Part Three ANTI-NATIONALISM AND HATE
- MetaEconGary
- Aug 20
- 9 min read
Updated: Aug 27
XIX: Is Hatred an Argument Against Nationalism?
Hazony notes how some analysts claim it is Nationalism, to include both the secular and religious shared other-interest within same, that can sometimes be devoted to hatred of other Nations. Hazony claims it is less of problem among Independent Nations than it is within empires that may play one group off against another, or attempt to control some perhaps minority group with hate. Hazony uses cases, real experience, in making the argument the problem is with empire not with independent states.
XX: The Shaming Campaigns Against Israel
Hazony draws on the notion of the paradigm first proposed by Kuhn. The notion was that scientist became dedicated to a particular theory, a particular view of how the Spaceship Earth worked. It was virtually impossible to move beyond some set in stone paradigm once enough scientists embraced it. A case in point is SIT in Microeconomics: It cannot be replaced no matter how much serious and systematic inquiry to include rigorous empirical testing of null hypotheses that reject it. A case in point: The null hypotheses of no influence from the shared other-interest, to include the Ethic, on the way economic response to Incentive plays out has been reject over and over and over again for 3-4 decades to no avail. The alternative hypothesis that people have dual nature better represented by DIT --- pursue a joint self & other-interest --- has gained no traction in even nudging SIT even a bit. Every Econ 101 textbook stays with the SIT paradigm , as though DIT does not even exist, say nothing of it replacing SIT on solid empirical grounds.
Hazony makes the claim the paradigm used to make sense of whether the Israel Nation formed in 1948 is legitimate is at play. The current rash of anti-Semitic rhetoric and actions taken against members of the Israel Nation, and Jewish supporters no matter where living, is a case in point. The paradigm that Israel is somehow not a legitimate Nation has taken hold, no matter how much empirical evidence is provided that is meets all the requirements of a legitimate Nation. The future of Israel as a Nation is unclear, unless the paradigm can be changed to see said Nation as Legitimate.
Hazony does not address it, but much the same can be said for the current, here in 2025, paradigm relating to Ukraine. It seems many still see the “root cause” used by Putin-Russia (i.e., Ukraine has never been a Nation) somehow justifying taking territory from the Ukraine Nation. The recent “summit” in Alaska between the old-styled patrimonial state installed by Putin-Russia and the wanna-be patrimonial state of Trump-America seems to deny the credible claim that Ukraine is a legitimate Nation. Patrimonies are about building empire serving “the Pater” and Nations just do not fit in that vertical power rule of men system, so, it all makes sense. Ukraine will likely be split-up --- “land swap” seems to be the frame of the day --- as though it is a kind of territory without any coherent sense of being a Nation. It is what “Paters” do. Also, the seeming plan to keep Ukraine from ever joining NATO suggest the paradigm is closer to the “root cause” than to the fact it is a legitimate Nation.
XXI: Immanuel Kant and the Anti-Nationalist Paradigm
Hazony points to how Kant saw the need to eventually move to a Spaceship wide Government. Completely independent Nations could not work as some Nation would rise up to dominate other Nations, like has happened in Germany in the 1930s-1940s. Hazony claims said interpretation misrepresents the fact the Nazi frame was the Third Reich which was to carry out the empire building plan of the First Reich, and had nothing to do with a legitimate Nation assaulting other Nations. Hazony goes on to, again, argue that the European Union is a huge mistake as it has the flavor of an empire building endeavor, and does not enough honor the independence of Nations in the EU.
XXII: Two Lessons of Auschwitz
Hazony lays out two paradigms at play as regards the Israel Nation, with lessons in thinking about the role of all Nations. In particular (pp. 205-206):
Paradigm A: Auschwitz represents the unspeakable horror of Jewish women and men standing empty-handed and naked, watching their children die for want of a rifle with which to protect them.
Paradigm B: Auschwitz represents the unspeakable horror of German soldiers using force against others, backed by nothing but their own government’s views as to their national rights and interests.
Then, Hazony redrafts the paradigms, in the frame of an independent Nation of Israel:
Paradigm A: Israel represents Jewish women and men standing rifle in hand, watching over their own children and all other Jewish children and protecting them. Israel is the opposite of Auschwitz.
Paradigm B: Israel represents the unspeakable horror of Jewish soldiers using force against others, backed by nothing but their own government’s views as to their national rights and interests. Israel is Auschwitz.
The point is well-taken, with said powerful examples and frames to make it clear what is at issue. If an independent Nation of Israel with substantive military to defend that Nation had existed prior to the building of places like Auschwitz, said places would never have existed. The other point is, Nations can go awry, as did the German Nation, so a balance of power among Nations is essential for stability and viability for all Nations. The anti-Semitism at the current time is in part being fed by the claim that Israel has gone too far in eliminating the Hamas, with a lot of civilians and non-Hamas supporters as collateral damage.
In DIT terms, an Israel Nation with a viable, competent military in place to defend the shared other-interest of said Nation would have resulted in no Auschwitz. It is about the shared other-interest warding off the self-interest and the dark empathy of an “us”. In DIT terms, a balance of power must always be in play to ward off a Nation assaulting other Nations.
In both cases, the best path 0Z is the focus, with the ethical path 0M working to temper the primal arrogance of path 0G. The same can be said in the current case of Ukraine: Recognize the fact it is a legitimate Nation, with set of deeply shared other-interest and a military commitment and capability to defend the borders. Ukraine also needs to be made a member of NATO, to ensure a strong, shared other-interest in military defense against rogue Nations, and even more to join in stopping rogue Patrimonies like Putin-Russia.
XXIII: Why the Enormities of the Third World and Islam Go Unprotested
Hazony claims the move Spaceship wide is to anti-nationalism. The European Union is used as an example, a claimed overreaction to what happened with the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s-1940s. Hazony claims the Nazis were about empire, as in the Third Reich, which had nothing to do with the German Nation, per se. It was about the dream of a German Catholic Empire controlling all of Europe, and moving out to control the entire Spaceship. It was about empire not nation, the latter of which Hazony is defending.
The claim overlaps with the Hanson and Kopstein (2024) claim that the Spaceship is seeing the move to Neopatrimonalism, a modern version of the old Rule of Men Vertical Power Patrimonies of the 1500s. Actually, such was the frame of government within clans, tribes, and empires in all time before the Enlightenment that created Rule of Law based Nations.
The drive by Putin-Russia to once again build the empire that was the Soviet Union with an assault on Ukraine is an example of Neopatrimonialism. The assault on the Nation of Ukraine is about bringing the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic back into play. It will be intriguing if the Pater represented in the “the Putin” and the wanna-be Pater represented in “the Don” actually treat Ukraine like a territory to be raided and the spoils divided between “the Paters” or if Ukraine will be treated like a legitimate Nation whose land is being taken by illegitimate force.
Back to the unprotested: Hazony frames the problem by asking “… why do so many of Israel’s harshest critics support the establishment of an independent state for Palestinian Arabs? Why do they refrain from criticizing the use of force by states such as Iran, Turkey, and various Arab regimes, and by many other countries in the Third World? Many of these regimes use force far more aggressively than Israel does—in some cases committing atrocities on an unimagined scale (pp 209-210).” Good question.
Hazony answers it by claiming way too many still buy the proposition from Immanual Kant, that “… human history should be seen as a progressive movement from barbarism to the eventual triumph of morality and reason, which he equates with the establishment of a universal state (p. 210).” In DIT terms, the Spaceship Earth would eventually have one shared other-interest among all people, families, clans, tribes and nations --- and, if any disagreed, that Spaceship Government could impose that shared other-interest on everyone. And, apparently Kant believed said shared other-interest would be built by reason, and said reason would be framed by a moral and ethical sense held by everyone. It would be like a Spaceship wide rule of law, reflecting the Spaceship wide ethic that everyone shares and lives by.
Hazony is skeptical. Using DIT, Hazony sees shared other-interest varying greatly among independent Nations. If any Spaceship wide collaboration occurred, it would be among Nations with widely different shared other-interest working to find some common shared other interest among all said Nations. No supra-national, Spaceship wide Government would be in play. Such framing explains why so many are opposed to the United Nations, and any kind of international agreements struck by and especially enforced by said United Nation kind of Government. DIT suggests such a position does not have much credibility, as voluntary participation (homonomy) in essential, science-based ideas like bringing greenhouse gas emissions into sustainable amounts might be violated by individual countries, so some heteronomy (Spaceship wide control) may be essential.
Hazony goes on to argue that Europeans have been too hard on Israel. Europeans overlook what other countries are doing against Israel, as though it will just take time for said countries to mature, to reach the Kantian stage of reasoned morality, reasoned ethics of the more advanced Europeans. Hazony claims Europeans --- in part because of misinterpreting what happened with Nazi Germany --- are making a Kantian Mistake of assuming some supra-national, Spaceship wide Government will ever emerge. And, even if it does, that it would actually be a better form of government than having hundreds of independent Nations, Israel being one of same.
XXIV: Britain, America, and Other Deplorable Nations
Hazony comes down hard on the claim of moral maturity by the European Union. Both Britain and America, as well as Israel, have been deemed deplorable. Hazony points to Britain leaving the EU, and the US being resistant to joining in the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court. Hazony claims such resistance as essential to a stable Spaceship system, as Independent States like Britain and the US do what each country deems best for said country. Perhaps.
As DIT clarifies, however, empathy-with the other country, empathy with the Spaceship Earth system in general, with said empathy conditioned by fact-content coming out of serious scientific inquiry needs to play some role. The denial of the greenhouse gas problem --- the denial of the scientific consensus on greenhouse gas driven Spaceship warming as serious problem --- by political factions in the US is a case in point. Kyoto was not joined because of the denial of the scientific evidence, and the arrogance of self-interest in ignoring said science. It certainly was not moral or ethical to stay away from Kyoto.
XXV: Why Imperialists Hate
Hazony claims that liberal imperialism framed by Kantian thinking is doomed. It is a flawed conception of what works for real people. In fact, Hazony goes to an extreme, claiming that the Kantian frame pointing to a Spaceship wide reasoned, moral order leads to people withing that frame to hate the independent Nations. Well, that seems extreme.
DIT suggests that finding common ground among independent Nations could well be a good thing, and, in fact is essential to longer term homeostasis on a Spaceship scale.
Now, whether that common ground can then be acted upon without some control depends on self-command, self-discipline within each Nation. Hazony seems to leave no room for a good balance homonomy & heteronomy, which is essential (as DIT clarifies) at every level. At most basic level, the best family is one that has good balance in Strict Parenting & Nurturant Parenting. The former is ego-based and the latter is empathy-based, so it is about good balance in the joint ego & empathy, self & other in the family. It is like the Me needs a We to Be, but without a Me there is no We. This DIT based claim points to challenge is to find path 0Z outcomes within the individual and at every level in which the individual engages including family, clan, tribe, nation --- and, yes, the individual connecting with supra-national levels.
So, choose your next part, or go back an reconsider earlier parts:
Comments