1,736 words
I would like to briefly make the case for universal nationalism, a political ideology defined here as the belief that every nation should have a society and a state of its own. Put more simply still: Every people should have its own country; every people should rule itself, rather than be dictated by outsiders. I believe universal nationalism encapsulates many of the principles which would allow all human beings to live in a more peaceful, prosperous, and progressive world.
I base this upon two premises:
- The desirability of the nation-state, that is to say of homogeneity and a common ethnic identity within societies.
- The desirability of human (bio)diversity, that is to say of ethnic, cultural, political, economic, and other differences between societies.
Perhaps the most fundamental fact supporting the idea of universal nationalism is the reality of ethnocentrism. Human beings are inherently tribal and, with good reason, have evolved over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to be so. In the modern era, with its mass communications and mass politics, this tribalism becomes fixated on the ethnic group. Whereas individuals in a society should all identify with each other as much as possible, as this is a prerequisite for the solidarity on which the public good always rests, we tend to find that identification fractures along ethnic lines.
This leads to a negative reason for universal nationalism: The multiculturalists’ persistent failure to create a truly cohesive and harmonious multiethnic society. It matters not whether the ethnic differences are based on language (Belgium, Canada), religion (Iraq, Syria), or race (the United States, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa . . .).[1] In each case, the lack of a common identity leads to a perpetual tribalization of politics. These problems are sometimes peaceful managed, but they quite often lead to horrific and otherwise unnecessary ethnic civil wars. In any case, the problems are intractable. People on average are simply not as willing to submit to authority, pay taxes, or give their life in war for another group, as they would for their own group. In a word: There is no solidarity.
This lack of solidarity tends to be worsened by the fact that ethnic groups tend to have different levels of educational and socio-economic performance. Ethnic pride is one of the most powerful emotions in the world, and the sight of another ethnic group doing better than one’s own inevitably leads to enormous amounts of ill-feeling. The less well-performing group will be underrepresented in the countries’ influential institutions and circles (e.g. politics, media, academia, law, corporations, the oligarchy . . .) and will tend to accuse of the better-performing group of ethnic nepotism or of biasing its use of power in its own interests, i.e. “racism.” Conversely, a better-performing ethnic group tends to resent the less well-performing ones for being a relative drag on society, committing more crimes and requiring more policing, dragging down school performance, providing less in taxes, and generally requiring more resources from the public purse in the form of welfare. These dynamics largely account for the endless conflicts and tensions between Jews, East Asians (e.g. Overseas Chinese), white gentiles, browns, and blacks whenever these groups inhabit the same countries.
Different ethnic groups also tend to have different preferences. Living in the same society and under the same government, each is not free to pursue them, but must accommodate ill-fitting common decisions, either decided unilaterally by one group or through awkward inter-ethnic compromises.
The result of all this is that multiethnic societies are, invariably, unions of resentment and mutual recriminations. Multiethnic societies are sometimes inevitable and must be peacefully be managed, but one should not pretend that these are either optimal or desirable.
Mirroring the intractable problems of the multiethnic society, there are positive reasons for universal nationalism. In short, in the nation-state man’s tribal instinct no longer tears the society apart, but brings it together. Instead of ethnic fragmentation and conflict, ethnocentrism in the nation-state turns the entire society into one extended family. This tends to both be emotionally compelling – hence the power of political nationalism throughout the modern era[2] – and to enable societies in which individuals are more willing to sacrifice for the public good, whether in the form of respecting public authority and the law, paying taxes, or defending against foreign aggression. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the powerful “cuddle hormone” oxytocin tends to promote both altruism (self-sacrifice) and ethnocentrism (in-group identity and preference), which makes perfect evolutionary sense.[3]
The nation-state, like a family, is both a preexisting biological and cultural reality, and a project to be carefully cultivated over the generations. In the ideal nation-state, common national identification is developed through the elimination of sub-national particularisms, either by assimilation to a common ethnic group or by minorities’ gaining independence in their own nation-states.
In the modern era, the European nation-state was found to be such a powerful form of socio-political organization that it was emulated throughout the world. Belief in the desirability of the nation-state was sharply weakened by the excesses of the world wars. But the nation-state is only a tool, a powerful but double-edged sword, and cannot be blamed for being misused. In any event, a nation-state bien compris would recognize kinship with closely-related nations and logically organize to defend common interests. Even after the Second World War, the liberal-conservative Jewish intellectual Raymond Aron, for one, continued to consider the nation-state to be “the political masterpiece.” Few would argue that Europeans’ relative abandonment of the nation-state – such as the creation of African and Islamic ghettos in the cities or the building of a flawed currency union – have improved their well-being or influence in the world.
