Furthest Right

Most People Do Not Understand Nationalism

In one of life’s grand ironies, very few people understand nationalism, but the humorous part is that this apply especially to self-proclaimed nationalists.

We figured the “normies” — who are not actually normal people, only droid-like followers of every trend in an attempt at camouflage within the herd — would not get it right, and they have cooked up two Big Lies about nationalism which befuddle anyone clueless enough to still trust their television and newspaper:

  1. Patriotism. If you open up the average dictionary or newspaper, “nationalism” is presented to mean “strong patriotism,” or those who are really fond of their nation-state and its flag. This is a variant of the proposition nation and “magic dirt” theory which holds that anyone can be a member of a civilization if they swear the right oath to the flag, memorize the right stuff in school, obey its laws and participate in an economic system. We might call this the “shopping mall” view of citizenship: the citizens are shoppers, and as long as they do not offend the prevailing pretense, they are considered to be good people.
  2. Civic Nationalism. When analyzed, this term tends to mean the same thing as patriotism, except that there is a hint of exclusivity about it. “America First!” means “and everyone else second.” Civic nationalism has the idea of patriotism for those who are already here or doing the right thing, and everyone else can go suffer and die in whatever third world pocket of failure and Hell they can find to accept them. At the same time, it has the same basic idea as the shopping mall, only this time the cops crack down more, and they really do not care what happens at the other malls.

To that the “nationalists” — usually between HitLARPing and posting racial epithets to Reddit — add two more silly definitions:

  1. Race-Patriotism. When you replace the nation-state with race, you get race patriotism, or the idea of being loyal to your race above all else. This is unfortunate for two reasons: it offers no political concept of how society should be organized, and perhaps more dangerously, it ignores the fact that ethnic diversity is as destructive as racial diversity, both in terms of social impact and genetic effects.
  2. Culturism. In this viewpoint, culture is important but race and ethnicity are not. Those who decide to behave as part of a culture and adopt its values are accepted into that society. Some combine this with a minimal racial barrier, such as that they must be mostly of one race or ethnic group, but this seems like a formula for ethnic replacement of those groups through outbreeding. In addition, it carries overtones of “magic dirt” and patriotism, both of which impede the need for a different approach.

In the above, we have essentially race fanaticism and patriotism of varying forms. None of these address the root cause of racial displacement, which is that the civilization in question is defined not by its ethnic group, but by political constraints. This means that these are delaying tactics, not solutions, to the problems we face in our current civilization structure.

Nationalism on the other hand presents a simple idea which implicates other changes as well, although not the ones with which it is usually paired in the media. When we speak of nationalism as a philosophy or element of international politics, it takes on a meaning far from that which is reported in the press.

The meaning of the term “nationalism” is derived from “natio,” which refers to those born together from the same root. It has a singular idea: the nation is defined by the ethnic group and not politics, economic system or externally imposed “culture. Let us look into the definition of nationalism:

Nationalism, translated into world politics, implies the identification of the state or nation with the people—or at least the desirability of determining the extent of the state according to ethnographic principles.

Nationalism defines the state or civilization by ethnographic principles, which means that the group is limited to those from the founding ethnic group. This in turn implies a number of related ideas:

  1. Genetic health. If the core of the nation its its ethnic group, then that group must be kept healthy. This includes avoiding admixture with other groups, because that replaces the genetic profile — a mesh of related genetically-coded traits — with something else. It also implies some degree of eugenics, or trying to breed the best people possible, which does not mean so much “kill the bad” but “encourage the good to reproduce, and ensure they receive the power and wealth so that they do so more than others.”
  2. Culture arises from genetics. Instead of imposing culture by external means, nationalist societies are organic, which means from the simple principle of their founding, all other other necessary tenets arise, or are emergent properties of the core. For example, nationalism implies a need to put cultural sentiments first before “pragmatic” economics or political ideology. Nationalism indicates a need to provide not for individuals, but for the organic society as a whole. It also tends toward a belief in a single standard, and this is why the Left hates it, to which people adhere or they are seen as out-group. It imposes discipline, duty and responsibility on individuals through these implications. Nationalism is anti-individualistic.
  3. Traditional values are essential. Traditional values emphasize a K-strategy, or conferring social capital upon offspring and having fewer (2-7) so that they are able to be raised with this social capital. Nationalism raises the need for the family, of social order, culture, tradition, customs, education and faith as a means of providing an environment for children. Society is not oriented toward altruism and individualism under nationalism, but toward virtue and health.

