What Is Nationalism and Is It Viable?

On Nationalism

Nationalism defined:

1. Identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests
2. Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state. As a movement, nationalism tends to promote the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation’s sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland (country) to create a nation-state.

If we’re taking the philosophical approach, it’s the first definition. This version of nationalism is obviously viable and desired. You should support your own people. There is nothing that would prevent this from being viable.

The anti-nationalists generally take issue with the second definition. When it is no longer just a mindset toward your own but also a political movement and idea of the ideal structure of unique peoples.

While some consider nationalism to be a political philosophy of more recent times (i.e., fascism, national socialism, or whatever), this is not the case. This is an elementary understanding of the term and the history of the concept.

We have to have a general understanding of the sequence of Western history to understand nationalism.

Western civilization evolved to where we are now. This sequence is (obviously) very generalized and broad, but serves as a useful template: We started as tribes in the early BCs, moved to city-states (especially prevalent with the Greeks) in the late BCs, transitioned to multi-nation empires (Rome) preceding and following Christ, fell to feudalism after the fall of Rome in early AD, and then developed this little thing called a “national state” around middle AD (1300s) and later.

Thus, we have:

Tribe -> City-states -> Empire -> Feudalism -> National State -> Modernity

This includes all three eras of Western Civ: Greco-Roman, Christendom, and Modernity.

The national state flourished in Western Civilization after the turning away from feudalism many centuries ago. It is not some new movement since the 1800s. It is our developing tradition, extending back to the middle of Christendom with traces to our oldest heritages. As feudalism fell, the national state (nationalism, as an early political movement) began.

It is also true that a smaller form of nationalism was first integrated within the city-states (and the tribe). This “nationalism” was limited to each city, but it existed for each of the cities within the country. People of the city or tribe would be unique and proud/defensive of their own. The empire squashed this for a time, but it was revived in an even stronger fashion with the progression of the national state.

Instead of being beholden to landholders and barons, the people become beholden to their own people, king, and culture. They left behind the multiethnic land system and the multiethnic empires for the best pieces of the city-states (harmony of similar persons), but with enhancements offered by Christendom (unity, large country, security, stability, and so on).

This was a proper development of tradition. This was real “progress”, in the strict sense of the word. Christendom helped us move away from many ills brought about by the empire and the feudal conditions, and it did so using the national state. Leaders of Christendom realized people should help their own. They also realized that God demanded separate nations (Tower of Babel) and that these nations were deserving of survival and sovereignty (albeit, still under the church).

That was real progress.

The anti-nationalist sentiments of today, even those found on the Right, are a loss of this progress. We’ve returned to the mindset of the conquering empire stage.

America is not a nation-state; it is an empire. Our mindset is not one of national sovereignty, independent and free peoples, but instead is one of imperial dominance over many nations and forced cultural submission to the multi-national state.

Those that advocate anti-nationalist positions advocate for a loss of the progress of the past. It’s a return to an inferior form. The national state was the advanced form, arising out of the empire and feudalism. It was not a submissive partner of it, and again—It was not some new invention of modernity. It was in development (progressing) since the early 1100s.

So the national state is itself a return to tradition. It’s a return to the progress of the past. It is not a return to the failed modernity monsters of the 1800s and 1900s.

We don’t have much better options than nationalism and the national state, either. Those who discard it rarely provide an alternative. Shall we return to disparate and divided feudalism with landholding nobles? Or shall we return to what we have right now—A multinational, multiethnic, conquering empire that will lead us to end times Babylon? Or shall we return to city-states and be at the mercy of stronger larger empires, exactly what caused the fall of the Greek city-states?

The national state is not only viable; it is the only sane option. Nationalism is the only thing that worked throughout history. It was a natural evolvement from the conditions that caused the decline of the others.

Modernity has distorted this, but it doesn’t mean it is not true. The most “progressive” development Western civilization has in terms of political movements is nationalism (and the world, for that matter).

Therefore, we either work with nationalism or we create something entirely new.

I favor nationalism. But I am also good with the “entirely new” option, but someone needs to actually make it and make a case for this new creation. At this point, there is no such alternative. People, even right-wingers, will hate on nationalism but then provide no counter to it.

I think this happens because they know there is no counter to it besides an empire. So, they just fall into the mindset, supposing that an imperial (multi-nation) condition is inevitable. But this is flat-out wrong on a historical level.

Before we can progress, we must go back to our greatest point of tradition, because that was our furthest point of development. We have veered off the path, so before we can go forward, we must return to the original path. The national state was the way. Before we can make it even better, we must return to it from this beastly modernity perversion. We must get back on the right track.

Nationalism is often contrasted with globalism. A global sphere versus a national sphere; a global focus versus a national focus. The different nations have different desires, habits, traits, needs, and functions. Therefore, they need to develop their own systems and solutions. Globalism seeks to ignore this reality in favor of absolute power. Exactly the same as empires did.

Globalism is a relatively new invention for worldwide trade. The situation of the national state and empire-trade existed long before globalization. It can be returned too, and it is preferred to it, given what we now know about the globalist economic policies (spoiler: they failed).

Nationalism also creates a proper international relations condition on the world stage, which the others do not. Nationalism demands a multipolarity world order with many nation-states, whereas empires desire unipolarity which often causes bipolarity—The latter condition which is inherently unstable and the former condition which is incessantly dangerous for all non-dominant nations.

For the Christian, there is no debate about the need for a multipolarity world order. God demanded it at Babel. He kept and separated the nations. He later chose nations, fought nations, and spoke/judged them differently. God created the nations, and we should never separate what God creates.

Meanwhile, the Antichrist brings a unipolar world order under one government, one market, and one religion. He will “unify” the world. Multipolarity is the only thing that can, and is able to, offset this for a time. The Christian is in err if they support the formation of the conditions which will lead to the Antichrist.

For the non-Christian, there is still no reason to support unipolarity. Look at America. Even if you are dominate now, another ethnic may secure that dominance in the future and put you in an inferior, submissive position. It was what happened with Rome and the Goths, Byzantine and the hordes, and now the American whites against the ethnic invasion. Unipolarity is not stable and you will not remain at the helm for long.

Contrast this with your nation-state where you and your people will always remain at the helm. And not at constant competition with others, as in a bipolarity condition. It creates a people that a truly free: Free to chart their own destiny, however they see fit.

Unipolarity is a worldwide dominance of one. Bipolarity is a worldwide battle between two. Multipolarity is a balancing of world power between all.

It is far superior in every respect. For Christians and nons.

So not only is nationalism viable as a mindset, an economic policy, an international relations approach, and a political strategy, but it is required if we don’t want to be dominated by dysfunctional, degenerate empires.

A return to tradition is a return to the national state and nationalism.

If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.

You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.

Help fight the censorship – Share this article!