As appealing as she is as an activist, Candace Owens is no clear thinker. She certainly manages to confuse with her default definition of nationalism vis-a-vis the Trump Revolution. The setting: Some moronic, white-nationalism Congressional hearings. There, Owens roughly asserted that “Hitler killed his own people hence he was not a nationalist,” which is a non sequitur. Ms. Owens here is proceeding from the asserted premise—for she doesn’t argue it—that nationalists do not “kill their own people.” This may be true (but would further depend on definitions; what is meant by “own people”), although I very much doubt it. Nevertheless, it appears that Owens’ thought process is something like,
“I like nationalism [check], and, therefore, Hitler, whom I most certainly don’t like, and who was a monster, could not have been a nationalist.”
Consider: Like all Republicans, Owens, no doubt, adores Lincoln. But would she call Honest Abe a nationalist? Why not? I mean, nationalism is a good thing and Abe, say Republicans like Owens, was a good guy.
Well, there is the pesky fact of Lincoln having killed “his own people” … hmmm. By Owens’ seemingly dogmatic definition of nationalism (not killing your own people), Lincoln, at least, does not qualify as a nationalist. Just so we’re clear.
What preceded Owens’ odd assertion above was an even stranger comment, again, about Hitler. (This was at the same moronic, white-nationalism Congressional hearings.)
“If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well — OK, fine,” she says. “The problem is … he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German.” The problem with Hitler? Heavens! Where does one start? It was not that he was a “globalist.” (Is that the kind of “globalist” George Soros Citizen of The World is, Candace?) How about that Hitler is synonymous with conquest, subjugation, slavery and industrialized mass murder in the service of world hegemony, which, he truly believed, would make Germany indisputably the greatest power?
The presumed successor of the medieval and early modern Holy Roman Empire of 800 to 1806 (the First Reich) and the German Empire of 1871 to 1918 (the Second Reich)
2 Comments
Robert M. Peters
4/23/2019 11:58:50 am
When the Nazis used the term - The Third Reich - it was something much more metaphysical than merely being that Reich after the Holy Roman Empire and the Wilhelm's Reich. For the Nazis the term referred to Joachim of Fiore's Age of the Father, Age of the Son and Age of the Holy Spirit, the last one being the millennial age. In addition, the term Reich, and the abstractions associated with it, did not cease to exist between that of the Holy Roman Empire, Wilhelm's Reich and Hitler's Reich. Although the allies, including the Soviet Union, dissolved the Prussian state and well as the German state in 1945, they nevertheless left the concept of Reich on the table; for were there ever to be a peace treaty with Germany ending WWII, it would be with the Reich and not with the current German government. That is written into the protocols. Willie Brandt, when he negotiated the Oder-Neiße as the border between Germany and Poland, emphasized that he was doing so only behalf of the caretaker government in Bonn. He stated that the ultimate determination of that border would have to be between the Polish State and the German Reich were their ever a peace treaty.
Robert M. Peters
4/23/2019 02:22:06 pm
Nationalism was merely the first stalking horse of the Hobbesian state. It was in the name of nationalism that by means of war Bismark began the process of sweeping away the last vestiges of the pre-modern order in German culture and replacing it with a centralized state; that Garibaldi in Italy did the same and that Lincoln in America did the same. The course which Bismark set in Germany would end in Hitler; the course that Garibaldi set in Italy would end in Mussolini; the course that Lincoln set in America would end in Roosevelt. The Hobbesian state has simply now outgrown its nationalist skin. Like the serpent, it is molting and exposing its new and shiny globalist. Nationalism is not the antithesis of globalism. It is simply one stage in the evolution of the Hobbesian state. That which stands opposite the Hobbesian state is the pre-modern order of a transcendent metaphysics, hierarchy (holy order not pecking order) and subsidiarity, in short an environment in which patriotism can flourish - that which the fathers love: home and hearth, kith and kin, church and God. Leave a Reply. |
