Two Kinds of Nationalism

Anyone familiar with the Alt-Right (which term I am using broadly to identify all “non-mainstream” Right movements, from anti-political correctness all the way to neoreaction) has surely heard a great deal about nationalism by now.  At its most basic level, nationalism is conventionally understood to refer to the belief that a nation should be able to exist autonomously and independently apart from the domination of others, and that the good of the nation should be placed ahead of international or global concerns.  As such, there is really a rather large group of positions which crop up among alt-Righters, all of which are considered by those holding them to be “nationalism.”

Generally speaking, I think these positions can be aggregated into two general groups.  First, you have the nationalism held by those who would often call themselves “white nationalists,” who would tend to focus on the issue of race, primarily from a genetic aspect.  The other nationalism would be that which focuses its attention on culture and on the organic existence and evolution of nations as cultural and social groupings.  This latter form is what I would subscribe to when referring to myself as a “nationalist.”

In a previous post, I essentially laid out my description of what a “nation” is.  The best and most natural definition of a nation is that given by God Himself when He used it in the original languages in which the Holy Scripture were revealed.  In Greek, the term for “nation” as it relates to “the nations of the world” is ethnos.  The conceptually cognate term in Hebrew is goyiim.  In both languages, the terms come from root words which essentially describe a group of people who are joined by the same language, traditions, mores, rituals, etc.  In other words, culture and society.  A “nation” is a group of people who share the same cultural outlook, the same general set of beliefs, assumptions, and presuppositions about the world around them and of their relations to each other.  My belief is that any definition beyond this one necessarily rests on some level of artificiality, removing it to a greater or lesser degree from the realm of realism.

I think this would be the single biggest criticism I would have of the other form of nationalism.  I find the term “white nationalism” to be ridiculous on its face, for the simple reason that “white” is not a nation.  Yes, there are white nations – the British, the Poles, the Canadians, etc. – but “white,” in and of itself, is not a nation.  “Whites” do not share universally applicable languages, traditions, religions, or mores.  As such, there cannot under any reasonable circumstance be a white ethnos that may gather itself into a “white ethnostate,” a la Richard Spencer.   This is where the artificiality comes into play – any notion of a white ethnostate necessarily involves amalgamating culturally dissimilar peoples, which as both history and contemporary evidence shows, is bound to fail.  In a sense, Spencer’s white ethnostate idea has already been tried.  It’s called “the European Union,” and it’s something of a failure and getting worse.

Hence, “white nationalism” is a failing proposition from the start because it rests upon a completely ersatz foundation.  Further, this form of nationalism is actually a modernistic construct which relies upon Enlightenment ideas relating to the mass mobilisation of the demos for their own self-determination, an extension of Rousseau’s revolutionary concept of the “general will” into the racial realm.  The “white ethnostate” is a political entity, made so by the necessity of joining disparate groups into a single imperial state.  This requirement for mass political projection puts it strongly at odds with the goals of Tradition and neoreaction, which seek to return to a condition in which “politics” in the sense of mass political movements by the ochlos at large, are minimised and even eliminated.  Essentially, white nationalism is just another brainchild of the Enlightenment with its democratic and revolutionary predispositions.

This modernistic aspect of white nationalism is also seen in the focus which white nationalists place upon the genetic concept of race.  Now I will grant – race is a real thing.  Anyone claiming that “race is just a social construct” is ignorant of pretty much the last 80 years of scientific findings in the area of human biodiversity.  Likewise, it is true that people who share the same (relatively recent) body of genetic ancestry will also tend to share the same culture and history.  However, sharing skin colour or a genetic commonality that only exists so far back as to be lost to the mists of history somewhere on the central Asian steppes is in no wise a guarantor of social compatibility, or even of a desire to be united into some kind of white ethnostate.  Further, it assumes, falsely, that deterministic racial traits are what will make a nation great (and thus, that all members of the race share superior traits equally), rather than the nation being great because its culture and traditions enable it to mold its human capital to produce great individuals who then become credits to their nations.

This genetic obsession rests more on the modern tendency to make “science” into the sole arbiter of truth, rather than allowing religion, tradition, and history to adjudicate truth and wisdom.  It’s not surprising that many white nationalists tend to reject the traditional Christian religion of the West and replace it either with Enlightenment-based nihilism (such as Spencer himself, who is apparently quite the fan of Nietzsche) or else some regression toward what they (fancifully) imagine pre-Christian paganism to have been (i.e. a utopia in which “white supermen” weren’t hobbled by all that Christian morality and ethics).

