Wonderful extract from Thiriart's work! However, I find myself agreeing only half-way, as it were, with Jean Thiriart in some places. Full disclosure: I have not read all of 'Europe: An Empire of 400 Million' (1964), although it's on my list!
Thiriart correctly identifies several of the "brands" of nationalism that we don't want; i.e. petty nationalism that fetishizes shallow cultural differences, or sets up political independence of a tiny region as its sine qua non. Such a mindset only serves to weaken Europe and her people in the face of globalism. Thiriart correctly rejects the fetishization of race as the bedrock of all meaningful organization. All of that is well enough.
And yet, Thiriart leaves us wondering (in this particular passage) what, exactly, "our nationalism" is. Yes, we can say that because of the core racial stock of Slavic, Germanic, and Latin-Mediterranean peoples, Europe is already in a sense "multi-racial," but the danger here is that this phrasing opens the door to other racial groups participating in - or demanding to benefit from - European civilization (Thiriart, who died in 1992, may or may not have foreseen this).
We must be aware of the dangers of continuous megalomaniac thinking and solutions of being united before we “cure” the problem of the toxic leadership in the international institutions like EU, NATO and even UN, WEF and WHO.
This is really a collective psychiatric personality disorder commonly more known as psychopathy.
Before we do accept that this is the core issue of the problems the world has faced for centuries and is facing today , all these problems are not going to go away.
It’s impossible to make a better Europe or a better world without radically accept this fact.
I don’t have any solutions to this enormous problem but maybe someone else has.
A cleverly articulated apology for the EU. With his convoluted and patently anti-nationalist arguments, the author attempts to justify and promote his not-so-subtle support and admiration for one of the worst, most corrupted, most leftist bureaucratic institution ever imposed on the sovereign nations of Europe. The EU should be abolished, not expanded or even made stronger.
On page 26 of the book he introduces a very glaring contradiction with other things he’s written in the book and elsewhere:
“The confederate formula is calculation and ulterior motives; the federal
formula is confusion; the unitarian formula is method, order and clarity.
Only the feudals who fear to lose a portion of their present power reject
centralism.
In the United States, the shrewd legislator tends to systematically
eliminate local laws and substitute them with ‘federal laws’, applicable to
the 50 states which form the federation.”
This is a contradiction because the USA didn’t centralize until between the early 1960s to the early 1980s with some of the most important forms of centralization, those related to the economy, finance, and engineering being very concentrated in the latter 1970s and mid 1980s, but he himself has expressed the view that the US took a disastrous turn when it moved into the system that it has now, so he’s directly contradicting himself, by the way, the USA did amazing when it was a political and economic federation
Yeah, he's writing on behalf of the same forces that have illegitimately been in charge for decades now, thats why he's rails out assertions of the need for very deep centralization without really substantively arguing for it, while in some cases contradicting himself by doing so. Take for example, on page 26 of the book where he introduces a very glaring contradiction with other things he’s written in the book and elsewhere:
“The confederate formula is calculation and ulterior motives; the federal
formula is confusion; the unitarian formula is method, order and clarity.
Only the feudals who fear to lose a portion of their present power reject
centralism.
In the United States, the shrewd legislator tends to systematically
eliminate local laws and substitute them with ‘federal laws’, applicable to
the 50 states which form the federation.”
This is a contradiction because the USA didn’t centralize until between the early 1960s to the early 1980s with some of the most important forms of centralization, those related to the economy, finance, and engineering being very concentrated in the latter 1970s and mid 1980s, but he himself has expressed the view that the US took a disastrous turn when it moved into the system that it has now, so he’s directly contradicting himself, by the way, the USA did amazing when it was a political and economic federation
Wonderful extract from Thiriart's work! However, I find myself agreeing only half-way, as it were, with Jean Thiriart in some places. Full disclosure: I have not read all of 'Europe: An Empire of 400 Million' (1964), although it's on my list!
Thiriart correctly identifies several of the "brands" of nationalism that we don't want; i.e. petty nationalism that fetishizes shallow cultural differences, or sets up political independence of a tiny region as its sine qua non. Such a mindset only serves to weaken Europe and her people in the face of globalism. Thiriart correctly rejects the fetishization of race as the bedrock of all meaningful organization. All of that is well enough.
And yet, Thiriart leaves us wondering (in this particular passage) what, exactly, "our nationalism" is. Yes, we can say that because of the core racial stock of Slavic, Germanic, and Latin-Mediterranean peoples, Europe is already in a sense "multi-racial," but the danger here is that this phrasing opens the door to other racial groups participating in - or demanding to benefit from - European civilization (Thiriart, who died in 1992, may or may not have foreseen this).
We must be aware of the dangers of continuous megalomaniac thinking and solutions of being united before we “cure” the problem of the toxic leadership in the international institutions like EU, NATO and even UN, WEF and WHO.
This is really a collective psychiatric personality disorder commonly more known as psychopathy.
Before we do accept that this is the core issue of the problems the world has faced for centuries and is facing today , all these problems are not going to go away.
It’s impossible to make a better Europe or a better world without radically accept this fact.
I don’t have any solutions to this enormous problem but maybe someone else has.
Magnificent
A cleverly articulated apology for the EU. With his convoluted and patently anti-nationalist arguments, the author attempts to justify and promote his not-so-subtle support and admiration for one of the worst, most corrupted, most leftist bureaucratic institution ever imposed on the sovereign nations of Europe. The EU should be abolished, not expanded or even made stronger.
On page 26 of the book he introduces a very glaring contradiction with other things he’s written in the book and elsewhere:
“The confederate formula is calculation and ulterior motives; the federal
formula is confusion; the unitarian formula is method, order and clarity.
Only the feudals who fear to lose a portion of their present power reject
centralism.
In the United States, the shrewd legislator tends to systematically
eliminate local laws and substitute them with ‘federal laws’, applicable to
the 50 states which form the federation.”
This is a contradiction because the USA didn’t centralize until between the early 1960s to the early 1980s with some of the most important forms of centralization, those related to the economy, finance, and engineering being very concentrated in the latter 1970s and mid 1980s, but he himself has expressed the view that the US took a disastrous turn when it moved into the system that it has now, so he’s directly contradicting himself, by the way, the USA did amazing when it was a political and economic federation
This is globalism itself!
Yeah, he's writing on behalf of the same forces that have illegitimately been in charge for decades now, thats why he's rails out assertions of the need for very deep centralization without really substantively arguing for it, while in some cases contradicting himself by doing so. Take for example, on page 26 of the book where he introduces a very glaring contradiction with other things he’s written in the book and elsewhere:
“The confederate formula is calculation and ulterior motives; the federal
formula is confusion; the unitarian formula is method, order and clarity.
Only the feudals who fear to lose a portion of their present power reject
centralism.
In the United States, the shrewd legislator tends to systematically
eliminate local laws and substitute them with ‘federal laws’, applicable to
the 50 states which form the federation.”
This is a contradiction because the USA didn’t centralize until between the early 1960s to the early 1980s with some of the most important forms of centralization, those related to the economy, finance, and engineering being very concentrated in the latter 1970s and mid 1980s, but he himself has expressed the view that the US took a disastrous turn when it moved into the system that it has now, so he’s directly contradicting himself, by the way, the USA did amazing when it was a political and economic federation
Beautiful. Thanks for sharing.
NORDLANDIA Est Patria Nostra... From Bruges in Flanders to Novgorod in Russia !
Working for the First Hanseatic Empire with the Help of Church of Gotland, Socilogic Religion for Traditions. More explanations on www.Nordlandia.nl
Really interesting.
Bought the book just now.