Nation: Nationalism, New Nationalism: Difference between revisions
en>Crusader No edit summary ย |
m (1 revision imported) ย |
(No difference)
| |
Latest revision as of 22:07, 5 February 2024
Etymologically, a โnationโ is a popular and political community made up of those of the same ethnic origins, of the same โbirthโ.
The nation ought not to be confused with the nation-state. โNationโ and โethnosโ are the same word, designating a community whose members are of the same origin. To oppose the nation to the Empire is, semantically, to misunderstand it. An Empire, in the positive sense, is a federation, an ensemble of similar, closely-related nationsโ โโ a โfederal nationโ.
Nationalism ought not to be associated with a defence of the Jacobin and cosmopolitan nation-state. As a concept, nationalism needs to change its meaning: first, it needs to acquire an ethnic association and no longer a strictly abstract political one. It should return to its original etymological sense. Second, henceforth, nationalism ought to be understood in an enlarged European senseโ โโ in a visionary, future-oriented wayโ โโ to include all the Continentโs Indo-European peoples. In this vein, regional patriotism becomes an organic component of an imperial Great-European nationalismโ โโ what I call the New Nationalism.
In respect to France, the situation is especially delicate and complex. In no case should French nationalism identify with the tradition of Jacobin nationalism, since the latter is cosmopolitan, anti-ethnic, and, paradoxically, destroys the โFranceโ it claims to love (this is the โFrench paradoxโ). The same holds for the present institutions of the European Union, whose principal concern seems to be the destruction of Europeโs peoples and nations. Another path is possible, an imperial one, with three dimensions: first, the ethnically based region; second, citizenship based on the historical nation; and third, a global, ethnic, historical nationality embracing the whole Continent.
The relationship between these three levels is too complex to be rationally resolved in a single blow. Only history will solve it. Europeโs problem dictates a top-down solution that transcends existing divisions, a solution that doesnโt destroy attachment to the ethnically-based region, that doesnโt destroy loyalty to the historical concepts of Spain, France, Germany, etc. (to their languages, their cultures), that doesnโt close off a futuristic construction of the Great European Nation. We need to privilege the idea of exclusion and not that of inclusion.