Understanding nationalism from a cultural and social perspective is a superior and more natural way of approaching the matter.  It’s simply natural that people sharing the same language, religion, and other cultural assumptions will much more gladly live in proximity with each other than they will with people not sharing these things with them.  This is true, even when two or more groups in question share the same skin colour, and even a reasonably close genetic kinship.  Take the example of the now-defunct state of Yugoslavia.  As closely as outsiders might have thought the Serbs and Croats and Bosniaks and so forth to have been (hey, they’re all Slavs, right?), these folks did not want to share a state with each other.  Once the Party keeping the peace was gone, the country fell apart into a squabbling mess which is still being dealt with by neighbouring countries.  We often hear the refrain “diversity + proximity = war.”  This is very true.  Furthermore, it’s true even when the “diversity” involves two or more groups of white people who have a history of bad blood and religious antagonism between them.

Hence, if we wish to approach nationalism in a rational and lucid manner, it must be from the perspective of the social and cultural angle.  This has been the historical understanding that the West held for millennia before the Enlightenment.  The Greeks, divided as they were politically, still understood themselves to be one group – Hellenes – who were distinguished by language (their word barbaroi – barbarians – referred to those who did not speak Greek and who were imagined to sound like childish babblers, barbarbarbar) from other groups of people, and that they shared culture with each other as a result.  Even without a genetic concept of race, the French of the 17th century would still have understood that the introduction of a million Algerians into their country would constitute an invasion, not “immigration.”  The traditional view of nations can easily accommodate modern concerns about the mass movements of Third Worlders into the West.  Likewise, it presents no impediment to concerned Westerners within each of these white nations working with each other to defend the West as a distinct and valuable civilisational force.

Traditional nationalism also has the advantage of flexibility over its white nationalistic competitor (I presume it’s fair to say that these are, in many ways, competing visions).  White nationalism essentially demands a “purity” for its ethnostate that would preclude the introduction of any non-white elements, even if these elements may be persons who are genuinely superior individuals – hailing, perhaps, from the so-called “talented tenth” coming from their otherwise lower-IQ or less-civilised native societies.  Traditional nationalism does not – or at least should not – demand a rigid genetic “purity.”  Rather, traditional nationalism places its emphasis on cultural assimilation and social acclimation.  Of course, this statement should be clarified by the understanding that these goals will be more easily met for immigrants coming from culturally similar societies – the United States will always be able to more successfully absorb and integrate Canadians than they will Ghanians.  Likewise, the needs of the nation come first, such that immigration should be contingent upon the measured judgment of the nation’s leadership as to what we need or do not need – we can easily determine that a few high-IQ, high-skill immigrants in technical fields where there is room for them are a benefit, while millions of low-IQ, low-skill lettuce-pickers and lawn-care professionals are not.

In short, traditional nationalism does not demand that a nation exclude all foreigners whatsoever.  It recognises, as Western nations traditionally have, that industrious French Huguenots fleeing persecution in France might well be a net benefit to English society or that diligent and productive German settlers might be able to help the Russian Empire turn the Ukraine into the breadbasket of Eastern Europe.  Traditional nationalism does not have its hands tied by a deterministic obsession with race, in and of itself.  It has the resilience to be able to enrich itself with the right kind of immigrant, while rejecting the globalistic, open-borders fanaticism which demands that western nations allow the mass migration of culturally and socially hostile foreigners into their societies.

I strongly believe that it would be to the advantage of Traditionalists and neoreactionaries to advance this traditional view of nationalism.  Certainly, we cannot – and should not – embrace the destructive fantasies of the globalists who seek to subsume the white nations of the world under masses upon masses of non-white invaders.  Equally as certainly, we must base our nationalism on a realistic vision of the world that reject Enlightenment ideology and all of the socially debilitating pathologies that come with it.  In a sense, genuine traditional nationalism should seek to strengthen the nation by not only cultivating its own natural aristocracy, but also by providing a way to attract worthy individuals who will enrich its society.

