The American Spectator

Appleby| 10.20.09 @ 6:50AM

During the Olympics in Japan, Kanukistan went up in arms about there being TOO MANY Canadian flags flying by the Canadian athletes.

The week of 9/11/01 my sister and I went back to America from Kanukistan and we were both encouraged and strengthened (as well as comforted) by the huge array of American flags flying from every building, every car, every window sill and every yard.

No matter how hard the socialists try, they cannot take away our deep love for our country.

These colours, as the old flag says, do not run.

Alan Brooks| 10.20.09 @ 9:11AM

We sure appreciate our country now that Europe is being stealth-Islamicized.
But you can't say that out in public, because then you are a 'racist'.

Red Phillips| 10.20.09 @ 9:04AM

"Do you believe in American exceptionalism of any kind, or think Ronald Reagan was right to describe America as "a shining city on a hill"?"

Mr. O'Hannigan, the conservative does not want his country to be "exceptional. He wants his country to be normal. The Revolutionary wants his country to be exceptional and the bringer of enlightenment to the benighted others. MUCH mischief results from this conception. The conservative patriot loves his country because it is his, and he doesn't wallow in its past failings like the America hating liberals do. But if he wants his country to be the bringer of goodness and light to the rest of the world, he has catapulted from conservative to radical revolutionary. Herein lies the problem with much of modern movement "conservatism."

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.20.09 @ 11:20AM

Hi Red
Still preaching "fortress America" hiding from the world?
Good luck with that.

I am a radical revolutionary, along with George Washington, Martin Luther King, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, and come to think of it, Jesus Christ Himself.
(Mathew 10:34) "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: but a sword." Read the rest of the paragraph if you want context.

And yes, I have a well thumbed Bible, marked up over thirty years too.

PS: Do you want us to give the continent back to the Amerinds while we are at it?

Red Phillips| 10.20.09 @ 1:51PM

Ken, all I am "preaching" is authentic conservatism. I have absolutely nothing against well-thumbed Bibles. It was the author who said that, not me. Surely you do not think Martin Luther King was any kind of conservative, do you? In addition to being a fellow traveler he was a heretic. Check out his plagiarized dissertation for proof. He obviously needed to thumb his Bible a little more. Nothing demonstrates how pathetic the modern conservative movement is than its craven attempts to make MLK into a conservative. It is laughably factually wrong to do so.

Sam| 10.20.09 @ 12:28PM

This one's for Alan Brooks- no one will call you a racist for disliking Islam. But it's clear you are afraid of what you don't know and don't understand.

I'm sure you can't stand the media which I agree is left-leaning, but it's from the very same media that you get your false perception and skewed view of Islam. They are not all terrorists or radical nutjobs. That would be like saying all Christians are racists just because of the Ku Klux Klan (who happen to be Protestants).

And I don't understand your 'Europe Islamicized' view. As opposed to what? Europe Christianized? Europe Secular?

Paul Crowley| 10.20.09 @ 1:32PM

p.t.crowley@world.att.net

“I don’t remember. . . Portugal tipping the scales on multiple fronts in a world war, or China sending humanitarian aid around the globe whenever disaster strikes” [By Patrick O'Hannigan on 10.20.09 @ 6:07AM]

Portugal is outside Living Memory.

However, it is not outside recorded history.

Portugal most certainly tipped the scales on multiple fronts and in multiple general wars, fought world-wide: Directly in the War of the Spanish Succession 1701-14), the Anglo-Spanish War of 1739, the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-48), and the Seven Years’ War (1754-63).

England, recast as Britain in 1707, would have gotten nowhere without Portugal. There certainly would have been no British Empire of India (1876-1948), or British Commonwealth of Nations today.

The new Kingdom of Prussia (1701-1818) would have gotten nowhere without Britain, not least of all its ability to edge out the Austrian Empire and to form the new, and short lived, Empire of Germany (1871-1918).

The Chinese paid the price of the most casualties suffered in World War II, especially while under British command, fighting in the Burma Campaign, to reseize British Burma (then part of the Empire of India).

The Republic of China (R.O.C.) (A.K.A. Taiwan) sent aid, and aided causes it saw in its interests, when it was still recognized by all but a few governments, the U.S.A. and Vatican included, and was the dejure government of China, during the Post-War era, 1945 to 1970. Restricted to de facto governance of the island of Formosa only, from 1949 onward, and not even in control of Chinese nukes, 1964 onward, and given that the U.S.A. dropped recognition of the existence of the R.O.C. in 1979, then I won’t quibble at the post-1979 R.O.C.

The People’s Republic of China (P.R.C.) has only begun to be a wealthy country since exports began to soar in 1994.

It sent aid, and munitiions, to its Communist neighbors, especially 1949-79.

It has increasingly been sending aid, since 1994.

It has been sending troops and other military units in so-called peace-keeping expeditions that are U.N. enterprises (the U.S.A. still provides the most troops) world-wide, this decade.

I have no love for the Anglo-puppet Portugal or Red China, and don’t even know who Gabler is, but only point out that these are very bad examples. A cynic having fun with mis-information and teaching and forming those he viewed as stupid, but only ignorant of past historical events, would be hard pressed to provide worse.

Paul Crowley| 10.20.09 @ 2:10PM

“. . .catapulted from conservative to radical revolutionary. Herein lies the problem with much of modern movement ‘conservatism.’ " [Red Phillips| 10.20.09 @ 9:04AM]

Hi Red:

This portion of your statement I agree with.

I concede that this snippet is not exactly what you meant.But I'm not being tricky.

To be precise, the problem with so-called Conservative Movement of the present, is that it conserves absolutely nothing. It only serves to conserve, and further advance, the social revolutionary gains of the past 45 years (using the literal sense of the term conserve).

The revolutionary gains of the past 45 years are better described as Counter-Revolutionary relative to the American Revolution. There are few to no American principles that have been left standing as a result of the legal and cultural reforms of the past 45 years or so.

The so-called Conservative Movement of the present has most certainly catapulted into being a Social Revolutionary Movement, especially in the past eight years: A vicious and a bloody one too.

It is British (circa 1763-1902), not American, in its essence, style and tactics, right down to the Liberal versus Conservative rhetoric, and how each is to be defined, or redefined. This is purely reminiscent of late Victorian Britain; some of it has been outright plagiarism of the Federal-Imperialist versus Little Englander debates of the last 3 decades of Victoria’s reign. Even the reform of American Congregational Protestantism and protestantized-Catholicism using the term “Evangelicals” is the same. Other than "Evangelicals," most of the terms have simply been given new or Americanized-sounding names.

The crudest responses of the Revolutionary "conservatives” is little more than the mindless jingoism of 1890s Britain (“jingo” was popularized by Lord Salisbury’s statement to describe it).

But this is the 21st Century. Britain, France, and Russia of the past 2.5 centuries or so provide countless examples of social engineering to draw from.

In numerous ways, our reformed America now more resembles 20th Century Russian Marxism, more than it does anything once recognizable as American. But Marxist Russia allows little precedent, rhetoric wise, to draw on. But it is these things that the new so-called Conservative Movement serves to conserve. The more it resembles the left, and the more it works to conserve its gains, then the louder the shrieks of conservatives being “reactionary” that come from the Left.

