In Defense of Nationalism

Nationalism is the most offensive concept to the modern Progressive. That is understandable, given the events of the Twentieth Century and their supposed Nationalistic origins. Still Nationalism is the foundation of Democracy. Before civic virtues, before rights, there must be Nationalism, for every liberty, every right depends on Nationalism. Allow me to demonstrate.

First and foremost, we must differentiate Nationalism from Patriotism. Nationalism is the virtue by which one places one's own Nation and its citizens above other Nations and non-citizens. This is not Patriotism. Patriotism is the mindless support for the actions of one's government, without regard for the consequences. The American Patriot looks at the Iraq War, its aftermath, and screams “'Murica, Fuck Yeah!” The American Nationalist looks at the Iraq War and asks “why were my countrymen sent to sacrificed for the freedoms of those who were not fighting?” The Patriot loves the State. The Nationalist loves the Nation.

Detractors will point to Nazi Germany as a rebuttal. “The concentration camps,” they say, “are the final result of Nationalism.” This assertion is wrong, as that it assumes there were absolutely no Germans herded into the gas chambers. No Nationalist would slaughter his own countrymen as the Nazis did. This is where the line differentiating Nationalism from Patriotism can be drawn.

The Odessa File is a movie in which the main character, Peter Miller, confronts a Nazi war criminal who has been in hiding since Germany's surrender. The former SS officer says that it was to achieve the strong bodied blonde, like Miller himself, that the Holocaust happened. It was for the Germans, he claims, that so many Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other dissidents were massacred. Miller retorts, “they were still Germans!” Those four words echo across the deep chasm separating Nationalism and Patriotism. The German Patriot was a useful idiot, a happy tool of the Third Reich, useful for killing his fellow citizens. In contrast, the German Nationalist found himself in the concentration camp for standing by his Jewish countrymen, or was himself a German Jew.

Patriotism, with its blatant support for the State thinly disguised as love of country (it is never called “love of countryman”), is a relic of State propoganda from the Progressive Era. Nationalism, which is the love of the countryman, is a remnant of the Revolutionary Era, the late Eighteenth Century. Both have similarities in how they are expressed, such as flag-waving and anthem singing, but it is in the objects of adoration that the difference can be found. The Patriot celebrates figures of the State while the Nationalist celebrates the people.

After the Second World War, the Progressive governments governing the Allied Nations sought to create a boogeyman out of Nationalism. To do so, they labelled the Progressive governments of the vanquished Axis powers as Nationalist. Nevermind how ten years before the end of the war, Fascism was lauded as the most Progressive form of government; now it could only serve the totalitarians as propaganda. Suddenly, the Libertarian, the Nationalist, the Conservative, and the Liberal are all lumped together as Fascists. This is how the term Fascist has gained the current connotation it now carries: somebody who does not agree with the person using the term.

But this is not an essay on the etymology of the word Fascism. This is a defense of Nationalism, so let us investigate that term now.

Nationalism is a product of the Liberalism of the French Revolution. For the first time, as a result of Seventeen-Eighty-Nine, the French people did not see themselves merely as subjects of whichever noble currently lay claim to the land they dwelt on. Instead, they saw themselves as Frenchmen, citizens of a unified Nation. The French National Anthem, La Marseille, calls those who live under autocracy slaves and calls on all Frenchmen to water the fields with the blood of these slaves. It calls on them to defend France, no matter the consequences to the Prussian or the Austrian.

This, accompanied by the American Revolution, the adoption of the United States Constitution, and the American victory in 1814, harkened the end of autocracy in the West. The Enlightenment had produced Liberal societies, and the long night of monarchies and oligarchies gave way to the dawn of democratic aristocracies.

The twilight of autocracy was not celebrated by those who were deposed. The deposed elites plotted subtle counterrevolutions at the ballot, brilliantly hiding the thirst for power behind the rhetoric of equality. It came as no surprise that they should attempt to take control, but their methods of doing so were truly novel.