30 thoughts on “Two Kinds of Nationalism

  1. White nationalism only makes since in America. And perhaps Canada. No realistic person on on the alt-tight seriously proposes to do away with the poles or English in favor of a pan-European movement. that said, the “white” in white nationalism is necessary because the proper term for American whites (American) has been stolen.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This would be correct, since in both Canada and the USA, the dominant culture that basically built those countries is the white, and specifically Anglo, culture that still largely makes them up. Immigrants and (in the case of the USA) native blacks need to conform to that culture or else go elsewhere.

      Richard Spencer, IIRC, stumps pretty strongly for a “pan-White” identity and is on record as rejecting traditional nationalism based on different national groupings. That’s as unrealistic an idea as the progressive idea of a functioning multiculturalism is.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Titus, this is exactly the sort of common sense talk people need to hear- the sort of thing “conservatives” should be saying, but are now too cucked to say.

    As a footnote by way of comment, I’d like to draw to attention to the urgent importance of *language* in securing national unity. There was an excellent recent piece in Social matter on the subject, and as a Canadian with direct experience in this area, I can vouch for everything the author had to say and more. As long as people can understand each other, they can socialize and come to share the same culture and a sense of shared belonging even if they don’t look alike.

    In Canada, this has proven to be true with respect to the large influx, from the 1970s onward, of immigrants from India- who, having been colonized by the British, already speak English when they get here, assimilate rapidly, and in spite of being dark-skinned aren’t self-consciously thought of as non-White by anybody other than 14/88 types on the far Right and militant anti-racist SJWs on the far Left.

    Mutatis mutandis, if people can’t understand one another, then they don’t socialize, and their assortment into competing tribes is inevitable. Thus the French of Quebec, although they descend from Norman Vikings and are as white as the lily that is their heraldic emblem, have been an extremely disruptive and divisive presence in this country. Tensions between French and English have led to extremely serious crises (riots and epidemics of vandalism in Montreal, outright IRA-style terrorism that led to the city of Montreal being placed under full-blown military occupation complete with tanks in the streets at one point, and referenda on Quebec sovereignty that caused the political Confederation to altogether teeter on the brink of outright disintegration twice between 1980-1995).

    The Americans would do very well to impose an English-only national policy and check certain ambitions of the Spanish-speaking population- while it’s still possible!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. As long as people can understand each other, they can socialize and come to share the same culture and a sense of shared belonging even if they don’t look alike.
    In Canada, this has proven to be true with respect to the large influx, from the 1970s onward, of immigrants from India- who, having been colonized by the British, already speak English when they get here, assimilate rapidly, and in spite of being dark-skinned aren’t self-consciously thought of as non-White.

    I am not as optimistic as you on that matter. Living in a country that formerly belonged to two multi-national states, Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia, so different one from another, I would say that language is important, but culture is much more than language. Doctors, lawyers, some engineers from India… yes they may assimilate, provided that their mutual bonds are not strong i.e. they do not start making parallel Indian-culture structures of authority. Cooking Indian food with fragrances spreading over a multi-storey building, watching Bollywood TV production, listening to Indian pop music… that would already make them different.
    I personally remember, how several years before the war in Yugoslavia, there were four major football clubs: two from Belgrade, the capital of Serbia and the Yugoslav (jug, translit. yug = south; Yugoslavia = South Slavia) Federation, the other two from the largest two cities in Croatia: Zagreb, the capital and Split (the city originating from the retirement palace of Emperor Diocletian). Serbs living in Croatia (even from Zagreb and Split) and Slovenia would support the two major football clubs from Belgrade, never the clubs from Zagreb or Split. An average working-class Serb would be strongly inclined to listen to Serbian-Oriental-style disco-pop trash instead of Slovenian-Viennese-style pop trash or Croatian-Mediterranian-style disco-pop trash. And regardless of the fact that the standard Croatian language and the standard Serbian language were chosen/created from the same South Slavic dialect (on the contrary, standard Slovenian is based on a different dialect hardly understood by Serbs and a major portion of Croats), one would easily differentiate Croats and Serbs based on the accent and some specific words (people from Southern England would not use the Northerner word “bairn” for “child”).

