[Rei Murasame]

Has some form of palingenesis become an unavoidable implication of holding any Real Right ideology at this point? In other words, do we all now exhibit signs of wanting palingenesis, simply because regardless of whether we state it outright or not, national rebirth is required because the present circumstances have become so dire?

I'm aware that of course there is a difference between merely advocating for restorative nationalism retro-fitted for this era, and actually calling for palingenesis, so to put it another way, what I'm asking is if it's reached the point where those two things now are starting to overlap and become indistinguishable.

Is society so broken that 'fixing' and 'rebirthing' are now the same thing?

[Ombrageux]

Yes, I believe the Apotheosis of Sarah Palin and the end of the Great North American Republic are inevitable.

Oh, wait..

[Preston Cole]

A society can fall into degradation to the point where traditional national values (either the nation's heroes and history are being undermined by parliamentary corruption, or its native population is slowly being infiltrated by non-ethnics to death, or its values are suffocated by consumerist capitalism, etc.) become barely audible in the chaotic buzz of liberal free-travel and multiculturalism. That's also the point where the government and the state ceases to serve its citizens, and vice versa. That's the point where society needs fixing.

So, yes, I believe that national cultures have been and are being downgraded in favor of world capitalism, and that "fixing" will automatically require "rebirth," as nations can only be reborn by looking into the past and reaching into the future. One other way to fix your nation in today's modern setting, is by out-modernizing competing nations--in other words, rejecting the modernist trends of other countries and creating your own modernist nationalism (own architecture, own aesthetics based on past glory, and own mentality). I believe palingenesis and modernism can go hand in hand--indeed, the only way palingenesis can have any effect in a progressive society is by moving forward, while looking backward merely for inspiration.

[starman2003]

...rejecting the modernist trends of other countries and creating your own modernist nationalism (own architecture..own mentality).

National cultures are, or will be, too far gone for that. It's not just capitalism, but technology, communications and the need for international cooperation that makes that passe. The best inspiration from the past are the great unifiers or empire builders.

[Figlio di Moros]

Rei, at this stage of liberal degeneracy, Palingenesis is the only means of "fixing" the nation. It would seem to be the difference of having a hangover, and having cancer. The former can ge cured w/ asprin, water, and sleep; the latter could only be "cured" in the sense of a full rebirth.

[starman2003]

Basically, palingenesis is no solution. Some elements of the past are worthy of revival; I concur with Mussolini that the Roman Empire is a good model. But the world has changed too much and irrevocably for this approach; inevitably the emphasis must be on devising something new, for nothing in the past quite fits the world of today.

..the latter can only be "cured" in the sense of a full rebirth.

What is needed is a "full rebirth" in the sense of a new system, and diametrically different from what we have now. While much of the mess is due to liberals, conservatives aren't much better. Both stress individual "freedom" and democracy. Conservatives favor even worse bs like religion. The US needs secular authoritarianism.

[Preston Cole]

But the world has changed too much and irrevocably for this approach; inevitably the emphasis must be on devising something new, for nothing in the past quite fits the world of today.

And that's exactly what we need. Something new. I disagree that national cultures are too backward for a modern authoritarian/totalitarian system, because such a system, compared to its global foe, isn't based purely on materialism, but on common values, nationalism and identity. Therefore, the communitarian sentiment would be far more powerful in a modern nation than in a modern globe.

Incidentally, I know you're a staunch promoter of international authoritarianism, starman, but what are the values an international modernist system would rely on beyond materialism and technology?

[starman2003]

And that's exactly what we need. Something new.

Meaning a new secular ideology. Cultures and nationalism are hardly new. And there's virtually nothing in the traditional American culture, or past/present, worth preserving.

I disagree that national cultures are too backward for a modern authoritarianian/totalitarianism system, because such a system, compared to its global foe, isn't based purely on materialism, but on common values..

But a global system can be similarly based. Look at the communists. Their ideology/system wasn't for a single nation; in theory it was for the whole world.

..the communitarian sentiment would be far more powerful in a modern nation than in a modern globe.

Not necessarily, or not in the future, if immigration, miscegenation, mass communication, and a sense of common global (economic, environmental and space) challenges break down current divisions or parochial viewpoints and draw people together everywhere.

...what are the values an international modernist system would rely on beyond materialism and technology?

First of all, if by materialism you mean self aggrandizement, that emphatically wouldn't be among the values a global authoritarianism/wholism would have. It would see Man and his civilization as the answer and the peak of universal progress, at least here. Utilizing the resources and talents of an entire, unified globe, it would strive for the grandest possible accomplishment on Earth and in space. Like overcoming environmental problems, and accessing the resources of other worlds. To ensure effective leadership capable of undertaking and sustaining great progress, society would be hierarchical and meritocratic.

[Ash Faulkner]

It's worth pointing out to you fascists that nationalism and liberalism emerged together. Liberals saw nationalism as a tool to break down the 'organic' feudal structures and replace them with a unitary state, with nothing between the individual and the national centre. I really think starman is correct on this: nationalism is a phenomenon of history. It will pass (I think into civilizationalism first), and you are fighting a losing battle if you want to revert to the statecraft of the 1900s.

[Preston Cole]

It's worth pointing out to you fascists that nationalism and liberalism emerged together. Liberals saw nationalism as a tool to break down the 'organic' feudal structures and replace them with a unitary state, with nothing between the individual and the national centre.

Indeed. But there is nothing left of liberal nationalism today, is there? You could count National Liberalism as its continuation, but only as far as its title goes, as National Liberalism was a German economic conception that implemented liberalism in the economic sphere and authoritarianism in the governmental system. The hack ideology that calls itself "liberal nationalism" and is propped by the likes of Saakhashvilli has as much to do with nationalism as a fresh immigrant has to do with the hosting nation's culture. Nationalism cannot survive alongside a liberal accompany, because,

1) Liberalism overrides the nationalistic prerogative of "organ/whole/society first" and "individual second."
2) Liberalism takes advantage of the human's most destructive instinct: unrestrained self-gratification.

After a certain point, nationalism becomes irrelevant in a liberal society, because its social system and economics either create a drastic inequality between the rich and the poor (thereby giving aid to socialism); its individuals are in constant pursuit of self-aggrandizement due to a government that fails to hold on to traditions and national values and, instead, promotes individual liberty; or it allows massive immigration for capitalistic purposes. The list could go on.

I really think starman is correct on this: nationalism is a phenomenon of history. It will pass (I think into civilizationalism first), and you are fighting a losing battle if you want to revert to the statecraft of the 1900s.

That's not the point. "Civilizationalism" is impossible, and look at true Marxist theory for confirmation. All Marxist-Leninist states ended up being nationalist. Internationalist tenets were kept for simply ideological reasons in order to fight the so-called "bourgeois opium" of reactionary nationalism. The most extreme communist states (which would reasonably imply they were extreme in the sense of pursuing an internationalist program, as their philosophy entails) embraced nationalism fully: Albania, Romania, China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia.

Again, what will this globalism consist of? You'll be asking everyone to just tolerate each other despite historical antipathies and historical borders.

[starman2003]

It will pass (I think into civilizationalism first)

I do think a future American authoritarianism must and will be nationalistic. There's no other way to gain enough support. But I consider nationalism just a tool, like in the past, to attain much higher goals. Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon etc represented certain nations and made use of national feelings, but the goal was political unity, encompassing many regions and peoples. The US must be the ultimate hegemon of this kind. Unparalleled geopolitical reach combined with our racial/ethnic mix made us particularly well suited. Of course the nazis and communists remained strongly nationalistic, because they neither lasted long enough nor got far enough to see their original nationalism subsumed by a broader Empire-wide identity, as in the Roman Empire (or the US, where many different groups consider themselves Americans first). Yes, nationalism is on the way out, because there's finally an ultimate hegemon on the horizon, and because it's an anachronistic impediment. There should be a global authority to tackle problems which affect the whole planet.

[Ombrageux]

There ought to be a global authority to tackle global problems (climate change, terrorism, economic inequality and instability), but it most assuredly should not be under any American hegemon. On all these problems the United States of America is more a source of the problem - sometimes the fundamental source - rather than a part of the solution.

[Figlio di Moros]

Compared to China or the third world, who'd otherwise have a hand in the "solution"? No nation's serious about the environment, but urban Europe likes to play the "enviro-friendly" card while remaining so densely populated...

[starman2003]

There ought to be a global authority to tackle problems (climate change, terrorism, economic inequality and instability), but it most assuredly should not be under any American hegemon. On all these problems the United States of America is more a source of the problem - sometimes the fundamental source - rather than a part of the solution.

That may be true of the current US system but I envisage a wholly different future US playing this role. If we're part of the problem now, it's because of democracy, which has messed up everything from our economy to our foreign policy. But a true hegemon can hardly be democratic--not any more than Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon etc were. The US will have to be radically transformed--in a sense turned upside down, internally--before it can be a solution for the world.

[Ombrageux]

Compared to China or the third world, who'd otherwise have a hand in the "solution"? No nation's serious about the environment, but urban Europe likes to play the "enviro-friendly" card while remaining so densely populated...

What does that even mean?
1) Europeans emit about 2 times less per capita than Americans.
2) Europeans can't help having a small continent although, if it is any help, they are having very few children and their number is likely to diminish in time.
3) It isn't "either/or" in regard to U.S. hegemony. Ultimately more power to the trading nations and civilian powers - the Europeans broadly, the Germans and Japanese in particular - would be best.

[Figlio di Moros]

You emit less because you're more urbanized; when you factor out suburban travel and public transportation, how much are you left w/? How much conservation land do you have overall? It's easy to point to one statistic, but we also need to understand basic circumstance and other relevent factors.

[ThereBeDragons]

Suburban sprawl and public transportation are explicitly national choices. You might as well say that the US only consumes a lot of gasoline because people like to drive SUVs, so it doesn't count.

You could argue that population density is also a national choice, but for the present, public investment, urban planning, and property tax law are considered more acceptable tools of government that population control. And national policy can override mere demographic facts - thirty percent of the United States, with a population density of 32 / km2, is forested. This figure is sixty percent for Japan, with its population density of 336 / km2.

[Figlio di Moros]

US- 83 people/ sq. mile (32/km^2)
European Union- 112/km^2

National choice, to an extent. The fact Europe's population density's 3.5x ours does guide your "choice" a bit more; correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Paris limit the height of buildings, maintaining low-rise buildings? How many European cities consist of low-rises?

[ThereBeDragons]

It may make saving energy more convenient because it's more difficult to build big country houses or sprawling suburbs when you don't have as much land, but it's still a choice. It's somewhat unreasonable to argue that having more land is somehow a national handicap. Per my Japanese example, you would expect extreme population density to mean that the Japanese have a great incentive to exploit all of available land, but somehow the manage to retain a greater proportion of woodland.

National choice, to an extent. The fact Europe's population density's 3.5x ours does guide your "choice" a bit more; correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Paris limit the height of buildings, maintaining low-rise buildings? How many European cities consist of low-rises?

I believe it's common for cities of cultural or historical interest to maintain low-rise centers, but AFAIK Paris is ringed by tower blocks.

[Figlio di Moros]

I never said it's a "handicap", we have a great standard of living in this country. What I said was we have less incentive for excellent urban planning, and less demand when sprawling suburban landscapes are so easy and cheap to create/comeby comparatively.

Really, though, to say the Europeans have the same choice as Americans isn't true; you don't have much choice for suburbs, and therefor have more demand for public transportation. America does have the choice, and we seem to make the wrong social decision because we can more affordably live in a house w/ a lawn, pool, and 3x the living house.

In reality, it's a symptom of liberal-capitalism; it shows a breakdown in understanding and concern for the consequences. However, America's hardly alone in this breakdown of civic virtue, judging by the riots across Europe in the last several months.