One of the unexamined parts of the current crisis in the West is that much of it is related to an opposition to nationalism. It is an axiom of the ruling ideology that nationalism is the worst thing ever and that stamping it out is a primary concern. In Europe, there are laws against the concept. People are jailed for promoting it. In the United States, nationalism is linked to the deadly sin of racism. The term white nationalism has become a synonym for racism and antisemitism.
Without much evidence, it is asserted that nationalism is the cause of the great horrors of the modern age. For generations now children have been taught that nationalism was the cause of the two great industrial wars of the 20th century. Paradoxically, they also are taught that nationalism is to blame for colonialism. Today it is claimed that white people being themselves as a people, currently called whiteness, is the cause of everything that ails nonwhites in the West.
The supernatural quality of nationalism is often aided by the people who promote what they think of as nationalism. They try to “own the insult” by parading around as the bogeymen the ruling mythology associates with nationalism. This serves to reinforce the mythology around nationalism. Others argue in favor of nationalism by first accepting that it was a real thing in the past. They say we need to return to a past state in order to avoid the fate of internationalism.
The reality is that nationalism does not have much of a resume. It has no roots in the ancient past. The Ancients certainly understood the concept of a people in the natural sense of it. They did not have a concept for a political entity tied to the natural concept of a people. Linking a people to the land they occupy in the way that modern Zionists would define a nation did not exist. People could claim territory, but the territory was not defined by the people in the way nationalists imagine.
Of course, after the fall of the Western Roman empire the land we think of as Europe was divided up into kingdoms. These kingdoms were made up of various people with their own language and their own claims to the land. The armies of these kingdoms were made up of various ethnicities. The King of People X could Fight the King of People Y using soldiers from the kingdom of his opponent or from kingdoms not involved in the conflict. They were mercenaries.
The first real hint of nationalism in Europe, or anywhere for that matter, was in The Hundred Years’ War, fought between the kingdoms of England and France during the Late Middle Ages. When it started in the 14th century, both sides used armies of mixed ethnicity, often from each other’s territory. By the end it was much more of a war between people united around their identity as a people. Historians argue this was the first flicker of nationalism in Europe.
Even so, nationalism did not catch fire in the late Late Middle Ages. The Thirty Years War had a strong nationalist overtone. It is generally framed as a religious war, but the partisans were also distinguished by their ethnicity. The Bohemian Revolt was as much about not wanting to be ruled by a foreigner as it was a revolt of Protestants against a Catholic monarch. Even so, it was mostly a struggle between the Habsburg and Bourbon dynasties, rather than a national struggle.
You have to get into the 20th century before nationalism is a real thing with real power to unite people. The current mythology says that nationalism, especially German nationalism, was the cause of the Great War. The conflict between Germany and France drew in the rest of the great powers, including America. After the war, nationalism was blamed for the horrible destruction of the Continent. This is the origin of anti-nationalism that is central to our ruling ideology.
Yet a brief examination of Europe at the start of the conflict makes rather clear that nationalism was not the issue. The nation-state was not a real thing. The Central Powers were the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and a collection of small kingdoms. There was the French Republic on the Allied side, but the British Empire and Russian Empire made up the other two parts of the Triple Entente that was the basis for the Allied side.
Of course, we now see that America was already an empire by the time she joined the fight in Europe. Yankeedom had conquered the South in the Civil War, then spent the rest of the 19th century conquering the continent. She chased Europe out of the Americas in the Spanish – American. It is fair to assume that America would have annexed Canada and much of Mexico if not for the opportunity to conquer Europe and Asia in the two world wars.
Putting that aside, the Great War was not a war of national identity or a war between national identities. It was an industrialized version of all previous imperial wars in Europe, waged between empires over resources. National identity played a role, but the primary cause was internationalism and what we call globalism. One of the great first acts of modern propaganda was turning a war between empires into a brief against the antidote to empire, which is nationalism.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Wilsonian post-war project to bring peace to Europe was not rooted in one-worldism. The League of Nations was built on the premise that people had a right to exist and have defined territories. Disputes over trade and boundaries would be adjudicated peacefully through an organization of nations, rather than war. It is not unreasonable to say that the seed of democracy was that the default human organization was the nation.
The only bit of history the anti-nationalists can point to for their forever war against nationalism is the rise of fascism. Fascism was a rejection of the internationalism of communism and the pluralism of liberal democracy. Because of certain events that happened in this time, nationalism has become synonymous with a particular brand of fascism that no longer exists. This is what gives nationalism its supernatural quality that is so vital to the liberal democratic project.
The trouble here is that this flicker of nationalism in the heart of Europe was met with overwhelming force by the great internationalist coalition. International communism linked arms with international liberalism to smash nationalism. As a practical matter, the influence of nationalism is only as a bogeyman that was once a real thing, but now exists only in the imagination of the current ruling class. Opposition to fascism is a mystical version of internationalism for stupid people.
To add an additional layer of irony to all of this is the fact that the proponents of various forms of Marxism and liberal democracy claim that the failures are due to the imperfect implementation of these ideologies. In other words, after centuries of effort, real Marxism has never been tried. Real democracy has never existed. Nationalism, which has never been tried, killed in the cradle by internationalism, is condemned as a failed ideology of the bygone era.
That said, history says that there is something compelling about internationalism that allows it to thrive in spite of its body count. They say that 100 million have been murdered at the hands of Marxists. How many have been murdered by liberal democrats is never discussed. Tens of millions for sure. Awash in the blood of the innocent, sacrificed to the various schemes of internationalism, the dream of the great universal utopia of man remains alive.
Further, history suggests that the mundane realty of nationalism lacks that special something that compels men to not just die for it but kill for it. Dying for a dream is easy, because it is usually involuntary. Killing for the dream takes courage and the internationalists have never been short of it. Nationalists, in contrast, have never been able to match it. It lacks the transcendent quality, the promise of something beyond the daily reality of the human condition.
That said, even though the resume of nationalism is scant, its power to inspire the enemies of humanity as it does suggests there is something to it. Perhaps locked inside the undeveloped concept of nationalism is something that can truly inspire. Maybe that is the great secret of internationalism, the really big lie at the heart of it all. If Western man ever truly explored his nationalistic impulse, internationalism would be wiped from the planet and peace among nations would be achieved.
The crackdown by the oligarchs on dissidents has had the happy result of a proliferation of new ways to support your favorite creator. If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!
Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.
The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at
sa***@mi*********************.com
.
“Perhaps locked inside the undeveloped concept of nationalism is something that can truly inspire.”
You’ve become a Zionist malgré lui. Not a Jewish Zionist who favors or disfavors the Tribe and its real estate, but intellectually, you get it. You suggest that nationalism lacks the charismatic, messianic element except possibly on account of “certain events (sic!) that happened in this time, (causing) nationalism (to) has become synonymous with a particular brand of fascism that no longer exists.”
Then you acknowledge that the love of a people for their land (as the physical symbol of their history, traditions and genealogy) rightly inspires fear among the internationalists. So you do believe in a volksgemeinschaft . Next: how does that understanding apply to the amber waves of grain? Who’s in and who’s out?
I am confused as to what the article is actually identifying as a nation?
I don’t know if the fact that this is written from a US viewpoint is skewing things here, but every single European ethnic group, (all of which have been geographically stationary for many centuries) has its foundation myths that stretch into at least the Bronze age in most cases and are tied to its identity and regional boundaries.
It is a confusion of current political boundaries with national boundaries.
The English are a nation despite being joined to Scotland, Wales etc. The UK is not a nation. Britain is a group of distinct nations.
Empires still have nations within them as centers and the people are well aware of this. The ancients may have had Kingdoms instead, but they are still Nations, even if they sat within a notional empire.
Hattusa was still a nation despite being the Hittite empire.
Macedonia was a nation even within the empire of Alexander. etc.
This slight of hand to confuse the two by not defining the terms is part of the concerted drive to undermine this in historical works since the 20s as part of the great attempt to remove the foundation ties from each peoples’ consciousness.
Granted not all modern boundaries are old, but the groups within them had a very strong idea of “their” geographic region and their identity as a related concept.
This is a nation, despite the obvious reduction to absurdism, by slicing groups to the smallest degree and then claiming this is not a nation and therefore nations do not exist.
E.g Yorkshire men are not a nation even though they have that strong identity, and therefore England does not exist. But he still is English and knows he is has a distinct Nationality from the Scot, despite a hundred years of pushed Britishness.
British has no identity except as a political construct and is the very reason it is used to undermine the Native identity. Anyone can be British, but not English.
Maybe the US is novel in that its settlement is within modern times and therefore that bit is missing from the self-identity.
Pick up most history books written since the start of the last century and the fact that there is a concerted effort to remove these, deny Nations ever really existed and as a couple of other commentors have pointed out replace them with a recent identity that is entirely negative (colonialism, the war, blah, blah). Its the same trick as confusing Gender with Sex.
It is just a more subtle part of the overall attack on European identity in order to obliterate it, dressed up as academic work.
Invasive parasites always neutralise or subvert the host immune and resource systems to gain control, and like sacculina in crabs the current parasites have their tendrils wrapped into the brain and reproductive centers and have converted them for its own ends.
History and Nation are simply another avenue for it to attack, by claiming it does not exist, despite all cultural reference has never existed, is a great danger, yet can exist by defining political identities in contradiction to the Nation itself, which just serves to neutralise the concept of Nation. Sort of like this article.
I would submit that Nationalism as we think of it today has roots in the 100 years war and later the 30 years war, but the key moment was the Dutch revolution – early 1500’s – against the Spanish. During this conflict, what might be described as a key part of Nationalism was clearly visible. Us vs them. And in the last few years it died there.
“The reality is that nationalism does not have much of a resume. It has no roots in the ancient past. The Ancients certainly understood the concept of a people in the natural sense of it. They did not have a concept for a political entity tied to the natural concept of a people. Linking a people to the land they occupy in the way that modern Zionists would define a nation did not exist. People could claim territory, but the territory was not defined by the people in the way nationalists imagine.”
I’ve been ripping up decades-old tongue-and-groove all day so I don’t really have the energy to get into this, but the quote above seems wrong to me.
The world is full of peoples who have “blood and soil” relationships with their land going back thousands of years.
I start listing and I feel as if I could go on forever with variations, but I also feel as if every example I give would be second-guessed with “Oh, well, the Japanese or Irish peoples relation to their land isn’t modern nationalism because blah blah blah,” but just because not every nation of peoples tied to a land is the Platonic ideal of textbook modern nationalism doesn’t mean the idea didn’t exist before it was codified. The Irish as a people are inseparable from Ireland and the Japanese as a people are inseparable from Japan.
Yeah. Though the ancient Egyptians had imperialistic tendencies, I think history shows that their nationhood and cultural identity was tied directly to the Nile River Valley, and it stayed that way for well over 3 millennia until the Persians and Greeks moved in. Their language, art, religion, etc was almost impervious to outsiders. They defended their lands from dozens of tribes and invaders, a few times even conquered temporarily, only to regain control and come back stronger.
So nah, I think the idea of nationalism has strong historic precedence. It has changed and evolved, but it has always been with us.
OT but Powell kicking the bucket has reminded me how important he was in my own political evolution. Powell’s public endorsement of Obama was revelatory for it demonstrated that racial solidarity was the primary principle for politics among blacks, overriding all other considerations, even for the most successful establishment blacks. The futility of adhering to some kind of American civ-nat melting pot fantasy crystalized from unpleasant suspicion to the empirically confirmed. That he was tolerated afterwards among the Republicans showed that the party needed to be destroyed because it did harm by pretending to represent the interests of regular whites, standing in the way of evolving some way to actually serve our interests. What we have today is very much the dream of the Obama administration and they didn’t hide that it was their goal. What we have today is what Powell stood for. That and mass murder justified by mountains of lies and carried out mostly by the demographic of the population he despised.
I read an article on Powell before Reagan plucked him from obscurity (it was on VDARE, which I now cannot locate, otherwise I would have posted the link here.) and it painted him in a very poor light. He was a light colonel at the time and his units fitreps were horrible. So horrible in fact that the higher-ups were about to recommend him for early dismissal in the next round of budget cuts. When called on the carpet about this, his immediate answer was to raise the “racism” defense.
For whatever reason, Bush the Elder gave his name to Reagan and Reagan rescued him from being drummed out of the service. Bush I apparently knew of his problems, but pulled for him anyway, only to have his pet bite the hand that fed him later on. Oh well. Some co-workers get upset at me when I tell them that it was Schwarzkopf who was really responsible for “winning” Gulf War I and not Powell and they base this on the fact that Powell outranked Schwarzkopf and I have to explain to them that one has nothing to do with the other.
There was no confusion at the time that Totenkopf was in charge of ops. He was the one on tv explaining the slaughter. Powell was portrayed as being part of the diplomatic mission basically, peddling the lies about incubators etc. That was an earlier stage of our decline when we installed AA hires in positions where they were high profile but couldn’t do much harm. Like black doctors mostly working in policy / administration positions. I remember Clinton’s Surgeon General as another fun one. She looks as traditional and conservative as a one room school house now.
Is it GloboHomo because it’s globalist (international) therefore homogenously fake and gay? Or is it GloboHomo because it’s homogenous, therefore globally collectivist?
This is a debate about lite beer (less filling vs. great taste); not the fountain of immortality. Whether it’s nationalism or internationalism, TPTB want me to live in my rented pod, take electric mass transit, eat the soy and bug protein and be “happy.” F**k that! I am a man, not an insect. I have a people, not a hive or a political “administrative jurisdiction.” The talk, talk, talk is becoming like the buzz of cicadas; an annoying whine that reminds us that something unpleasant is about to happen.
The difference in philosophical outlook between East and West is ancestor worship versus a Jewish Adam as the first man, by extension, a Jewish God as the ultimate Father.
I don’t find any concern with the creation story in the East, which was the driver of our science: the question of “who are we”, of how we got here, and why we’re here in the first place.
The Western ancients certainly placed a lot of stock in ancestor worship, that is, the founder of a nation. Abraham. Aeneas. Romulus and Remus, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.
Can we do that now in a mixed world?
Mussolini had Romulus, Japan had Amaterasu (the Sun goddess), who did the great Uncle Adolf have? His was a secular government, just like America, yet look at the pride and joy in those German faces.
The nations could use a bit of ancestor worship. I’ll respect yours and you respect mine.
Yakob? No, that Wakandan fool created the blue-eyed white devil.
If I’m not mistaken, the concept of nationalism was a product of the French Revolution. It was originally a left-wing idea, as opposed to the feudalist right-wing.
here is another “right wing” site that bemoans the left for censorship and ends up worse then the left. I made a post with NO radical words or phrases and I got the dreaded…comment awaiting approval which means it aint getting posted. I stated facts about the hebrew bolsheviks which leads me to believe they run this site cause they have taken over the stupid suicidal right
First day here? There is automatic filter that Zman has no control of.
Usually these things take longer to post because of that. I’m sure it will be real interesting though.
Heh. Master Assassin Wright’s dagger is so sharp they don’t even feel it going in.
“…comment awaiting approval which means it aint getting posted.”
Calm down, Nancy. There’s other places on the internet for whiny nerds. I just came back to see my post that went through whatever passes for “moderation” was there – and I have never actually had a post here disappear.
“…with NO radical words or phrases…”
Great, whiny and self-censoring.
All my comments go straight to moderation and I’m a recognizable character here. It’s not really based on what you say, and Z allows a lot of unpleasantness, even if it’s not the unpleasantness he personally endorses. Relax.
Welcome, and what an asset you will be, what, with your lack of patience regarding…commenting.
Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Really Big Lie
The opposite of nationalism is multiculturalism. And, given all of the misery, mayhem and carnage caused by the latter, nationalism comes off looking pretty good.
To each people its own sovereign and homogeneous country.
That worked well when everyone is the same race. That’s why shlomo opened up the gates.
Without history’s big lies, imagine the mothers of England sending their sons, by the tens of thousands into the meat grinders of the Western Front. Criminally stupid generals, one bad plan after another …. and all it took was a touch of jingoism, writ large in the media of the day, plus their version of the vax mandate (the draft) and poof.
Over 10,000 dead young men in one day. Then more. And more. For years.
Were the Lloyd Austin’s of the day war criminals? Lord no, they were heroes.
Fast forward to today. What can our Lloyd Austin and those he serves do to compel 10,000 Gold Star Mothers to donate their loved ones to earn that status? Short of point a bayonet at them? Is Mother Normie really able to be moved by this era’s collection of big lies? Obviously, anyone that has swallowed the so-called ‘red pill’ won’t be moved short of said bayonet. Whom does that leave susceptible to the big lie, to the point of hurling their beloved into the abyss?
True this, but the modern epidemic of obesity is a game changer. Fat adolescent males do not make for good fodder because you cannot get them to the front lines in large numbers. Yes, this is a real problem for today’s military. And no, boot camp is not a solution. Many recruits now come out fatter than they went in.
“…the modern epidemic of obesity…”
I hear you — and would bet that the mommies of these fat boys/men are all too happy to clutch them close, keep them home and jobless where they can be “safe”.
Still leaves my question hanging … “whom?”
dont cry to hard for the british. the fat drunken bloated slob churchill started both wars at the behest of the jews and in WWI british had the French do most of the fighting. look how churchill had all the ANZACS slaughtered at Gallipoli which was his idea. more non english doing their fighting
SPQR, that raises another question – did the choices made to gut the ‘flower of a generation’ in places like Australia, New Zealand … lead to the generation of cowards that reside there now under the rule of woman and effeminate men?
Churchill. Another of “our heroes” who was just a lucky ruling class piece of shit whose most notable ability was getting lots of people killed – his own, other nations’, random bystanders…
The war in Vietnam was a war of nationalism. The North Vietnamese and the Vietcong wanted to establish one republic, but mostly they wanted to boot the foreigners. Ho Chi Minh was a Vietnamese Nationalist who wanted to evict the French Colonialists after WWII. He had fought the Japanese during the war and approached the United States for assistance in establishing a Vietnamese state, wrote President Roosevelt, even penned a Constitution based on the US Constitution, but rebuffed. He sincerely believed we might support his efforts at restoring the Vietnamese as the rightful rulers, after the French/Chinese had crapped all Vietnam for centuries. You think DienBien Phu might have been a wake up call to Uncle Sam…
It’s weird when a country we’ve had a terrible war with is full of people who like us.
The actual Vietnamese and Japanese people I’ve known, not immigrants to America but natives in their own countries, who might not be typical but they’re the first fifty or so I happened into while doing normal things there, are basically odd-looking Americans. The Japanese are more autistic and the Vietnamese fall back more easily into primitive friend/enemy dichotomies, but otherwise they’re almost us—like idealized Americans are what they’d be if they could change a little about themselves, and they wish they could.
Yet the ones who’ve actually immigrated here hate us, unless they’re very old. I think the old ones remember the old aspirations you describe, the middle aged resent their failure, and the young ones are hyper-white shitlibs, because they’re good at being in school and that’s what our schools make.
I haven’t run into any Vietnamese or Japanese people that hate whitey.
Chinese – yes and weirdly Koreans too. But not any of the other two.
Another Alanis-level irony is that, though our anti-nationalist overlords are all spiritual Leninists, Lenin himself famously argued (correctly, it must be said) that WWI was just an old-school clash of empires writ large. Cassandras like J.A. Hobson (Imperialism, 1903) had been arguing since at least the 1890s that friction on the imperial periphery would result in European war — since there were no more places to colonize, and thus no more new markets in which to dump the Empire’s excess production, the economic fight over market access would soon turn into an actual military clash, and that would be that.
Lenin even went so far as to call imperialism “the highest stage of capitalism,” and stop me if this sounds familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Stage_of_Capitalism
Off-comment: GREAT blog post today about “Nostalgia.” You have to wonder how the whiny ones will react as the current reversion accelerates. The complaints were in order, only they were about a future that just now has arrived. I actually know a handful of north of 90 geriatrics who lived as children without electricity. Those folks don’t complain but if their longevity holds one or two might see it go dark again.
Thanks. (extra text to make post long enough).
This is one of the most amazing things about so many of the early Marxists, including Marx himself. They actually had a lot of good insights into how society worked and were probably the first to at least attempt to link physical changes in technology to social evolution. Seeing a war as the inevitable consequence of empires running out of space to expand rather than a story of kings or generals was quite a new way to see things.
On top of that though, you have the ridiculous eschatology of “the dictatorship of the proletariat” and the withering away of the state as people, after the Glorious Revolution, become peaceful, cooperative, altruistic, and generous – in spite of 10,000+ years of being pretty much the polar opposite. How can men so perceptive and intelligent embrace this kind of nonsense?
The same thing puzzles me about the wokeists among scientists, tech people, engineers. How do they manage to miss the obvious lessons of history and biology?
All humans are tribal. In the modern world the tribe of the global educated class is the global educated class. The tribe of the middle class Commoners is the nation. The tribe of the lower class is the lower class, or the ethnic enclave, or any group gussied up by its masters in the educated class.
The global educated class, though, has a problem not shared by the others. They have no obvious to look for aid and comfort when things go sideways. They say things like “I’m a citizen of the world”. Yet, the world doesn’t have an embassy or an army to turn to when some local strongman wants to ethnically cleanse whatever type of person they might be. They can run to some other country but will probably be greeted with cold suspicion by the people who process immigration applications.
Basically, their “credentials” as members of the global Good People can be easily faked and there’s nobody checking anything. Even soccer hooligans have stricter entrance requirements – “Oi! I never saw you at any of the games mate!” The inner circle of globalists, people with real wealth and connections, count on this. They know they can get a certain type of middle class Goodwhite to do their dirty work by convincing them that all they need to reserve a seat on the last plane out is a hipster beard, a Prius, and a crap job at a non-profit.
So who did the global educated class get their pointer from?
Read any decent book from the 1800s and before. Most are very clear as to their identity, and its not separate from their nation.
Hmmm.. globalism is just the wider assertion of the usual suspect group mindset of a nation of connected individuals embedded in other nations, with no ties or obligations to the host.
Its not complicated.
IDK, Japan before and during WWII was pretty darn nationalistic. Yes, they had an emperor, and yes, they aspired to empire, but by no conceivable stretch of the imagination could they be called internationalists. If anything, they were racial nationalists, convinced of the superiority of the Japanese people and its right to rule. Despite that they were never short of courage, and were second to no one in their willingness to kill.
I don’t remember the term for a maritime empire but it has a fundamentally different motive than a land-based empire, a quest for resources exclusively as opposed to a defensive stance in its expansion. And different problems as well. Perhaps more sustainable since there is not the same pressure to assimilate its subjects.
Thalassocracy is, I think, the word you’re looking for. A Sea based empire.
Thanks, I kept thinking “thaumaturgy” lol but I knew that isn’t right.
I want to say Morgoth the Scottish commentator just did a good analysis of Land vs. Sea based empires and how the Internet enables a cyber version of the Sea empire.
Do you have a link to that, Howard? Morgoth isn’t posting on his old site but I can’t remember where he’s posting now.
There’s a rightwing Russian philosopher named Aleksandr Dugin who deals extensive with land- versus sea-based empires. Dugin is supposedly tight with Putin.
Tom K:
Morgoth has a channel on Odysee:
https://odysee.com/@MorgothReviews:5
Sadly, I can’t seem to find the specific Land vs Sea Empire clip.
Thanks, I’ll look for it.
Perhaps optimistic. If Japan didn’t get themselves into a fight they couldn’t win they probably wouldn’t have turned into an Asian version of the U.K. where everyone from all their overseas holdings (and then some) could come squat at the imperial home base island.
As I’ve come to understand it: The US had colonized the Philippines, and other Asian nations had been colonized by various empires. The Japanese then came to the thinking that they needed to be an empire to ward off a US take over.
Perhaps, though a larger, more cynical part was that the island, as it was constituted at the time could only support ‘x’ population while the population itself was ‘x+’. Solution: send excess males into a pointless meatgrinder war on the Asian mainland. Yeah that plan kinda got away from them, to the least.
A race/ethnicity needs a powerful metaphysical shield to protect itself from harmful ontological assaults; like a battalion of troops making an impenetrable cordon while a people cement their intra-ethnic bonds through tradition, culture, language, literature, etc.
The White Race used to have Christianity as that protective cover until liberalism smashed it into pieces.
The White race stands exposed today. It needs a metaphysical shield.
Agreed, but priorities matter. The USA is now infected with a terminal societal cancer that must inevitably lead to collapse (death). Afterward, rebirth is possible and a restoration of healthy habits can be achieved; of which, your concept of a metaphysical shield is an excellent beginning. But we can’t jump that endpoint from here. We need the culling associated with collapse as a necessary precursor. I do not favor indiscriminate slaughter as a culling mechanism and would prefer to see a much more focused and precise targeting of the cancer cells. Less pain and destruction that way.
The ideal way to cull is to separate and to exclude in perpetuity. Then, inasmuch as it is possible, rigid institutional safeguards must be imposed to prevent a recurrence of what happened to the USA. Where Christianity fits into this scheme is open to debate. Obviously, however, the Christianity preached in the vast majority of contemporary mainline denominational pulpits can have no place in our thing.
Our Celtic/Nordic traditions provide our shield. Not all of us have the open eyes to see them, but that will come. No White people are named Muhammad, so stay the fuck out of it.
They try to “own the insult” by parading around as the bogeymen the ruling mythology associates with nationalism.
Great article. Good to point out this important difference.
If I’m not mistaken, the seeds of an empire is always a distinct people, i.e., a nation. Some nations don’t become empires, but all empires start as nations. The problems arise when a nation expanded into an empire tries to turn all its subject peoples into “Romans” or “British” or “Americans” or whatever.
The Venetian Republic was a classic example of this. They may have owned trading posts across the Med, but they were a nation with a home base through and through and thought of in terms of bloodlines.
It seems more like a capitol city is the nucleolus. Such as Rome, London, Paris. Cities can only exist by utilizing resources from outside the city. Food comes in, garbage goes out; etc. Opulence comes from the capitol growing it’s dominion over increasing areas, until it runs out of steam.
The real irony is that internationalism is being pushed hardest by the most nationalistic people on earth (small hats), and those claiming to fight fascism are now aligning with corporate America to crush individual freedoms, which is the very definition of fascism.
The small hats are for things that benefit THEM not us. Humanity reduced to one large global pot of gumbo makes it easier for them to exploit. Hence their hatred of nationalism. Nationalism allows a people to unify against the outsiders – which the small hats are. And put themselves first.
This is why they freaked out over Trump and his MAGA peeps. This is why they hate people who want secure borders and limited immigration.
Those who have neither tribe nor nation are prey animals in a herd of one, easy meat for cooperating foreign predators who do have tribes and nations.
Pre 20th Century socialism, it wasn’t that big of a deal to live under a foreign power, because that power only took maybe 3% of GDP. The kingdom wasn’t expected to do anything for you. It wasn’t expected to feed your kids or to give you free support stockings on Medicare. A modern government, that takes half of our income, and incorporates itself into every nook and cranny of daily life, with an ocean of bureaucrats, looks very different, and very foreign to the individual on the ground if it doesn’t look like him. This is why, the U.S. will eventually split up. The people will reject far corners of their own people before they reject the sweet nectar of the state.
No so-called absolute King would even dream of arrogating the powers that democratic governments have practised in modern days. We live under the greatest tyranny to have ever existed yet most can’t see it because they have spent at least 12 years sitting in front of a state indoctrinate being educated not to.
The only way out is through.
Oops, indoctrinate should read indoctrinator in that second last line.
Hey, a bit off topic.
Will most likely lose my job soon for not taking the vax. I’m looking to gtfo from Canada. It’s tricky to get a job in the US without connections, and ideally I’m aiming for a better area with more of our people and raise children. Generally not a fan of white flight, but in this case there’s really no choice at least in the short term.
If anybody is looking to hire STEM related positions, I would be interested. Particularly engineering or math focused (don’t want to give too many details here). Visas are available for engineering positions.
Send me a message at
Ad*********@pr********.com
to talk more.
for $10k i will adopt you.
Not the worst deal ever at this point
I’ll visit at Thanksgiving and Christmas just to keep up pretenses.
A marriage visa?
I offered a dual citizen I matched with on hinge 15k in cash, no questions asked for a visa marriage once.
Needless to say didn’t work out
This is where some of our own corrupt connections would come in handy. The Chinese get away with this by having an established citizen hire STEM workers for his “engineering” business but is often (if it exists at all) just a restaurant.
BTW I had a choice of working to defend the last community in which we lived, or running; I ran, sorry. I came to the conclusion that it’d be easier to herd sheep, since sheep at least have a sense of survival. Also, I need more sheep.
If things go full retard and zombie apocalypse, you might be better off in a remote village in the northern Rockies of British Columbia. Add in a half dozen “right thinking” Scandinavian women of child bearing age and you could restart humanity after the collapse. This premise would also make for an interesting Netflix series. Just sayin’.
B125, how would you get to the states? The land border is closed, and no more flights for unstabbed after Nov 30.
Z scrutinizes “nationalism,” which is a term that I use. That’s okay, I like to be challenged.
I want to find the bond that most deeply unites my people and excludes others who have loyalties that are incompatible with my people.
Being united by common values has clearly failed. The values of a proposition nation are dominated by racial loyalties of different races within the nation.
My best guess is that race, an admittedly fuzzy concept, is the best choice. The counter argument to my faith in race is that race has not been a unifier in much of history.
I expect that as the world becomes anti-white that whites will form a racial consciousness. I could be wrong, but that’s my bet.
Nationalism fails for the same reason racialism (?) fails.
It teaches you to be content. You fight to better your nation. Eventually, you have what you need and so you stop. You are content.
Internationalism is never satisfied. It has to constantly expand. There is always a heretic outside of the great brotherhood. There are always the unenlightened to be beaten into conformity.
The Yankees didn’t stop at the South. They conquered Mexico and the Caribbean, South America, the Philippines, Japan, the Anglo-sphere, Europe. The entire planet was caught in a system of economic exploitation. That’s why they won.
What’s a better alternative to racialism? What bond will command a deeper loyalty that race for the times in which we live and the times to come?
(Please don’t say “every man for himself” Libertarianism. 🙂
Evolution drives all living things toward increasing robustness and fecundity, and is differentiated only by local environmental factors and natural forces. This has been reality for about a billion years. In the last few millennia, Homo sapiens invented artificial selection based upon man-made environments and discretionary fitness drivers. We have now implemented a new evolutionary paradigm that competes with the natural version that got us to the top of the organic pyramid. Is it an improvement or detriment? To be determined.
But to answer your question, we could unite behind high intelligence and vigorous robustness as tribal criteria. And I prefer the natural kind as opposed to the man-made version.
TomA, I appreciate clarity and I thank you for providing it:
“we could unite behind high intelligence and vigorous robustness as tribal criteria”
Upon this point we profoundly disagree. I welcome watching you fail to unite with j3ws and indians over your shared “high intelligence.” You are in for a rude awakening, I believe. Tribalism is deeper than comptence.
Look at the Amish. We need a religious bond. A spiritual shield as one previous poster put it. It is glue that can hold us together.
Christianity once served that purpose until the Marxists and feminists poisoned it. Now consumerism and social media addiction has taken it’s place and we as a people are much worse off.
Shorter version: “Doing good ain’t got no end.”
This is where technology can come into play though, and by technology, I mean nuclear weapons.
Women make me miserable, but that motivates me to do things. Without them driving me nuts, I become a happy slob. Makes me wonder.
Read/heard somewhere the ancient German women would bring the kids to the battlefield. If the men faltered, they’d massacre the kids and suicidally join the fray. Crazy, but the men fought hard and the Romans never conquered Germania.
Yankee women must’ve been a handful. The men tried witch trials for a while, but eventually they got back to what they did best: revolting and conquering. Rarely cracking a smile, of course.
Germania was never worth Rome’s effort. Hence Rome’s focus on controlling the trade routes in the ME.
Hell the Roman empire was nothing more than the end product of a massive looting expedition that lasted from the Second Punic war to the time of Augustus. Who to his credit tried to put a kibosh on further expansion because by his time as Italy had become hollowed out by 200 years of incessant wars abroad.
pick up a history book about the Romans and the Germans and you would have not posted what you did. Roman general Germanicus annihilated the German commanders armies (trained by the Romans) who destroyed the legions in the forest. he got the Eagles back and took the Germans wife and kids prisoner. the emperor had to call him back from his rampage cause their was no money to get taken back from Germany. the the Roman general Aurelian who they say saved the world and the Roman empire went into Germany and destroyed any army put in front of him
Not an expert, but I’ve read/listened to a bit of it. Worthy adversaries with a lot of back and forth. Caesar even employed Germans against the Gauls iirc. Echoes of the Roman/German dynamic to this day.
nnffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
I think that race is a good start. It’s good because, at least from my perspective, it has been the flashpoint for aggression in the past fifty or so years. That said, race could matter more or less to a person depending on the race to which he belongs; but in the end, most people fall back on it.
At many points in my life I’ve witnessed people, of races different to mine own, and with whom I’ve agreed on many things, say something like “As a Chinese person…”, “As a Black-Briton…”, “White privilege is an issue…” and these were all in relatively tepid exchanges. What always strikes me is that they do not have the same loyalties (a word you use, but I’m not sure if it is the correct one) that I do.
When I pass a War Memorial, be it to The Great War or The Second World War, I stop to look at the names. The first point of interest is usually how many names there are and in which wars did they die? How many then in each war? Further points of interest are the types of names (English, Scottish…) and if there are any relatives amongst the dead. In small villages it is particularly heart-wrenching to see that three Baker lads copped it. Perhaps they were all from the same family?
I digress in the former paragraph, LineInTheSand, because it is apparent that this example has immense meaning to me. I feel some weird connection and plenty of sorrow. Similar, in fact, to walking the ground of an old church. This is important because it is an experience shared by other whites. Perhaps by other coloureds, too. But, I think, it is something that someone I would call ‘My People’ would feel. I can guarantee that the fellows of races different that I’ve met previously, all of them even, would not feel this. In short: This ain’t their land. And they know it.
Whether this is linked directly to race I’m not sure. But it seems like such an experience is one I would only share with whites. But where then? What if that person sharing these sorrowful experiences and thoughts is a ‘Branch Covidian’? Or a devout wokeist who ‘loves refugees’? As much as it pains me, we’ve been sold down the river by a huge part of ‘our people’ – other whites. Thusly, we start a race and drill down until we’ve found our people.
It could be that ‘our people’ are a very small contingent indeed, but I am not so sure that they are. One of the defining features of the age is the sheer domination of the discourse publick by TPTB. This naturally distorts what is out there. It seeks to manipulate and demoralize. Oddly, during the shamdemic I got out even more than usual, and I found England all over the place. I found a people. But the next question, and it is a pickle, is about effectively organizing the disparate – but numerous – elements of ‘our people’.
“As much as it pains me, we’ve been sold down the river by a huge part of ‘our people’ – other whites.”
Excellent point. The world is so complicated.
Nonetheless, I look for the bond that commands the deepest loyalty, even if it is not perfect.
My hope is that a lot of the whites who are woke are people who have little ability to think independently. Once it becomes clear to them that “white allies” are hated as much as white nationalists, many may have a change of heart. We’ll see.
“Once it becomes clear to them … many may have a change of heart.”
I see some nascent signs of this in my extended family, and to put that into context this war is only beginning. Their suffering, and ours, is only beginning. So, I am guardedly optimistic.
This is a beautiful comment and rings so true. Our worst enemy is within our own race. Another Briton, Peter Brimlowe, the best I recall, once wrote he wanted to kill with fire the people who had destroyed England. I understood the sentiment but not until recently did I appreciate it. I am old enough to remember when White Americans generally were a confident people and Southerners in particular were independent and courageous; the former is teetering and the latter is fading. It was our own people who orchestrated the situation.
I think LineInTheSand is onto something about the feeble-minded Wokeists. Many of them will be stunned to learn they only are tolerated as “allies” and are just as despised as any other Whites. They may even come to realize it was was their racial kinsmen mostly who deceived them and destroyed much of what they could have had.
We are only partially into this. Despite Brimelow’s rhetoric, Britain is not destroyed. White America retains some confidence. The South has remnants of courage and independence. We are in a horrible situation and it will grow worse, but as a people we are far from done.
whites were bought off by the hebrews
I don’t know, BLM and the little hats seem to show race or at least ethnicity has been a pretty good unifier within those groups. Seems Whitey is the only one who has trouble pulling it off.
Today’s post is a huge and esoteric topic that requires a dose of clarity.
First, “internationalism” is just a euphemism for the insect model of life forms. The root concept is worker bees at the bottom of a social hierarchy, drone warrior bees to enforce conformity (and purge dissidents), and a queen (or royalty class) at the pinnacle overseeing all. And the ideal is for this model to exist planet-wide so that no opposition can arise anywhere.
Second, “nationalism” is a modern version of the evolutionary principle of adaptation to a local environment. In theory, a “national” people are those who have successfully adapted to a particular geographic area (and all of its local fitness drivers). But in our modern man-made world, every landscape is now dominated by artificial features and an extinction of natural forces. In this model, the future of mankind is via artificial selection only, much like the domestication of sheep and cattle.
Homo sapiens is the only life form of its kind currently extant. The elites want to morph us into either insect or sheep equivalents. I think that’s a bad idea.
It’s the global plantation.
Amazon is clearly being positioned to be the GloboPlant store.
NWO-coin will be the GloboPlant company scrip that can only be spent at Amazon.
Excellent clarification TomA, and a much needed reminder that ‘the great work’ is indeed nothing more than the construction of a human beehive.
Nationalism is a very limiting ideology for the adventurous and the ambitious. Sure, the freeing of your people and creating a homeland or autonomous community can rally those types, but once achieved, it leaves them with the mundane task of improving that country for all, which is why folks like us are so fond of it.
But for a ruling elite (at least with whites), once a homeland or community is created, they seem compelled to start looking beyond their own lands and/or communities for glory and power.
What’s more, at least in Europe, the elite also seem to begin to distance themselves from their own people. Powerful families from various lands begin intermarrying almost as soon as those lands are created, thus creating a new “people” at the top of all of those lands. You would see this all the time in medieval Europe. The elite ruling the land often had no connection to the people working the land. At the very least, the wife or husband – who often didn’t even speak the language – didn’t.
One of the monster advantages of the Tribe was that they did stick together at the elite level throughout history. Indeed, Z says that nationalism hasn’t been tried. I’d disagree. It has been tried by the Tribe and has been wildly successful. Nationalism (sticking together as an ethnicity) only fails them when they start trying to rule over other peoples instead of manipulating them to improve the lives of members of the Tribe.
Most likely, the tribe is cohesive because of their persecutions, which they mostly brought upon themselves, over thousands of years.
I foresee the same process for whites. Let’s hope that the inevitable persecution of whites results in a similar cohesiveness. If not, we go functionally extinct, except that black and j3wish gangsters will still obtain white sex slaves.
The future is now.
The NEW White Monkey Jobs in China
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkCLVsyg-Nc
Citizen: You make a strong point about the nobility of a country often not speaking the same language as the poor workers (the Norman invaders in England, or the Russian nobility primarily speaking French). But I still take some issue with Zman’s statement that nationalism didn’t truly emerge until the 1400s. The sentiment perhaps wasn’t as particular as it is today, and men had other ties in common (Christendom versus Mohammedanism), but I would argue there was still a strong sense of place, particularly among the small landholders or craftsmen. People knew their family had been in ‘x’ place going back for centuries, and the records existed in the church and cemetery.
I am also not certain I agree that nationalism is necessarily limiting for the “adventurous and the ambitious,” as you claim. In broad terns, perhaps, but at least within the White race in general and the Anglo-Saxons specifically there seemed to coexist a strong sense of self within the bonds of family, community, and country, as well as more far-flung bonds with fellow explorers or hobbyists. Perhaps I am misinformed, but I don’t recall reading that the men who explored the far reaches of the earth or climbed the highest mountain felt more a part of the community of global mountaineers than their own nation.