    Yugoslavia was created in 1918 from the Entente winners Serbia and Montenegro (when Regent of Serbia, Alexander Karadjordjevic (Karađorđević) deposed his own maternal grandfather, King Nicholas Petrović of Montenegro and annexed his state) and parts of Austria-Hungary: Slovenia (Austrian duchy Carniola, southern part of Carinthia, southern part of Styria), Croatia (the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, an autonomous part of Hungary plus Austrian Dalmatia, the former trans-adriatic territory of Venice) and Bosnia & Herzegovina, as well as Bacs and Banat counties of Hungary. At that time the larger Serbia and the smaller Montenegro, were competing for the role of Serbian Piedmont (with pretense of becoming South-Slavic Piedmont), the same way Prussia and Austria were once competing as the primary force among the German nation. Serbia and Montenegro had Orthodox population, Croatia and Slovenia Roman Catholic. In addition, there was a strong historic minority of Orthodox Serbs in Croatia, a Hungarian minority in Bacs and Banat, a homogenous local majority of Albanians in Kosovo. Bosnia and Herzegovina was under the Ottoman Empire until 1878, itself a mixture of Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats and Slavic Muslims (converts from Christianity in 15th century, with its ancient nobility predating Islam by 5 centuries, which, despite being Muslim, disliked the government in Istanbul more than anything else and strongly supported Franz Joseph I as soon as he promised not to touch their was estates; a promise he did fulfill; yes, in some parts of Bosnia you can see blond blue-eyed Muslims, of pure Slavic blood). In Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country abundant in mountains and hills, you can get a mixture as shown in the map.
    Croatia: Roman Catholics; Central European (Austro-Hungarian) culture with a strong of element of Italian influence in the south. Serbia: Orthodox, several centuries under the ottomans. Same language, competing elites, different Christian denominations, different, very, very different cultures.

    Of course, all the time Yugoslavia existed (1918-1941) (1945-1991) there were competing national elites of Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia, or, to be more precise, competing elements between within each national elite, one being pro-unitarian, the other pro-national-autonomist. Tito, the dictator of Yugoslavia (1945-1980), born on the Croatian-Slovenian border, of a Croatian father and Slovene mother decided, several years before his death, in 1974, to bring a new constitution and move the effective political control of affairs from central government and the Yugoslavian League of Communists (LoC) to the governments of the 6 constituent states (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina (B&H), Montenegro, Macedonia). Thus, the Central Committees of state LoC were politically more powerful than the remaining federal bodies (the central government dealing with economical planning, central bank, military and foreign policy). After Tito’s death, there was no more a single President of Yugoslavia but a collective Presidency named from each of the states (plus two autonomous regions of Serbia, 6+2), which made decisions by majority vote. There was a great economic depression: electricity shortages: electricity probably sold abroad; driving a car forbidden every other day: in order to reduce the demand and thus the price of gasoline; hyperinflation: you would get your wage, pay all the bills and use the rest of money to buy Deutsche Marks from a street smuggler, which you would keep at home, sewn in a mattress, pillow or hidden somewhere in the attic or the window blinds mechanism; at same time well-organized Winter Olympics in Sarajevo in 1984. Macedonians and B&H LoC were quite, watching. Montenegro was under the control of Serbia. But like in 1918, Slovenia Slovenian LoC was strongly pro-autonomy, then pro-secession. Croatian LoC experienced a crisis of capable leaders. Yet people say that competing power centers existed in Yugoslavian secret service, the Croatian wing being hardline communists, thus pro-Stalin right after WWII; then, being afraid of Tito, they saved themselves from being physically eliminated by allying with Western German BundesNachrichtenDienst; those people solved the lack of leadership in Croatian LoC by enabling the unknown second echelon communist dissident Franjo Tudjman to establish his party in 1989/1990 and strongly push for the secession; Serbian LoC, Slobodan Milošević being its head, acted with iron fist against Albanians who wanted a seventh state and tried to secretly ensure the loyalty of local Serbian elites in the areas of Croatia and B&H with ethnic Serbian majority, their plan A being to prevent secession of Slovenia and Croatia. The plan B was to secede parts of Croatia (and B&H) should Croatia and Slovenia. Plan B is what happened, resulting in almost total failure in Croatia and a partial success in B&H.

