Very interesting article. I don’t think the conflict with Nationalism is the main one, it’s Humanism that should be our main target. Nationalism is just a symptom. As for Nationalism itself, it’s a tool nothing more to organize the localities into a cohesive unit. I’m a Catholic Localist first and foremost most.
You make a compelling case for distinguishing between nationalism and patriotism, and I'm sure most on the Right are driven by the latter, even though they speak of the former. I also feel that our attention is far too much drawn to the anywhere issues of the cosmopolitans, rather than the somewhere of the locality where one lives. As a result, we are preoccupied with global issues we can do little about, while the places and areas where we have real power go neglected. This is where bulk of the work rests.
A brilliant article. Terrible shame about the AI slop at the start, particularly in contrast with the beautiful artwork throughout the article, but the text is impeccable. I wish I could force feed it to some of the ‘based’ Catholics I see leaving angry rants online.
Nationalism is a response to humanism and it's rise in the early 20th century, its hyper reactive forms a response to the fall of many localities to industrialism. It wasn't the only political system to double down on this during that timeframe. Conflating racialism with nationalism is a false equivalency, because both the local is what upholds greater bonds. This reeks of a false dichotomy that ignores power vacuums changing infrastructure, and expects whites to uphold utopian anti war narratives and love all people (does this apply to other nations that aren't Catholic or those within the same nation that aren't or only to infidels?
Loving some far off people more than your actual blood as long as they believe the exact same form of scripture lead to tons of warring in Europe. Utopianism and moralizing against your blood always leads to dystopias. You don't have to hate other groups to love yours first and the idea that there will never be war again as long as everyone accepts some universal religion ignores that the vast majority of history of all wars are drawn on religious lines, that changing foundational religions is an act of uprooting people in its inception from local identity, and that this leads eventually to only shaming those that love their actual brother and neighbor (that's supposed to be an extension of your kin group) over far divergent people that have accepted the same top-down moral system.
So is this really saying that war is fine as long as it is to convert (thus all non-catholic states are fine to war with) or is it saying that Whites have to love everyone universally?
What I am saying is that the Nation State should not be made into a First Principle that we exalt over all others. Which doesnt mean we should totally discard it. But forcing one´s language down other peoples´ throats is a problem. Having an omnipotent state is a problem.
There may be legit reasons to go to war, there are debatable and then there are bad reasons. A bad reason to go to war should be nationalistic megalomania - "This land belons to us and even if the people there dont agree, well take it and start a brutal campaign of assimilation"
That was a really long, confoundingly moralized way of saying it. Read like a bunch of circular humanist stuff. I can totally agree that the state isn't an end in itself, the spiritual must be held sacred. I would like to see a stratocratic confederation of the global north and allow for local culture and even fine with some states being Christian. The issue becomes holding a religion above blood in a universalizing way or to uphold other people's and expand them. I'm fine with just letting nature take back the unnatural expansion but they must be expelled, and their religion doesn't matter. We are not responsible for the entire worlds worth of people. Who is even advocating to go into other lands for megalomaniac ends? Only Whites are on a sinking ship and preaching about loving everyone in Christ but also applying it to even people who aren't Christians.
You should read Edgar Julius Jung. He was an interesting man and by today's standards would be called a nationalist lol. He wanted a return to basically the holy Roman empire and died during the night of the long knives. Arktos published his book The Significance of the German Revolution. He would diagusted by all the humanist moral fluff you threw in there.
I'm saving it for reading. I'll say preemptively that Las Casas was crazy. Curiously, the nationalist powers would use Las Casas's writings to attack the empire that truly opposed nationalism from the beginning.
An excellent point: "To be a Catholic and a nationalist is a contradiction not only in essence but also in etymology. The very word katholikos means universal in the tongue of the Greeks. To claim to be both a nationalist and a Catholic is to affirm what one denies and deny what one affirms, a contradiction of terms."
the problem with integral patriotism, and this may be a very large *practical* in regards to achieving politic-demographic salience, is it as of yet refuses speak about any material aspects of geographical organization, thats not its forte, but just the very slim basics are required, such as how will capital markets be structured?
the USA, in part from its founding, but then with only a few short blip periods, from the 1830s until the so called Neoliberal Era came into full effect had partially devolved powers regarding the legal & regulatory matters related to banking, finance, and in a few ways monetary matters, this destruction of these structures not only material harmed many people, it in isolated geographic instances destitute some places, and it de-cultured places by not only trashing local economies but also destroying the communal ability to fund things.
But integral patriotism wont speak on the matter or the two or three other key ones related to the organization of resources legal/regulatory wise; and its odd because its such low hanging fruit for material gain and it doesnt requires talking about most of material matters because your just deferring enough to regions and localities that the top level can be less clear or even disagreeable to most and you'll still have provided a solid answer on the material front
Very interesting article. I don’t think the conflict with Nationalism is the main one, it’s Humanism that should be our main target. Nationalism is just a symptom. As for Nationalism itself, it’s a tool nothing more to organize the localities into a cohesive unit. I’m a Catholic Localist first and foremost most.
