“Traditional nationalism seems to me to be a fair term for a movement to strengthen the “nation-among-nations” qualities of the United States—with an emphasis on national sovereignty, national borders, and national security (rather than ideological promotion of freedom and democracy).”

Or maybe we could just call that--oh, I don’t know--patriotism?

“America cannot entirely cease to be an ideological nation without ceasing to be America.”

Wow.  There’s an awful lot to unpack in that one short sentence.  But let me forego the unpacking and simply say this: While the American idea of nationality has been, to some extent, ideological (as Lukacs notes), that doesn’t mean that there could never have been an American national identity that wasn’t ideological.

I’m not talking here about some romantic Catholic dream in which the United States was founded as a Catholic country, but rather the gelling of an American identity that Lukacs, in his Outgrowing Democracy, notes was occurring at several points in American history, only to be disrupted (by the Civil War, massive waves of immigration, etc.).

In the other comment thread, Dan, you chided me for what you regarded as an “ideological” statement; here, you’re embracing ideology as an essential component of the American national identity.  That’s an argument very similar to the one Justin makes in Reclaiming the American Right (and that Paul Gottfried echoes in his most recent book).

I’ll plug the forthcoming ISI edition of Justin’s book by noting that my response to that argument is fully developed in my critical essay in the ISI edition.

Another thing that strikes me, Dan, is that, if you feel the need to keep qualifying the words “patriotism” and “nationalism” (to wit: “ideological patriotism,” “hubristic patriotism,” “conservative nationalism,” “traditional nationalism"), not to mention bringing in new terms such as “ethnocultural identity,” you might want to ask yourself why.

Larison, Lukacs, JPII, myself--none of us finds it necessary, in discussing the distinctions and overlaps between these terms, to keep qualifying them.  That, in itself, indicates that there’s a conceptual clarity in the traditional definitions that’s missing in your reappraisal.

I used a variety of terms because I’m attempting to convey the meaning of a term whose definition is not accepted by all sides.  That requires description and paraphrase.

The ideological strain in the American character runs deep.  Perhaps it is not ineradicable, though.  I tend to be pessimistic: it doesn’t show much sign of going away any time soon.

Scott writes: “Or maybe we could just call that--oh, I don’t know--patriotism?”

Because that’s not what patriotism actually means.  “Love for and devotion to one’s country” may imply those things, especially rightly understood.  But it does not explicitly denote any of them. Nationalism, on the other hand, does denote a concern for national identity and integrity, including borders.  Nationalism historically has been compatible with either imperialism or noninventionism—I argue that the noninterventionist variety is much needed and fits well with traditional conservative concerns for territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

Kristol is not a nationalist, internationialist.

Thanks to Dan for writing a follow-up piece.

I had asked for a definition of the “American nation,” if indeed there is one.  What appears above, to my eyes at least, is a definition not of a nation but of “nationality.”

“American nationality is a specific historical compound of cultures, religions, lineages, and geography—just like other nations . . . “

I could be wrong, but it seems as if you are shying away from defining the nation per se: Stripped down, it reads “American nationality is a compound like other nations.”

A nation is a people united in some sense by birth, whereas nationality—in the American context, at least—tends toward the abstract.  For there to be the sort of “traditional” nationalism that you suggest, there must be a circumscribed nation, one composed of these but not those.  That nation will certainly have particular characteristics (a “nationality") but for a people to be “traditionally nationalist,” it must love itself, not a “compound.” “Nationalism” that is characterized by love of such a “compound” is itself ideological.  Thus, Lukacs in your citation: “The American idea of nationality has been ideological.”

I see evidence of this in the reference to “our Pilgrim fathers.” If I am part of the “American nationality,” that means that they are my fathers, at least “mythically.” They are not.  They are as much my “fathers” as they are the fathers of any illegal Mexican who is willing to love the aforementioned compound.