Just as the end of the Eighteenth Century saw the birth of Liberalism and Democracy in the West, the beginning of the Twentieth Century saw attempts to reconcile Enlightenment values with Autocratic rule. The Progressive Era, as it has come to be called, brought with it a multitude of philosophies: Fascism, Leninist-Marxism, National Socialism, and other ideologies. In the United States, a nation which itself is a product of the Enlightenment, Progressivism's main technique has been manipulation the crowd through entertainment disguised as propaganda. Before we return to contrasting Patriotism and Nationalism, and finally come to my main defense of Nationalism, there should be some brief definition given to these ideologies.

Fascism is the binding of the individual to the State; it is the abolition of the need for the Nation. Leninist-Marxism is the establishment (or at least attempt thereof) of the Communist State over a Globe. National Socialism is a strange blend of the former two, as that it binds the individual to the State and seeks to allow a singular Nation (defined very narrowly) to rule over a Global Nation through hegemonic politics. These three ideologies, building their foundations on discredited economic and political theories, are products of Progressivism. As such, they rely heavily on Patriotism; hence the reason in countries where these ideologies are in practice, we see so many displays of state power ranging from parades to mass mourning for the death of authoritarian figureheads.

Patriotism relies on the same pompous displays of grandeur as authoritarianism in order to be ingrained on the hearts and minds of an upcoming generation. Gusto, symbolism, and entertainment were all methods used not only by the Nazis and the Communists, but also by Patriots of every Nation. The masses are compelled using emotions and symbolism instead of logic and reason. Children are molded to be uncritical in thought and emotionally impulsive in order to make them pliable to the demands of the State. This molded generation will proudly call itself Patriots.

For the rest of this piece, I will focus on the United States of America. Dear Foreign Readers, you need only consider your own National values and the results should be much the same.

The US has become a Nation infected with Patriots. Infuriated with the behavior of their countrymen, such as flag burning or, most recently, not standing for the National Anthem, they vent their fury against the Nation on the side of the State. Ironically, they are protesting the Constitution, that very document which they purport to have pride in and supposedly governs the State. Some will even accept whatever lies are told to them by the State, often feeling that they are superior to their countrymen for their willingness to be mouthpieces for the State.

Of course this is done quite cleverly in America. Unlike the totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, where propagandists were distinctly agents of the State, American propagandists disguise their alliance with tyrants by affiliating themselves with one of two political parties.

The Republican and Democrat Parties in the United States, although they claim to be respectively Conservative and Liberal, are really both Progressives. However, to keep up their clever disguises, both politicians and their mouthpieces, in the media and on the streets, mix Progressive talking points with the jargon of Conservativism or Liberalism. More often than not, altruism, that myth of a human motive, is used as justification for the need to pass new legislation.

When their respective party is in power, every excuse is given and even some are invented for the trampling of rights. When the Affordable Care Act was passed and with it a mandate to purchase healthcare or else, the well-being of others was used as a reason to rob citizens of the Right to say no. When President Bush was in office, the Patriot Act was passed and the government was permitted, legally, to spy on Americans. The excuse of National Security was given.

However, when the Party is without power, suddenly the Rights of the Citizen matter. It is amazing how many Democrats are suddenly staunch Constitutionalists now that Trump is in office, going so far as to criticize the man for his verbal assaults on the Free Press. This is no different than how so many Conservatives who supported the Bush Administration's Patriot Act because of National Security were suddenly concerned with their Rights to privacy when the Obama Administration opted to continue the act.

Although these Patriots are not always in support of the State, they still support the State encroaching on the Rights of the Citizen, so long as it is done in the name of their own party. Just as Democrats celebrated Obama's use of Executive Orders, they now condemn Trump's use of the same. It was cool when their side bypassed the Legislative Branch, but now that their side is being bypassed, it is suddenly at affront to Liberty! Be cautious, Patriots, for those laws which benefit your side today will be used by your opponents tomorrow.