Finally, the domestic homogeneity of the nation-state is desirable because it is the only way of guaranteeing humanity’s international diversity. Human beings, contra an evil Judeo-Christian doctrine, are not separate from the animal kingdom and the rest of Nature, but an integral part of it. Humanity, like any species, is subject to the same Darwinian rules of natural selection and struggle. It may survive and prosper and achieve higher forms of consciousness, or it may go extinct. Perhaps the best guarantee to ensure humanity’s maximal survivability is diversity, true diversity. True human diversity would be biological, cultural, political, economic, and otherwise.
The globalists argue that all political regimes, across the world, that are different from their own “liberal-democratic” ideals should be destroyed and that all countries should be integrated into a single hyper-consumerist global capitalist economic system. Thus, the Earth is being consumed to fill our bellies, but she cannot sustain all Third World countries achieving Western standards of living, the rainforests being destroyed and hundreds of millions of years of accumulated fossil-fuels being consumed for our vulgar pleasures.
The globalists also argue that – at least concerning Western countries – that ethnic homogeneity should be destroyed, that America should be “globalized” into a raza cósmica and that Europe should be Afro-Islamized. They call this “diversity.” But the equation of ethnic heterogeneity with “diversity” is very misleading insofar as, actually – notwithstanding their genetic or linguistic differences, or an intractable tendency towards self-segregation and the formation of subcultures – different ethnic gorups in a given society must anyway must submit to a common political and ideological model to live together. Is the elimination of European ethnicities and identity, and the subjugation of the entire world to a single “liberal-democratic” ideology and capitalist economic system, really “diverse”?
I posit the contrary: Subjugating all of humanity to a single economic and ideological model means putting all our eggs in one basket. If it is seriously flawed, as it surely is or will occasionally be, that means we would all suffer from its failures and risk extinction.
Instead, humanity really should be biologically, culturally, politically, and economically diverse. Thus, with every new era, each society will evolve and react somewhat differently. While one may stagnate or even collapse, others may survive and prosper. The innovations of one part of humanity – the Japanese, say – can be adopted and adapted to other parts. Would the elimination of Japan’s uniqueness through Africanization or Islamization really benefit the rest of humanity, or even Africa and the Islamic World? Most would think not. And the same is true of Europe and Europeans. We can ask simply: Would, as is currently proposed, the decline and steady disappearance ethnic Europeans really benefit the Third World? Given the lack of innovation of Latin America, Africa, and the Islamic World, this seems hard to believe. And certainly, few would argue that Haiti or Zimbabwe have benefited much from white extinction in those countries.
I believe Europeans, like any group, should take their own side. But many of our people, partly due to their in-born generosity and partly due to a misleading education, are insensitive to arguments of self-interest. For them the good must be couched exclusively in universal terms. These people are disturbed by the growing inequality and social fragmentation evident throughout the Western world yet are powerless to understand why this happening or articulate a valid response. For them, I answer: Nationhood is a supreme moral good necessary to a solidary and harmonious society, and therefore all nations, particularly our dear European nations, should be preserved and cultivated.
Notes
1. The nearest thing I have found to an exception to this rule is Swizterland, a very successful country in which the diversity between Protestants and Catholics, and between German-, French-, Italian-, and Romansh-speakers appears to pose few problems. Scholars have proposed that one reason Switzerland is so peaceful is because these groups, while united in a fairly weak federal state (with central government spending of just 10% of GDP), are sharply separated in their own largely self-ruling cantons. One should also not neglect that Switzerland’s ethnic diversity has in fact led to tensions and conflict throughout its history and required very peculiar, in some respects stifling and fragile, political structures. Véronique Greenwood, “Scientists Who Model Ethnic Violence Find that in Switzerland, Separate is Key to Peace,” Discover blog, October 12, 2011. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/10/12/scientists-who-model-ethnic-violence-find-that-in-switzerland-separation-is-key-to-peace/
2. Indeed, nationalism is probably the single-most-powerful and most-exploited political sentiment in modern history, including by political movements who might be theoretically opposed to it. For instance, the twentieth-century revolutionary Chinese and Vietnamese communist movements and the various “anti-racist” anti-colonial movements, were quite obviously motivated and empowered by ethnocentric sentiment against overbearing foreign powers.
3. Carsten De Dreu et al, “The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans,” Science, June 2010. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5984/1408 “Oxytocin increases social altruism,” Science Daily, November 26, 2015.
8 comments
This idea, Universal Nationalism, is a bit Wilsonian.
