Fascism is nationalism on steroids, amphetamines, and bath salts - muscular, energetic, and it’ll eat your face off. Wrong Speak Publishing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Extreme nationalism doesn’t really come into existence except as response to an attack of the kind that came from the left during that era when, as you correctly pointed out, it became “hip” to denigrate one’s own country. As the denigration evolved to open hatred and scorn, the need to defend became greater along with an increased appreciation of exactly what was being defended. Symbols of the nation, particularly the flag, became invested with greater power than during more normal times when we hang the flag outside on July 4.
In ordinary times, nationalism takes the form of a comfortable and ever present affection for one’s own place and culture. It’s similar to the love of family in that it doesn’t demand perfection; we love it because it’s ours. Occasionally, say on the fourth of July, we think more deeply about it and celebrate our feelings in public. But for most of the time, it’s not a showy thing, not something we constantly proudly proclaim. It’s the comfortable background within which we live our lives. When that is attacked there is an inevitable response that is likely to be proportional to the cause of it.
“In fascist states, the physical land, the actual geography, of the country is thought to be sacred, magical, and often viewed as bequeathed by God to an elected people.”
I disagree that this is a characteristic of fascism; I believe it’s man’s natural state. It’s something we see in pre-industrial cultures where there is still a close connection to the land. If one believes in a God, then it follows that He caused you to be born where you were, and it’s not illogical to see that as God having bequeathed that land to you and yours. The sense of the land as sacred and magical is the natural condition of people who live closely with it, and it’s not dependent on patriotism or particularly connected to it or to any political stance. Disconnection from the land in the industrialized world, the sense that land is just something to be used, is part of the desacralisation of the world that has allowed us to dump chemicals into the water and spray our crops with poison. Why not? It’s just dirt.
Our country is, at present, under attack from without but, more importantly, from within. That attack comes, in this instance, from the left. The middle and the right have shown a range of response, from loud and, I think, understandable displays of patriotism to a kind of astonished paralysis in the face of a hatred that frequently comes from the most privileged - those who have benefited most from the freedoms available to us.
The pendulum, once set in motion, always swings as far as is needed to bring a return to balance and to normal life. Those who set it in motion rarely think of the inevitable consequences. I hope our country will survive them.
Really interesting piece. I think the rise of “hatriotism” can also be attributed to the the macro historical moment we are in. I see two main elements:
1. We have more access to information and more access to speech than at any time in known history.
2. We are trying to change the way societies and nations are formed by moving away from an ethnocentric state.
The American project was never going to be easy, as you can’t just flip the switch on thousands of generations of tribalism. We are still in the process of it. Putting a pulpit in everyone’s pockets and gluing our eyeballs to others opinions for every waking hour puts past “mistakes” under a microscope, and makes everyone very sensitive about everything.
Hatriotism, it seems to me, is as much a natural outgrowth of this moment in time as it is the flip side of the fascist coin. The solution, I believe, is to engage the hatriots not with more hate, but with empathy and optimism.
Like it or not, we are all building the next world together. Maybe we can give future generations less to get hatriotic about.
The Michael Brown incident didn't start CRT. It was already there just hidden with fuzzy warm warm-sounding words. As a side note, I grew up near the area where Michael Brown was shot. I was shocked at how fast it became militarized with the police response and all the demonstrators. That area of St. Louis was in the world news again. The girl who was beaten by a classmate to the point of a coma occurred a couple of miles from the Brown incident.
I agree (I wrote the piece) - I think the Brown incident amplified the core messages of the movement to a wider audience. It was like the gist of CRT that spread.
