nationalism and the myth of nation states

I spoke about nationalism in my previous post. I want to say a bit more on the subject. What I have to say is unpalatable but it needs to be said.
Nationalism is no longer a viable proposition because generally speaking nation states as they existed between the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and 1945 no longer exist.
A nation state is a political entity that is capable of asserting its independence. This requires both the military capacity and the political willingness to do so. According to this criterion the only independent nation states that exist in today’s world are the United States, Russia, China and (possibly) India.
The idea that any other country has this capability is pure fantasy. 
Let us assume that Italy, or Japan, or Brazil, or France or Britain decided that as a matter of national survival they needed to wage war against some other state. Could they do so? The answer of course is that they could not. They would need to ask the United States for permission to do so. It is unthinkable that any of these countries could fight a war, even a war for national survival, without first seeking Washington’s approval and then seeking US aid. In other words not one of these countries is a true nation state. They are mere vassal states.
In 1982 Britain was only with great difficulty able to defeat a Third World nation, Argentina. It was a near run thing and Britain won because from Argentina’s point of view it was not a war for survival and it was therefore not worth making it a fight to the finish. If Britain faced the same situation today she would have to abandon the Falklands. Britain also no longer has its own nuclear deterrent. Britain’s Trident missiles belong to the United States. The recent controversy over whether Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister would or would not use nuclear weapons was irrelevant, No British prime minister could use nuclear weapons without Washington’s permission. The Trident missiles allow Britain to indulge in the fantasy that Britain is a great power. In fact Britain is not even a proper nation state, merely an American vassal.
The Second World War marked the end of the nation state system. It marked the end of European nation states. Western Europe became part of the American Empire. The EU is merely a means by which that empire can be controlled more easily and more conveniently.
The problem of nationalism today is how can you have nationalism without nation states that are in control of their own destinies?

nationalism, internationalism and globalism

If you’ve ever spent more than five minutes in the dissident right corner of the internet you’ve heard the phrase, “The real political divide today is not between left and right but between nationalism and globalism.” I’ve said it myself.
Are things quite as simple as that? Is nationalism really more organic, more traditional, more healthy, than globalism?
Nationalism is a fairly recent phenomenon. It did not exist in the ancient world, nor in the medieval world. In fact it did not really exist until the mid-17th century. The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War marked the formal recognition that nation states were now the effective political units of Europe. And nationalism did not take deep root in the European psyche until the end of the 18th century.
Prior to that there were of course strong local sentiments based on shared language, culture and religion but these had little bearing on the actual political arrangements of Europe. The political unit was the dynastic unit. Insofar as people had political loyalties those loyalties were owed to the local lord and ultimately to the king, or in central Europe they were owed to the local lord, to the prince and ultimately to the emperor. A kingdom could comprise a variety of ethnic groups and cultures and languages and even religions. The boundaries of kingdoms shifted constantly as dynastic marriages split existing political units or caused larger units to coalesce.
You might not speak the same language as your king, you might not belong to the same ethnic group, you might not share his culture or his religion but that did not affect your loyalty.
Prior to the Reformation most (but by no means all) of Europe belonged to a single entity known as Christendom but this was not a political unit. The head of Christendom was the Pope. His spiritual authority existed side by side with the political authority of kings.
Europe functioned perfectly well without nationalism. Multi-ethnic multi-faith multi-cultural political entities such as the empire of the Habsburgs were extremely successful. No modern nation state has lasted as long as the empire of the Habsburgs.
The Europe of the dynastic system and of Christendom had nothing in common with modern nationalism, but at the same time it also had nothing in common with modern globalism. It represents a third option and it is an option that is usually ignored, partly because it most people don’t understand it and partly because it didn’t suit modern political agendas.
It’s also worth pointing out that internationalism as such is by no means identical with globalism. Take for example the European Union. The EU is evil not because it’s internationalist. The idea of European political unity is not inherently evil. The idea of Europe has much to recommend it. The Second World War demonstrated with brutal clarity that European nation states were defenceless against the power and wealth of the United States. If Europe was going to avoid becoming an American colony then some degree of political and economic unity was essential. 
The problem with the EU is not that it’s corrupt and undemocratic (although it is corrupt and undemocratic). The problem is that it’s run by people who hate Europeans, hate European culture and are ashamed of themselves for being European. It is run by people who are fundamentally hostile to European civilisation. It is run by people whose loyalty is to bankers.
This is the problem with almost all internationalist organisations today. They are run by bankers for bankers.
It is extremely unlikely that organisations like the EU can be reformed. The EU will never serve the interests of Europeans. The idea of Europe on the other hand still has some validity. The question is whether it will ever be possible to bring about a European unity that will serve the interests of Europeans.
The idea of regional internationalism is also not inherently evil. Countries like Australia cannot exist in the modern world as viable independent nation states. They simply do not have the economic, military and political muscle to be anything other than satellites of great powers. Countries like Australia (and Canada and Britain) are, in political terms, merely American vassal states. In the long term their only hope of avoiding such vassalage is by being part of regional power groupings.
It is also clear that, in the absence of such regional power groupings, the entire world is going to end up being divided into two gigantic spheres of influence, one dominated by the United States and one dominated by China. This is why the idea of resurrecting the caliphate is so attractive to many Muslims. Independent Islamic nations are merely pawns in the game of power politics played by great powers. A caliphate uniting a large part of the Islamic world would have some chance of political independence. It is their only chance of preserving their culture and their religion and it ids therefore going to be increasingly seen as not only desirable but essential.
Nationalism is certainly preferable to globalism. It is however doubtful whether in the modern world nationalism can defeat globalism. While I’ve been quite sceptical of ideas like white nationalism I can understand why such ideas seem attractive. If nationalism is a spent force then perhaps other options for fighting globalism need to be considered.