Not all tribes should hold territory and not all tribes can truly self govern. Is the world better off with Haiti around? Are Americans in South Dakota better stewards of the Black Hills today or were the Sioux better owners in 1870? What would a self-governing Empire of the Gypsies be like?
False dilemma: advocating nationalism as a universal guiding principle is NOT the same as meddling in every part of the world in order to protect the sovereignty of every tribe or people on the planet. It’s simple, when you go about deciding on policy, you do so on the assumption that national sovereignty, for your people and your neighbours, is preferable to multicultural imperialism, in which you become inextricably involved in the affairs of other groups, and neither your people nor the others have any real self-determination. This means you support nationally-minded governments both domestically and abroad. What it does NOT entail, like Wilsonianism, is policing the whole world to ensure that every nation has “democracy”. It’s not about who would be a better “steward” of any given piece of land. We tried that in the past. It was called colonialism, and it backfired on us.
What I mean by Wilsonian isn’t the aspect of foreign military adventures, but his concept of self determination of peoples. Self determination of peoples sounds good in a sound bite – just like Universal Nationalism.
After WW1, self determination of peoples turned out to be worse than the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
No easy answer to this of course, but a blanket policy of Universal Nationalism strikes me as a flawed idea.
“After WW1, self determination of peoples turned out to be worse than the Austro-Hungarian Empire.”
That’s only because it was applied inconsistently, by powers interested in redrawing Central Europe’s borders to their own advantage.
“a blanket policy of Universal Nationalism strikes me as a flawed idea.”
So you say, but you do not say why it is flawed. So far your only argument against it has been to attach the adjective “Wilsonian” to it.
It is a flawed concept as Unversal Nationalism would give a moral trump card of sorts to something like The Empire of the Gypsies, or The Bantustan on New Africa situated on the best farmland in Alabama.
Perhaps, there should be Universal Nationalism for the civilized regions and a policy of problem management for places like Africa and the Middle East. With that in mind, should the United States or any other civilized nation recognize exit visas or passports form a place like Haiti? It is a “sovereign nation” with 200 years of “freedom.”
Additionally, I am uncertain that the Bavarians are so different from the Brandenburgers that one should automatically support the separatist ideas of the first group of malcontents which come along. In other words it is very difficult to properly apply the concept in practice.
@Carl
I have no idea what this “Empire of the Gypsies” thing you keep going on about is, so I’ll ignore that, but from the rest of your article is seems that what you prefer is for civilized (i.e. “Western”) nations to act as caretakers for the less civilized parts of the world, essentially a rehashing of colonialism. The problem with that is that it effectively robs us of our self-determination as well. If we have to take care of other peoples and their territories, our destinies ultimately become entangled with theirs, and that means we will inevitably be spending our time, money and effort trying to maintain racially alien societies at some sort of Western standard. The past millennium has seen generations of Whites leaving home to live among non-White races, spreading our culture to them (thereby diluting it), even miscegenating with them. Has any of it really benefited us? Nationalism works because it means every people can live according to its own standards. Multiracialism (and that includes states where Whites ruled, like South Africa and the American South) fails because it means peoples with different standards, desires, and capabilities trying to fit into the same system. This clearly does not work. It never did.
I promote Europeanism:
What is Europeanism???
Europeanism
noun
1. European characteristics, ideas, methods, virtue, sympathies, etc.
2. a European trait or practice.
3. European belief or advocacy of the unification of European Nations.
4. European activism, promotion, movement towards an ethno-State
5. Encouragement, celebration, acceptance of beliefs, values & traditions of Europeans.
What’s an ‘-ism’???
noun
an [ism] is: a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice. –
So, by simply adding the ‘–ism’ effect to the word European we give the word life, action, and purpose.
The second step is identifying as Europeanist.
What is a Europeanist???
Europeanist
noun
1. a person who recognizes, Aryan ancestry and Caucasians groups who identify as European
2. a person who opposes the castigation, genocide, or displacement of Europeans
3. a person who renounces any Governmental, persecution or oppression of Europeans
4. a person who advocates for Europeanism, especially the unification of all Europeans
Identifying as Europeanist allows us to demonstrate social cohesiveness.
Identifying as Europeanists sends a strong signal to your audience that you are racial aware of your ancestry and one who appreciates wider classification of Caucasians.
Identifying as European is important; it exults, defines, and delineates our people.
Identifying as ‘white only’ seems to invoke negative connotations; this social stigma is hard to overcome and produces diminishes returns for our people.
Nationalism is the starting point…
Individualism, is the goal.
What is a European???
European
noun
1. a native inhabitant of Europe.
2. a person of Aryan ancestry or a distinct genetic group Caucasian.
3. a person of European descent.
Europeanism, should be taught in our Universities, Academic papers should written on the subject, comparisons should be made with Zionism at every juncture, and we should point out the parallels with Zionism as often as possible to quail objection.
Europeanist should always seek to unify our people around the common cause, ‘protecting our young’, ‘cultivating our children’s minds’ et cetera
Europeanist should always point out normal tendencies and group behavior, like – ‘lunch room politics’, ‘white flight’, ‘prison yard politics’ and so forth.
Europeanist should always tell Europeans the truth, early and often.
I recommend the talking points listed below to address Europeanist issues.
Europeanist should practice to preface our remarks before we speak.
We might say… “It’s perfectly normal to feel more comfortable around a person, or persons with a similar background and culture to your own.”
Which is to suggest; it’s abnormal to feel more comfortable around a person with a different background and culture.
We might say… “It should come as no surprise that Europeans are outraged by the behavior of those who have shown a blatant disregard for the laws, rules and traditions of their host societies.”
This point suggests; it’s obvious, that out-groups create havoc in European society, and out-groups should be considered merely guest, in transit in our Nations.
We might say… “Europeans are harsh critics of their own kind; particularly if a person demonstrates an aptitude in showing off the highly prized traits that are attributed to our culture, namely confidence, refinement, pose and beauty.”
This would suggest; Europeans are far more critical of their own kind, than they are of out-groups.
We might say… “As Europeans we have forged our standard of beauty over thousands of years; it is so deeply ingrained into our psyche that it has become the sum total of not only who we are, but how we interact with one another, and moreover how we identify ourselves.”
This would suggest; our forebears created Europeanism, and as their prodigy, it’s our duty to become the standard bearers of Europeanism.
We might say… “Europeans enjoy unique characteristics, our sharp features and oval faces and many other distinctive features set us apart from other races, but it’s more than the mere physical beauty that distinguishes the Europeans, it is their sense of romance and refinement, taste that set them apart.”
This would suggest; Europeans share a unique beauty, and sensuous nature, that can only be appreciated and enjoyed by like-minded Europeans.
We might say… “Europeans are unparalleled by any other peoples of the earth; one could search the world over to find another culture, or a people that would enjoy even a fifth of the romantic notions that one might find in a Monet painting, Bernini sculptor, or even one solitary note of a Mozart symphony.”
This reinforces the idea; that Europeans share a unique beauty and sensuous nature that is exclusively European, while pointing out our long heritage.”
We might say… “It’s no accident that Classical beauty is attributed to the Europeans; it abounds in every fiber of our being, we express it in our Art, Literature, Homes, Building, Furniture; even our Guns and Automobiles are part of that expression.”
This is to emphasize; that Europeans share a unique beauty, and sensuous nature that is manifested in the things we create; while simultaneously pointing out a short list of our achievements.
We might say… “The Europeans have achieved more than any other race on earth… Europeans are the builders, innovators, scientist, mathematicians… and architects, we are a society of free thinking individualist; nearly all of the technological advancements can be directly correlated to the Europeans.”
This is to reemphasize; European society, our achievements, and contributions to the world.
We might say… “The facts are irrefutable, Europeans are the most influential and innovative race on Earth… while our numbers are few… we control, industry, arts, communication networks, and aerospace technology, the achievements of our race are unprecedented in human history.”
This would suggest; we Europeans are the true minority in the world, and our achievements are unparalleled the world over.
We might say… “Europeans have created a culture, but is European culture worth saving?”
This would suggest; Europeans created a society and culture that is uniquely European, and without our existence; European society and culture would seize to exist.
We might say… Europeanism is an ideology, similar to Zionism; both ideologies promote an ethno-State, both ideologies promote their own culture; both ideologies celebrate the solidarity among their people.
This would suggest; Europeans have as much right to celebrate their solidarity, as does the Jews to celebrate theirs.
It only stands to reason, if one argues against Europeanism; that same person must also argue against Zionism as well.
—
Carl’s critique aside, I do think that the emerging dialectical struggle of our age is between globalism and nationalism (or more to the point identitarianism). The progression of modernity has been from dogmatism/scientism -> authoritarianism/liberalism -> capitalism/communism, and now this titanic ideological struggle of “nationalism”/globalism is emerging as the next great moment in history. If you listen to what educated voters who support Trump are saying, they’re giving this exact same reason – Trump is the only politician who is standing up for the interests of the “American people” (an obvious proxy for Euro-Americans) against the migrants, refugees, and H1B visa workers who are ruining our quality of life and our livelihoods. The Trump supporters are already singing our tune; we need to run with this intellectual insight and bring the Trump folks all the way over to our side. They’re most of the way to identitarianism already.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.