Nationalism Notes

§1

The more I think about nationalism as it exists in Europe today, I see it as a different beast to that which existed a century ago, to the extent that it is hard to even see the two as quite the same.

The conflicts of the first half of the 20th century were defined by strong irredentist and liberative logics. Countries sought to expand and reunify with their national kin, and nations within multinational states sought to fight to obtain independence. These conditions, insofar as they exist today, are much looser and weaker.

German nationalists are not primarily concerned with annexing Alsace-Lorraine. Austrian-Germans within Italy have sufficient autonomous wealth to not need to rock the boat. Czechs and Slovaks were able to go their separate ways with ease. Hungary, even under the rule of a nationalist who is in theory a pariah in the eyes of genuine liberal-democratic states, is not threatening the territorial integrity of its neighbours.

There are stronger conditions now of sub-national historical minorities being guaranteed specific rights and representation, under umbrellas of EU-wide freedom of movement, the common currency area, and so forth.

§2

There are still manifestations of 20th century nationalism in Europe. Where they still exist, they typically exist in the east of the continent. This is partly because the US sees nationalisms like Ukrainian and Belarusian as useful in its containment of Russia.

But in western and central Europe, the 21st century nationalism is increasingly evident. This nationalism is defined primarily against immigration from outside of Europe, and cultural manifestations of this mass immigration such as the religion of Islam. You can already see this is the wealthier ex-Communist countries too.

§3

It is commonplace to characterise a certain kind of immigration-restrictionist, right-wing nationalism in the United States as ‘white nationalism’, to emphasise the melding together of people of European descent into the US-American nation. This is usually defined against the smaller nationalisms of Europe. But in reality, many European nationalisms, particularly those in western Europe, are coming to converge somewhat on an American model.

This is largely a result of mass immigration from outside of Europe, which brings into light the obvious commonalities that Europeans share. It is also (though I think only secondarily) a result of American cultural dominance, and the rise of a kind of ‘nationalist international’ where young men write in English with one another about globalism (and maybe give ‘the Anglo’ himself a kicking).

§4

“Nationalism for all” is a cry of the incumbent. It is also a fantasy not worth entertaining. To support the self-determination of any Bongo-Bongo land is to disadvantage the better nations. This kind of third-worldist conceit of “nationalism for all” is, when embraced by someone from an advanced country, generally a product of alienated exoticism.

“Do you support the cause of civilisation or not?” – this for me is the superior litmus test. This cuts across the bullshit debate of “nationalism for all”, which has the same rank smell of the libertarian “non-aggression principle”. The petty leftist nationalisms of places like Catalonia are obscene, whereas the affirmative direction of the Flemish is commendable.

§5

There is nationalism and there is empire. These two concepts are not entirely binary. But the deeper problem is that we think too statically about such things. There is movement outward and retrenchment inward.

§6

It is this space for movement that is so often missing. Nations can only really be understood as in movement. This is a deconstructive statement, but in the most positive sense. Nations are a kind of collective will in motion, driven forward by exceptional men.

§7

This demand for motion, rather than stasis, is why any attempts to say “Englishness means X” are doomed to failure. The attempt at codification is what sterilises and neuters. Will is demonstrative. The only suitable response to a leftist Soyjak asking what Englishness means is to post a photoshopped picture of Sir Francis Drake shitting on their face.

§8

The only worthwhile nationalism is the will towards movement, that which serves to elevate and advance.