The view that America was a hodgepodge of various nationalities and was not comprised of a distinct American nationality would have been deemed preposterous prior to Emma Lazarus. It has been remarked that up to just past the Civil War a distinctly American character and type was being formed.

The massive post Civil War immigrations (which included all my American ancestors) suspended the process for several generations. Only under this condition was an ideologically rooted America postulated to assuage the political feelings of more recent and differently tribed European arrivals and their descendants.

So is a nation’s true nationality and character rooted only in its dominant ethnicity? Is there an American character, and if so, from whence does it spring?

It seems to me that one can normatively define a nation without having to adhere to ideology or religios/racial/ethnic separatism.  For example, one could say that the “U.S. is a Christian nation (a Protestant nation, but with considerable Catholic influence)”; and one could say:  “the U.S. is predominantly an Anglo-European nation, but with recognizable minorities of Africans, Mestizos and Native Americans, and that immigration policy should reflect this historic balance.”

[This is for Mr. 2.0, whose post may be removed later, but nonetheless . . . ]

I’m sorry to tell you, but I’m not the Aaron Wolf who was in the Israeli Army.  In 1989, I was in high school in Rockford, Illinois.  Wolf is German, and the rest is Irish, Scottish, and Welsh.

It’s especially funny that you would paint me with that brush, since the reviser of my Wikipedia page has gone to such great lengths to (if I may mix metaphors and split an infinitive while quoting Martin Luther, since I am, in fact, a Lutheran) fall off the donkey on the other side.  I have been particularly critical of Zionism and “Christian Zionism,” both in print (see Chronicles Press’s Peace in the Promised Land: A Realist Scenario and on the airwaves.  So now I am both a “Jew” and an “antisemite.”

Fasten your seat belt, though, because I concur with St. Paul, who says, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.  For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” And, since you didn’t ask, let us hear again from the Apostle to the Gentiles:

“[I]n Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.  And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

God will forgive your hatred for the Jews, 2.0, if you repent and confess His Son, Who is, according to the flesh, a Jew Himself.  His mercy is there for you, too, “while it is day.” But the night is coming.

I don’t disagree with much that Aaron writes above, though I’m not sure that I would insist upon such a sharp division of “nation” and “nationality.” I mean by the latter the quality (or combination of qualities) that make one a member of a nation.

My use of the word “compound” may need some explication.  There may be some ethnically pure nations out there—perhaps some island tribe—but most peoples are a mixture of several bloodlines, and the existence of a “nation” has cultural and psychological dimensions as well as genetic ones.  It seems possible to me that two individuals with very similar genes may be part of different nations, if they speak different languages, were born in different areas, are members of different religions, and partake of different cultures.  My guess is that there are separate nations, which we would all agree are nations, that are more closely related to one another than are some members within a single nation.  But that is just conjecture.

Is there enough of a nation in the United States to have (traditional) nationalism?  Maybe. Americans do have a sense of themselves as distinct from Canadians, Mexicans, Englishmen, and Iraqis.  That American sense of self or national identity derives in part from a traditional ethnonational core—English and Protestant—but also has an ideological component and accretions of other ethnonational elements (Scots-Irish, Dutch, African, German, etc.).  This does not mean that America cannot be a nation more or less like other nations.  The English nation is an alloy of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, various Celtic and Germanic peoples, and heaven knows what else, just as the English tongue is a Germanic base overlaid with French and other influences. Thus America as a compound is not necessarily so different from other nations, although there may be differences in extent.  The time-frame and circumstances in which the American nation has formed, if indeed it has formed, are also important. They are unusual and may be disqualifying.

The relationship of nations-as-peoples, or ethnai, to nation-states is a bigger topic than I can take on here.  In short, though, I think that the historical and ideational (socially-constructed, psychological, etc.) ingredients exist for an American nation.

Nations, like families, are not purely matters of blood (and nations are less defined by blood than families are).  Husbands and wives, one hopes, are not closely related by blood, and children may be adopted or repudiated. Continuity of property also once meant something in the existence of a family—and slaves were members of the ancient “family,” too.  Nations and families are not airtight, self-contained units. They are semi-closed.

