On anti-Western nationalism (from pages 166–68):

 

.... Such people see one another less as allies than as future vassals.  Whether we speak of Hindutvadis or Chinese nationalists—or of those Islamists who want a politically unified ummah—they aim less to smash the global hierarchy than to elevate their own civilization within it.  Antiliberal movements outside the West either turn a deaf ear to one another or salivate over their own future supremacy....  This outlook hardly favors making common cause across civilizations....  This deficiency of global-mindedness has understandable psychological roots.  The most powerful regions of the world—North America, Europe, and the Pacific Rim—have surrendered to atomism and become a force for its spread.  Discontented people elsewhere naturally want to take them down a peg or two, for reasons of both ideology and cultural pride.  And even the truly placeless machinery of global integration—business, academia, and the like—is staffed largely by people hostile to everything these critics hold dear....  Still, the insularity that might hinder enemies in the short run does these resistance movements no lasting good.  Despite huge inequities between North and South, for example, they have no language for demanding justice at the global level, beyond independence and parity of states.  They close off contact with one another and lock in a defensive posture.  Slowing down the pace of the atomist advance does not lead to an alternative that can roll back the advance itself.  Rather than winning the global culture war, they seem sometimes just to want to lose it more slowly....

 

 

back to more excerpts