Oz Conservative, an "Australian traditionalist conservative site," has also noticed the David Goodhart essay I posted about yesterday.

He has dug up even more glaring evidence of elite post-nationalism. Here is David Goodhart in an earlier article:

Oliver Kamm, the centrist commentator, said to me recently that it was morally wrong to discriminate on grounds of nationality, ruling out the "fellow citizen favouritism" that most people think that the modern nation state is based on.

And according to George Monbiot, a leading figure of the liberal left, "Internationalism . . . tells us that someone living in Kinshasa is of no less worth than someone living in Kensington . . . Patriotism, if it means anything, tells us we should favour the interests of British people [before the Congolese]. How do you reconcile this choice with liberalism? How . . . do you distinguish it from racism?"

It is not only people on the left who think like this. On a recent BBC Radio 4 Moral Maze programme about development aid, the former Tory cabinet minister and born-again liberal Michael Portillo had this to say: "It is quite old fashioned to think about national borders, and rather nationalistic to say we must help people who are only moderately poor because they happen to be in the UK rather than helping people who are desperately poor because they happen to be a long way away."

As one of Oz Conservative's commentators observes, it's not easy to distinguish this elite post-nationalism from post-rationalism.