Good for you Mr. Wolf. And where is the “review” of postings?

However, I sometimes get the impression that many professional “Paleos” are like Chris Mathews and can’t help but have their leg shake in the presence of a non-white political actors. Is it the water in the big cities? They should try stronger drink and maybe their courage will rise and they won’t be so afraid of incurring disfavor with the enlightened ones.

Forgive the odious comments from Takimag2.0 ( I would recommend having people register to post, Richard ).

Dan’s piece clearly shows why conservatism has failed…

I would recommend reading Jared Taylor’s excellent piece in Race and The American Prospect, to understand the true nature of United States.

We are no longer that nation, though, and never will be again.

However, to accept Daniel’s proposition on nationalism is to accept the debasement of our society - that in the words of Sam Francis- we whites created, thanks to the genetic heritage we received from our ancestors in Europe. If whites disappear, so does Western Civilization.

I have to ask Dan, do you visit Washington D.C., Detroit or Atlanta much?

Ever read the history of Haiti ( Stoddard wrote a great book on the Revolt in San Domingo ).

To downplay the importance of race to history is to try and play chess without the pieces.

This is why conservatism failed, and why it will continue to fail.

It’s a bloody shame Francis died before he could write his book on Race and Conservatism.

It’s so sad that Neo-Nazi agent provocateurs lack the guts to post their real names, and must steal the good name of Taku.  The “master race” is cowardly and moronic in equal doses.

Mr. 2.0, I agree with your assessment of me ("boring, etc.") and of you ("atheist").  But not of Jesus.  Yes, he condemned the Jews who so hated Him, in no uncertain terms.  He also wept for them ("O Jerusalem! . . . “) And then He washed the feet of twelve Jews and gave His very Body and Blood to 11 of them for the forgiveness of their sins.  And then He died for them (and the rest of us)—friend and enemy alike.  That, to follow up on another thread, is the very definition of love, the very fulfillment of “love your enemies.” And that, 2.0, includes you.

Michael: I do get to D.C. fairly often. I live there.

Dan- I truly love this site and your contributions.

It’s refreshing to read the discourse on the site and watch as young conservatives (I’m under 25), discuss highly important subjects.

Mr. Linder - your strange tactics are revolting and unpleasant. Please refrain from the attacks and odd posting to ensure that this forum remains. You are an impediment to civil blogging.

Dan- my point is this. The United States is no longer the nation she - wait, not gender neutral - was founded as, and can never be that Republic again. We failed to keep it, and currently live under a soft anarch-tyranny, as Dr. Francis called it.

Conservatives, Libertarians, Post-Paleos should do everything they can to convince people to detach themselves from this society and this nation, and in turn, strive to localize their beliefs in their communities.

Running for school board, or city council can pay off big time in helping to shape standards for towns and cities throughout this nation.

My question is this: What is the ultimate aim of this movement? What are the goals?

Mr. Linder,
It seems to me that the god of the New Testament and Jesus did. There would be no Christianity without it. Of course, I woder if you are not a good Wotan worshiper who despises Christianity as a Jewish plot.

As for people or groups involved in Jesus death
1. Jesus of Nazareth. He proclaimed himself “Son of god”, which was blaspheme. He proclamed new rules and made a mockery of Scriptural rules. Sounds like Moses’s warning of fasle prophets come sinto play.
Jesus rode through the Eastern Gate on a Donkey, thus proclaiming himself the Messiah and he also called himself the “King of the Jews”. That was a direct threat to Roman rule. Jesus was no idiot. He knew he was signing his death warrant.

2. The Sanhedrin convicted Jesus, and rightly so. Nonetheless, they were Roman collaborators who had no authority under the roman boot.
3. The Romans killed Jesus of Nazareth just as they did dozens of other Messianic claimants.