Rip Kaiser Karl
You make a compelling case for distinguishing between nationalism and patriotism, and I'm sure most on the Right are driven by the latter, even though they speak of the former. I also feel that our attention is far too much drawn to the anywhere issues of the cosmopolitans, rather than the somewhere of the locality where one lives. As a result, we are preoccupied with global issues we can do little about, while the places and areas where we have real power go neglected. This is where bulk of the work rests.
A brilliant article. Terrible shame about the AI slop at the start, particularly in contrast with the beautiful artwork throughout the article, but the text is impeccable. I wish I could force feed it to some of the ‘based’ Catholics I see leaving angry rants online.
True. While using other artwork elesewhere, I did go for the generated image as cover :)
Against universalism and empire.
Nationalism is a response to humanism and it's rise in the early 20th century, its hyper reactive forms a response to the fall of many localities to industrialism. It wasn't the only political system to double down on this during that timeframe. Conflating racialism with nationalism is a false equivalency, because both the local is what upholds greater bonds. This reeks of a false dichotomy that ignores power vacuums changing infrastructure, and expects whites to uphold utopian anti war narratives and love all people (does this apply to other nations that aren't Catholic or those within the same nation that aren't or only to infidels?
Loving some far off people more than your actual blood as long as they believe the exact same form of scripture lead to tons of warring in Europe. Utopianism and moralizing against your blood always leads to dystopias. You don't have to hate other groups to love yours first and the idea that there will never be war again as long as everyone accepts some universal religion ignores that the vast majority of history of all wars are drawn on religious lines, that changing foundational religions is an act of uprooting people in its inception from local identity, and that this leads eventually to only shaming those that love their actual brother and neighbor (that's supposed to be an extension of your kin group) over far divergent people that have accepted the same top-down moral system.
So is this really saying that war is fine as long as it is to convert (thus all non-catholic states are fine to war with) or is it saying that Whites have to love everyone universally?
What I am saying is that the Nation State should not be made into a First Principle that we exalt over all others. Which doesnt mean we should totally discard it. But forcing one´s language down other peoples´ throats is a problem. Having an omnipotent state is a problem.
There may be legit reasons to go to war, there are debatable and then there are bad reasons. A bad reason to go to war should be nationalistic megalomania - "This land belons to us and even if the people there dont agree, well take it and start a brutal campaign of assimilation"
That was a really long, confoundingly moralized way of saying it. Read like a bunch of circular humanist stuff. I can totally agree that the state isn't an end in itself, the spiritual must be held sacred. I would like to see a stratocratic confederation of the global north and allow for local culture and even fine with some states being Christian. The issue becomes holding a religion above blood in a universalizing way or to uphold other people's and expand them. I'm fine with just letting nature take back the unnatural expansion but they must be expelled, and their religion doesn't matter. We are not responsible for the entire worlds worth of people. Who is even advocating to go into other lands for megalomaniac ends? Only Whites are on a sinking ship and preaching about loving everyone in Christ but also applying it to even people who aren't Christians.
You should read Edgar Julius Jung. He was an interesting man and by today's standards would be called a nationalist lol. He wanted a return to basically the holy Roman empire and died during the night of the long knives. Arktos published his book The Significance of the German Revolution. He would diagusted by all the humanist moral fluff you threw in there.
I'm saving it for reading. I'll say preemptively that Las Casas was crazy. Curiously, the nationalist powers would use Las Casas's writings to attack the empire that truly opposed nationalism from the beginning.
An excellent point: "To be a Catholic and a nationalist is a contradiction not only in essence but also in etymology. The very word katholikos means universal in the tongue of the Greeks. To claim to be both a nationalist and a Catholic is to affirm what one denies and deny what one affirms, a contradiction of terms."
the problem with integral patriotism, and this may be a very large *practical* in regards to achieving politic-demographic salience, is it as of yet refuses speak about any material aspects of geographical organization, thats not its forte, but just the very slim basics are required, such as how will capital markets be structured?
the USA, in part from its founding, but then with only a few short blip periods, from the 1830s until the so called Neoliberal Era came into full effect had partially devolved powers regarding the legal & regulatory matters related to banking, finance, and in a few ways monetary matters, this destruction of these structures not only material harmed many people, it in isolated geographic instances destitute some places, and it de-cultured places by not only trashing local economies but also destroying the communal ability to fund things.
But integral patriotism wont speak on the matter or the two or three other key ones related to the organization of resources legal/regulatory wise; and its odd because its such low hanging fruit for material gain and it doesnt requires talking about most of material matters because your just deferring enough to regions and localities that the top level can be less clear or even disagreeable to most and you'll still have provided a solid answer on the material front