I’m on a Francis Parker Yockey vibe
America, being the western frontier, holding the potential to be the pinnacle of European Civilization, must take the mantel of Nationalism. It must be the bedrock that the confederation of Nationalist Europe is built
Nationalism means putting the nation first, thereby rendering it heretical and antithetical to God’s Commandments.
As for America being the pinnacle of European Civilisation, I think there are a lot of Europeans who would disagree with you. America can stay as the pinnacle of American settlement, but it was settled by Protestants, so I would not even consider basing a civilisation off it.
The idea that nationalism does put God second is something I lose focus on.
I don’t think it is the pinnacle but with the right love and affection it definitely could be but yes I also need the reminder that Americaism as we know it is Protestant
America cannot be the pinnacle of European Civilisation, it is its own civilisation. If you have ever listened to John Lennon’s “Imagine”, I would draw your attention to the lines “Imagine there’s no countries \ It isn’t hard to do \ Nothing to kill or die for \ And no religion too”. Setting aside personal bias and the grammatical issues, and ignoring the jab at religion, let us consider what does and does not go into making a country:
- A country is not an arbitrary line placed somewhere on a map for shits and giggles, it is a geographical and historical entity with its own language, lore, and mythology, all of which define its people.
- A country, being a separate entity from any other country, has its own civilisation and ideals and neither can nor ought to try becoming the pinnacle of another civilisation, nor should it seek to make itself into the be all and end all of civilisation.
What America seems to forget, with its blind, nationalistic patriotism (and obnoxious patronising which just comes across as arrogant(!)), is that Europe has, for the most part, stood since long before America reared its head on the world stage. Europe may be in decline, but America should not think itself Europe’s replacement since such an attitude sells both short and buries America’s unique identity under a jigsaw of random “good qualities” from other civilisations tacked on to the face of America.
TL;DR, America is not Europe and should not try to be.
I see what you mean with “America is not Europe” but from a racial perspective White Americans are at least European. That being said that does not mean we cannot become, I want to stress the become, the pinnacle of Western civilization because we are a combination of all of Western Civilization. Sure the foundation was off but that does not mean the Culture War can ever be won.
Each nation of itself can only be the best version of itself but cannot encompass the rest of Western civilization and I understanding why feeding the patriotism of Americans is bad but is there a country that is a blend of more western countries?
We are just speaking of potentials
Why should America seek to become the pinnacle of civilisation? What is achieved by this? A very American trait is the creation of and immediate lust for random accolades, titles, and embellishments for the sole purpose of ego-stroking. Participation awards, if you will. Western Civilisation is nothing, you would be better served reclaiming your country for Christendom.
Is Western civilization not held entirely up by Christ? The fulfillment of Western civilization would be a completely union with Christ and His Church.
What you describe as America is the current Judified America.
Whether the West is held up by Christ or not is neither here nor there and America is as it has always been, there was never a time when America was not Protestant. Protestantism is one of Satan’s attempts to destroy the Church, there is nothing truly good about it, and America is one of its fruits.
Whilst the unity of the world under Christ is the ideal, America seems to believe “unity” to mean “sameness” instead of “togetherness”. Interestingly, the world is almost expected to ditch its uniqueness and become American to achieve this idea of unity. The argument could almost be boiled down to “If you unify, you will not cease to be, instead, you will become as America, knowing God”, which sounds worryingly like something a certain Serpent said to the First Man’s wife.
So like Mosleys “europe, a nation” but with America spearheading it?
A bit late to the party, but I think it is more correct to say that nationalism puts the nation first: first in comparison to the other nations.
The rest of the points are too big brained for me right now!
This is wrong and cringe.
I would be interested to see a proper argument against the claim. There is nothing wrong with patriotism, but nationalism, at least in terms of political philosophy, would seem to refer to putting one’s country before God, which is wrong.
You are suggesting that either my definition is wrong or my claim is wrong (but the definition right). If my definition is wrong, I’ll happily take the correction, but if you’re just giving a knee-jerk “Wrong” without having truly considered the terms of the claim, I’d like to read your arguments before I say “Yeah, no, fair, I was wrong”.
Well you’re the one making the claim that nationalism puts God before nation, so the onus is on you to prove it.
My reasoning behind it is that nationalism does not intersect with religion in any way, as warring nations in the region I was born in, are all Orthodox (with the exception of the Ottomans). Nationalism means putting the interests of your own people (nation) before that of others’, not before God since He is a universal good for all nations.
Francisco Franco, Dolfuss, and Mussolini were all Catholic and nationalists/fascists.
I would like to hear your reasoning on how nationalism puts nation before God.
The claim that I made was in answer to the question, which dealt with American-type nationalism. My understanding of nationalism has been limited, more-or-less, to similar veins as the American and Socialist brands, which do place the nation before God (they use God to legitimise their claims). If these are in fact the exception, then that is a misunderstanding on my part, but it does not, really, invalidate my argument, which was against the aforementioned exceptions.
As for my having to prove the point, perhaps I was unclear: I am, in no way, saying that you are wrong, but I have provided my understanding of nationalism above (albeit, without any limiting of its comprehension) and merely ask you for yours since I know you to have a more thorough understanding of the thing.
The idea that nationalism, as I understand it, puts the nation before God can be seen in its language, which speaks first of its own causes then of how it is God’s Will (again, using Him to legitimise its position) and ceases to give Him any regard once it is in power, even going so far as to control, restrict, and even persecute any of the Faithful who even vaguely disagree with its position (we saw this happen during WWII with both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia closing down the churches until they needed to get the Christians (Catholics and Orthodox) back on side, but the priests had to tout the party line or they’d go the same way as any other political enemy).
You can also see this “nation before all” attitude taken to the arts and literature. The opera singer Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau told of the Nazis requiring all operas support the party or they would be banned and the director imprisoned. Likewise, any book that disagreed with the Nazi position was changed or burned.
That is all conjecture but ok
As a protestant, I’m inclined to agree based purely on the fact that Protestants have no history of actually governing anything like a nation or even having a mode of operation by which to govern a nation in our history. That said, with the current situation in the Vatican with Pope Francis, could the Catholic church in it’s current state be considered a better alternative? Or the Orthodox with Bartholomew?