    Back to the point…
    Maybe the Indian immigrants are well-educated, not willing to watch cricket but ice-hockey, not willing to live an Indian sub-culture, with their separate elites. Maybe, like the Chinese and Japanese immigrants to the U.S., they are, once they arrive to canada, too far to the right side of the spectrum to become a DVG. Otherwise, if they are loyal to a local Indian elite, Trudeau II could come to idea to make this elite aware of being a kind of victims of opressive whites speaking a hegemonic English language. De Jouvenelian model.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Trudeau I, who was a master of Jouvenel’s high-low-against-middle game, did exactly that decades back. Then the government was forced to cut the “multiculturalism” programs the Liberal Party used to use to siphon patronage money to the elites of various ethnic groups in exchange for votes, and now those groups no longer always vote the way they’re told. (None of this is to say I think immigration is a good idea BTW).

      I agree about the importance of culture. Speaking the same language doesn’t guarantee that people will share the same culture- but if they don’t speak the same language, they will either preserve existing cultural differences or develop them. The difference between French and English people here in Canada, for example, goes far beyond language- and these differences spill over into politics and can cause quite a bit of friction. I suspect that the Latinos in the USA are even more culturally divergent from the Anglos than the French (who descend from Northern Europeans) are, and if the Latinos aren’t forced to learn and use English the USA won’t even have a chance at culturally assimilating them and can look forward to social problems because of it.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I agree about the importance of culture. Speaking the same language doesn’t guarantee that people will share the same culture- but if they don’t speak the same language, they will either preserve existing cultural differences or develop them.
    Well said.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I think simple early definition of Nation is a human community that shares the same culture, ancestry, language and history. Then, since two hundred and fifty years ago, revolutionary philosophers split the concept of nation in other branch completely artificial, proposing Nation as a human community that shares the will of all individuals to form a ”free” (social contract and representative government) political community. To me it is a nonsense by the way. The ancient concept of Nation was preserved and developed mainly by the german romantics of the nineteenth century, especially J. G. Fichte (Addresses to the German Nation, 1808). I think that a Nation is a human community that shares a common heritage (cultural or biological) and traditions enough, to be differentiated from other groups or communities.

    Racial self-consciousness is very common in everyday life, as everybody can appreciate, but it is softer than before because of the establishment anti-racial and race guilt propaganda, so especially in Europe takes the form of this example: Yeah, I have no problem that there are negroes in my country, but with my daughter never, dude. It has even a self-protection component, very natural and common. It can not be otherwise, naturally. It’s funny to hear liberal and socialist progressives using fallacies to realize their multicultural utopic society, when they said lies to anyone who opposes them making us believe the opposite of ”open borders” (euphemism of massive migration) is North Korea. When in reality, the Western nations were always open territories where travelers, merchants and diplomats could go through cities, but the current situation is not that simple. We are talking of millions of people, peoples who do not share anything with us, not even our civilizational roots, not even our race, that our own governments do not even want to assimilate, peoples who believe in the right to impose their traditions in our own land, creating an untenable situation in our countries. The old liberals were more intelligent. In modern days, political degeneration and lack of intelligence fosters fanaticism a false equality and false liberty that threatens to destroy our own civilization.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Bucardo,

      Thanks for coming by!

      You said, “I think simple early definition of Nation is a human community that shares the same culture, ancestry, language and history.”

      I think you’re absolutely right. That’s been the traditional, historical definition of a “nation” not “genetic” or race (in the sense of a genetic in-group). Now, race has been underlying, but not an obsession as it is with many of the “white nationalists” we see today.

      Essentially, nations exist because of their traditions, and ethnogenesis and the creation of new nations occurs because of the migration and fusions of people (this is, in fact, how most of the modern European ethnicities came into being).


  6. Regarding nationalism, I would be glad to read the other readers’ thoughts on how to distinguish between healthy and positive association of people based on common cultural traits (which, when corresponding to the homogeneous population of state can be called nationalism) and the bastard, 19th century post-enlightenment leftist liberal nationalism of 1848. How to distinguish between healthy cells and tumor? How large portion of group-by-state nationalist identity is actually good, contributing to the reactionary cause? How large portion of it can be recognized as a result of continuous Louis XIV-XV-French-Revolution-style aggrandizement of Power/State but still deemed neutral: simply recognized as inherited, existing, but not necessarily evil? Finally, how large portion needs to be thrown away?

    What is the difference between Maria Theresa’s and Francis Joseph’s compound of lands technically called the Habsburg Monarchy and the contemporary EU? Is there a proper difference between “supra-national” and “trans-national”? What about the ethnic minorities in national states?