what are European nationalists actually fighting for?

We need to be honest and clear-headed when examining the rise of the nationalist so-called far right parties in Europe. It would be pleasant to imagine that these parties are fighting to defend western civilisation but is that really the case? It seems to me that what they’re fighting for is a vision of western civilisation that is starkly at odds with the beliefs of traditionalists and social conservatives.
These parties, including the FN in France and Geert Wilders’ party in the Netherlands, have shown an alarming willingness to compromise on moral issues. In fact they’re prepared to make almost unlimited compromises on moral issues. The problem with this is that you can’t defend civilisation by abandoning everything that makes civilisation civilised.
In practice these nationalist parties are fighting for rainbow flags and Gay Pride marches. They’re fighting to defend the right of women to murder their unborn babies. They’re fighting for the right of feminists to go on destryong the foundations of society. They’re fighting for the rights of homosexuals to prey on our children. They’re fighting for the rights of liberals to brainwash our kids. 
They’re not defending civilisation. They’re defending liberalism.
It’s not the slight left-wing leanings of these parties that should worry us. It’s the fact that they are demonstrating very little willingness to oppose the moral degeneracy which is overwhelming the West.
There’s also very little sign that these parties have any vision of a Christian Europe. 
I’d like to see European civilisation saved, but only if there’s a European civilisation that is actually worth saving.

are there any men left in Europe?

2016 was a year that many people believed to be a watershed. The Brexit vote and the election of Trump offered hope that perhaps globalism wasn’t invincible, that perhaps globalists were guilty of over-reaching and of underestimating their opponents. 
Now 2017 has come and reality is starting to assert itself. The Dutch elections were a calamity for the nationalist party. The first round of the French presidential election has been a bitterly disappointing result for Marine Le Pen and the FN. She obviously has no chance whatever of victory in the second round. The French people have found a candidate who really captures their imaginations – who wouldn’t be swept away with enthusiasm at the thought of having a globalist banker as president?
The British elections look like being a triumphal procession for the Tories. At a time when a genuine alternative to the major parties is needed more desperately than ever UKIP has failed to re-invent itself as the party that could provide that alternative. Instead UKIP has become an irrelevance. Labour seems to be headed for what might well be the worst defeat in the party’s history. The Tories should win an overwhelming majority, which may strengthen the hand of those within the party determined to sabotage Brexit.
We really have to face the unpalatable truth that the political process is merely an exercise in futility.
There’s another point that is becoming more obvious and more disturbing. The European nationalist parties all seem to be led by women or homosexuals, or by girly men. In Germany the AfD’s new leader is a lesbian. Of course it’s always been obvious that there is nothing remotely far right about any of these parties. All of the European nationalist parties that the media describes as far right are actually solidly centre-left. That really isn’t a problem. 
What is a problem is that these parties are all liberal parties. They are all committed to the liberal social agenda. Maybe they’re not quite as extreme in this regard as the mainstream parties but they would all have to be described as very socially liberal. These parties might claim to be committed to defending European civilisation and values but their ideas of what constitute the core values of that civilisation are very very depressing. To them European civilisation is all about tolerance, secularism, abortion and homosexual marriage.
In fact the programs of these parties are pretty much what you’d expect of parties led by women, male feminists and homosexuals.
Are there any actual men at all left in Europe? Any men who have not been totally emasculated? What has happened? Are they putting something in the water? A civilisation led by women and homosexuals is headed for catastrophe.