The Left attacks nationalism by first demonizing it, and then corrupting it. The corruption takes the form of changing its definition such as through terms like “civic nationalism,” which is an oxymoron that means the exact opposite of what nationalism does. Nationalism is the opposite of the nation-state, which is a political and economic grouping of people instead of an ethnographic one.

The confusion arises because there is a difference between nationalism-the-theory, which has been part of civilization since the dawn of time, and nationalism-as-historic-entity, which is the first time the term was used in its modern context. The confusion can be debunked by reading the history of the rise of nationalism:

Nationalism was the most successful political force of the 19th century. It emerged from two main sources: the Romantic exaltation of “feeling” and “identity” [see Herder above all on this] and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state be based on a “people” rather than, for example, a dynasty, God, or imperial domination. Both Romantic “identity nationalism” and Liberal “civic nationalism” were essentially middle class movements. There were two main ways of exemplification: the French method of “inclusion” – essentially that anyone who accepted loyalty to the civil French state was a “citizen”. In practice this meant the enforcement of a considerable degree of uniformity, for instance the destruction of regional languages. The US can be seen to have, eventually, adopted this ideal of civic inclusive nationalism. The German method, required by political circumstances, was to define the “nation” in ethnic terms. Ethnicity in practice came down to speaking German and (perhaps) having a German name. For the largely German-speaking Slavic middle classes of Prague, Agram etc. who took up the nationalist ideal, the ethnic aspect became even more important than it had been for the Germans. It is debateable whether, in practice, all nationalisms ended up as Chauvinistic and aggressive, but the very nature of nationalism requires that boundaries be drawn.

You can see the same divisions there that we still suffer under: the French “inclusion” and Liberal “civic nationalism” live on as patriotism and civic nationalism, and the Romantic “identity nationalism” is what actually present a challenge to the modern time. The German method of defining the nation in ethnic terms was not new to Germany, but an ancient tribalism that had protected Germany in the past.

In the 19th century, of course, these groups were cleaning up after the end of the 18th century, in which the French Revolution overthrew kings and made culture and ethnic group secondary to participation in the international cult of the worker. Nationalism did not arise as an idea in the 19th century, but was an old idea brought back to try to heal the wounds.

Interestingly enough, over time nationalism re-asserts its German roots:

At its inception, French nationalism was a more liberal form of nationalism; it advocated freedom, equality and individual rights. Then after the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), French nationalists took an anti-German tone, demanding the recovery of territories lost in the war.

By the late 19th century, French nationalism evolved further, with one branch becoming more ethnocentric and anti-Semitic — especially after the “Dreyfus affair,” when a French Jewish artillery officer was accused of treason. In the interwar period, this iteration of nationalism adopted fascist and anti-communist elements and came to resemble some of the nationalist ideologies of Spain, Italy and Germany.

Two things are going on here: first, anti-Semitism arises because it is a simple way of identifying the Other that is used to convey the concept to the wider middle classes. It is important not to confuse this method with its actual goal, but the more mercantile nationalists do this all the same. Establish nationalism, and the cultures separate, and there is no “Jewish question.”

Next, French nationalism is shifting from its inversion — the “liberal form of nationalism” which is basically Leftism plus patriotism — to its natural form, which is the German model, or understanding the nation as an ethnographic creation and not a democratic or mercantile one. This means that the original form was unstable and decayed to a clearer version.

As nationalists in the modern time, our only task is to understand nationalism. It means that the nation is defined by the ethnic group, and everyone else goes home. Ethnicity is more important than race. The genetic pattern that makes up an ethnicity is fragile and must be protected from all admixture, and everyone who cannot conform to this must go home.

Nationalism does not prescribe hatred of other ethnic groups, only a recognition that their interests are different. This can be maintained through mutual dislike of outbreeding and intermarriage, as was the case with European Jews up through the Dreyfuss affair, after which European Jewry demanded inclusion in order to avoid future events of this type, furthering distrust between Jews and their national hosts.

As Samuel Huntington predicted, the age of ideology has ended. People are returning to tangible, timeless, tried-and-true and most of all realistic types of social order, in which the order above the individual is more important than the individual, reversing The Enlightenment.™ For nationalism to thrive in this time, it must know what it is, not what is enemies claim it is.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn