Nationalism the World Over

Steve Sailer wrote a few days ago that most people in the world, essentially all non-Europeans, are strongly encouraged to be nationalist, in terms of loyalty and identity, while this is actively discouraged among Europeans.  This got me thinking about why nationalism would be good for non-Europeans, but not Europeans. Mindweapon just wrote that most non-Europeans are strongly encouraged to be nationalistic in terms of personal performance, doing well in education, while the mass culture actively discourages this among Europeans. This confirmed for me what I had been thinking about in the first case.

These two things- nationalism of identity and loyalty, and nationalism of performance- don’t seem to be connected. Groups with high loyalty and identity- such as blacks and orthodox Jews- often don’t have high personal performance. And groups that emphasize high personal performance, such as the Chinese and Indians, seem to do it mostly out of personal striving and not to benefit the group.

Still, loyalty will give a group power even if their performance is low. And high performing individuals will help other members of their group- with one important exception. A group with both high loyalty and high performance, such as secular Jews, will have very high power.

A group that is a nation will have both high performing and low performing members. The high performing members will form an elite. This elite will be partially hereditary, and partially formed of people from the lower classes who have shown ability. The strength and cohesion of the nation will depend on how these two sub-groups relate to each other. Ideally the elite uses their abilities to benefit the nation as a whole, and the non-elites reward them with their loyalty. This arrangement is called “nationalism”.

Since nationalism is the arrangement that gives a national group the most power, nations have tended to encourage nationalism among themselves while undermining it among others. Colonialism tries to transfer loyalty from the colonized nation to the colonizing nation among the colonized, while strengthening the national loyalty of members of the colonizing nation. Being loyal to England was a good career move for an Indian; and being loyal to England was a good career move for an Englishman. Pseudonationalism tries to transfer loyalty to a non-national political entity such as the Soviet Union or the United States. Among some ethnic groups there has never been national loyalty, such as in the Middle East and Africa, and loyalty has mostly remained with the extended family and tribe. In this area the religion of Islam has commanded loyalty that accumulated in the various caliphates and ultimately in the Ottoman Empire, in a sort of supernationalism.

The modern world does not work like this, however. As Sailer and Mindweapon have noted, the global elite- primarily Anglophone- discourages nationalism at home while encouraging it abroad. How did this inversion occur?

I have noticed my tendency to ramble, but I like to ramble, so I will make my point briefly and thenin more detail. Briefly, non-European nationalism does not threaten Puritan progressive globalism, and in fact usually helps it. European nationalism forms a brick wall for it as is its direct mortal enemy. A non-European country led by an educated technocratic elite will be a willing and possibly eager junior partner in global capitalism, not even if but especially if it is officially communist or post-communist. If communism has wiped out the traditional elite and any traditional sense of national feeling, consumerism and political correctness look even more appealing than they otherwise would. The filthy, hellish workshop of the world used to be northern England, now it’s southeastern China. An educated elite will see raising living standards as seen from the global capitalist standpoint as a desirable thing, and will deliver their loyal, competent, cooperative population as workers and consumers. That’s the short answer.

For the long answer we need to think about the history of nationalism in Europe. I think that nationalism was originally invented by the poet Virgil, in his epic poem the Aeneid. Rome was a city that became an empire by extending loyalty past the nation to a culture and political system. The new Roman Empire, the empire we dare not name, originated in England, and it originated in a conflict that eventually turned nationalism inside out.

Rome was a military empire. The elites served in the army as officers, the common citizens as foot soldiers. Nationalism and militarism are almost inseparable, because the military model of a stratified society united by common loyalty and purpose is the closest practical example for nationalism available. After the Roman Empire, armies were composed more of cavalry and became mostly elite affairs. The English, however, employed a large number of common citizens as archers, which reestablished the military nationalism of Rome. The English like to think of themselves as the heirs of Rome. Napoleon had a short but good run with French military nationalism, Bismarck a longer but less glorious run with German military nationalism, and even Japan gave it a go.