political, spiritual and cultural struggles

A recent post at Upon Hope offers Some Lessons from Nationalism in Britain. It looks at the political fortunes of both the National Front and the more recent British National Party. 
My take on this is that if you want a revolution to succeed (and by revolution I mean peaceful dramatic changes in the political landscape as well as violent revolution) you have to have some part of the elite on your side. You have to have at least a small number of supporters or sympathiser within the key institutions – the media, academia, the bureaucracy, the churches, the judiciary, the military, etc.
When the British Labour Party set out on its quest to achieve power through the ballot box it did have sympathisers within all these institutions. The same can be said for the Australian Labor Party and for left-wing parties throughout most of the West.
The celebrated Long March Through the Institutions of the Cultural Left succeeded because there were already leftist sympathisers within those institutions and had been since the late 19th century.
The National Front and the British National Party on the other hand had zero supporters within the elites. They therefore had to face the united opposition of every one of the institutions that hold the keys to power. Their chances of achieving anything through the ballot box were non-existent.
That unfortunately is pretty much the situation that faces any modern anti-establishment party. The current liberal/globalist establishment is much more united than the old establishment ever was. Much more united, and much more cynical in its methods.
Which leads on to a post at Vanishing American II which suggests (rightly I think) that the spiritual and cultural struggle is as vital as the political struggle. 
If politics really is downstream of culture then our only long-term hope is to find a way of turning the spiritual/cultural struggle in our favour.
Of course if we hope to win a spiritual struggle we will need to recapture Christianity from the SJWs, homosexuals and atheists who currently control most churches. That will be a difficult task but when you consider the virtual impossibility, at this stage, of recapturing the media or academia or the bureaucracy then it has to be admitted that retaking Christianity is at least possible. A goal that is extremely difficult but achievable is preferable to goals that are simply not achievable.

nationalism – blood and soil

The most effective form of nationalism is that based on ethnicity and attachment to the land – blood and soil. That raises a difficult problem for countries such as Australia, the United States and Canada. For the US the difficulties are insuperable – there never was much chance of blood and soil nationalism there.

For Australia though there was a real chance of such a thing. Up until the 1940s Australia was remarkably homogeneous both ethnically and culturally. We were genuinely an outpost of British civilisation. Culturally we were British, but with a few variations as a result of our geography and our history. We were, slowly, developing a sense of ourselves as a people. We were proud of being British, but also proud of being Australian. We had a real chance of forging a coherent national identity. The blood part of the equation could not be expected to be as strong as you’d find among people who had lived on the same land for centuries but it was still there.
The soil part of the equation was a possibility as well. Compared to Britain Australia was a harsh unfriendly and even ugly landscape. Even the well-watered coastal fringes lack the charm and the prettiness of the English countryside. Despite this Australians had created a perverse fondness for the Australian landscape. In fact we possibly loved the land even more because it was superficially ugly and uninviting – it was a land you could only love if you got to know it. If outsiders couldn’t appreciate it that was their problem.
We developed a mythology based on the landscape. From an early stage Australia was highly urbanised but even Australians who lived their whole lives in cities were familiar with the mythology of the Bush, of cattle stations and drovers and bushrangers.
Australia in the late 1940s should have been well placed to develop, eventually, a strong sense of Australian-ness based on ethnic unity and a strong attachment to the land. Then our government, in its infinite wisdom, decided we needed mass migration. As so often it was a policy imposed upon the people. Since both major parties enthusiastically supported  mass migration there was no need to ask the Australian people how they felt about the matter. There was certainly no need to hold a referendum even though this was a policy that would radically change our society.
Up until the 1970s it was not a fatal problem. Most non-British immigrants were from Italy or Greece, with smaller numbers from eastern Europe and various Balkan nations. They assimilated fairly well. Our national identity was weakened but not quite destroyed. Then began the influx of Third World immigrants. 
It’s perhaps not quite too late for Australia now but time is definitely running out. The only hope is that people realise that the mainstream political parties – all of them – have betrayed them and intend to go on betraying them. Socially conservative and traditionalist Australians who imagine they are doing the right thing by voting for the LNP coalition are deluding themselves. They are voting for the destruction of Australia.

Nothing can be achieved until voters are prepared to reject both the mainstream parties.