And yes, I am Jewish, but you’ll have difficulty refuting what I said.

Dan:  While I agree with your historical characterization of the British Isles, I don’t know whether it would be an apt comparison for the United States.  The major tribes populating the Isles, while having distinct differences, still were quite similar.  The average Roman soldier, for example, would often confuse various Celtic and German tribes. 

In the strict sense, ‘nation’, from ‘nascere’, implies link by blood, and it has meant this for thousands of years.  Intermarriage can cement various tribes over centuries, as it has done in the Isles, or as it has done in Mexico, where the Mestizo population is now the largest and defining block.  To a certain degree, this has occurred in the U.S. among the European population.  If you made a DNA composite of your average white American from the Midwest, he would probably be Anglo/Celtic/Germanic.  But the U.S. is more diverse than this.

If we wish to be descriptive, and describe the U.S. as it is (not as we wish it to be), then perhaps a more suitable analogy for the U.S. would be the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  “The U.S. is an empire, or super-state, composed of various nations, of an Anglo-European core, but with minority populations of Africans, Mestizos, Asians, and Native Americans.” Of course, on a descriptive level, this definition may be defunct by 2040.

Kevin MacDonald is a two-bit hack who has no concept of the complexitities of intragroup relations between Jewish communities, denominations, sects, and ethnicities. He looks at the kooky behaviour of Ashkenazi Jews who emmigrated to American from 1880-1920 and assumes that this is the norm for Jews and the definition of Jewishness. This is called fallacy of induction.
Before I emailed him and put him on the spot, MacDonald had never heard of a Karaite or Karaylar, Juwhuri or Beta Israel. I’m sure that he has no concept of the divide between Orthodox Mitnigadim and Hasidim, or of the differing ethno-cultural implications of Religious Zionism and standard Orthodoxy.

However, putting aside MacDonalds ignorance, there is his perniciously foolish theory. It holds that any behavior followed by a group of Jews he dislikes is both normative and must be part of an evolutionary thinking, even if said idea leads to groups destruction. Intermarriage and liberalism are the most obvious examples.

This isn’t a coherent theory any more than the ranting of Black Nationalist professors on white behavior is. It is revisionist and delusional grievance politics, suggesting that Macdonald simply is mimicking and projecting behavior.

read: defining bloc.

An insightful post.  I agree that this is not the time for the Right to attack all forms of nationalism, given the threat of EU-style centralization and the power of unelected international bodies of governance.  As George Grant contended over 40 years ago, the loss of the nation-state and the triumph of the “universal homogeneous state” do not constitute progress in our time.

I have appreciated this exchange: particularly, the exchange between Scott and Dan.  I find Scott’s position more convincing.  I also believe that Aaron Wolf raises a very interesting point about what constitutes a “nation.” I was wondering: what about the relation of patriotism properly understood to size. Is it truly possible today to be patriot in the U.S.today: given its size and global ambitions? Does empire alway lead to nationalism-in the sense of extending one’s ideas and hubris around the world? Doesn’t patriotism equate with a love of that which is most familiar; of the land and folks you know the best, who are in closest proximity of you...In the end, isn’t empire (in whatever manifestation) simply another form of nationalism? In some instances, this nationalism has been spurred on by either a sentimental humanitarianism or an overwrought utilitarian self-interest, but its simply a variation on the same phenomenon: nationalism. So, the “values” conservative who votes for Bush b/c he feels compelled out of a misguided sense of loyalty and calls it patriotism, simply has it wrong. His impulse is rooted in a nationalistic sentiment, which he falsely assumes is the same as patriotism.

Daniel McCarthy simply ignores much of American history, from Federalist 2 to the first Militia law to the Chinese Exclusion Acts to the 1924 Immigration law. And as to America being an ideological nation, one would have to as, compared to what? France was truly an ideological nation, seeking to spread its Revolution. It is not true that America did the same—even the Monroe doctrine was more of a defensive measure than a support for revolution in the hemisphere. The Westward Expansion was, until very recently, treated as the expansion of Anglo-Saxon and Celt and closely related peoples (the Germans and Scandanavians who settled much of the upper plains) It was only when the victory of that nation was complete—Indian wars done, Asian immigration stopped, very little hispanic immigration , that it could be magnanimous and open up its polity—internally.