Again, so-called conservatism has “catapulted from conservative to radical revolutionary,” especially in the past eight years.

Red Phillips| 10.20.09 @ 3:38PM

Paul, I would hesitate to brand it Counter-Revolutionary (especially in caps) because that name has already been claimed by some fine men toward whom conservatives should be sympathetic. But I think I get your larger point.

S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 2:23PM

"Do you believe in American exceptionalism of any kind..."

I think it would do every writer and reader at AmSpec a great service to acquaint themselves to the difference between "patriotism" and "nationalism". "American Exceptionalism" is a manifestation of the latter, not the former:

This is a season of patriotism, but also of something that is easily mistaken for patriotism; namely, nationalism. The difference is vital.

G.K. Chesterton once observed that Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British imperialism, suffered from a "lack of patriotism." He explained: "He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English."

In the same way, many Americans admire America for being strong, not for being American. For them America has to be "the greatest country on earth" in order to be worthy of their devotion. If it were only the 2nd-greatest, or the 19th-greatest, or, heaven forbid, "a 3rd-rate power," it would be virtually worthless.

This is nationalism, not patriotism. Patriotism is like family love. You love your family just for being your family, not for being "the greatest family on earth" (whatever that might mean) or for being "better" than other families. You don't feel threatened when other people love their families the same way. On the contrary, you respect their love, and you take comfort in knowing they respect yours. You don't feel your family is enhanced by feuding with other families.

While patriotism is a form of affection, nationalism, it has often been said, is grounded in resentment and rivalry; it's often defined by its enemies and traitors, real or supposed. It is militant by nature, and its typical style is belligerent. Patriotism, by contrast, is peaceful until forced to fight.

The patriot differs from the nationalist in this respect too: he can laugh at his country, the way members of a family can laugh at each other's foibles. Affection takes for granted the imperfection of those it loves; the patriotic Irishman thinks Ireland is hilarious, whereas the Irish nationalist sees nothing to laugh about.

The nationalist has to prove his country is always right. He reduces his country to an idea, a perfect abstraction, rather than a mere home. He may even find the patriot's irreverent humor annoying.

Patriotism is relaxed. Nationalism is rigid. The patriot may loyally defend his country even when he knows it's wrong; the nationalist has to insist that he defends his country not because it's his, but because it's right. As if he would have defended it even if he hadn't been born to it! The nationalist talks as if he just "happens," by sheer accident, to have been a native of the greatest country on earth — in contrast to, say, the pitiful Belgian or Brazilian.

Because the patriot and the nationalist often use the same words, they may not realize that they use those words in very different senses. The American patriot assumes that the nationalist loves this country with an affection like his own, failing to perceive that what the nationalist really loves is an abstraction — "national greatness," or something like that. The American nationalist, on the other hand, is apt to be suspicious of the patriot, accusing him of insufficient zeal, or even "anti-Americanism."

When it comes to war, the patriot realizes that the rest of the world can't be turned into America, because his America is something specific and particular — the memories and traditions that can no more be transplanted than the mountains and the prairies. He seeks only contentment at home, and he is quick to compromise with an enemy. He wants his country to be just strong enough to defend itself.

But the nationalist, who identifies America with abstractions like freedom and democracy, may think it's precisely America's mission to spread those abstractions around the world — to impose them by force, if necessary. In his mind, those abstractions are universal ideals, and they can never be truly "safe" until they exist, unchallenged, everywhere; the world must be made "safe for democracy" by "a war to end all wars." We still hear versions of these Wilsonian themes. Any country that refuses to Americanize is "anti-American" — or a "rogue nation." For the nationalist, war is a welcome opportunity to change the world. This is a recipe for endless war.

In a time of war hysteria, the outraged patriot, feeling his country under attack, may succumb to the seductions of nationalism. This is the danger we face now.

- Joe Sobran

Red Phillips| 10.20.09 @ 3:21PM

Joseph Sobran is such a brilliant writer. How can anyone hope to follow him?

There is no more pernicious idea than the liberal myth that America is a "proposition nation," an idea instead of a particular place and people. Liberal Bono was peddling this idea in his recent NYT op-ed. The sad thing is that modern "conservatives" are just as guilty of peddling this myth as are libs, and they don't seem to understand that it is a rank liberal notion. The idea that America is an enlightened idea that must be spread to the rest of the benighted world by force if necessary is intimately related to the idea that we can infinitely absorb immigrants from foreign cultures as long as they come here and accept the grand "idea." Some modern conservatives may be skeptical of the latter, but they don't recognize that it based on the same foundation as the former which they defend to the end.

S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 3:50PM

Dr. Philips, I think we can agree that a - and I say "a" instead of "the", though the latter may be applicable - significant problem with regards to bringing self-professed "conservatives" to conservatism is their utter unfamiliarity with its history as a philosophical disposition or tendency. As I've said (somewhat clumsily) here before, "(they) think Reagan was the archetypal conservative, and that "conservatism" thusly means something akin to "Low taxes + Free Markets + Military Strength" when, in actuality, these things are a means and not an end in and of themselves. I'm going to make an extremely awkward analogy, and say that it is in a way like someone who never watches sports, follows no team, and has never seen a game in person or on t.v.. This person is utterly unfamiliar with what it is to be a sports fan, but he is positive that he is one because he wears a hat with two red socks on it."

How does one go about introducing people who believe themselves to be "conservatives" to the ideas that form the foundation of conservatism, especially when those ideas are sure to be stamped "Liberal" by the self-professed conservative when he discovers they contradict his or her own thinking?

There are many, many self-professed conservatives who claim to want a small, fiscally responsible government - and then demand that this same government rule over, lead and police the entire world. If someone cannot grasp the glaring contradiction in that nonsensical worldview, how can anyone hope that they will come to accept the humble, nuanced, sensible conservatism of the Old Right? It certainly does not carry with it the visceral thrill that bellicose National Greatness "conservatism" does, with its boorish, big-mouthed braggadocio and bomb-em-all belligerence.

I'm not sure any political philosophy informed by a truly conservative disposition, one that is humble, pious, peaceful and tradition-bound, will find much fertile ground in our uncouth, war-loving, creedal America.

Dr.D| 10.20.09 @ 11:28PM

I simply disagree with this definition of nationalism as opposed to patriotism. I think it is a mistake to make such a distinction, not a useful thing to do at all.

I see nationalism more in terms of expressing the idea that nations are real, they are organic, as opposed to the false idea that multicultural, one-world type governments can ever succeed. We as Americans are a nation, we cannot be simply blended with the rest of the world into a world government. This is nationalism as I see it.

S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 2:31PM

"I don't remember Neil Armstrong planting a French flag on the moon, Portugal tipping the scales on multiple fronts in a world war, or China sending humanitarian aid around the globe whenever disaster strikes"

Sobran addresses the mindset exhibited in the above quote here:

G.K. Chesterton once observed that Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British imperialism, suffered from a "lack of patriotism." He explained: "He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English."

In the same way, many Americans admire America for being strong, not for being American. For them America has to be "the greatest country on earth" in order to be worthy of their devotion. If it were only the 2nd-greatest, or the 19th-greatest, or, heaven forbid, "a 3rd-rate power," it would be virtually worthless."

Mr. O'Hannigan gives us plenty of "reasons" we should love America, but never hints at the one legitimate cause for love and fealty: because it is *ours*. Because we are Americans - because our mothers and fathers, our grandparents and our children are Americans. If America had done nothing enumerated in his Reasons To Love America list, presumably Mr. O'Hannigan would not love America.

That is Nationalism, not Patriotism.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.20.09 @ 3:04PM

Toddard turd shot and liar screen names:
You have shot your bolt here.
You have been exposed as communists.

Go for it! Lie however you want to. (flush)

S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 3:09PM

What?

Patrick O'Hannigan| 10.20.09 @ 3:36PM

I welcome Joe Sobran's thoughts on the distinction between nationalism and patriotism. A lot of what he wrote is precisely what I was getting at in defending patriotism from the people who (wrongly, in my view) equate it with what I called "primitive tribalism" (which, if you think about it, is really nationalism writ small).

As to S.L. Toddard's contention that I never hinted at the one (only one?) legitimate cause for "love and fealty" toward America, I thought I was doing more than hinting when I pointed to such virtues as "organic diversity" and the peaceful assembly of free citizens that can be seen both in and outside of Disneyland.

A no-strings-attached love of country "because it's ours" works wordwide with any country, but I think part of the genius of the American founding is that the founders went farther than that, claiming not so much the land itself as the idea of freedom "to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them" -- and us.

Paul Crowley has an impressive command of history, but I respectfully suggest that he may be more irritated by what I did not write than by what I did write. That Portugal was once a country to be reckoned with is indisputable, but Neal Gabler referred to its contemporary situation, and I riffed on his reference. Crowley's defense of China has other problems, in that aid between countries with the same dominant ideology can't seriously be placed on the same footing as aid to people living with or under a different ideology.

S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 3:58PM

"A no-strings-attached love of country "because it's ours" works wordwide with any country, but I think part of the genius of the American founding is that the founders went farther than that, claiming not so much the land itself as the idea of freedom "to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them" -- and us."

That is the idea of the creedal, or propositional nation. It is a liberal idea, adhered to by progressives, neoconservatives and other such left-wingers.

Red Phillips| 10.20.09 @ 6:02PM

Well, I think Mr. O'Hannigan reasserts the proposition nation thesis again here but more softly. The idea or the creed or the proposition or whatever may be a part of the overall culture that we share. A love of freedom is more characteristic of America than it is of some countries where order and authority are more valued, for example. (This is often true sociologically of colonial countries vs. the motherland from which they sprang, and open frontier countries vs. densely populated ancient cultures.) Europe thinks we are crazy for resisting socialized medicine and gun control for example. But the idea cannot be the defining characteristic. It is a part of the overall cultural milieu.

For example, people often celebrate the fact that America has religious freedom but treat it as incidental that America was almost entirely Christian. Which is more important, the particularly Christian nature or the religious freedom? Christians should have no qualms about answering the former. And if they answer the latter I think they need to seriously examine their priorities.

And on a related note, America did not have "organic diversity" except the Indians whose land we were expropriating and the African slaves we brought here against their will. The vast majority of Americans at the Founding were of British Isle stock. (See John Jay Federalist #2). Our present diversity is the result of immigration since the War for Independence, immigration which is now, contrary to the related nation of immigrants dogma, at unprecedented rates.

S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 6:51PM

"For example, people often celebrate the fact that America has religious freedom but treat it as incidental that America was almost entirely Christian. Which is more important, the particularly Christian nature or the religious freedom? Christians should have no qualms about answering the former. And if they answer the latter I think they need to seriously examine their priorities."

That's an extremely interesting thought.

"And on a related note, America did not have "organic diversity" except the Indians whose land we were expropriating and the African slaves we brought here against their will. The vast majority of Americans at the Founding were of British Isle stock."

True indeed. As Samuel Huntington (per John O'Sullivan's review of 'Who Are We?') insisted, "the U.S. is not “a nation of immigrants.” It is a nation that was founded by settlers—who are very different from immigrants in that they establish a new polity rather than arrive in an existing one—and that has been occupied since by the descendants of those settlers and of immigrants who came later but who assimilated into the American nation."

That distinction - between the "nation of immigrants" we arent and the "settler nation" we are - needs to be made more often.

In that same review (linked below) O'Sullivan goes on, "Huntington similarly demolishes the notion that America is a “proposition nation” and that its national identity consists of adherence to the liberal principles of the American Creed of liberty and individual rights. The American Creed is certainly part of America’s national identity—it is the distilled essence of America’s culture—but it is too abstract and theoretical to provide a fulfilling patriotism on its own. Men sacrifice themselves for home and beauty, for the comradeship of battle, for loyalty to the flag, to ensure that experience of a free life is not lost to their children—they are very unlikely to sacrifice themselves for political ideas unless they also convey this range of loyalties.

Nor does the Creed sufficiently distinguish Americans from people in other countries. If belief in liberty and individual rights were sufficient to make one an American, half the people in the world could claim citizenship. And if the Creed is seriously taken to be the totality of American identity, then the way is open for a multiculturalism that treats the English language, U.S. history, and American cultural practices from baseball to hard work as simply one set of options in a cultural and ethnic smorgasbord—a smorgasbord, moreover, in which preference for traditional American beliefs and customs counts as discrimination. Of course, words and ideas take a goodly portion of their meaning from the surrounding culture—so that our current understanding of such concepts as liberty would be significantly altered if we were to interpret them in the light not of “Anglo-Protestantism” but of Hispanic, Confucian, or Islamic culture or even of continental Roman Law. Are such anxieties alarmist? Judge Robert Bork has recently pointed out that U.S. Supreme Court justices have been advocating that American courts take account of legal precedents from courts as remote as European Court and the Zimbabwe Supreme Court. It would be a curious irony if the Zimbabwe Supreme Court ended up exercising more legal influence in the U.S. than it does in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. But if this is alarmism, it may perhaps be early-warning alarmism."

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jul/19/00007/

JimE| 10.20.09 @ 9:40PM

Sam, The difference is that christianity is a religon, islam is psuedo religious-political cult.

Red Phillips| 10.20.09 @ 10:55PM

No JimE, the difference is that Christianity is the Truth, and Islam is not.

Paul Crowley| 10.21.09 @ 1:32AM

"Paul Crowley has an impressive command of history, but I respectfully suggest that he may be more irritated by what I did not write than by what I did write. That Portugal was once a country to be reckoned with is indisputable, but Neal Gabler referred to its contemporary situation, and I riffed on his reference. Crowley's defense of China has other problems, in that aid between countries with the same dominant ideology can't seriously be placed on the same footing as aid to people living with or under a different ideology." [Patrick O'Hannigan| 10.20.09 @ 3:36PM]

Hi Mr. O'Hannigan:

Thanks for your reply.

Thanks also for the compliment, but it's undeserved. My command of history really isn't all that impressive.

I've just had a different focus of interests than many people, and I'm methodical. Portugal's role where Britain is concerned, is no secret, it's just that it's been understated, or ignored, in recent decades. I could also have added that without Portugal there would have been no British-defined Gold Standard (but that used to be only self evident).

