The concept of nationalism I think was covered quite ably in the work by Adam Zamoiski. This man, who supposedly is of aristocratic Polish ancestry and clearly is a proud Catholic, did an estimable job of clearing away the rubble of postmodern discourse concerning nationalism. He explained very well what in the idea of the nation appeals to the innermost nature of man, and why it remains a persistent idea against all odds (and of course propaganda, which cannot be discounted in the postmodern world).
It is interesting to reflect on his insights. His research points quite clearly to some interesting issues. Namely, that nationalism when it arose was not actually of the so-called narrow or chauvinistic type at all. Instead, it was of a universal type which sought to bring the whole of the nations of Europe and the world into the Enlightenment. I don't believe a serious study of the record, such as that which he carried out, can leave any doubt that this was so. The French Revolution and the Polish Uprising against Russian rule were both phenomena carried out to bring sacred Liberty to Europe, tribal chauvinism was the last thing on peoples' minds.
The tribal chauvinist type of nationalism came later. Of course, even in Zamoiski's works, Germany is blamed for this. And probably not unfairly, given how events unfolded. But it is more than a little perverse to impute to them alone a phenomenon that touched all of the men of Europe to greater or lesser degree. The fact is that the age of the mob was a time of great insecurity, and not least for the German countries that had no tradition of overarching unity that some of the other nations could fall back upon. Nationalism of the idealistic type was 'easier' in a sense in Poland or France.
The point of this short piece isn't really to dwell altogether on this scenario though. And the reason is simple. While nationalism can have its uses in combating the postmodern paradigm which has been called neoliberal or global, it ultimately owes itself to the same source. The same rejection of the way life was before is a central assumption of nationalism. There cannot be any doubt that it is equally premised on the Enlightenment ideals. In fact, in a very real sense, it may be more so. For the global paradigm is really a sort of Anglo-Saxon or Judaic chauvinism disguised as a world-idea, as many in the Third World have sorted out by now.
Nationalism is decadent and democratic, and it is furthermore used and exploited by the Anglo-Saxon/Judaic paradigm for the creation of Chaos and instability the world over. This can be seen in the support for the Georgians and the Banderists, the Rohingya and the Kurds, and so on. The encouragement of petty nationalisms in the name of Liberty can be a potent force for the Anglo-Judaean expansionism. So, instead of forming itself as a barrier of sorts against the rule of the finance kings and corporati, it actually unwittingly aids it, and we rightists are encouraged by stupified elements calling themselves right wing to accept it because it's nationalistic!
I cannot abide such foolishness. Instead, I have advocated for formation of new classes or races committed to experimenting on ideas of their own. This is vaguely similar to the Bowerian or Maguirist approach, but I think we can also see tradition as a guide to another ideal. The world must be altered to fit the needs of the age, and those needs will not be met with national chauvinisms. Instead they will be met by genuine formations of ruling castes premised on shared values, and remaining insular and unified in their world view and values. I think it will take a long time for this to happen, given current circumstances, but it is possible, and we must will it into existence, since the current paradigm is unacceptable.
We need a resurgence of honor, of battlefield fanaticism, and of religious feeling that is genuine rather than contrived. We need a stable familial system and tradition to keep order on the low levels of society, for without that glue no larger unity is possible. And we need to encourage men of high character and ideals, because only these are able to sustain the culture that we want to see take shape. Aesthetics and Romanticism will play a role in this too, but needs to be brought into harmony with the Apollonian and a will to order not present in those former systems - this was the lack of vigilance that allowed the IndRev to come to pass.
I refuse to believe that this is impossible, on the contrary, it must happen, and as soon as possible! The living cosmos depends on our doing so, without delay. Let us forever cast away the tramp mire of nationalistic politics and bring into being once more great men - once they are a possibility, the national questions shall become the unimportant trifles they were always meant to be, fading into the background in a cosmos regenerated of life! The life of ideals, the only life a man can truly find worthy to live!
The person of Adolf Hitler is an interesting study case, because he pointed the way in certain regards, while falling victim to vast idiocy in others. His overly nationalistic form of reasoning, possible in the context of a nation on the brink of ruin, detracted from a set of goals that, had they been implemented in another way, could have been positive. The mass murder in the east, and the inability to defeat Britain made his defeat inevitable.
ReplyDeleteBut where Hitler really made a mark is in showing how to shape events to one's liking. For the entirety of the 30s things went just as he wanted them to. I think his methods must be studied for anyone seriously wishing to make a political impact. But the methods must be adapted away from the populist model and into a more suitable form. We are past the point when the majority of the populace needs to be considered.