This is where the Nationalist and the Patriot differ. The Nationalist, unlike the Patriot, condemns the growth of the State and the passing of any oppressive Law, regardless of his political affiliation. He does not perceive his political opponent as the enemy, but as a fellow citizen. The Patriot sees strife between citizens, and seeks to deepen this divide. The Nationalist sees the true struggle is not between Citizens, but between the Nation and the State. He wisely knows that the Citizen must take the side of the Nation in order to preserve those Liberties, since all Liberties emanate from the Nation.

The Nationalist is inherently Liberal. He believes that Rights belong to the Citizen and are given to him by the Nation. The Natural Rights which are surrendered to the State, such as the Right to Murder, and reserved by the State, are again assumed by the Citizen when the State encroaches on those Rights which have not been surrendered. Nowhere was this seen more than in the last two decades of the Eighteenth Century. This is the reason why Nationalist has become a dirty word.

Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Emperor Hirohito gave a gift to the Progressive American Patriot while they waged war with him. They gave him an enemy. By calling themselves Nationalist (which they were not judging by the police states which they developed), they made Nationalist a bad word. However, Fascism proves itself not be Nationalist but Patriotic when it is even briefly examined. Mussolini himself described it as the binding of the Citizen to the State. The Nation becomes a part of the State, instead of the reverse, which is the Liberal way.

According to the Fascist in particular and the Progressive in general (for I have demonstrated that Fascism is a kind of Progressivism in a previous post) the Rights of the Citizen do not emanate from the Nation, but from the State. This is crucial to the difference between Liberals and Progressives, between Nationalists and Patriots. Just as Royalists in the Century of Revolution and Conservatives in Eighteen-Forty-Eight believed that every subject were at the mercy of the King, the Progressive and the Patriot believe that Rights are granted and revoked at the convenience of the State. The Nationalist knows that Rights must be presumed to emanate from the Nation; that is to say, the Rights of the Citizen come from each Citizen and are granted to each Citizen. The reasons for this are as follows below.

Permit me, dear reader, to insert an anecdote. The other day I saw a man wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt. I am no supporter of that organization. At best, I feel that they are divisive, at worst I see them as violent racists who wish to grant special privileges to one race and not others. However, if I demand to have his right to wear said shirt revoked by the State, what restriction is there on him from demanding that my rights to expression also be revoked? The only way the two of us manage to retain our Rights is to mutually recognize the Rights also belong to each other. So it is that the Citizen, in order to retain his Rights, must grant his Rights to his fellow Citizen. Since the Citizens grant rights to one another, and these same Citizens comprise the Nation, we see that the Rights of the Citizen emanate from the Nation. This is best summed up in Article Four of the Declarations of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.”

American Patriotism is little more than the gradual erosion of Rights in the name of ideology and at for the benefit of the State. American Nationalism is the defense of the Rights of the Citizen, and the State be damned. The Nationalist, by definition, takes the side of the Nation in its struggle against the State. Since the Nation is composed of Citizens, the Nationalist takes the side of the Citizens.

The contrast between Nationalism and Patriotism is best seen in the difference between two mottos common in the Eighteenth Century. The British soldier often recited the motto “For King and Country!” as his war cry. The French soldier, fighting in the Revolutionary Army, had various mottos, one of which was “For the Glory of the Revolution and the People of France!” to invigorate him before battle. The former proclaims his loyalty to an autocrat and the lands presumed to belong to said autocrat. The latter's loyalty belongs to an ideal and to his fellow Citizens.

The Patriot says, in various ways, “My country, right or wrong!”. What he means to say is “The decisions of the State must be supported, regardless of the outcomes!” The Nationalist says “My countrymen, without exception!” and means his fellow Citizens, regardless of the designation placed on them the State or those outside of the Nation. Thus, the Nationalist defends the Nation and the Citizen, knowing these to be the source of his own Rights. And that is why we should be proud to consider ourselves Nationalists, regardless of our Nation, and ashamed to call ourselves anything in its place.