As to contemporary Portugal, then it's importance remains understated. The new post-Cold War additions to the British Commonwealth of Countries are ex portuguese territories. I wouldn't call the so-called "War On Terror" (A.K.A. "The Long War;"
A.K.A. Overseas Contingency Operation) a genuine war. It certainly has never been formally declared. But if one is so inclined to do so, then there is the matter of East Timor, and the American-Anglo expedition there.

As to China, then I intended no defense of China.

As I said, "I have no love for the Anglo-puppet Portugal or Red China, and don’t even know who Gabler is, but only point out that these are very bad examples." (which I continue to believe that they are, for the reasons that I stated, among others).

Hence my commentary on both the Republic of China (R.O.C.), when it was recognized as the de jure government, post World War II, 1945-70, and the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.), which has been recognized as the de jure government, 1970-present.

As to your statement that:
"aid between countries with the same dominant ideology can't seriously be placed on the same footing as aid to people living with or under a different ideology."

If this is true, then a great deal of American aid of the past 64 years would have to be immediately discarded as irrelevant, which I don't.

It's also why I pointed out that the P.R.C. was a poor country until its exports began to soar, beginning in 1994, and that it has increasingly provided greater amounts of international aid since that time.

Obviously not all aid from the P.R.C. is conditioned on a country having "the same dominant ideology."

As has rightly been pointed out in some essays on The American Spectator, and by elsewhere, this is the exact opposite of post-1994 P.R.C. aid.

Beyond that, there are only very few countries with an even similar ideology as that of the P.R.C. The closest I can think of would be Vietnam and North Korea.

Vietnam has received by far more aid from the American-Anglo-French bloc of countries and Russia than from Communist China in the post-Cold War era. The P.R.C.'s aid to Vietnam mostly ended in 1975-76, after it was increasingly no longer needed. It was virtually nil after 1978-79, for obvious reasons.

Paul Crowley| 10.21.09 @ 1:50AM

“Sobran . . .” [S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 2:31PM]

Hi S.L. Toddard:

I agree with whoever said that if all you’re going to do is cut and paste long essays, such as Sobran's, then just post a link.

I may be yappy, but at least my long comments are my own observations, thoughts and opinions. None made without first giving thought and consideration to what I'm commenting upon.

With that said, then Sobran is like Pat Buchanan:

Writers who have been made into celebrities, serving in movements that are themselves creations of the new Libertarian Movements. In both instances, their status as nominal Catholics is, or has been, made use of.

In this decade Sobran has been recast as a tortured soul who found his way out of Catholicism and into so-called “anarcho-capitalism.”

If it were not for the World Web Wide, then this could not have been done. He would simply be another obscure right-wing writer, that most people never heard of, instead of a libertarian writer that most people have never heard of, but a number of right-leaning, people, especially what are dubbed Socially Conservative, have heard of. That libertarian-leaning people are familiar with him is no suprise, whatsoever.

Pat Buchanan was first cultivated as an ‘image and likeness’ of Hillaire Belloc (circa 1992-2000).
Personally, then I believe that it was mostly a cheap and shabby one (which I don’t say as merely taking a gratuitous shot, but genuinely believe that it was).

Buchanan has now has been recast in the form of elder philosopher (circa 2002-present).

Buchanan, as nominally Catholic, has been popularized among the self-named “traditionalist Catholics,” by the libertarian fronts devoted to that genre. Self-named “traditionalist Catholics” are in effect the most Protestantized of all Catholics.

Let’s be honest, the “traditionalist Catholics,” who are VERY TINY groups of people are another grouping that virtually no one would have ever heard of if it were not for the World Wide Web, and the publicity given them by the bishops, and the popular press.

Mel Gibson (of all people!) was also EXTEMELY useful in popularizing their existence.
We live in bizarre times.

Both “Paleo-conservative” and “anarcho-capitalist” are purely a libertarian concoctions.

Both Sobran and Buchanan are used, among a great deal else, to drive the redefinition of American conservatism.

Both Sobran and Buchanan are also used to cast Catholics and Catholicism, especially pre-reformed Catholics and Catholicism, (wrongly and unjustly) in a negative light as being naturally anti-Jewish, in the racial or cultural senses of the term Jewish. Effectively a proto-fascism.

Paul Crowley| 10.21.09 @ 1:58AM

"Toddard turd shot and liar screen names:
You have shot your bolt here.
You have been exposed as communists." [Ken (Old Texican)| 10.20.09 @ 3:04PM]

Ken is exactly right where S.L. Toddard's comments on Patriotism verus nationalism are concerned.

This is strait-line Marxist commentary. A virtual plagiarism of George Orwell's commentary on nationalism, delivered via the self-dubbed "anrcho-capitalist," Sobran.

I don't recognize the other screen names.

KyMouse| 10.21.09 @ 10:17AM

I love Disney World, and have been there about a dozen times since it opened. Yes, some of it is hokey, but to me it is a fine tribute to the American spirit -- to creativity, capitalism, and optimism. Walt Disney and his imagineers used lots of money and imagination to create a place that offers fun and even a bit of education to people from all over the world. It's good for Florida and for America. There are many reasons a trip to Disney World is at the top of children's wish lists -- even the wish list of a big kid like me, who has been just about everywhere from Santa Fe to St. Petersburg (Russia, not Florida).

Red Phillips| 10.21.09 @ 12:53PM

Crowley, axe grind much? Initially I couldn't figure out where you were coming from. Hence my rather brief reply. I wasn't 100% sure what I was replying to. Now I think I get it. For the record, Sobran did not renounce Catholicism. He remains staunchly Catholic. As a paleo-conservative (which is NOT a brand of libertarianism), I find his late embrace of political anarcho-capitalism unfortunate.

Sobran, who is by no means a compelling speaker or made for TV pundit, got where he is because he can write and think circles around most of the so-called conservative punditry, as can Buchanan. Buchanan has the good fortune of being an equally gifted speaker.

Paul Crowley| 10.21.09 @ 2:52PM

“G.K. Chesterton once observed that Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British imperialism, suffered from a ‘lack of patriotism.’ He explained: ‘He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English.’ . . . But the nationalist, who identifies America with abstractions like freedom and democracy, may think it's precisely America's mission to spread those abstractions around the world — to impose them by force, if necessary. In his mind, those abstractions are universal ideals, and they can never be truly ‘safe’ until they exist, unchallenged, everywhere; the world must be made safe for democracy’ by ‘a war to end all wars.’ We still hear versions of these Wilsonian themes.” [Joe Sobran, posted by S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 2:23PM]

Hi S.L. Toddard:

Orwells essays are common and available on the World Wide Web. The following quotes by Chesterton are not located on the internet, that I know of. These quotes are mild. They are from a few of his essays that were printed in the Illustrated London News (dates given). All emphasis is original.

“And the second thing to be said to American democrats, especially by English democrats, is this. It is true that all our hopes of the development of democracy, in England or anywhere else, are bound up with the final defeat of Prussia. It is true that, until Prussian prestige is smashed, Prussian success, or comparative success, will always be the obstacle to popular Government progressing an inch anywhere. England may not be a democracy; but Prussia is most vividly and violently anti-democracy.
And it is certain as death that if she won this war, or another war, then (in the great American words) government of the people, by the people, for the people would begin to perish from the earth.”

--G.K. Chesterton, “The Meanings of Democracy,” May 5, 1917.