Of course, the last 40 years of unprecedented immigration, in terms of numbers and place of origin, have undone that. But what we have is not some sort of new nation forming, but the old nation retreating (settling in, say, the great basin or the north west). The question is, why did this happen? Part of the answer is quite frankly Jewish ideologues—as Kevin McDonald has shown. Part of the answer is that American Americans were simply to comfortable. But now we are beginning to see the backlash. However much you decry white nationalism its coming.

Prof Havers: “I agree that this is not the time for the Right to attack all forms of nationalism.”

I believe that this statement continues the misapplication of terms. If patriotism is the love of the familiar, in some sense, then reacting against EU expansion is not necessarily a nationalistic sentiment; it’s a defensive act: defending oneself and one’s own from the unwelcome external, usurper.

I believe only a nationalism come find the act of preemptive war morally convincing. In fact, I would posit, somewhat tongue in check, that the litmus test between nationalist and patriot is where one stands on the so called doctrine of preemptive war. No true patriot, properly understand, could subscribe to this immoral position. However, it is quite possible for a nationalist to find such a misguided mode of behavior as honorable.

1. Forget for a minute that there’s not such thing as a “white” race, a “black” race, or a “yellow” race – all an insalubrious fairy tale told my a fool named Arthur de Gobeneau.  Forget that there isn’t something called “race” at all.  (There is, of course, a spectrum of skin color based on a degree of melanin, as there is a spectrum of eye color – and equally unimportant.) What really counts is a history and its product: a culture. The only product of skin color is sunburn. A culture can be shared; skin color can’t. Reason enough to reject something so risible as “White Nationalism”.

2. Culture is always a mixture propositions, achievements, habits, and loves. Get used to it.

I got here too late to read the Browns’ filth and defamation of Dr. Wolf.  I thank the editor for his deletions.  Just yesterday I had come to the judgement that the effort to bounce out of the bar our Antisemites had failed, only the gutter variety in fact having been removed, and the more “upper drawer” having abided. Antisemitic filth, even expressed in dulcet tones and mellifluous words, remains filth. Yet so far most of today’s writebacks are avoiding such filth altogether. Good.

3. Hey, gang, why aren’t we popping the champagne corks?  Our team just won one:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_general_election,_2008.  I’d like to hear come Takimag commentary.  My favorite party, the League of the North, has come roaring back, much to the chagrin of the Neocon and Cultural Marxist press.  The Commies for the first time since 1945 are out of the Parliament. Ditto the Greens. Granted, the economic way ahead for Italy is burdensome, given the need to compete in a world market, providing products that people want to buy at a price they can pay.

Interesting quotes by Sid. Something “risible” as white nationalism?

I have not advocated that stance at all… As Peter Brimelow showed in his book “Alien Nation” - up until the 1964 Immigration Act, this nation was 90 percent white, and had, since our founding, been a European, Christian nation.

Advocating a sound “nationalism” based on this evidence is hardly “white nationalistic”, but instead, simply American.

Race is just a social construct… please spare me the Marxist drivel. I could read David Roediger to get ‘risible’, incorrect statement.

What was the quote Sam Francis gave at the 1994 AR conference that got him in hot water with The Washington Time?

“The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.”

Hate to say, but African-American’s have in large part rejected American - and by that I mean the culture that once existed up until 1964 - as anyone who lives in close proximity to them can attest.

Dan - you live in Washington D.C. Any other reader who lives in a major city can also - unless they lack honesty - come to terms intellectually with this point.

Sid - an understanding of race is vital in the 21st century. Take a trip to Haiti and see how well the Haitians have kept the “French” culture they inherited, after they brutally murdered the French after the Jacobin revolution in 1803 and subsequent years.