The collegial and respectful, at least in theory, relationship between elite and commoner still exists to some degree in English culture- witness Prince Harry in Afghanistan. But the formative event of the modern world was the revolt of the affluent but not elite against the military aristocracy of England under Oliver Cromwell. The Commonwealth didn’t formally and English military nationalism lasted up until the 20th century, but it made serious permanent changes in how power was accumulated and wielded.

The Puritans were fierce fighters at one time but in general the English non-conformists were interested in money and not glory and over time continuously undermined the prestige of the military aristocracy. English anti-military sentiment is illustrated in the Rudyard Kipling poem “Tommy”. The English commercial class needed the military to make the world safe for business, but didn’t like to admit it. Soldiers don’t like to die for making the world safe for business so they have to be told they are doing it for king and country or democracy or some shit. The commercial elite is pro-military when it is personally convenient, then switches back to pacifism.

The British Empire like the Roman started out as a military nationalist empire that eventually transcended conventional nationalism by creating loyalty to a language and culture. It was, like the Roman Empire, to some extent a victim of its own success. Once you have a variety of nations unified under a legal, political, and economic system, the military doesn’t have too much to do and becomes almost irrelevant. What England had that Rome did not was a commercial class that wanted to overthrow the military aristocracy, and eventually succeeded.

Foseti, among others, likes to say England must have lost World War II because they lost the colonies. But just what exactly did they lose? A few Colonel Blimps lost their jobs as colonial administrators, other than that little changed. All the former colonies are part of the English commercial empire, which is all that really matters. The Blimps were more an embarrassment and obstacle than anything else at that point.

The non-European world has been made safe for capitalism either by English occupation or communist infection. Non-Europeans didn’t and don’t have the ability to resist this. Europeans are another story. Europeans will resist the destruction of their culture and abuse and exploitation in the name of business. A European who thinks of himself as a citizen and a soldier, and who can look for leadership to a patriotic elite who are also citizens and soldiers, will not cower before a merchant, banker or manager.

So instead of a patriotic elite, the West trains its elite youth, those who are born elite and those who show ability, to be self-seeking, self-entered careerists. The dream of most elite youths is to get into an Ivy League school, then to Wall Street and maybe run a hedge fund one day and make millions shuffling around stocks. The common people are encouraged to buy as much junk and consume as much mind-rotting entertainment as they can. Non-whites are celebrated and idolized.

As MW says- nationalism is high-investment parenting writ large. The Western elite don’t want you to be smart and accomplished, unless it is in the service of them, and they don’t want you to be loyal to your own kind. Do it anyway.


About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Nationalism the World Over

  1. Ryu says:

    Good work, Thrashy. You read alot of authors.

  2. mindweapon says:

    So instead of a patriotic elite, the West trains its elite youth, those who are born elite and those who show ability, to be self-seeking, self-entered careerists.

    So true. I think that’s why they encourage sexual license at colleges too. Quick story. I was getting chemistry tutoring in the Multicult House at Connecticut College. 1995. We had a Haitian immigrant who was a chemist at Pfizer tutoring us. Yes, a very few Haitians rise out of their native sewer, probably in part because it is such a sewer and such work is thier ticket out, and affirmative action. But in the interest of honesty and good faith, this Haitian was a very good chemistry tutor.

    So a black girl shows up very late to tutoring, the tutor is still there but he’s got to leave to go pick up his kids from day care, so the black girl needs help with the homework assignment. Everyone else leaves. I stay to help her. So we’re going over the problem in Multicult House. Meanwhile, a bunch of multiracialists come in to plan a “naked party.” No joke. So they are loudly planning the details of their debauchery, and they tell me to pipe down, from like 30 feet away across a room. Perhaps my voice was a bit animated in explaining to this black girl how to balance equations, but it’s not like I was screaming. They saw “white guy” and decided to exercise some authority. I said, “Look, we’re doing academic work here, we won’t be long.” The black girl got intimidated and told me not to defy the naked party planners. I said fine and we finished up quickly and I went home. I was in the Army reserves and lived in an apartment off campus and didn’t give a shit about campus politics. On my way out I walked slowly and glared at them.