    Maria Theresa was speaking French with her husband, her family and her ministers. At the same period Hungarian magnates in the Hungarian Diet spoke Latin to each other, both the Magyar magnates and the representatives of Croatian Diet (where Latin was official as well), and despite the fact that everyone, part from, maybe, several people from southern Croatia could speak Hungarian (Magyar).

    Maria Theresa was more devout Catholic and more reactionary than her science-patron husband (himself a freemason before and possibly even after Freemasonry was forbidden by Clement XII and the subsequent steps taken by Benedict XIV) and, more importantly almost all of her ministers. Her heir, Joseph II was a true Enlightment-style ruler, a true mirror-picture of Frederick the Great. It was Joseph II who started the aggrandizement of state, wanting to teach his subjects what kind of crops to grow (he introduced potato, a step not very much liked in some of his lands) and what to do “better”. While Jesuits were dissolved by Clement XIV several years before Joseph II ascended to the throne, Joseph himself decided, his mother still not being cold in her grave, which religious orders are useful and which are “idle”: the learned Dominican teachers and Franciscans helping the poor were allowed to exist; the contemplative orders: Benedictines, Cistercians and the locally relevant Pauline Fathers were suppressed. Joseph decided that his still-in-the-bud administration should speak German and that the official language of dealing with the bureaucrats should be German. He pressured strongly against Hungarian (and Croatian) magnates. He is well remembered in later-constructed history of Austria, hated in Hungary and not particularly liked in the “nationalist” Croatian history, while being a good-guy and idealist proto-leftist, without much sense for praxis in Marxist/progressive narrative of history. Forty years later, the lesser nobility of Magyar-speaking Hungary started Hungarian “national awakening”, while the counter-reaction quickly happened in Croatia and Slovakia (as well as in the Austrian-held Bohemia). The bourgeoisie was not a significant factor in the rural Kingdom of Hungary, but its role was successfully filled by petty nobility, which, unlike Croatia where Protestantism was forbidden at the beginning of the 17th century, comprised Calvinists and Lutherans (Viktor Orban is a Calvinist, Admiral Horthy and Prime Minister Tisza were Calvinists), their spiritual leader being the Lutheran Lajos Kossuth, that very icon of the 19th-century nationalist liberalism (the majority of the magnates were Roman Catholics). The Hungarian Protestants were an element of instability within the Habsburg realms, siding with France against the Habsburgs in 17th and 18th century, at the same time being ready to deal even with the Turks. When the new generation of magnates imbibed from the intelectually-so-superior chalice of liberalism at their universities, the Upper House of Hungarian Diet turned liberal and the “National unity” was achieved. The revolution government would be headed by the magnate Batthyany and contain more magnates (most notably: Szechenyi, Wesselenyi, both of them being benevolent Pierre-Bezukhov-style reformers) than lesser noblemen. When blood started flowing, Szechenyi suffered a nervous breakdown, Wesselenyi retired and Batthyany was executed by the court martial for high treason. Later, history would make the Jacobin Kossuth an international hero, whereas the benevolent liberal aristocrats are not known outside Hungary.

    The “national awakening” resulted in people suddenly starting to think that a Magyar-speaking Istvan (=Stephen) is in some sanctifying relation with another Magyar speaking Istvan living 300 miles away; against a German-speaking Stefan living also 300 miles away in some other direction and a Croatian-speaking Stjepan living 300 miles away in the third direction. When the liberal revolution broke out in Vienna in 1848 and Hungary proclaimed Republic, Croatians, uncomfortable with Vienna, but even more uncomfortable with the Kossuth’s Republic attacked Hungary from South-West. The Serbs from the southern-most provinces of the Hungarian Kingdom and the Transylvanian Romanians also supported the House of Habsburg. Suddenly, one’s mother tongue became important.

    In the years following 1848, once a compulsory four-year school was introduced, the language of teaching became important (private schools for those who could afford them, but, more important, state-owned school with state-approved curriculum for every peasant). The same happened with post offices: the lowest officials would be professionals coming from far away and again the language of communication became important. Despite the fact that the railways were privately-held, it was the government who had the discretion of whether the inscriptions on railway stations in Croatia would be in Croatian only, in Hungarian only, or in both languages, and if in both languages, which will be the first one, and which the second one. And parallel with compulsory schools, there came a compulsory army service… There were no more middle authorities between an average man and the state. Instead, there was a chain of state officials to deal with you, and you had to be instructed at school how the new state of affairs works. Instructions paid from your taxes.