Your point that the ruling elite almost immediately begin intermarrying and distancing themselves from the other classes is very well made. I’m not certain how best to address this, but I think it could be mandated that marriage must be within the race and the nation – this used to be the overwhelming pattern. War concubinage was one thing, and it was paternity that mattered most (sons born to Viking or Arab slaves still seemed to be considered to inherit their fathers’ cultural and national ties). American war brides were certainly rather rare and not celebrated after WWI – even after WWII acceptance varied tremendously (compare the GI bringing home an English bride versus a Japanese).
“… I think it could be mandated that marriage must be within the race and the nation …”
I agree and would take it a step further. If we end up with a hereditary aristocracy again, it should be mandated upon its inception that all title inheritors must marry commoners within their domains. This would serve to bind the rulers and ruled and prevent the rise of an inbred international aristocracy. Also, selecting the best (at least in looks/health) from the commoners would serve to maintain over the long term a higher level of genetic fitness in the ruling class than the historical pattern of maintaining a separate and much smaller aristocrat breeding population.
Jeez, we can’t even agree on what “nationalism” means, and now I’m getting confused too, you bastards.
Yeah, not set definition, at least not in practice. For me, nationalism is the desire to create at a minimum a community for a people linked by ancestry, culture, history, language and religion with ancestry being very much the most important component since the rest flow from that.
Of course, the ultimate goal of nationalism is the establishment of an autonomous homeland for your people, but you can have nationalism without a homeland. Heck, the first step is simply recognizing – even among yourselves – the existence of a people and thus a desire to maintain that ethnicity.
Kind of one of those things you have to come to by degrees. Like yesterday’s post about when grains of sand become a pile. One way to look at it is the Arab saying, me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, etc. At what point does this group become a community, then a nation?
Did anyone read this? It’s a really interesting article and he clearly has a lot of knowledge and admiration for the West but his visit here showed him how bad it was going. He seems to be why China is shutting down the effeminate men and the celebrity culture. But the article mentions that they’re trying to institute a top-down moral and ethical culture without realizing that’s exactly what we’ve done here but ours is the inverse of moral and ethical.
https://palladiummag.com/2021/10/11/the-triumph-and-terror-of-wang-huning/
Thanks for the link. This quote stands out (of Wang Huning):
“He began to argue that China had to resist global liberal influence and become a culturally unified and self-confident nation governed by a strong, centralized party-state.”
Sounds like a decent start. I’ve no idea how far down the road the chinks are to liberal decadence; but identifying it and coming up with a plan to counter it can’t hurt.
‘Cultural unification’, ‘self-confident nation’ all will sound good to most standard conservatives; but the need for ‘a strong, centralized party-state’ will get them to release their caterwauling of ‘Marxism!’, ‘Totalitarianism!’. Fine. But at this point in the west, it’s probably going to take such a movement to encourage people to be proud of their cultural heritage.
We’ve been spared the rod far too long.
Yes, I’ve seen this article pop up in a couple places.
It is an excellent read.
Also, notable is the main subject’s ability to survive and thrive under three different Chinese Premiers as well as his deep insight into the West’s issues and how to exploit them.
Contrast this fellow to any of the fools currently running the West.
It’s not pretty.
That’s the forty thousandth link to that piece I’ve seen this week, all of them from the “far right,” never with any disclaimer that it’s bait so don’t eat it whole. Strange, but—if you’re reading it it’s for you (as the saying almost goes).
The piece’s not-properly-hidden “Straussian” premise is that China, having witnessed THE INSURRECTION—the most horrifying event in American history, the one that discredited the American individual forever—launched an emergency de-Americanization in response. You might not have noticed that, but your brain did (as the other saying almost goes).
Why is *that* what neocon glowie propaganda wants /ourguys/ to believe? Why do they want to believe it? If they don’t believe it themselves, then why do they want *us* to believe it? Are they just illiterate? Are we? Why is slipping D.C. establishment mind-poison to us under the name of an unknown-to-us Chinese regime intellectual with no reputation to us except “Chinese regime intellectual” such an effective way to get us to swallow it? Who knew?
I think we can all read between the lines enough to ignore J6 hysterics.
Have some faith.
I’ve been nursing suspicions also. The Huning piece isn’t the first time I’ve seen alt-Righters and white nationalists praise China for being better than Globohomo.
There’s a desperation in the West. Dissidents against the New World Order want something or someone to believe in. Maybe they want to believe in a safe harbor that they can move to. Maybe they want to believe that Islam is patriarchal. Maybe they plan to vote harder… whatever that means.
Or here, maybe they want to believe that China is the success story of the nationalism they espouse. It’s hard to square “China seeks to create a stable ethnostate” with “China’s One Child Policy” (now Three to generously prevent self-genocide) but no matter. They see ruthlessness, xenophobia and somebody who can stand against Globohomo, and they like what they see.
I feel the desperation, too, but false hope is no hope at all. China opposing Globohomo is not proof that China would be an improvement. Notice they both like the idea of a social credit system….
There’s someone on Gab who purports to be a Han Chinese nationalist living in China and he pushes the case that most of the leadership in China is all on board with GloboHomo. Outside looking in it would seem that maybe he’s exaggerating somewhat, but part of it is concern that once a nose slips in through the door the whole mess of Wester totalitarian decadence will come pouring in.
Another point working against the Chinese is that post-revolution China has been all about using extreme brute force to try and iron out the faults between radical contradictions. For instance, that imperial Belt and Road corporate welfare project doesn’t match up with a place that wants to be an isolated island of moral nationalism.
China may be better than GloboHomo–what isn’t?–but we can do better still. Russia springs readily to mind.
Putting that aside, the Great War was not a war of national identity or a war between national identities. It was an industrialized version of all previous imperial wars in Europe, waged between empires over resources.
Yeah, I don’t think so.
What resources was The German Empire or the Russian Empire trying to grab in WWI? Or the Austrians or French or British?
It seams to me it wasn’t about resources. It was about prestige. A pissing match that spun horribly out of control.
That may sound like psycho-babble; which is the neo-Marxist critique of a non materialist cause. But, historically, wars were often started for internal political reasons. A weak ruler needed the prestige of a victory, or the distraction of a war to preclude a revolt. The proximate cause of the war – the assassination of the Austrian heir – was an assault on their prestige and threat to their regime. Letting any ally suffer such an attack was a threat to German prestige.
Nationalism as a concept was pretty much invented by the peace of Westphalia along with the concept of the nation state.
And several west European nations, notable France and Spain and to a lesser extent the UK spent centuries creating a unified nation out of disparate components.
On the other hand, Poland and Magyars and Bulgarians were all nations – often with states long before the Hundred Years’ War.
Byzantium by the 9th century fits the modern conception of a nation state – although no one called it one.
“And several west European nations, notable France and Spain and to a lesser extent the UK spent centuries creating a unified nation out of disparate components.”
That is the key point about modern day nationalism: it took ages to form, sort of organically. At least in The Isles, we had a homogeneous population from a racial standpoint – which removes the primary flashpoint found in, ahem, more ‘diverse’ societies.
Centuries to make and only decades to rip asunder…
Are the Isles the UK?
Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England were all different nations at the time of the hundred years wars. Heck even England had t fully gelled by that point.
The Uk was able to use its empire and colonialism to foster a sense of national unity faster than other wester European countries. But it started falling apart with the empire (even a little before). At this point, it seams inevitable that Scotland will go its own way eventually and Wales is iffy.
My mistake. I meant to say ‘England’ and not ‘The Isles’.
Just so. There are still tribal nation states in Europe – nationalism may be a modern phenomenon, but nations are not.
Yeah, the idea that ancient peoples didn’t view themselves as distinct is crazy. They may not have used the word nationalism but they were nations and their territories were quite often the equivalent of nation-states.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Europe has had nationalism and nation-states from the get-go.
And they unselfconsciously spoke of themselves as belonging to different nations, very much like we do today. Both the Saxon chroniclers and the sagas make a point of mentioning the nationality of the persons they describe. A Norwegian didn’t become Irish just because he was born in Ireland, and nobody ever called King Canute a Saxon.
I think you are mixing concepts here. The Athenians certainly saw themselves as a distinct people from the Spartans and certainly the Persians. New Englanders see themselves as a unique people. We would not talk about New England as a nation or Yankee nationalism. Scale is important here. Nationalism subsumes secondary and tertiary identities. It does not obliterate them, but links them through blood, location and history.
I think you could make a better case for Hellenism as the precursor for nationalism, but I don’t think the Ancients would have understood our modern concept of the nation-state, which is what we are discussion.
This seems wrong.
Herodotus clearly identifies the Athenians as Pelasgi (later called Ionians) originally and the Spartans as Dorian tribes, who invaded the Peloponnese later. and pushed out the other tribes.
The different groups had different tribal roots, settled the regions at different times, had different languages variants, and occupied different geographic regions, had different politically and aristocratic dynasties, had different currency and maintained their borders militarily.
What else would you call them other than Nations?
That they considered themselves “Greek” when facing external groups such as the Persians does not negate this.
Its like claiming the various Christian knights were all the same Nation during the crusades against the moors.
If I put on on your kitchen counter the ingredients to make a cake, would you say there is a cake on your kitchen counter? Just because the ingredients for nationalism have always existed, just as the ingredients for the microprocessor have always existed, it does not follow that nationalism has always existed.
I can’t reply to your comment. But you appear to deny the construct of the entity. Its not a random collection of stuff. Its a cohesive structure derived from shared roots, maintained via institutions.
I am struggling to see what you are actually defining as a nation then.
By that definition every single modern nation is a pile of stuff on the kitchen counter.
Again, replace nation with cake and you can see the error. Just as a cake is more than the sum of its parts, a nation-state is more than the basic requirements of a people and place. Normandy had all the parts to become a nation with its own territorial and historical claims, but it never happened.
Nope. Just not seeing it. To just keep repeating a negate is not an argument.
Normandy had no such politically distinct structural identity. It is a false equivalence.
What is your exact requirement bar of a nation then that these entities did not possess?
What is this political construct that defines a nation?
If this were an argument, then you would have a point, but it is not an argument or even a debate. I’m trying to point out your errors and you are refusing to consider it. Like many commenters to this post, you have an emotional interest in a particular definition of nationalism. That is fine, but it has led all of you to miss the point of the post. I think I will revisit this in another post.
Its not an emotional tie.
I am trying to grok what your definition actually is in concrete terms.
It appears to be a game of battleships.
Which consists of just calling miss on every reasonable historical definition I can think of.
To not provide a definition in order to measure the mismatch, and just saying no, not that, not that, not that either is pointless,
No slight intended. In total, the responses have not been what I expected. Many seem to be offended by the assertion that nationalism has been a bit player in western history, yet remains the main bogeyman of the people in total control of the West.
I am not trying to be insulting here but I am wondering if as an American you are reading history in Europe via the lens of the US civil war, and the ceding of the colonies.
The modern US from a European view is a politically rooted nation settled in near living memory, so it seems your definition stems from this, The founding myth is even a political system, rather than a Native identity.
European Nations are not this and Nation root identity is still very strong and distinct and it appears this is a gap that makes no sense to either side.
I’ll point out that all important decisions in Europe are now made in Brussels. Every “nation” in Europe has been reduced to nothing more than a province. Further, Europe has been maintained as something of an adult day care center by the American empire for generations now. Sure, the old germ of national identity is still there in a minority of the population, but it has no role in the governance of any of the western nations.
This was the point of the post, which no one seemed to get. Nationalism is not now and never really has been a major force in Western history, relative to empire, kingdoms and religion. Yet, it is a singular obsession of the ruling internationalists who have total control of all western institutions. The point of the post was to wonder why the elephant is so afraid of a mouse that exists only in its imagination.
It is an axiom of the ruling ideology that nationalism is the worst thing ever and that stamping it out is a primary concern. In Europe, there are laws against the concept. People are jailed for promoting it.
Wait, what?
Barring England, every European nation has a nationalist party, even Germany and Sweden, where the latter is polling at 25% for the nationalist party. In Scotland, a nationalist is PM and in Norway the nationalists were in government a few years back.
In England, the nationalist impulse was corralled by the non-political UKIP so while they got their Brexit, the nationalist vote had zero influence on Westminster politics.
I’d prefer to use the term ‘internationalism’ in a positive sense, in order to contrast it with ‘globalism’.
The latter word would mean what it presently means. ‘Internationalism’, instead of being used interchangeably, would describe an ideal state in which nation states cooperate or at least attempt to remain at peace while respecting each other’s unique national identity and independence.
I picture an internationalism where Germans acknowledge the right of Hungarians to make their own decisions about gay marriage etc, where Americans and Mexicans respect each others’ differences and borders, and where Chinese accept that the Japanese can have whatever immigration policies they like.
Can’t have internationalism without nationalism.
‘I’m not a globalist, dear, I’m an internationalist. I want every nation to survive and prosper in its own way, not get dragged into some bland, amophous borg-world. Protect cultural diversity! Viva la difference!’
I enjoyed the review of WWI through the lens of the clash of empires.
How does a nation that is made up of other nations (more-so recently) become nationalistic? That is the thing that’s bugging me right now.
What you do is this: take the skin of the old Nation, and then inside you stuff it full of magic potion called ‘multi-culturalism’. You see, the Nation used to mean X, Y and Z and when people thought of it, they thought of green people…
But now, the Nation means A, B and C and when people think of it, they think of blue, black and orange people.
One a serious note we need to do away, in my opinion with such terms. Even to the normal person, if the term ‘Nationalist’ means anything at all, it has already been tarnished with ‘wayycissm’ &c. So we either reclaim it or obsolete it. Let us simply ask “What is the DR and what can it offer/promote?”.
Here’s one: affordable and safe family formation. Unfortunately, as literally everyone here has pointed out, what we offer is effectively toil (and possibly Eternal Life as detailed in The Book)… but that’s hard. Wokey is offering Utopia, for free. Naturally, we can expect any future movement to be small and local. But that’s how we like it, I suppose.
Confederation.
Switzerland is, as always, the model for a successful republic. Though that seems to be from having very powerful neighbors.
America is one nation from many states. A civil war gave power to one part of the country. Then TV and mandatory schooling did the rest. TV in the 60s was a big part of creating a national identity.
Finally, the Austro-Hungarian empire tried to create a confederation of two, but failed at three, nations: a German-Bohemian nation, a Magyar dominant nation and an aborted Slavic nation. All three would have had their own congress, internal policy, etc. but a single Habsburg monarch. Think an EU of the balkans. But they lost so Wilson helped carve it all up into nations.
“Though that seems to be from having very powerful neighbors.”
Don’t forget rather inhospitable terrain as well.
surprised zman didn’t cover the role of ethnicity in nationalism. you are going to dilute nationalism when you have multiple ethnicities in the populace. pretty much have to have a super-majority native population of a single ethnicity. hmmm, who does that sound like not.
Out of interest, why weren’t the Greek city-states not considered nations? I really don’t see the reason they are not but that tends to be a widespread view.
” How many have been murdered by liberal democrats is never discussed. Tens of millions for sure. ”
This is an excellent question and solid point. The United States has murdered millions of innocents throughout the Middle East in recent decades, far more than the communists have murdered since the beginning of the 21st Century.
Finally, greedy tyrants revert to nationalism whenever it benefits them. Stalin did. China does, Israel obviously does. The United States will as its empire contracts and it needs the Coalition of the Unwilling to become cannon fodder again. It is pretty difficult to get people to fight for a nebulous New World Order that is rooted in concrete bottom lines.
As far as he Greeks, I think the answer that these city-states were all Greeks, but they obviously were not united under that identity. That and the city-states had lots of non-Greeks in them.
But the Athenians were very much united under the identity of “Athenian” as Sparta and Achaea were for the other city states. They clearly recognized that they were a tribe, because there were different laws for tribesmen than for outsiders.
For sure, but those distinction were arbitrary, not rooted in biology. The Athenian was different from the Spartan not in nature, but in how he chose to live. Nationalism assumes the primary identity is blood. Certainly the roots of nationalism were present in Greece or even Rome, but I agree with those who say it is not the same as nationalism.
Nationalism is a really fuzzy concept. People now a days use it as a synonym for nation-state. Which isn’t correct. A nation is a group of people that share a common language, culture and genetic history. Poland was a nation without a state for a century and a half. Austria is a state that’s never been a nation (the hapsburgs were German and Austrians today still are).
I’d suggest that nationalism is a cultural-political identity rather than an organic one, like the French all speaking the same language despite belonging to different tribes.
If we run with that, white nationalism isn’t really nationalism rather than meta-tribalism.
Before the French Revolution, most people in what was then France did not speak French.
No, the large majority spoke French by then. You have to go back to the 15th C. (before Henry “Paris is worth a mass” the Fourth) to find a truly multilingual France.
But you’re right that a better example would have been Germany. The French nationalism is really Frankish culture superimposed onto neighboring tribes.
” Certainly the roots of nationalism were present in Greece or even Rome, but I agree with those who say it is not the same as nationalism.”
That is a good and fair summary. I think of nationalism in terms of both blood and soil; the city-states shared the former and not the latter. The concept of discrete land masses being a separate nations certainly originated there.
How are they arbitrary?
Herodotus clearly discusses the different group origins in many places.
For example:
“Now these were the nations who composed the Grecian fleet. From the Peloponnese, the following- the Lacedaemonians with six, teen ships; the Corinthians with the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians with fifteen; the Epidaurians with ten; the Troezenians with five; and the Hermionians with three. These were Dorians and Macedonians all of them (except those from Hermione), and had emigrated last from Erineus, Pindus, and Dryopis. The Hermionians were Dryopians, of the race which Hercules and the Malians drove out of the land now called Doris. Such were the Peloponnesian nations.
From the mainland of Greece beyond the Peloponnese, came the Athenians with a hundred and eighty ships, a greater number than that furnished by any other people; and these were now manned wholly by themselves; for the Plataeans did not serve aboard the Athenian ships at Salamis, owing to the following reason. When the Greeks, on their withdrawal from Artemisium, arrived off Chalcis, the Plataeans disembarked upon the opposite shore of Boeotia, and set to work to remove their households, whereby it happened that they were left behind. (The Athenians, when the region which is now called Greece was held by the Pelasgi, were Pelasgians, and bore the name of Cranaans; but under their king Cecrops, they were called Cecropidae; when Erechtheus got the sovereignty, they changed their name to Athenians; and when Ion, the son of Xuthus, became their general, they were named after him Ionians.) ”
Sounds pretty different tribal roots to me?
Only to the retarded US specific brand of nationalism where there is no actual ethnic nation behind it.
I was thinking the other day about the movie Idiocracy and how on second thought, it’s not the worst case scenario. I’d rather have society ruled by low-iq people than one ruled by middle or high iq people who have a sort of marshall applewhite vibe to them.
Imagine all the creative ways you could foil LaToya and Gabriela at city hall…
That was the most unrealistic part about Idiocracy – things still mostly worked. If you want to see what a real low-IQ country looks like, go to any country in Africa or to the UK.
I think what was implied was that society was lurching along thanks to a high degree of automation birthed by a previous people. For instance, when the computer ordered that Brawndo employees be fired.
Idiocracy presented a future that was highly automated and run by slightly-smarter heads of corporations like Brawndo and Buttf**kers. This was what kept things going.
An average man from 2000’s was the smartest man in the world of Idiocracy. Clearly, there was nobody who would be really able to maintain society.
The purpose of these elite obsessions is to induce shame in host populations so they don’t oppose their alien rulers and their destructive policies.
>That’s the reason for constructing holocaust museums in countries that never had anything to do with it: “Your ancestors were bad. Here’s the proof. If you notice we’re in charge and oppose that arrangement, then you’re bad like them.”
>That’s the reason behind the elite’s obsession with colonial history: “You’re ancestors were bad, so you owe us your homes through immigration – a policy that just so happens to benefit us electorally and financially. Oppose that and you’re bad like your ancestors. Here’s all the bad things they did. Now cry.”
>That’s the reason behind the ruling class’s desire to crush nationalists: “Your nation is bad. Oppose our policies which hurt your nation but enrich our social class, and you’re bad by association.”
Edward Dutton may have discussed the evolutionary origins of propaganda like this. One way to pass down your genes is to out breed rivals. Another is to trick rivals into not breeding themselves (or doing something that lowers their fitness or mating desirability, like destroying their wealth). That way other people’s progeny aren’t around to compete with yours, ensuring more of them survive.
Your ancient, manipulative, ancestors were sometimes able to trick their fellow travelers into taking themselves out of the gene pool. What we’re seeing now is an alien elite doing much the same to us, but on a far grander scale and with the support of mass media and technology (and unfortunate European genetics: pathological altruism.)
> Edward Dutton may have discussed the evolutionary origins of propaganda like this. One way to pass down your genes is to out breed rivals. Another is to trick rivals into not breeding themselves (or doing something that lowers their fitness or mating desirability, like destroying their wealth).
Or convince them to kill each other. The U.S. Government convinced millions of heartland Germans to go to Europe and kill their ethnic kinsmen. They had some success with the Japanese Americans, but not nearly as much.
There’s going to be a massive social and genetic culling where either whites will develop in-group preferences and resistance to increasingly effective propaganda techniques, or we all become undifferentiated human matter. Z is right that nationalism may not be a strong enough rallying banner, and race by itself is not either.
Ashkenazi Jews shrink down to a population of about 300 at one point. The decedents of that foundation stock eventually conquered the West, so culling the herd is not always the end of the herd.
And we’re not even close to a bottleneck: there’s half a billion white people on the planet, more white people than have ever existed before, and I see sign all around me that a culling is indeed long overdue.
If we started to recognized our common interests as Europeans and acted as a people, we’d have this planet whipped into shape in a few decades and we can go back to fighting each other.
I suppose religion is a possibility. Particularly ethnic religion which serves as a synthetic tribe. How many people besides German Americans are interested in becoming traditional, confessional Lutherans. The LCMS leadership has gotten its panties in a wad from time to time because the denomination is too “white” (Germanic, really).
Orthodoxy which has national, autocephalous churches (the Greeks, Russians, Serbs, etc.).
Heck the Catholics even have e.g. black parishes now and the ordinariate for those who value English patrimony.
Religion is clearly less binding than race in many cases.
Liberia is overwhelmingly Christian. Now imagine a country that is half Liberian and half white Southern Baptist.
I trust that everyone who contemplates this thought experiment will conclude that the society will break along racial lines, in spite of their shared Christianity.
Every white country has a shameful origin myth.
USA – slavery (killing natives is the backup)
UK – colonizing other countries
Canada – “residential schools” (natives)
Germany – Holocaust
Etc.
They can’t seem to manufacture one against Russia so they simply hate Russia and Russians.
Either way it’s just normal stuff that humans do, white people happened to be better at it for a while than other tribes. That’s why we live in relative prosperity and comfort today – our ancestors shed blood for their future descendants.
The Irish (not Irish Americans) didn’t do many naughty things to colored people but they have to go too.
Oxford actually had a debate about this. A morbidly obese black woman decided that the Irish were guilty for the British Empire just as the Welsh, Scots and English were. Yada Yada privilege an’ shit
There’s only one thing more inspiring than an imaginary future utopia, and that’s an actually better past. There is a reason the French, English, etc. went running back to their monarchs after seeing the revolutionary utopia. And thanks to Brandon, the question “are you better off now than you were five years ago?,” which used to be a cliche back in the “end of history” years, is now deadly serious. People will be asking it for real this winter, sitting in the cold, eating leftover Halloween candy, because Brandon and Gov. Hairgel were stupid enough to actually listen to that little goblin Greta Thunberg.
This is so ironic that somewhere deep in the Canadian outback, Alanis Morissette is weeping salty tears of joy.
The supremely ironic thing about Alanis’ little effort is that, if I remember correctly, not one of the scenarios sung about contained any true irony at all, just a BCG understanding of such.