim Sentiment Finds a Foothold. By contrast, in November The Daily Caller ran Swedish Police Release Extensive Report Detailing Control Of 55 ‘No-Go Zones’ By Muslim Criminal Gangs and Muslim Gangs Continue To Terrorize 55 Neighborhoods, Police Powerless. The New York Times does not explain what could be causing the shift in Swedish attitudes. Meanwhile, some unspecified people keep burning cars in France. Nothing about their behavior can be allowed to interfere with the expansion of the empire which Greenfield describes.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2015 January 02 09:05 PM 


Comments
James Bowery said at January 3, 2015 10:23 AM:

The fate of the West hangs in the balance with Jews like Greenfield on one side of the balance and Jews like Barbara Lerner Spectre on the other side of the balance. In civilizations based on northern European nations there is only one real "swing vote": Ashkenazi Jews. Historically, as keepers of the trade route bottlenecks, Jews have always swung with empire, which is why they've earned the epithet of "nation wreckers".

Mercer said at January 3, 2015 5:31 PM:

When Britain had an empire it was not multicultural and it did not have much immigration. India is more multicultural then any country in the West including the US and the UK. Greenfield's statements that multiculturalism is the result of empires is mush.

Elites supporting immigration comes from employers wanting cheap labor. Multiculturalism comes from people who do not like the traditional white christian culture of the West. I recommend Sam Huntington's Who Are We? for a good account of multiculturalism in the US.

Wolf-Dog said at January 3, 2015 5:47 PM:

Actually, in many ways Sweden is color-blind. The segregation is against those uneducated people who don't want to adapt to the local culture. The secular Muslims, or the non-Muslim Indian immigrants (many of these are better educated than natives, they speak very good English in addition to the willingness to adapt to the Swedish culture) have no difficulty finding friends when they participate in cultural activities.

Mark said at January 4, 2015 12:44 PM:

It's not generally realized to what extent the ideological supports for empire come from the left. From Washington's farewell address to Eisenhower warning about the military-industrial complex, the right was traditionally against large standing armies and empire. Liberals have been wanting to spread the liberal progressive philosophy using the military at least since Wilson got us into World War I to make the world safe for democracy. Now it's been extended all the way to trying to bring things like feminism and gay rights to remote villages in Afghanistan. There have been almost no military spending cutbacks under the supposedly leftist Obama because the imperialist program is really a liberal one. There is also massive leftist social engineering going on in the military itself. Promotions in the military are increasingly given to meet affirmative action quotas, especially on the civilian worker side. The military is constantly celebrating diversity. Black heritage month is followed by Asian month followed by Hispanic month followed by American Indian month and so on. There is even a push to get women into combat positions and only a lack of desire by the women themselves to be in those positions is slowing that down. Conservatives who support a larger military and more interventionist policy don't understand they are supporting the other side.

Mark said at January 4, 2015 12:45 PM:

It's not generally realized to what extent the ideological supports for empire come from the left. From Washington's farewell address to Eisenhower warning about the military-industrial complex, the right was traditionally against large standing armies and empire. Liberals have been wanting to spread the liberal progressive
philosophy using the military at least since Wilson got us into World War I to make the world safe for democracy. Now it's been extended all the way to trying to bring things like feminism and gay rights to remote villages in Afghanistan. There have been almost no military spending cutbacks under the supposedly leftist Obama because the imperialist program is really a liberal one. There is also massive leftist social engineering going on in the military itself. Promotions in the military are increasingly given to meet affirmative action quotas, especially on the civilian worker side. The military is constantly celebrating diversity. Black heritage month is followed by Asian month followed by Hispanic month followed by American Indian month and so on. There is even a push to get women into combat positions and only a lack of desire by the women themselves to be in those positions is slowing that down. Conservatives who support a larger military and more interventionist policy don't understand they are supporting the other side.

Mark said at January 4, 2015 12:46 PM:

It's not generally realized to what extent the ideological supports for empire come from the left. From Washington's farewell address to Eisenhower warning about the military-industrial complex, the right was traditionally against large standing armies and empire. Liberals have been wanting to spread the liberal progressive
philosophy using the military at least since Wilson got us into World War I to make the world safe for democracy. Now it's been extended all the way to trying to bring things like feminism and gay rights to remote villages in Afghanistan. There have been almost no military spending cutbacks under the supposedly leftist Obama because the imperialist program is really a liberal one. There is also massive leftist social engineering going on in the military itself. Promotions in the military are increasingly given to meet affirmative action quotas, especially on the civilian worker side. The military is constantly celebrating diversity. Black heritage month is followed by Asian month followed by Hispanic month followed by American Indian month and so on. There is even a push to get women into combat positions and only a lack of desire by the women themselves to be in those positions is slowing that down. Conservatives who support a larger military and more interventionist policy don't understand they are supporting the other side.

check it out said at January 7, 2015 4:51 PM:

Isn't it awful to see the reactionary monsters the U.S. has created? Chaos is what comes after one destroys a country militarily or economically.

James Bowery said at January 8, 2015 11:56 AM:

Empires are progressive. Devolution is reactionary. The ultimate reactionary movement is individualism. The ultimate empire is the eusocial insect hive where the nanny-state fulfills the dream of woman's love, protection and parasitic castration of all.

Idiots abound who think there is some other end-point to woman's love swelling to encompass all.

ErisGuy said at January 13, 2015 2:26 AM:

"Isn't it awful to see the reactionary monsters the U.S. has created? “

Yeah. Just look at the EU. The worst decision the US made was to become involved in European affairs. Leave EUrope to its fascism/socialism/nazism/communism.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©