    I would say that the former proud Kingdom of Hungary was destroyed by the rise of Magyar nationalism and the counter-reaction among Slavic peoples and Romanians.

    Proto-national states are not equal with proto-national feelings. In England and France, I would suggest that proto-national feelings emerged during the Hundred-Years’-War. At the same time, new models of warfare emerged, the classic feudal cavalry becoming obsolete. Philip II of Spain was a true national king, capable of alienating Catholic elite in the Netherlands, until his nephew, the Duke of Parma managed to maintain the Habsburg rule in the southern provinces, the present-day Belgium. His father, Emperor Charles, on the contrary, was a Dutchman by birth and was raised by francophone noblemen of Flanders, the subjects of his father Philip and Philip’s mother, Mary, the heiress of the Dukedom of Burgundy (N.B. Philip of Habsburg and Emperor Charles of Habsburg bear non-Habsburg, purely Capetian names of Philip the Good, the founder of the Order of the Golden Fleece, and Charles the Bold, Mary’s grandfather and father, respectively).

    Francis Joseph I (1848-1616) tried everything to preserve his heterogeneous state from a breakdown. But liberalism, with its various chauvinisms were emerging.

    Now, when national feelings have arrived to the rightist, “oppressive”, “narrow-minded” side of the political spectrum; when the European elites, with a naive help of well-thinking Catholics such as Schuman and Adenauer put us Europeans into the trans-national and post-national EU; when Mexicans living in California start speaking “This is Mexico”, which it almost is, culturally, if not juridically; when the territorial achievement of Drew Jackson’s heir James K. Polk seems to be undone soon and when Jackson himself is soon to be removed from the 20-dollar-bill by the very party he founded; well, the question is: what is actually not healthy in the current American nationalism and what is not healthy in European nationalism? Obviously, European nationalism appears as a result of the intrusion of the elites into common people’s lives, of a totalitarian, Jacobin, masonic tendencies of replacing God with gods, of forcefully infecting people with political franchise, which they are not capable of coping with, their cultural identities being hijacked by academics and inventors of false myths. One simple answer would be that everything with nationalism is wrong, and we should reject nationalism and return to 1300s. The other simple answer would be that everything is perfect as long as national minorities do not make problems (which can be solved by migrating to your national state from another country where you are a minority). The last case of ethnic cleansing and forced or state-sponsored exchange of population in Europe happen in the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1999. Yet, the elites keep victimizing the refugees/migrants, instead of stating that is is better to have a more ethnically homogeneous state. Minorities are real problem. Still, claims to territories formerly inhabited by your people and even held buy your country, but not a present inhabited by your people and under your country… well.. that is already a leftist tendency of permanent change and permanent war.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi MM,

      Thanks for the post! I took the liberty of adding in some paragraph breaks, and removed the double post. WordPress was kicking your comments over into the “need approval” basket even though I don’t have it set to do that. Probably due to the links included – too many links and WP thinks it’s a spam advertisement.


  7. Hi Titus,

    In this article ( you wrote that it is the Whigs who vote for Trump and Brexit, while the high church, establishment Tories who vote for Clinton and Bremain. This strikes me as something really off, because according both to Moldbug and the general Reactionary consensus, it is the Whigs who are more liberal, and the Tories more conservative (I am a traditional Catholic, and I am right leaning, pro-monarchist). Can you explain why there is a difference between your analysis and the reactionary consensus?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi KoN,

      Thanks for dropping by and commenting!

      I think that general dynamic of Whig = populist versus Tory = established order still holds, it’s just that in the case of both Brexit and the upcoming American election, we find that the “established order” is *different* from that found in the previous three examples discussed (Revolution of the 1640s, American Revolution, American civil War).

      In Brexit and the US election, the established order is not one which involves the natural or “traditional” aristocracy in either country. Instead, the “established order” is an essentially supra- and transnational globalist order which actually seeks to supplant the traditional aristocratic and nationalistic order with a globalistic and essentially socialistic one.

