You all have just earned a paid sub for this post (as well as the consistent quality and the Zoom idea - that is an excellent value add).
Loved the article - one thing I would add though, that you hinted at with the comments around EU failure but didn’t quite go full blast.
The fact is that a lot of ethnonationalist appeal (particularly in Europe but some in the US) is because the State Apparatus and the ‘new’ populations are directly and openly hostile the local population.
Additionally, as the Anywhere Elites become more and more diverse, the cognitive dissonance of a local Somewhere being ruled by a “How Did They Get Here?” so to speak is unnerving for many.
A great example of this is the family tree of say, a Rishi Sunak - a lineage who has not stayed in a single country for more than a generation in over 100 years I believe, and a man who is married to a person who seemingly prefers to live somewhere else, in addition to his own heavy US residency ties.
And this man is the most powerful Anywhere Elite in the UK, metaphorically speaking.
But great article and looking forward to your Zoom calls!
Will do - I hope that a full (Amazon-able) book is eventually in the work with the series; would love to send it as a 'gift' to some non-Substacked friends. Would be willing to donate handsomely to a project like that - maybe some other fans would too.
Perhaps you are also eliding to Ms. Haley or Mr. Ramaswamy, in the US?
We might note that the Indians invented the concept of "0", later promulgated by the Arabs.
But most Indians we see in public roles are not total zeros, and maybe some fresh blood is what is called for?
We may have had similar attitudes about the Irish, Italians, Swedes, et al. in the US.
Maybe the Saxons has a similar question about the Normans?
And the Oz Aboriginals may be wondering how their European neighbors managed to take over, too. [Are there any Australian equivalents to the Trail of Tears or the Little Big Horn in the US?]
'We' were right to have those attitudes - each of those groups you listed profoundly and unalterably changed the host country. Sometimes for better sometimes for worse. Often both at the same time.
And yes, Aboriginals would have been right to assume that European rule would turn Australia into a European-style region, ha.
Thus, I personally don't subscribe to the implicit assumption that upon arrival to a new country, all ethnic groups think, behave, or produce the outcomes -
So inasmuch as you're saying that having Indian immigrants 'running' a country would be different than having Italians running it or Swedes running it or Irish running it -
Yes, it would. It the outcomes will be totally different.
And yes, the Normans 'take over' England changed the country immensely and to this day Norman descendants are often at the still at the top of the totem pole (see - The Grosvenor Family).
Two quick examples of all of this - the Amish in the US are ethnically Swiss (more specifically a combination of Celts and a bit of 'plains' Germanic peoples - they speak a form of German).
If you go through Alsace right now and get to know the people there, there will be some eerily similar overlaps in everything from behavior and 'temperament' and to architecture and agricultural styles.
Similarly, many of the Italian immigrants to the U.S. at the turn of the 20th century were from Sicily - it shouldn't be surprising to any student of history that a mafia that specifically required someone to have Sicilian blood cropped up in NYC.
In short, yes people change the place they're from, this is quite obvious.
Your remarks about Swiss-Amish and Sicilian-Mafia suggest we have to watch for the balancing act between new and old cultures and "tribes". We desire new immigrants to be assimilated into our culture, and are objecting to the inability to absorb such a large influx as we are seeing now (of legal or illegals). The impact of the European tribes was mollified via Church law and marriage rules, including enhancing bequeaths to the Church rather than kin, clan, and tribe. I understand this has contributed to our orientation in Western civilization towards individual rights, etc., over group rights. People substituted religion as an alternative "tribe", and eventually the "state" got into the act and came along for a parallel ride as part of an intermingled church-state "tribe".
We appear to have an inherent (evolved) preference to join some "tribe", so we need to be careful that we aren't creating tribes with undesirable features (like wokeness) and continue to support and advance those groups fostering liberty and prosperity. The history of the last 100 years or more suggests we have not been as careful about this balance as we should have been.
Substack and contributors like Helen and Lorenzo appear to be one path towards this corrective. Can we be sure Substack cannot or will not become compromised by the "censor industrial complex" that Shellenberger has formulated?
You all have just earned a paid sub for this post (as well as the consistent quality and the Zoom idea - that is an excellent value add).
Loved the article - one thing I would add though, that you hinted at with the comments around EU failure but didn’t quite go full blast.
The fact is that a lot of ethnonationalist appeal (particularly in Europe but some in the US) is because the State Apparatus and the ‘new’ populations are directly and openly hostile the local population.
Additionally, as the Anywhere Elites become more and more diverse, the cognitive dissonance of a local Somewhere being ruled by a “How Did They Get Here?” so to speak is unnerving for many.
A great example of this is the family tree of say, a Rishi Sunak - a lineage who has not stayed in a single country for more than a generation in over 100 years I believe, and a man who is married to a person who seemingly prefers to live somewhere else, in addition to his own heavy US residency ties.
And this man is the most powerful Anywhere Elite in the UK, metaphorically speaking.
But great article and looking forward to your Zoom calls!
Thank-you kindly sir - I do encourage you to read the whole series (all linked on the front page under Substack’s big gold elephant stamp).
Will do - I hope that a full (Amazon-able) book is eventually in the work with the series; would love to send it as a 'gift' to some non-Substacked friends. Would be willing to donate handsomely to a project like that - maybe some other fans would too.
“How Did They Get Here?”
Perhaps you are also eliding to Ms. Haley or Mr. Ramaswamy, in the US?
We might note that the Indians invented the concept of "0", later promulgated by the Arabs.
But most Indians we see in public roles are not total zeros, and maybe some fresh blood is what is called for?
We may have had similar attitudes about the Irish, Italians, Swedes, et al. in the US.
Maybe the Saxons has a similar question about the Normans?
And the Oz Aboriginals may be wondering how their European neighbors managed to take over, too. [Are there any Australian equivalents to the Trail of Tears or the Little Big Horn in the US?]
The correct comparison of the Sunaks et al is not to the Irish or Normans but to the Roma or...
'We' were right to have those attitudes - each of those groups you listed profoundly and unalterably changed the host country. Sometimes for better sometimes for worse. Often both at the same time.
And yes, Aboriginals would have been right to assume that European rule would turn Australia into a European-style region, ha.
Thus, I personally don't subscribe to the implicit assumption that upon arrival to a new country, all ethnic groups think, behave, or produce the outcomes -
So inasmuch as you're saying that having Indian immigrants 'running' a country would be different than having Italians running it or Swedes running it or Irish running it -
Yes, it would. It the outcomes will be totally different.
And yes, the Normans 'take over' England changed the country immensely and to this day Norman descendants are often at the still at the top of the totem pole (see - The Grosvenor Family).
Two quick examples of all of this - the Amish in the US are ethnically Swiss (more specifically a combination of Celts and a bit of 'plains' Germanic peoples - they speak a form of German).
If you go through Alsace right now and get to know the people there, there will be some eerily similar overlaps in everything from behavior and 'temperament' and to architecture and agricultural styles.
Similarly, many of the Italian immigrants to the U.S. at the turn of the 20th century were from Sicily - it shouldn't be surprising to any student of history that a mafia that specifically required someone to have Sicilian blood cropped up in NYC.
In short, yes people change the place they're from, this is quite obvious.
Your remarks about Swiss-Amish and Sicilian-Mafia suggest we have to watch for the balancing act between new and old cultures and "tribes". We desire new immigrants to be assimilated into our culture, and are objecting to the inability to absorb such a large influx as we are seeing now (of legal or illegals). The impact of the European tribes was mollified via Church law and marriage rules, including enhancing bequeaths to the Church rather than kin, clan, and tribe. I understand this has contributed to our orientation in Western civilization towards individual rights, etc., over group rights. People substituted religion as an alternative "tribe", and eventually the "state" got into the act and came along for a parallel ride as part of an intermingled church-state "tribe".
We appear to have an inherent (evolved) preference to join some "tribe", so we need to be careful that we aren't creating tribes with undesirable features (like wokeness) and continue to support and advance those groups fostering liberty and prosperity. The history of the last 100 years or more suggests we have not been as careful about this balance as we should have been.
Substack and contributors like Helen and Lorenzo appear to be one path towards this corrective. Can we be sure Substack cannot or will not become compromised by the "censor industrial complex" that Shellenberger has formulated?