“There the proof of the pudding is in the eating; and the Germans have obviously bitten off more than they can chew. For efficiency there is no moral victory. If nothing succeeds like success, nothing can ever fail like a philosophy founded on success. Thus deeply and abysmally have the Germans failed. . .. Russia has covered herself with glory by fighting under conditions such as those of Poland or even Montenegro. She has fought at a disadvantage--and won at a disadvantage. Never henceforth can anyone deny that the great empire could have the courage to be a small nationality.”

--G.K. Chesterton, “On The Miseducation of the English,” July 1, 1916.

“It is often a strategic mistake to silence a man, because it leaves the world under the impression that he had something to say. For this reason I would not proceed against the very small organisations which under the conclusion of peace--or, in other words, the leaving of Prussia in possession of her spoils.
Coercion like conscription, is a legitimate expedient, but not a very native, and therefore not a very easy one; I should, on the whole advise the English not to build their safety on the novel and rather unnational logic of persecution, even of justifiable persecution. I should, on the whole, advise them to build on the grand, firm, and enduring foundation of the Pacifist’s controversial incompetence.. . It is simply self-evident that an immediate peace could not be an honourable one, since, apart from all explanations with Germany, we should have to have an explanation with our Allies. . . How does an idealist come at last to things so spiritually squalid as the surrenders and betrayals advocated here? I cannot believe that Mr. Norman would treat two human companions, though they were escaped convicts laden with loathsome crimes, as England is recommended to treat France and Russia in this case. I cannot believe he would leave any human being whom he could save with his own life under such smiling insult and victorious iniquity as this would leave the million human beings of Belgium. The man should carry out in practice the recommendations of this pamphlet would not be a Pacifist any more than a Militarist. He would be nothing so loyal as a German spy. He would be a coward; a man surrendering to power because it is powerful; a man deserting friends because they are in danger; a man disappointing the broken-hearted of the deliverance promised to them; a man praising the peace of a shambles and the negotiations” of a slave market--
Who would not laugh if such a man there be?
Who would not weep if Atticus were he?
--G.K. Chesterton, “The Illogic of the Pacifists, August 14, 1915.

The so-called “Old Right” is a concoction of the new libertarian movements, a so-called synthesis of opposites, a myth that never existed. Sobran's essay is the same. An example what truely thin gruel this new libertarianism, that emerged publicly in this country in only the past 40 years, truly is.

Paul Crowley| 10.21.09 @ 5:50PM

“Crowley, axe grind much? . . .” [Red Phillips| 10.21.09 @ 12:53PM]

Hi Red:

Naw, not at all (in the context that I believe you inteneded the question). Honestly. No. I have no axes to grind.

On a lighter note:

I do have an axe and I do keep it sharp, using a file.

I haven’t actually used an axe much in over 20 years now.

I keep it as part of my hurricane emergency stock, just in case (axe, 3’ pry bar, hand sledge, rope, industrial lantern, . . .).

I live at less than 17 feet elevation, about 400 feet from a river, that feeds into a bay, half a mile south of me. The bay ties to the ocean, just less then ten miles away.

The neighbors who live right next to the river had over 3 feet of water in their houses last year. The rest of us just watched (with interest) it creep its way toward us. It stopped rising about 300 feet from my place.

Like I said, it’s just some general tools as emergency stock.

I hope that I never need them.

Paul Crowley| 10.21.09 @ 6:08PM

“As a paleo-conservative (which is NOT a brand of libertarianism)” [Red Phillips| 10.21.09 @ 12:53PM]

Hi Red:

Not knowing you, then I don’t question your sincerity in labeling yourself a so-called paleo-conservative, here.

I do question the judgement of anyone who labels himself with such a contrived term.

I use none of the labels, as none would in the least describe me. I find self-named neo-conservativism repellent and vile (and there’s no hyperbole in my statement).

Self-name paleo-conservatism I find to be a sham, weak, and hopeless. Both are conconctions, sophisticated syntheses of opposites, complete fabrications, purely man-made and utterly without natural development. I believe both are a Strange BedFellow combitiion that are nothing more than a pollution to this country. Useful in the final cultural disintegration of America, and then it’s reform into something radically different than it ever was.

There are many of these, left and right, not the least of which are the new post-1994 reformed Marxist parties.

I can understand why many people have fled to so-called paleo-conservatism.

So you have some of my brief opinions on the movements.

I’m a lot of things, but a liar or a sneak are not included among them.

As to the libertarian-formed “paleo-conservative” movement:

This term hasn’t been used publicly for more than 25 years, and has only been popularized in less than the past ten. It’s been able to be done as rapidly as it has due to technological innovation (in particular the World Wide Web). Using neo in the standard sense, and not as a noun, then paleo-conservativism is purely neo-conscervative.

It’s technology that allows people to be formed into something as radically new, as this is, before the last remnants of the old meaning of a term have dissapeared. Otherwise the term neo-conservative would be absurd.

So-called “paleo-conservativism” is purely a libertarian conconction: Of the similarly-named (“paleo-libertarian”) branch (the Lew Rockwell and the Mises institute and such).

It’s not as old as American libertarianism.

Libertarianism is new to America and has been popularized in this country in less than the past 40 years.

In truth, there’s been nothing conservative, in the least, about libertarianism. The so-called neo-conservatives and the paleo-conservatives primarily are conservative in only the crudest sense of the term conservative: They conserve the social revolutionary gains of the past 40 years, and allow more advances to be made.

Paul Crowley| 10.21.09 @ 6:22PM

“For the record, Sobran did not renounce Catholicism. He remains staunchly Catholic. As a paleo-conservative (which is NOT a brand of libertarianism), I find his late embrace of political anarcho-capitalism unfortunate.” [Red Phillips| 10.21.09 @ 12:53PM]

Hi Red:

First I agree with you that Sobran can write. The essay posted by S.L. Toddard demonstrates his ability as a writer. Anyone who can use Chesterton as a vehicle to disseminate social commentary on nationalism versus patriotism that is more reminiscent of George Orwall’s and other English Marxists of the 1930s views on the topic, definitely has talent as a writer.

The libertarian fronts chose well in Sobran’s case.

The same for Buchanan.

How impressive they’d be without the research staffs of the libertarian movements is probably another matter.

As a man, then I have no respect whatsoever for Sobran. I have even less for Pat Buchanan.

Liars don’t impress me. It’s not an attribute that I admire in a man.

[By the way, my quotes from Chesterton were chosen less for content than by perusing his essays by date. Chesterton’s war time essays for the London Illustrated News fill just less than 1200 pages in two volumes. I avoided the examples of Chesterton’s rapid jingoism and kept the quotes more in context with Sobran’s essay].

As to Sobran still calling himself Catholic, then fair enough. I’m not surprised. So he's presented as the tortured soul, "devout Catholic," who found his way to anarchism. . .

In 1967, if a man called himself a Catholic (or Staunch Catholic or Devout Catholic), then no more needed to be said. The term (terms) had meaning and was (were) descriptive. There were no divisions among Catholics yet. Even the Radical Priest had yet to emerge.

By 1987 that was no longer true.

Today, it means absolutley nothing, in and of itself, when a man says he is a Cathlolic.
Further explanation of its meaning is usually required.

For most people, their Catholicism is merely a logically-contradictory, idiosyncratic thing of their own personal concoction, drawn from numerous conconctions that have been popularized in the past 40 years.

So Sobran is presented as a devout Catholic, who has become an anarchist(!).

But wait, that’s not all. An anarchist that advocates anarcho-capitalism” (i.e. unbridled usury).

So, is Lew Rockwell a “devout Catholic” also, or only a Catholic?

Thomas Woods of course is a “traditionalist Catholic” (of which there are numerous sub-groups).

As I said, for a man to call himself a Catholic today, means absolutely nothing, in and of itself.

I’ll stay with all of my other comments on Buchanan and Sobran as being libertarian creations.

If Sobran claims himself to be a devout Catholic who is an anarchist, of the anarcho-capitalist persuasion, then he is all the more useful to what I noted earlier:

“Both Sobran and Buchanan are used, among a great deal else, to drive the redefinition of American conservatism.

Both Sobran and Buchanan are also used to cast Catholics and Catholicism, especially pre-reformed Catholics and Catholicism, (wrongly and unjustly) in a negative light as being naturally anti-Jewish, in the racial or cultural senses of the term Jewish. Effectively a proto-fascism.”

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 7:30PM

Buddy, you are NUTS.

Paul Crowley| 10.21.09 @ 7:28PM

“Paul, I would hesitate to brand it Counter-Revolutionary (especially in caps) because that name has already been claimed by some fine men toward whom conservatives should be sympathetic.” [Red Phillips| 10.20.09 @ 3:38PM]

Hi Red:

I apologize. I didn’t see your reply until now, or else I’d have responded sooner.

I assume that you’re responding to my statement: “The revolutionary gains of the past 45 years are better described as Counter-Revolutionary relative to the American Revolution. There are few to no American principles that have been left standing as a result of the legal and cultural reforms of the past 45 years or so.” [Paul Crowley| 10.20.09 @ 2:10PM]

I’ll stay with my statement. Relative to the American Revolution, then the past 45 years has been counter-revolutionary. It has served to erase the fundamental and foundational American principals that formed American culture. Because it is something that has happened, a thing, a noun, and in no way merely a natural process, then, therefore I’ll say that it has been a Counter-Revolution.

It’s the reason for all of the squabbling going on, over culture, and especially over such as The Constitution and our laws. Listening to many of the statements, of the past nine years, then a man could be forgiven for mistakenly thinking that our constitution had been ratified in just 1998, rather than two hundred twenty years earlier.

“Unprecedented” is a term that has been being popularized in just the last four years or so. Some statements I see by some government officials, American, and foreign, among the host of political writers, of all kinds, include “unprecedented” up to four or five times in a mere two or three paragraphs!

"Rule By Law” is a term that has been being popularized in just the last eight years or so.

“Rule By Law,” as a principal, what was driven out of this country in 1776.

It’s Williamite/Georgian-British, not American.

Justice was not a particular concern. The term has arisen prior to now in political writings, in our post-Cold War period, but mostly in an understated manner.

There’d been no popularizing of the phrase, prior this decade. Just the opposite.

Now it is “ubiquitous.”

People have been trained in the use of this language, and like a good deal else, it’s been the easiest training of their lives: The kind of education that requires no thought or effort.

It’s just soaked in.

All of the names, and new standardized spellings of old names, geographically and culturally, will be learned, in like manner.

There are reasons that a country, a constitutional republic, that is now 233 years old, is now engulfed in squabbles over The Constitution and the term unprecedented” has any meaning at all.

American legal codes, Federal, State, and Municipal, were radically purged over the course of the last three and a half decades of the 20th century.

If the statute is erased, then most of the precedents associated with it, are erased also.

If a new statute is enacted into law that abolishes an old one, such as is done with popular referendums, then frequently enough, the new law contains phrasing that abolishes older statutes.

Physically, the infrastructure of the country has been ripped apart and rebuilt, in just 53 years time.

All of the regional and state economies that still existed 30 years ago (1979), have been shredded and the entire country reformed as one vast national economy.

Tens of thousands of small towns and cities have been annihilated.

The small town that I come from, no longer exists. It was destroyed by transformation into a suburb of a metropolitan area. It wasn’t even on the road maps when it really was a real town. Now that’s merely a suburb with a newly formed municipal government, then it’s on all of the road maps. The only thing familiar about the suburb-town that I live in now, about 1,200 miles from my native home, is that it had the same thing done to it. It even has a SWAT team!

The “Bedroom Communities” of the Realtors, suburbs, transformed into “small towns.”

Tens of thousands of other small towns and cities are in the final throes of demise, dying out in the midst of the vast new interstate system, between the newly formed metropolitan areas of the past 45 years.

The majority born after 1973 won't have a clue as to what a small town actually is (or used to be, anyway).

All religions have been radically reformed over the course of the past 45 years, and especially over the past 20.

A generational discontinuity took place when tens of millions of young Americans (so-called Boomers and Xers) ceased practicing their religions, over about 20 years’ time, circa 1967-87 (some longer, some less).

The ‘prodigals’ came trooping back into the churches after tens of millions of them ruined their lives, severed their roots, and found themselves facing their mid-life crises. Then some of them were used to reform the churches further into the pop-psychology self-help centers they now are.

Over 50 percent of the population practices a different religion that the one born into (that’s only going by the name of the religion: Most all of them, de facto, practice a different religion than the one they were born into).

Over 50 percent of the population now lives more than 50 miles from where they were born.

Generational discontinuities abound in this country, not only in the religions and regionally: It’s especially true in labor pools, as well.

The ‘Body Counts’ have been reportedly steadily, over the course of this entire period.

Overwhelmingly, the majority of Americans are a people without roots and without a culture. The roots of tens of millions, are frequently no more than a few years to at most a couple decades “deep.”

The roots of tens of millions of others have been ripped apart by the Urban Renewal around them (same geographical location, RADICALLY different place).

Education reforms have been dramatic; first circa 1967 and then again circa 1987.

These are just some of the elements of the Counter-Revolution, presented in loose schematic form.

It’s been like a vast construction project of numerous large construction projects.

The country has been reformed, and the population has been thoroughly de-culturized.

This has taken place, world-wide, over the past 70 years.

The country, and in fact, most of the world, is populated by people who have been rendered unfit for self-governance.

Those formed as so-called "shopping machines," have been formed as near as one can to dumb, grazing animals. It's painful to say it, but it's true. Shoppers who don't know how to make anything, or how anything is made, and distributed.

It’s not surprising at all that the political writers, especially from British dominions, particularly Indians, are raising questions about the viability of democracy now. If you haven’t realized, then the destruction period is over, along with the Amateur hours that facilitated it, and now it is time to reform these de-culturized Human Resources into something entirely and radically new.

The new Technology (Digital Electronics Revolution) coupled to the new social sciences, and lessons learned in what is dubbed social engineering of the past two centuries (especially by the British, French, Russians, and even Americans), ensure that whatever is formed will be in no way natural or a result of anything remotely democratic (only democracy redefined by addition of an adjective: “elective democracy.”).

Whatever new cultures are developed will of course require the work and efforts of us peons, right down to ideas (which require study, debate, and even squabbling). However, all will take place within the social and physical confines we’ve now been herded into.

This is what I see.

Hence, my question is why?
What is the purpose of this vast cultural and physical destruction and reconstruction project of the past 45 years?