To quote Francis one last time - the destruction of the Republican Party will be the one thing that saves America.

“It is revisionist and delusional grievance politics, suggesting that Macdonald simply is mimicking and projecting behavior.”

Sigmund Fraud (Freud) invented “projection.” Perhaps you should try another argument. I mentioned that before, but my comment vanished.

As I suggest in my comments above, patriotism does not give a ready antidote to the real threat to good order and good sense.  It’s not hatred of one’s nation, nor an abstract internationalism, so much, as it is an abuse of the Christian instinct for a “brotherhood of man.”

A patriot might sincerely say:  I love my country *but* I love all countries, and it wouldn’t be kind of me to love mine more simply on account of an accident of birth.  Nationalism is the antidote to this nonsense.  Because nationalism says--in the same manner as erotic love is distinguished form philial love--that you will love this one above all others and make its interests your own. 

This can be defensive, charitable, or offensive in nature, but the distinguishing trait is the clear-cut division of “us” and “them.” In other words, nationalism in its very worst manifestations at least will be subjectively seeking the good of the coherent national group, which cannot be said for adherents to internationalist creeds, transnational empires, or subversive and extreme tribalism.

“A patriot might sincerely say:  I love my country *but* I love all countries, and it wouldn’t be kind of me to love mine more simply on account of an accident of birth. “

No, in fact, a patriot might not sincerely say that.  Nor is the “brotherhood of man” a Christian notion.

But you’ve pegged nationalism, all right.  It is about “us” versus “them"--not about loving a particular people in a particular place.

Anyone who cannot define himself without setting himself in opposition to someone else will never truly know himself.

There’s plenty of intimations of a “brotherhood of man” in Christianity, not least in the notion of a “mystical body of Christ” but also in the idea that we’re all under the Fatherhood of God.  There is something to this, but it can be taken to extremes.

Since we’re all different, with different ideas, objectively different interests, different ideas about mine and thine, and a world of scarce resources, I don’t see how any group, except perhaps primitives living on an isolated Pacific Island, could define themselves and the interests of themselves as a people without some idea bout other people.  Indeed, to me it’s encounters with others that make most clear our commonalities as a people and the impossibility of a perfectly justice reconciliation of interests in this world.

The “glue” that once characterized America was her status as an imperfect outpost of Christendom (now known as “Western Civilization"). This glue has been at war with the solvent of her Enlightenment-tainted founding since 1776. Guess who’s winning?

The nation means the people who are loyal to each other, over against the foreigner, at least when the foreigner enters in a manner which causes increase of aggression on those within the boundaries. It means a definite citizenry in a definite territory, with loyalty to these, and possessing attributes of sovereignty. Loyalty to nation differs from all other loyalties in that it has attributes of sovereignty, but loyalty to ideas has none. Loyalty to family, extended however far, does not have attributes of sovereignty, with a definite population in a defined territory, so that it could command loyalty in the same way as the nation can and does. This is how the nation differs, and no confusion or equivocation on terms such as nationalism can take that away.

“There’s plenty of intimations of a ‘brotherhood of man’ in Christianity, not least in the notion of a ‘mystical body of Christ’ but also in the idea that we’re all under the Fatherhood of God.  There is something to this, but it can be taken to extremes.”

The “brotherhood of man” is not a Christian idea; it is an Enlightenment idea that many Christians have adopted and erroneously attempted to graft back on to Christian concepts, as you’re suggesting here.  Don’t blame Christianity for this error--blame Christians who have adopted anti-Christian assumptions.

[Nationalism] is about “us” versus “them"--not about loving a particular people in a particular place.

Well, at times the particular people in a particular place are under attack, politically, economically, demographically. Then ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ is a manifestation of loving the particularity. Irish nationalism, for example, is certainly anti-British, but in large part because the British basically were about destroying the particularity of Ireland.