Brett Stevens writes: Over at Counter Currents — which has banned me for not discussing the infamous “JQ” ideologically correctly — Guillaume Durocher makes several powerful points in favor of universal nationalism, or every state on earth being nationalistic:
It matters not whether the ethnic differences are based on language (Belgium, Canada), religion (Iraq, Syria), or race (the United States, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa . . .). In each case, the lack of a common identity leads to a perpetual tribalization of politics. These problems are sometimes peaceful, and often they lead to otherwise unnecessary ethnic civil wars, but in each case there are intractable problems. People on average are simply not as willing to submit to authority, pay taxes, or give their life in war for another group, as they would for their own group. In a word: There is no solidarity.
To my mind, it makes sense to turn this around from a negative point to a positive one: with nationalism, you have solidarity without needing ideology and government. People, from a place within themselves, want to do right and they use their national culture as a means of assessing what is right and thus, what will be rewarded by others.
Durocher lists a number of other good points, but this seems to be the core of it: instead of forcing people to get along, choose people who are headed in the same direction and have the same interests and values, and they will desire to get along. Their striving will make it happen without requiring a neurotic layer of government, propaganda and “education” to humiliate and compel them to obey.
It is this positive desire to cooperate with others toward a goal — corresponding to what Evola might have called the inner states — that makes nationalism superior. It is simply more efficient. You do not require a strong-arm government, bureaucrats and media; instead, people naturally get along because they are the same sub-group of a sub-species.