I won't say that a general war is unavoidable, but much of what I see points directly to it. This one centered on Asia. For the first time in history, it is rapidly becoming possible to fight a war of rapid movement on the continents of Asia, Africa, and central and south America.

At any rate, American principles have been purged. Not only from the country, but from the world.

The final purging in this country has taken place in the past 45 years especially. Hence my point out that relative to the American Revolution, it has been a Counter-Revolution.

Margie| 10.21.09 @ 10:47PM

Re: Toddard & Friends. To the tune of "A Hunting We Will Go."
A cutting we will go
A pasting we will go
Heigh-ho the Dairy-o
A trolling we will go!

Paul Crowley| 10.22.09 @ 10:31AM

Little Englanders versus Greater Britainers

“I welcome Joe Sobran's thoughts on the distinction between nationalism and patriotism. A lot of what he wrote is precisely what I was getting at in defending patriotism from the people who (wrongly, in my view) equate it with what I called ‘primitive tribalism’ (which, if you think about it, is really nationalism writ small).” [Patrick O'Hannigan| 10.20.09 @ 3:36PM]

I’ve commented upon select items, but now I’ll comment on the thread.

First
How familiar Mr. O’Hannigan is with the details of any of this, then I don’t know.

Reading his essay, and considering his response to commenters, then I suspect not much. But it is a useful setup.

Little Englanders versus Greater Britainers is all alien, where the pre-reformed U.S.A., and American culture are concerned. A combination of English Little Englanders, Greater Britainers, and English Marxist commentary (circa 1930-49) is even more alien.

What most of this mess is what I mentioned in my initial comments, the 21st century Americanized Little Englander versus Greater Britainers debate.

This was a debate in Victorian and Edwardian Britain, about 1872-1925.

It has been modified and imported into 21 Century America, right down to publication of a book arguing for a Little America, in opposition to President Bush,who made statements, some of which were virtually direct plagiarizing of Alfred Milner. Confusing political essays have begun to abound in the past five years especially. Libertarianism and its offshoots confuse it all, all the more.

Paul Crowley| 10.22.09 @ 11:01AM

Little Englanders, Greater Britainers, and English Marxists.

Both Little Englanders and Greater Britainers claimed themselves to be Nationalists and Patriots.

English Marxists (circa 1930-49), of all varieties, claimed to be patriots and internationalists, and were fervently anti nationalist.

For Americans ALL of this would have been alien (until this decade: now it can seem new).

AMERICANS VERSUS LITTLE ENGLANDERS, GREATER BRITAINERS, AND ENGLISH MARXISTS

Both the so-called Little Englanders and the so-called Greater Britainers, had proponents who claimed themselves to be both nationalists and patriots. Much of the squabbling was over the meaning of both of these terms. This was during the imperial period (circa 1876-1948), using the Empire of India, the only formal use of the title empire that the United Kingdom of Great Britain ever used.

Even ten years ago, this Patriotism versus Nationalism using British writers from this period, would have been the proverbial Apples and Oranges comparison where America is concerned. At the time it was argued in Britain, then it most certainly had nothing whatsoever of relevance to America. The United Kingdom of Great Britain developed as an entirely different culture than that of the United States of America (U.S.A.).

Britain was not a democracy (the kingdom made no claim to be one at that time), and its government rejected a republican form of government, formally until 1949.

The U.S.A. was a constitutional republic, democratic in nature since 1828, and primarily anti-Imperialist and anti-Empire in sentiment. In concrete reality, this described the overwhelming majority of Americans (the primary exceptions being the Anglophile, upper class, New England WASPS), who were a distinct minority.

LITTLE ENGLANDERS VERSUS GREATER BRITAINERs

The Little Englanders were anti-Imperialists, who claimed themselves to be both English nationalists and English patriots, anti-imperialist, but pro-Empire. The Little Englanders were a faction aligned with the Liberal Party.

The Greater Britainers were pro-Imperialists who claimed themselves to be both English nationalists and English patriots. The Greater Britainers were a faction aligned with the Conservative Party.

Such hair-splitting distinctions between what appeared to Americans to be the same thing were as confusing to Americans, as were the soon-to-follow Marxism versus Anarchism versus Fascism debates in Europe, or the Trotsky versus Stalin debates of the Marxist Communist International (COMINTERN).

American advocates of any of these were TINY minorities of our population.

GREATER BRITAINERS
advocated an Imperial-Federation of all British territories, world wide: colonies, dominions, the Empire of India, protectorates, condominiums, and whatever a territory was designated as (the argue was abstract, in that it was conceptual, and the concept never formalized into finite, discrete, details). This was the “Greater Britain” of the "Greater Britainers" (a term taken from the title of one of the first pro-imperialist books published, around 1870, but I don't remember the exact year).

Their argument that England, and to be English, was conceptional and ideological, not geographical, or concrete.

“I am a British (indeed primarily English) Nationalist.
If I am also an Imperialist, it is because the destiny of the English race, oweing to its insular position and its long supremacy at sea, has been to strike fresh roots in distant parts of the world. My patriotism knows no geographical but only racial limits. I am in Imperialist and not a Little Englander because I am a British race patriot. It is not the soil of England. . . which is essential to arouse my patriotism, but the speech, the traditions, the spiritual heritage, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race. . .” --Lord Alfred Milner of Capetown [Union of South Africa].

LITTLE ENGLANDERS
G.K. Chesterton suffices as an example. He was among the last of the genre, and took the title of Little Englander overtly in his post-conversion writings, which are the writings of his that are best known.

A man who claimed to be English nationalist, nativist, and patriot, who was pro-Empire but anti-imperialist.
Chesterton’s post-Fabian writings were purely nationalist in sentiment, on a nativist basis, both before and after he converted to the Catholic Church.
Chesterton’s arguments were nationalist in the sense of the theme of Little England, first popularized by Gladstone, and adopted overtly by Chesterton.

The quotes I provided of Chesterton from World War I was when he was still a practicing member of the Church of England. The quote provided by Sobran in his essay was after Chesterton had converted to Catholicism.

Chesterton’s writing style is purely typical of the Little Englander genre, and what was once a thoroughly English style of writing: Primarily an appeal to sentimentality, and mostly vague, in spite of being interspersed with numerous crisply-worded (i.e. pithy) sentences. It’s a style that Sobran copies in his essay post by S.L. Toddard above.

After his conversion to Catholicism, then Chesterton’s writings, while remaining primarily an appeal to sentimentality, were made firmer than most Little Englanders’ writings, including his pervious writings, by the addition of Catholic doctrine on natural piety: Love of family, friends, and country with family being kinship, not merely the so-called nuclear family”).

Natural Law and scholastic based doctrines, that were the development of scholastic studies, observations on human nature, in light of Christian revelation, and millennia of study and pastoral practice. What can genuinely be called European culture, that is now being erased, and modified.

I was raised and largely formed by this (albeit, weakened, I’ll admit).

American Protestants, of all varieties, were raised the same way, only without the rigorous doctrinal formulations.

This is precisely what is derided by some as “primitive tribalism.” Whether that is Mr. O’Hannigan’s meaning by use of the term, I don’t know. He doesn’t define it in his essay or in his comment.