    That was one of my first taste of liberals trying to exercise authority over me, and my defying them. A taste of (figurative) blood. It was nice. They were accustomed to everyone surrendering to their coolness. I could have bested all of the naked party planners in a fight, even if they attacked at the same time. I didn’t care about their “coolness.” They were nothing to me. It was interesting to see how the black girl was so intimidated and desperate to be accepted among them. I tried to tell her that her chemistry was more important but it didn’t register.

    All we have to do is ignore their malign encouragement and live as Mind Weapons. Mindweaponization plus Time equals total defeat of the liberals.

  3. mindweapon says:

    One last thing — if we send our Mind Weapon children to fancy colleges and universities, they will learn the ways of the degenerate elite, and learn how to seize power over them and overthrow them.

    We can create a network of homeschool spies to go to these colleges, pass the academic work quite easily, and work with their “station chiefs” to burrow into the elites and take over from within. Some mroe primitive White nationalists fear that our Mind Weapon kids will turn against us. I highly doubt it. History is on our side at this point. Our kids will be very loyal, and will probably be able to recruit many more. But we should identify our charismatic Mind Weapons as open organizers, and our less charismatic but technically adept Mind Weapons in as deep infiltrators.

    • Peter Blood says:

      The key is to send them with friends; the desire to be social, to make friends, is how a lone child sent there can go over. It is insanely difficult to be new at college and be alone. Send a pair of friends, and they start out with a friend already, it is infinitely easier to stay loyal and true.

  4. Pingback: My Own Observation of the Proletarianization of America | Deconstructing Leftism

  5. hirschibold says:

    “Among some ethnic groups there has never been national loyalty, such as in the Middle East and Africa, and loyalty has mostly remained with the extended family and tribe.”

    Mexico is the nearest example of this. Thras, if you have Netflix streaming, watch La Infierno as soon as possible. You need to see it as much for “A Cry in the Dark” as for this blog.

    My dire prediction is that white fertility rates will continue to decline in the West, that Hispanics will eventually ethnically cleanse both blacks and whites from this continent, and that Muslims will devour Western Europe and perhaps Scandinavia.

    Eastern Europe, from Poland to Russia to Romania, will become a rabid breeding ground of a new Pan-Aryan nationalism which will create the kind of thing that Harold Covington seeks in the Pacific Northwest. North and South America will be lost causes, third-world cesspools, with Africa and Haiti being even worse. The final conflict will be a reversal of the old Ottoman Turk vs. Slavic whites conflict we saw several hundred years ago, wherein the Order of the Dragon and other Templar-esque beat the hordes back to the sandbox.

    • kgaard says:

      Well, there’s one thing you may be overlooking here, which is that Third World IQs are rising 5-8 points per decade. I was just in Peru and it was shocking how much better the place was than in years past. Lima now looks better than Buenos Aires. Also, the spread of cellphones, internet and junk food are making people more mentally acute but physically less virtuous. Seems like the scenario you describe relies on low-IQ, high-physical-virtue Third-Worlders going on the attack, but what if that is not the sort of people they are in 10 years?

  6. oscar the grinch says:

    “the global elite- primarily Anglophone- discourages nationalism at home while encouraging it abroad. How did this inversion occur?”

    The answer is simpler than you think. We were foolish enough to let the Ashkenazim off of the tight leash on which they had heretofore quite sensibly been kept. Once free to roam, they did what they always do: form a human battering ram, force their way into all the major structures of power; once there, form internal nepotistic ethnic networks to bring in more of their own and force out the goyim; once in control, re-purpose the structures of power to serve Jewish interests instead of White interests, and it doesn’t need to be said that their interests are implicitly different.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

  7. Pingback: Dark Enlightenment News from Around the Web | Occam's Razor

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