Inequality is the Only Way Nationalism Can Work

Modern liberalism, that is to say, liberalism since 1945, in its neoliberal and neoconservative formulations, takes as an article of faith that human beings are a blank slate. They also believe, in basically fundamental ways, that human nature, across cultures and continents and religions, is broadly similar, and that governance can be optimized to a universal standard, that “rights” -whatever those are- apply universally to all mankind across the globe. They believe that a certain structure of governance legitimately expresses these rights and processes. They believe simply that some cultures have discovered these universal, scientific principles earlier than others, but that time itself is a linear, progressive process that ends at modern US-style government.

Perhaps this impulse was a reaction to the apocalyptic destruction of the Second World War. They can be forgiven for their desire to avoid another horrible slaughter. However, in an attenuated way, and in an indirect way, these principles have been, and continue to be, an attack on the very concept of the nation state itself. Why?

A nation is a distinct entity, a living thing, with a history, a birth, a life- and sometimes a death. They can have children -as our nation is a child of Great Britain. Like humans, each nation is different, in physical appearance, personality, abilities and resources.

This natural diversity of human community is completely disregarded by modern liberalism (“ModLib”). ModLib loves the superficial appearance of diversity- the stock photograph of people of different races sitting around a boardroom for example- but is horrified at the idea of actual diversity. A true diversity of ideas and cultural norms means that a people will not agree on modern, US-style government, would likely not agree on modern, US values- this is not what they want. Can you imagine?

But, no man is a vacuum, no man is an island- values are social, and people from the same communities, same cultures -they likely agree on broad values- within their nations. This means that there will be disagreement about modern, US-style government. This is unacceptable to ModLib. 

ModLib, ultimately, because it believes that historical processes are acting on blank human slates- that man can be forged and fashioned and programmed to this universal historical truth- cannot stomach actual nations, that is to say, nations that are different from one another. If only clones of the modern United States are morally permitted, there are no nations, and no nationalism. 

But the constituent individuals that make up any nation must, as living beings, vary from one another as well. These men and women and children must be varied, and must be unequal by the mere fact of their existence. Inequality simply means that things are not identical. On what basis do they form a nation?

The nation can be formed around many basis’s – race, geography, culture, religion, propositional values, a kingly lineage, and so forth. But the common thread is that the members of that nation must value some central idea enough to have a common identity with one another. This is a historical choice that must be made by the nation- and will be rejected by those outside of the nation.

ModLib rejects these choices. American values are “tolerance”. British values are also “tolerance”. German values are also “tolerance”. In what sense can nations exist in this framework? They cannot.

Being a nationalist means valuing difference. It means that you accept making choices that others will disagree with. If you want a nation, that category must be inclusive as well as exclusive. You are choosing that you will exclude those who do not value as the nation does. ModLib cannot process exclusion. Exclusion presupposes values that are other than universal. It supposes that one solution may not fit all. Nationalism means, at its core: You live on that side of the street, and I live on mine. This is what nationalism means, really.

Nietzsche said that man is "the valuing animal" and he claimed that "without valuing the nut of existence is hollow.” How true that is! If we are to have values, we will have inequality- as no man measures exactly to another in that valued area. If we are to have values, we must have nations for those valuing the same. ModLib is opposed to nations- because it is opposed to inequality. Because ModLib is opposed to inequality, it is opposed to man himself. This ideology is, at its core, inhuman.