Sep 20, 2022·edited Sep 20, 2022Liked by Imperium Press
This is an important contribution to our understanding of civic nationalism as pseudo-nationalism. Civic nationalist identity is an example of a "weak" identity, one which does not cover the whole man. Rather, it covers only the sphere of beliefs. Anyone holding those beliefs belongs to your "nation". "As the creed, so the man." It also does not possess the exclusivity that one tends to associate with national identity. If your "national" identity is based on beliefs, and you consider these beliefs to be objectively true, why wouldn't you want to convert the entire planet to your beliefs, and thereby bring them within the bounds of your nation? Hence the evangelistic nature of civic nationalists. For example, why does a civic nationalist object to Muslims being in his country? Not because they have no business being there, and belong elsewhere, but because they don't agree with liberal values. Were they to simply become liberals, the problem of their presence would magically disappear. The focus for civic nationalists always shifts to what one believes, not who one is.
Real nationalist identity, by contrast, is a "strong" identity, which covers the whole man, from his biological ancestry to his religion. It posits that values ought not to be disconnected from birth. "As the man, so his creed." The essential historicity of the nation is captured by this conception. A nation grows over time, and so does its ideology, customs and institutions. Partial closure is required to enable the growth of a stable identity, which entails restrictions upon admittance into the nation. What is the thread that ensures the continuity of the nation through changes? It can only be ancestry. One could expect this conception to have more motivating power than the civic one. After all, when your identity is fixed, you cannot convert others into it, or leave it yourself: you only have the choice to fight for it or die out.
Mike poses the question about what made whites susceptible to civic nationalism. I would add our susceptibility to universalist religions like Christianity to his question.
I always found Kevin MacDonald’s theory of white moral communities plausible. The idea is that the harsh conditions under which whites evolved demanded cooperation that was broader than just kinship. Our ancestors were forced to create communities of trust and those who violated the creed of honesty and contribution to the group were expelled to likely death.
I’m curious what others think of this explanation for our susceptibility to creeds. Of course, explanations based on evolutionary biology are often unfalsifiable, but then any explanation of history is usually unfalsifiable.
"Enoch Powell once remarked to Margaret Thatcher that he would fight for England even if it were communist, which left her stupefied, because she was a civic nationalist and he was not."
well i wouldn't sacrifice my life for a country whose leaders have maladaptive ideas towards the inhabitance. in this case white 'merican men would have to fight wars because they are ethnocentric while at the same their country is planting rainbow flags in the taken, by-them, territories. or with ukraine, i wouldn't fight the russians if my country is turning, via usa-pipeline, itself gay
This is an important contribution to our understanding of civic nationalism as pseudo-nationalism. Civic nationalist identity is an example of a "weak" identity, one which does not cover the whole man. Rather, it covers only the sphere of beliefs. Anyone holding those beliefs belongs to your "nation". "As the creed, so the man." It also does not possess the exclusivity that one tends to associate with national identity. If your "national" identity is based on beliefs, and you consider these beliefs to be objectively true, why wouldn't you want to convert the entire planet to your beliefs, and thereby bring them within the bounds of your nation? Hence the evangelistic nature of civic nationalists. For example, why does a civic nationalist object to Muslims being in his country? Not because they have no business being there, and belong elsewhere, but because they don't agree with liberal values. Were they to simply become liberals, the problem of their presence would magically disappear. The focus for civic nationalists always shifts to what one believes, not who one is.
Real nationalist identity, by contrast, is a "strong" identity, which covers the whole man, from his biological ancestry to his religion. It posits that values ought not to be disconnected from birth. "As the man, so his creed." The essential historicity of the nation is captured by this conception. A nation grows over time, and so does its ideology, customs and institutions. Partial closure is required to enable the growth of a stable identity, which entails restrictions upon admittance into the nation. What is the thread that ensures the continuity of the nation through changes? It can only be ancestry. One could expect this conception to have more motivating power than the civic one. After all, when your identity is fixed, you cannot convert others into it, or leave it yourself: you only have the choice to fight for it or die out.
Mike poses the question about what made whites susceptible to civic nationalism. I would add our susceptibility to universalist religions like Christianity to his question.
I always found Kevin MacDonald’s theory of white moral communities plausible. The idea is that the harsh conditions under which whites evolved demanded cooperation that was broader than just kinship. Our ancestors were forced to create communities of trust and those who violated the creed of honesty and contribution to the group were expelled to likely death.
I’m curious what others think of this explanation for our susceptibility to creeds. Of course, explanations based on evolutionary biology are often unfalsifiable, but then any explanation of history is usually unfalsifiable.
"Enoch Powell once remarked to Margaret Thatcher that he would fight for England even if it were communist, which left her stupefied, because she was a civic nationalist and he was not."
well i wouldn't sacrifice my life for a country whose leaders have maladaptive ideas towards the inhabitance. in this case white 'merican men would have to fight wars because they are ethnocentric while at the same their country is planting rainbow flags in the taken, by-them, territories. or with ukraine, i wouldn't fight the russians if my country is turning, via usa-pipeline, itself gay