Sorry, I knew that was the context of your piece and should have indicated this. It was certainly a watershed moment used to justify CRT in every space, but it was waiting in the wings for just the right time. I have listened to James Lindsay's Discourse series on where the social justice movement/activist originated in Brazil under educator Paulo Freire. You can appreciate Freire seeking to empower the poor illiterate in Brazil. And I can certainly appreciate the appeal of socialism to W.E.B. Dubois and others. When you have been spat upon for so long under a system, promises elsewhere seem golden. However, transporting Freire's theories and other Marxist ideologies to a first-world country has been divisive because it has been adopted by those who are on top of the pecking order. Thus, it is a tool to make some people a lot of money and centralize power while demoralizing everyone else. And worse, it doesn't fix the problem of fatherless homes. Your post got me thinking about the bad kids growing up in that area—the ones who stole cars and burglarized. There weren't fathers in the home, which looking back, wasn't the norm of an area with both middle and lower classes living together.
It's my opinion that the democrat party has accomplished probably one of the most unimaginable objectives in world history: a most masterful conquest to revise US History, their own image and history as a party through grand deception and endless lies to their own supporters and the world. I've linked to an article in Smithsonian which is a most accurate historical review. Using this as a baseline for who REALLY is who, it should be quite simple to use reason and logic as gauges regarding the veracity of this and many countless other articles, reports, reviews, etc. To be frank, I believe the democrat party has victimized its own supporters, the opposing party and the world over. I hope that message can be detected throughout this writing here.
I find it strange how over time there tends to be this need to shift and redefine certain words - even create new terms to denigrate people by. Of course, along with this need to redefine words come historical revisions. For example, the term 'nationalism'. In its purest sense and intended meaning, nationalism is nothing more than a love of country and fellow citizenry and a desire to prioritize nation first. Everyone on earth should be nationalists. Everyone should be proud of their country and where they come from. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. I do agree that it is acceptable to look down upon certain historical events. We shouldn't stand proud of absolutely everything that made us, the USA, what we are today. And I think that it's critical that historically accurate context be applied to whatever the subject matter is. The bottom line with regard to history is that: we cannot attempt to squeeze events that occurred a century ago or more into modern day parameters, there absolutely were bad people in history, there were very bad decisions made and absolutely horrid human rights abuses. I believe that the following article from Smithsonian really captures the spirit of what I'm speaking to:
If only I had a nickel for every writing that turned out to be a subtle denigrating of the political right and Republicans, while providing neither context nor historical support, which, if provided, would completely undercut and prove the author to be uninformed at the least, a liar at most. Sadly, we have been pushed into a position in which speaking truth has become verboten. Almost without exception, only propaganda and completely dishonest information will be accepted in mainstream conversations. Speak truth, be censored. I am all too familiar with it.
Another spin off of this tarnishing of the meaning of 'nationalism' has arisen over the past two years: Christian nationalism. Ok, so someone who is a follower of Christ and also loves their nation. It just resonates so much differently when the concept is defined. Truth be known, no one who follows Christ and loves their nation is the least bit moved by this new concept, in fact, I believe we're all quite pleased to have such a stance in life. But, I assume, to the political left, this has some other slanderous meaning than how it correctly reads. Of course, this is no surprise coming from the left considering their desire to have legalized abortion post-birth (no, that's not a typo), approval for children to have themselves surgically mutilated in the unattainable search for sex changes which are not possible and support of pedophilia given their silence as in the state of Colorado where every democrat rejected more harsh legal repercussions for adults who sexually violate children. Quite honestly, it's my opinion that the democrat party has been fully commandeered by the CCP. I do want to clarify that these different initiatives are sought by the DC political elite democrats, not necessarily the democrat base. I just think that the democrat base fails to see these things amongst their chosen leaders.
I believe that our best days are ahead. It thrills me to see black America waking up to the truths and realities of what the democrat party has done to them - and all with their own support (very similar to how all of our tax dollars are funding the overrunning of the nation from our south border). In the end, I hope that it is understood that the democrat party sought to murder all of us, black, white Republicans. This has never changed. And were they to clean us out, their most staunch supporters would be next - yet they haven't a clue
Extreme nationalism doesn’t really come into existence except as response to an attack of the kind that came from the left during that era when, as you correctly pointed out, it became “hip” to denigrate one’s own country. As the denigration evolved to open hatred and scorn, the need to defend became greater along with an increased appreciation of exactly what was being defended. Symbols of the nation, particularly the flag, became invested with greater power than during more normal times when we hang the flag outside on July 4.
In ordinary times, nationalism takes the form of a comfortable and ever present affection for one’s own place and culture. It’s similar to the love of family in that it doesn’t demand perfection; we love it because it’s ours. Occasionally, say on the fourth of July, we think more deeply about it and celebrate our feelings in public. But for most of the time, it’s not a showy thing, not something we constantly proudly proclaim. It’s the comfortable background within which we live our lives. When that is attacked there is an inevitable response that is likely to be proportional to the cause of it.
“In fascist states, the physical land, the actual geography, of the country is thought to be sacred, magical, and often viewed as bequeathed by God to an elected people.”
I disagree that this is a characteristic of fascism; I believe it’s man’s natural state. It’s something we see in pre-industrial cultures where there is still a close connection to the land. If one believes in a God, then it follows that He caused you to be born where you were, and it’s not illogical to see that as God having bequeathed that land to you and yours. The sense of the land as sacred and magical is the natural condition of people who live closely with it, and it’s not dependent on patriotism or particularly connected to it or to any political stance. Disconnection from the land in the industrialized world, the sense that land is just something to be used, is part of the desacralisation of the world that has allowed us to dump chemicals into the water and spray our crops with poison. Why not? It’s just dirt.
Our country is, at present, under attack from without but, more importantly, from within. That attack comes, in this instance, from the left. The middle and the right have shown a range of response, from loud and, I think, understandable displays of patriotism to a kind of astonished paralysis in the face of a hatred that frequently comes from the most privileged - those who have benefited most from the freedoms available to us.
The pendulum, once set in motion, always swings as far as is needed to bring a return to balance and to normal life. Those who set it in motion rarely think of the inevitable consequences. I hope our country will survive them.
Well said
Well said, Dillon, well said. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Really interesting piece. I think the rise of “hatriotism” can also be attributed to the the macro historical moment we are in. I see two main elements:
1. We have more access to information and more access to speech than at any time in known history.
2. We are trying to change the way societies and nations are formed by moving away from an ethnocentric state.
The American project was never going to be easy, as you can’t just flip the switch on thousands of generations of tribalism. We are still in the process of it. Putting a pulpit in everyone’s pockets and gluing our eyeballs to others opinions for every waking hour puts past “mistakes” under a microscope, and makes everyone very sensitive about everything.
Hatriotism, it seems to me, is as much a natural outgrowth of this moment in time as it is the flip side of the fascist coin. The solution, I believe, is to engage the hatriots not with more hate, but with empathy and optimism.
Like it or not, we are all building the next world together. Maybe we can give future generations less to get hatriotic about.
Great piece, Dillon.
Yet another example of how the +/-15% of opposite extremes are controlling the narrative of the 85% of rational people who exist in the middle.
Some other places I've pointed this out:
https://www.wrongspeakpublishing.com/p/why-patriotism-matters?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
smashwords.com/books/view/1184004
...and just about every other article I've written at Wrong Speak and/or Substack.
Thanks for sharing, ZL
What an absolutely great article. And the word Hatriotisim, best sums up many a college campus or universities through out the west.
The Michael Brown incident didn't start CRT. It was already there just hidden with fuzzy warm warm-sounding words. As a side note, I grew up near the area where Michael Brown was shot. I was shocked at how fast it became militarized with the police response and all the demonstrators. That area of St. Louis was in the world news again. The girl who was beaten by a classmate to the point of a coma occurred a couple of miles from the Brown incident.
I agree (I wrote the piece) - I think the Brown incident amplified the core messages of the movement to a wider audience. It was like the gist of CRT that spread.
Sorry, I knew that was the context of your piece and should have indicated this. It was certainly a watershed moment used to justify CRT in every space, but it was waiting in the wings for just the right time. I have listened to James Lindsay's Discourse series on where the social justice movement/activist originated in Brazil under educator Paulo Freire. You can appreciate Freire seeking to empower the poor illiterate in Brazil. And I can certainly appreciate the appeal of socialism to W.E.B. Dubois and others. When you have been spat upon for so long under a system, promises elsewhere seem golden. However, transporting Freire's theories and other Marxist ideologies to a first-world country has been divisive because it has been adopted by those who are on top of the pecking order. Thus, it is a tool to make some people a lot of money and centralize power while demoralizing everyone else. And worse, it doesn't fix the problem of fatherless homes. Your post got me thinking about the bad kids growing up in that area—the ones who stole cars and burglarized. There weren't fathers in the home, which looking back, wasn't the norm of an area with both middle and lower classes living together.
It's my opinion that the democrat party has accomplished probably one of the most unimaginable objectives in world history: a most masterful conquest to revise US History, their own image and history as a party through grand deception and endless lies to their own supporters and the world. I've linked to an article in Smithsonian which is a most accurate historical review. Using this as a baseline for who REALLY is who, it should be quite simple to use reason and logic as gauges regarding the veracity of this and many countless other articles, reports, reviews, etc. To be frank, I believe the democrat party has victimized its own supporters, the opposing party and the world over. I hope that message can be detected throughout this writing here.
I find it strange how over time there tends to be this need to shift and redefine certain words - even create new terms to denigrate people by. Of course, along with this need to redefine words come historical revisions. For example, the term 'nationalism'. In its purest sense and intended meaning, nationalism is nothing more than a love of country and fellow citizenry and a desire to prioritize nation first. Everyone on earth should be nationalists. Everyone should be proud of their country and where they come from. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. I do agree that it is acceptable to look down upon certain historical events. We shouldn't stand proud of absolutely everything that made us, the USA, what we are today. And I think that it's critical that historically accurate context be applied to whatever the subject matter is. The bottom line with regard to history is that: we cannot attempt to squeeze events that occurred a century ago or more into modern day parameters, there absolutely were bad people in history, there were very bad decisions made and absolutely horrid human rights abuses. I believe that the following article from Smithsonian really captures the spirit of what I'm speaking to:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/story-deadliest-massacre-reconstruction-era-louisiana-180970420/
If only I had a nickel for every writing that turned out to be a subtle denigrating of the political right and Republicans, while providing neither context nor historical support, which, if provided, would completely undercut and prove the author to be uninformed at the least, a liar at most. Sadly, we have been pushed into a position in which speaking truth has become verboten. Almost without exception, only propaganda and completely dishonest information will be accepted in mainstream conversations. Speak truth, be censored. I am all too familiar with it.
Another spin off of this tarnishing of the meaning of 'nationalism' has arisen over the past two years: Christian nationalism. Ok, so someone who is a follower of Christ and also loves their nation. It just resonates so much differently when the concept is defined. Truth be known, no one who follows Christ and loves their nation is the least bit moved by this new concept, in fact, I believe we're all quite pleased to have such a stance in life. But, I assume, to the political left, this has some other slanderous meaning than how it correctly reads. Of course, this is no surprise coming from the left considering their desire to have legalized abortion post-birth (no, that's not a typo), approval for children to have themselves surgically mutilated in the unattainable search for sex changes which are not possible and support of pedophilia given their silence as in the state of Colorado where every democrat rejected more harsh legal repercussions for adults who sexually violate children. Quite honestly, it's my opinion that the democrat party has been fully commandeered by the CCP. I do want to clarify that these different initiatives are sought by the DC political elite democrats, not necessarily the democrat base. I just think that the democrat base fails to see these things amongst their chosen leaders.
I believe that our best days are ahead. It thrills me to see black America waking up to the truths and realities of what the democrat party has done to them - and all with their own support (very similar to how all of our tax dollars are funding the overrunning of the nation from our south border). In the end, I hope that it is understood that the democrat party sought to murder all of us, black, white Republicans. This has never changed. And were they to clean us out, their most staunch supporters would be next - yet they haven't a clue