      As such, we find a confluence of events in which those on the side of tradition and neoreaction – who would oppose democratic socialism and technocratic pseudo-meritocracy – are basically allied with the forces of populism represented by Trump and Farage, with the coordinating centrality being that commonly shared issue of nationalism and a rejection of transnational globalism. Essentially, both want to “keep it within the nation,” but presumably would break over the issue of greater or lesser participation by “the people” in decision-making *within* the nation (which is a separate issue from that being discussed). The fight with both Brexit and the US election is “nationalism vs. globalism,” thus placing us on the same side (probably temporarily) with the populists who make up a lot of the anti-globalist forces. I think the maps provided in that post make the case pretty strongly that Brexit, at least, was a definite “Whig vs. Tory” battle, just in this case, the “Tories” are not OUR Tories.

      Basically, neoreaction and Tradition find themselves opposing the “established order” in these particular cases because the “established order” itself is an essentially “permanent revolutionary” and anti-monarchical/aristocratic force that we’re seeking to replace with the proposed restoration envisioned within our circles. That would be how I would reconcile the perceived contradiction.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. A minor nit: Not so much a fallacy of excluded middle, as of Excluded Extreme. Civic Nationalism is the idea that political belonging and engagement (“bordahs, language, and gultcha”) alone makes you an authentic member of the nation. You’ve defined an appropriate (non-retarded) nationalism as a middle without defining both (retarded) extremes. Left unanswered, I think, is how biology will always manage to creep back into nationhood. A group closed to out marriage for any reason always (eventually) becomes a biological distinction. The relative value of preserving that biological distinction, weighed against other social goods, is the crux of the matter. 100% is retarded. 0% is retarded. The optimum is somewhere in the middle.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Hi Nick,

      Thanks for dropping by! Thanks for the comment, too. It actually touches on a post I’ve been working on the past couple of days and (hope) to get out by this evening.

      Yes, I did downplay the role that genetics has in defining a “nation,” largely to try to avoid overlap with the “genetics only” approach that much of the “white nationalism” crowd adheres to.

      Nevertheless, it *is* true that a group of people with the same culture will tend to also have the same genetics, and this develops over the centuries or millennia that are involved with their particular path of ethnogenesis. I don’t think we can say that “culture leads to genetic monovergence” or that “genetic sameness leads to culture,” or more specifically perhaps, we should say that both work together synergistically in the processes of ethnogenesis and ethnomaintenance. People with the same culture will generally want to marry each other instead of outsiders with different culture, which in turn tends to maintain and emphasise the genetically peculiar traits which may be present in their population.

      There’s always room for the introduction of “out-group genetics,” of course, which has largely been the history of the United States, though it doesn’t *seem* as pronounced because most of the groups being grafted on to the old Anglo stock were people who looked at least reasonably similar to them, and shared a good degree of genetic commonality with them anywise. It would be pretty difficult, after all, to tell the difference – either phenotypically or genotypically – between an Englishman and a French Huguenot from northern or central France where the population has a larger Germanic component thanks to the Franks and Visigoths.

      That introduction of non-Anglo genetics was coupled with a strong drive toward cultural assimilation, however, which smoothed the process. This makes the current situation in the USA far, far different. I maintain (perhaps unreasonable, perhaps not) that there is a distinct general phenotypic difference between white Americans and the various European nations. We just “look different,” to a small but perceptible degree, than Europeans do.

      Ultimately, though, to define a “nation,” I believe that the most rational approach is the biblical one which depends on culture and mores and traditions. These do change over time, true, but they change over time in such a way that they still define the group which holds them. Englishmen in the urbanised 19th century Victorian era weren’t any less Englishmen than the ones who lived in the agrarian England of the 16th century.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. The usa had a Pan White Nationalism but yankees pissed all over that in 1860

    Then the various ethnic Whites from immigration waves had their turn pissing all over the notion of a Pan White Nationalism.

    Then they both did it again in the 1960s with civil rights and ending Jim Crow

    So no thanks to the idea of a Pan White Nationalism. Southern Whites know how that turns out.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. As can be observed for almost 400 years, the Puritans tend to muck up for everyone else everything they touch.

      I’d call the South a subthede of the larger Anglo American culture. Definitely has its distinctions, but not enough to say that it’s a completely separate culture from the rest of the USA.

      Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have its own country, however…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s