The two generations of Americans that have died out, with only very elderly remnants left, were the last to receive religious education as children, and then to be formed as adults, by Christian doctrine that included these principles.

The so-called Boomers were the first discontinuity: Most received the religious education as children, but the majority were not formed by their religion as adults.

The so-called Xers and those after them have received neither (2 full generations now, people about 48 years old and younger), except in radically reformed form.

ENLGISH MARXISTS ADDED TO THE MIX
Orwell, and other English Marxists of his time claimed themselves to be internationalists and patriots, anti-imperialist, and anti-Empire. The English Marxists were in numerous factions and aligned with the Labour Party, the Communist Party, and various Trotskyist and socialist parties.

As I’ve noted, all of this is further confused by the fact that in the essay posted by S.L. Toddard, the writer Joe Sobran, uses G.K. Chesterton, to disseminate conclusions about nationalism versus patriotism that are in no way demonstrative of G.K. Chesterton’s writings, or even the Little Englanders, or Greater Britainers. The conclusions are more reminiscent of those of George Orwell, and English Marxists of the 1930s and 1940s. The English Marxist commentaries, since these men claimed themselves to be internationalists, were purely anti-nationalism.

In fairness, as the British defined both nationalism and patriotism, then, as an American, I would be anti-British nationalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Empire too. Just not pro-Marxist, or an internationalist.

If one is just coming to learn about any of this today, then good luck to him in sorting it out on his own. He sure won’t get any summary this clear from anything produced by Pat Buchanan or the any of the libertarians (exactly the opposite of clarity!).

How each of these translate in present-day reformed-American political labels and terms, then some is easy to see, while many are complete opposites or hybrids (i.e. syntheses).

How this will develop, then I don’t know.

I can tell you how the first one ended. The Little Englanders lost.

Paul Crowley| 10.22.09 @ 11:34AM

Clarification: Little Englanders and dominant political party affiliations.

The Little Englanders were anti-Imperialists, who claimed themselves to be both English nationalists and English patriots, anti-imperialist, but pro-Empire. The Little Englanders were a faction aligned with the Liberal Party.

The began in the Liberal Party during Gladstone's first premiership, and remained UNTIL the adevent of the Labour Party (circa 1902), after which they shifted to the Conservative Party.

After that then both the Little Englanders and Greater Britainers were factions affiliated with same major British political party: The Conservative Party.

Little Englanders had mostly died out, and had lost their public prestige by the 1930s.

Paul Crowley| 10.22.09 @ 12:52PM

“Buddy, you are NUTS.” [S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 7:30PM]

Hi S.L. Toddard:

No. I’m perfectly sane.

Sane enough to recognize that the essays you’ve posted, both Sobran’s and the neo-nativest cultural rot, contain elements of all three of the English political groupings that I’ve commented on here. This all definitely fits into what I referred to as a hybrid.

Of course, if I did suffer from psychosis, then I would still assert that I was sane.

However, if I did suffer from psychosis, then it would not be unusual for me to believe that I’m the only person in the world to be aware of what I’ve typed above.

This is not the case.

I know perfectly well that I’m not the only man familiar with Little Englanders, Greater Britainers, and English Marxists of the 1930s and 1940s (now all well outside of living memory, except for a tiny fraction of our populations, and all completely alien cultures to most Americans, past or present). I also know that there are numerous individuals who are associated with the movements, left and right, who are using these things at present, who unquestionably have greater familiarity that I do, as well as greater access to archives.

As I noted to Mr. O'Hannigan, “My command of history really isn't all that impressive. I've just had a different focus of interests than many people, and I'm methodical.”

None of the history that I’ve commented upon here is new to me (hence my ability to provide quotes not found on the World Wide Web). Until this decade, and especially the past eight years, then I used to think it was all just interesting, but irrelevant, details from the past.

As to Britain, then most of my life I’ve been ambivalent toward Britain. Most Englishmen and colonial Britons, such as the Aussies, that I’ve met, then I’ve liked (with only the few expected exceptions, now and then).

On the whole, I’ve never cared much for the overt anglophiles that I’ve met. If I had to describe them, then I would say that they are a people who have the servility of dogs (e.g. the class-ridden mentality), and the behavior of hive insects (via being “well informed”). I really don’t say that as a cheap shot, but rather, I’m trying to be descriptive.

I’ve really only begun to become distinctly anglophobe this decade (and only where Britain’s government and British culture, actually "cultures," since the government is constantly re-inventing them, are concerned).

So, just call me a “crazy Uncle.” Everyone KNOWS What That Means. . . (even though they can’t explain it).

Anyway, judging from your personal comments, including this last one to me, then I can see why you post essays by other people, rather than your own thoughts.

In parting, here’s another quote for you. It's anglophilish in nature (since those types tend to love the simple slogans, proverbs, and bromides that aid their formation in hive insect-like behavior), but an appropriate response to your statement to me:

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words shall never hurt me.”

Paul Crowley| 10.22.09 @ 2:12PM

“But the nationalist, who identifies America with abstractions like freedom and democracy” [Joe Sobran, posted by S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 2:23PM]

This is the surest sign of the truth of what I stated above:

The social revolution of the past 45 years has been a Counter Revolution, relative to the American Revolution.

Also that this country, and most of the world, is populated by people who have been rendered unfit for self-governance.

When Americans are Taught To Believe that “freedom and democracy” are merely “abstractions,” reather than the concrete realities, and integral elements of our culture, as they used to be.

Freedom, American republicanism, democracy, and national soveriegnty, did not used to be mere abstractions, but were physical realities, and that within Living Memory.

And none of the “conservatives” here say a thing, but only squabble about sentimentalist-based essays and squabble over what truly are petty abstractions (undefined no less!).

What in the world is more abstract than the concoction of libertarianism?

What is more abstract than the squabbling over the redefining of mere labels: conservative or liberal, or whatever? By pre-reformed American standards, it’s completely backwards. The label now precedes what it’s supposed to represent, and then bit and piece literary elements from alien cultures, not understood, are introduced and idiotically squabbled over!

When Americans are Taught To Believe that “freedom and democracy” are merely “abstractions,” to be anti-government, rather than self-governing peoples, to reject national soveriegnty, and view love of country and family as "primitive tribalism," no longer think of themselves a race, then they are merely a beaten herd and there really is not much of anything left to conserve that matters.

goptyo| 4.22.10 @ 1:28AM

ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010Winning is without value if victory has been achieved ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 or dishonestly. Cheating is easy, but brings no pleasure. Playing ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 requires courage and character. It is also more satisfying. ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
always has its reward, even when the game is lost. Playing fair earns you respect, while cheats are detested. Remember: It's only a game. And games are pointless unless played ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010

I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. PoptropicaWhen all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You

Both FIFA and UEFA have awards which they hand out to individuals or groups of people who have promoted what they see as the spirit of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
, both within and outside of football. An example of this was the Italian player Paolo Di Canio who, while not given an award, was congratulated by many sections of the football world for a generous display of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
. Despite having a goal scoring opportunity while playing for West Ham United against Everton, when Di Canio saw the Everton goalkeeper had picked up an injury, instead of scoring what could have been the easiest goal of his career, he caught the ball, thus stopping ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
and allowing the goalkeeper to receive treatment

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. PoptropicaZeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale Poptropica

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. PoptropicaHe will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica