Ignatieff’s lesson from the crypt One interesting result in the Canadian election was the victory of Michael Ignatieff, a Harvard academic who has written widely on the issue of nationalism. Ignatieff set out his views on nationalism in his book Blood and Belonging, published in 1993. In this work Ignatieff explains that whilst he himself is a cosmopolitan, he nonetheless supports a civic nationalism. Why a civic nationalism? Ignatieff is a liberal. As such, he believes that individuals should be self-defined. Therefore he rejects ethnic nationalism (in which national identity is based on a common ancestry, culture, language and so on) because,
The kind of nationalism preferred by Ignatieff is the “official” one operating today based on a common citizenship. He believes that it functions within liberal ideals for the following reason:
For traditionalists, the Ignatieff view seems radical. It spells the end of the European ethnies, as it opens up membership of a nation to anyone who can obtain citizenship. It allows no principled basis for maintaining the distinct European peoples and cultures. However, the unfortunate fact is that Ignatieff is actually at the more conservative end of the liberal debate on nationalism. Ignatieff still believes in making a distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Many liberals believe that such a distinction is immoral according to liberal principle. And they have a point. After all, it is a myth that most people choose their citizenship any more than they choose their ethny. In other words, most of us are born into membership of a civic nation, just as much as we are into an ethnic identity. Furthermore, civic nations still place restrictions on who may or may not become citizens. This means that civic nations are practising “discrimination”, by excluding some people from certain benefits and impeding what they can choose to become. The more radical position, of rejecting even a civic nationalism, has been explained in a more difficult, academic style by Jeffrey Friedman as follows:
The former Australian Prime Mininster, Paul Keating, supports the radical Friedman view. He has lashed out at civic nationalism, complaining that its “exclusiveness” relies on,
Not all liberals, then, support a civic nationalism. Why does Ignatieff? There are two factors involved in Ignatieff’s answer. The first is straightforward. Ignatieff declares that he is not a nationalist at all, but a cosmopolitan and that cosmopolitans require a strong nation state to enforce social stability and human rights. In his own words,
This is not an illogical argument for a liberal to make, but it’s quite a formal and dry kind of reasoning. There’s a more direct and personal reason given for Ignatieff’s reluctance to totally discard the nation state later in his book when he describes his visit to Ukraine. Ignatieff’s great grandfather was a Russian aristocrat who bought an estate in Ukraine in 1860 when he was the Russian ambassador to Constantinople. The Ignatieffs lost control of the estate in 1917, and they became Russian emigres who settled in Canada. When Michael Ignatieff visited Ukraine after it gained independence from the USSR, he toured the estate once owned by his ancestors and described his experiences as follows,
The priest then shows Ignatieff the crypt in which his aristocratic ancestors are buried and he learns that under the communists it was used as a slaughterhouse. There are cuts made by butchers’ knives in the marble of the tombs. Ignatieff continues,
So Ignatieff is not entirely denatured. As an emigre, he might not respond to the Canadian ethnic identity, nor, given his Russian origins, to the Ukrainian. But he has illustrious ancestors. And in the crypt of these ancestors he feels a connection to a larger identity which it is right to defend. Comments:3
Posted by Alexei on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:37 | # Yes, he’s for gay rights and <a >torture</a> (as the “lesser evil”) and the Iraq war. He would pass for a right-wing Democrat in the US. It is only in his allegedly “anti-Croatian” views that his Russian heritage may be reflected; other than that, he seems very mainstream. You might want to look through his <a >Tanner</a> lecture on human rights for a taste of his thinking. 4
Posted by Andrew on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:43 | # The dead giveaway was in his Education: Harvard. That these days are like stating you came from Berkley. “The Alien Intelligence” 5
Posted by Luniversal on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:47 | # Has he a Jewish bloodline? His reverential biography of that old windbag Isaiah Berlin (Emeritus Professor of the Bleeding Obvious and master of the Fog Factor) implies as much. IIRC Ignatieff was sicked on to Etobicoke, a dismal enough semi-industrial suburb of Toronto when I stood surveying it from the windswept platform of Etobicoke North station over 20 years ago—God knows what it’s like after so many more douches of multiculti. But I’m sure the eyebrow-arching telly pundit and Toronto, citadel of Diversity, deserve each other. I gather too that the Canuck tories have caved in completely to the regnant ideology, for which they were rewarded by not winning any seats in the three largest cities (are you watching, David Cameron?), so in practice nothing that matters will change in the land of the withering maple leaf except that Harper will suck up to the Great Satan a little more avidly. 6
Posted by Matra on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:16 | # Alexei:
I’m unaware of any anti-Croatian views. In the TV series that went along with Blood and Belonging he seemed as critical of the Serbs. He also supported the NATO attack on Serbia in 1999; not something one would expect from an ethnic Russian. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:29 | #
Different Ignatiev. That one’s Noël (“destroy white-race privilege,” a devious way to call for genocide of white Euros) and this one’s Michael. I don’t remember if they’re related or not. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:56 | #
Phil you’ve got that exactly right, and for the record Steve Sailer has said exactly what you say there, in various different ways and any number of times over the years: it’s not entirely, or even mostly, about winning the non-white vote but about winning some of the votes cast by liberal-leaning white women and so on, votes which very easily could go to the Democrat Party. A lot of this non-white-worship among certain white “demographics” is just a fad, exactly as you say, a kind of stupid, destructive game whereof part of the goal is to see who can appear the most “moral” to other whites playing the same game, by convincing them he loves non-whites, even loves them more than whites. In fact none of them could give two squats about non-whites and wouldn’t give them the time of day were this game-playing not a preoccupation of theirs. The sort of white mentality that plays this game is really a kind of chav mentality, very close to the one discussed in the link you posted satirizing chavs, in the part where they satirize the choices chavs make of names for their kids. Chavs think, for example, that choosing really ridiculous, and in fact low-class first names for their sons and daughters make them appear superior, wealthy, intelligent, or whatever. In exactly the same way these middle-class, semi-educated chavs think they dazzle other white middle-class-semi-educated chavs of their ilk by their utterly phoney demonstrations of non-white-worship, believing it makes them seem oh so moral, elevated, educated—oh-so unlike the nasty rednecks, in other words. They’re assholes, is all they are. Complete assholes. I vastly prefer rednecks, myself. 9
Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:18 | # Fred, Svy’s point, I think, was to follow Michael Ignatiev’s and Jeffrey Friedman’s liberal positions to a logical end point: that if unchosen forms of identity and “privilege” are illegitimate, then so too is any privilege and identity accruing from being human, rather than non-human, as this too is unchosen and therefore “arbitrary”. In fact, there are some liberals who have already taken this line, among them Professor Peter Singer. I wonder too if it helps to explain the typical reaction in Australia when someone is killed by a shark, which is nearly always to feel sympathy for the shark whose space is being trespassed upon. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:31 | # The advantage the left has always, always had over Harper/Cameron-style copycattery is that it can analyse, critique and philosophise anew. It can re-target the liberal schwerpunkt on new oppressions. The process is never-ending AND IS ACTUALLY GENERATED, IN PART, TO CREATE POLITICAL DISTINCTIVENESS AND SPACE. If Conservatives would just stand still and be true to themselves the left’s peripetetics would cease, new ideas with the capacity to refresh would scarcely arise and left politics would stultify. This takes the courage of Conservative conviction, of course. In the end, the right wins or loses according to its moral fibre. Does Cameron look like a man of moral fibre? Does Harper? Win or lose, all they will wind up doing is revitalising the left’s drive for new political goals. 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:34 | # Phil, the young-white-women vote bestowed on the Tories will be the kiss of death, because to get it they have to jump through all the clueless society-destroying, nation-destroying radical left-wing hoops. Where women are concerned, what you want to strive for is the vote of wives( * ), not of young women. The Tories go after the latter and they sign their own death warrant. Nothing in this life is more certain. ( * That’s married wives, not divorcées. And it’s also preferably mothers, not upwardly-mobile barren childless foolish mannish female yuppie “wives” married to quasi-“male” eunuchoids who cheat on them four nights a week, who know it and don’t even care because they can’t be bothered with men or marriage, not to mention kids, only with their idiotic “career.” We’re talking about the Tories needing to get the real, honest-to-goodness, genuine wives on their side, the genuine article—more precious than silver and gold, by the way, to any man lucky enough to find a woman who qualifies for the appelation: wife. Where women are concerned, that’s what the Tories want to attract.) 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:39 | # Mark, thanks for that explanation of Svy’s point—I hadn’t thought of it, and I think you’re right. 13
Posted by Voice on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:17 | # Fred I just emailed that to my wife as it is a classic. I have saved quite of few of your very perceptive descriptions of women Classic stuff..keep it up! 14
Posted by Voice on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:06 | # Fred You are correct. I do have it all. She is certified Mensa with 155 IQ , feminine, beautiful and a wonderful mother. I respect all that she stands for. BTW, I knew you appreciated real women, but had the same disdain that I have for the politicised, masculine power hungry intellectual adolescent “women.” 15
Posted by Amalek on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:37 | # I don’t know if Ignatieff has Jewish blood, but judging by this contribution to The Observer in 2002, he’s no suckup to ZOG, even if his demand that Bush send GIs in to evict settlers is a mite unrealistic. His proposals sound topical today:
“The Saudi offer of eventual recognition for Israel in return for a state in Palestine is an opportunity that must not be lost. The only way to seize the opportunity is to impose a two-state solution now, before the extremists succeed in removing it from the realm of 16
Posted by Troll Watch on Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:29 | # William / Luniversal / Amalek / Effra Why do you change moniker mid-thread? How long until we see: albion4ever et al? 17
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 28 Jan 2006 03:31 | # I thought Effra had stormed off in a huff ages ago, but I see something familiar in the style. 18
Posted by Matra on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 07:35 | # For those of you who are fascinated by Canadian politics Misha Ignatieff is now the favourite to lead the Liberal Party - “the natural governing party” of Canada. The son of White Russian emigres has called for a massive increase in immigration to Canada. Yet here’s what Ignatieff wrote in 2001:
19
Posted by Igor Alexander on Fri, 18 May 2007 21:30 | # “These things are governed by fashion and fads. Multiculturalism is a fad. It is supposed to be ‘cool’. Being anti-Multicultural is being ‘uncool’.” And who sets these fads? Or do they just develop spontaneously, kinda like how an 11-year-old white girl watching Murray Rothstein’s MTV “spontaneously” decides that it’s “cool” to have sex with black boys? 20
Posted by Igor Alexander on Sat, 19 May 2007 03:08 | # “Yet here’s what Ignatieff wrote in 2001: “The hate stops here ... “... We are a political community that has outlawed the practise and advocacy of violence as an instrument of political expression. We have outlawed it within, and we need to outlaw it without. “Just as we have laws against racial incitement or the promulgation of ethnic hatred in order to protect our new citizens from bigotry, abuse and violence, so we must have laws for the prosecution of anyone in Canada who aids, abets, encourages or incites acts of terror.” Blah blah blah… more propaganda for the multicult. Ignatieff’s concern is that fresh immigrants might not be assimilating quickly enough into the “cosmopolitan” hodgepodge he wants Canada to become, and that this might spell the end for multiculturalism in Canada. He’s advocating that the federal government use draconian measures to wrap the noose of multiculturalism even tighter around our necks (this is why Ignatieff is in favor of “civic nationalism”; it’s because he understands that without government coercion, the multicultural experiment in Canada will fall apart, and he doesn’t want to see that happen). Though he doesn’t explicitly say so, I bet he’s just as keen to nail white nationalists who might consider using “violence as an instrument of political expression” with these “laws for the prosecution of anyone in Canada who aids, abets, encourages or incites acts of terror” he’s in favor of. Guys like Ignatieff are scared shitless that the white populace might get a clue and reject the left-center-right electoral shell game in a favor of a militant, race-based nationalism. He knows it’s coming, that we’re entering the era of radical racial politics, which is why he wants such laws in place. I’m stunned that some of you here can’t see through this guy’s doubletalk. He condemns “political violence,” yet he’s advocating the state use violence against people who aren’t rootless and “cosmopolitan” enough to his liking. He condemns “oppression,” yet he’s more than ready to oppress people in Canada who are not hip to his multicultural agenda. He’ll be a “nationalist” for as long as it takes to destroy traditional white Canada and make it ripe for the global plantation. This guy isn’t just a “liberal,” he’s a godamn crypto-commie who wants to impose “diversity” and globalism on the rest of us at the point of a gun. Michael Ignatieff, a patriot? Try again! Post a comment:
Next entry: A cartoonist’s guff
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by friedrich braun on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:08 | #
Ignatieff was parachuted into that riding…I’m surprised that he won…additionally, he spent the last thirdy years in the U.S.
He identifies as a Liberal because he supports gay marriage, abortion on demand, etc. He’ll fit right in.