What Is Nationalism? Pt I

Nationalism is a political philosophy which suggests that what is national should be preserved against outside attacks. There are two forms of nationalism rarely properly distinguished, though it is utterly necessary to especially if we are to have any hope of understanding the background of that most enigmatic of political phenomena, “The National Socialist Party” A.K.A 'Nazis' whose views definitely had to come from somewhere. The two forms of nationalism are;

I.Traditionalist Nationalism
II.Modernist Nationalism

The first is that current of thought which developed in Europe in the early 20th century, but has it's roots more in philosophical schools of the 19th century. Nietzsche has been accused of anti-semitism but his letters to his sister Elizabeth show otherwise. She was indeed a notorious anti-semite, but his letters show that at least in his later days he was not interested. Wagner, on the other hand, who has often been accused of similar things was in actual fact a 'real artist', he also fought in a revolution with Bakunin 'father of anarchism' and whatever views he expressed he certainly wasn't in any respect a political philosopher. A sketpical person might say “let's not confuse a man who dreamt up archetypal stories about Vikings with the leading political influence on a statesman”. The attacks on Wagner due to his apparent association with the Nazi party are completely unfounded in fact, the guy was crazy, he liked to cross-dress, he was sponsored by a bisexual Bavarian king. If indeed there is something of the Nazi philosophy in Wagner, this rather illuminates the real sensitivities which are, undeniably, found within many figures in the historical development of the philosophy of Nationalism which like a real “double-edged sword” has been used to justify great excesses but also, as we will see, can also be the ideals of some quite good and simple people, country folk, people without much hate in their heart who really live the old traditions and ancient vocations.

Everything changes between the head and the heart, what is interpreted in terms of the head may be 'evil' but interpreted in terms of the heart may be 'good'. For example if somebody has the notion to purge their land of other cultures and began accomplishing it using methods like Andres Brevik, this would be terrible, but if they had the notion to learn a few folk songs and spend their evenings singing folk and dancing with their family rather than watching TV, this would be very positive.

This is where the whole dividing lines around nationalism become desperately unclear, and it is simply the matter of male hormones and macho interpretations of situations which keep us from seeing the reality. History is the sort of subject which is only illuminated by much study, there being such a vast variety of stories, and indeed there are certain modern people following a trendy theory which suggests that it is impossible to discover any historical truth whatsoever because on all levels we are only discovering our own subjectivity. In this situation, in which we have a country with groups like; The National Front, The National Alliance, The English Defence League, obviously it is very easy and even in a sense logical to act in a reactionary way – these people, the last group in particular present a genuine danger to happy human beings, they attack reasonable people using physical violence. They are the 'dregs' of English culture, believing that an 'English culture' means drinking in Wetherspoons and shopping in Tescos, watching TV with their white-skinned families in the evening. Evidently this shows a complete lack of perspective.

These Norman-blooded invaders along with their predecessors, the Romans, actually destroyed the genuine culture of these isles. Namely, the Celtic folk culture. This Celtic folk culture was something very different to the modern industrialized state and also to the romanticized and in fact completely prejudiced Roussea descriptions of the 'noble savage'. The Celts were in fact a highly developed people. They did not believe in private property ownership. They possessed a very advanced herbal materia medica which was destroyed by Boniface and the Catholics in their purges of 'heretics'. Their social structure was based around a spiritual system, and the Druidic form of spirituality was quite unlike either that known to modern Christians or one would wager to most modern 'Pagans', being motivated firstly more by the practical necessity of living on the land than by imagistic considerations and secondly being founded on principles of individual liberation through struggle and 'great work' rather than 'congregational dogma' (speaking Latin) of the Christian churches. It was the Druids who were at the forefront of the revolutionary struggle against the Roman Empire etc (if you are interested in this mention in the comment section and I will add some information to the next articles).

Anyhow, the National Front etc have very little to do with this. They are children of the Norman oppressors and accept all the tyrannies of capitalism, indeed most of them in the moment we are in are too ignorant to understand fully what this is. As a a phenomena, they are simply reactionary, and it is necessary to oppose them simply in order to stop reactionaries from gaining strength. The National Front are the only English Nationalist party with roots in 'Nationalist Traditionalism', which as I mentioned earlier can be both benign or very dangerous. They were founded by Oswald Moseley, being 'Brownshirts', and were notorious in that they were much-supported by that most 'excellent' of English institutions, The Daily Mail. The interesting thing when we come to Moseley is that he was influenced by a kind of Nationalist Traditionalism which could indeed lead back to Celtic folk culture, however being distracted from this by certain German philosophers he did not discover any Celtic theory – thus the National Front became an instrument of Norman ignorance, inclusiveness and oppression. The philosophers in question, Frederick Nietzsche and Oswald Spengler, themselves are very interesting to consider in terms of what place they hold in the historical equation. Oswald Spengler was a historian, who unfortunately was a drunk, but somehow hit upon a theory at once very appealing to English skepticism and containing certain elements of the 'Aryan' mysticism of the National Socialists.

What exactly is meant by 'Aryan' and various different interpretations of this word must also be considered. Some parties have interpreted it in terms of blood, therefore, believing that there should be very strong national borders around the Aryan race of Europe, that outsiders should be driven out or killed. But are Europeans the only Aryans, where does this word come from? Finally in the next article I will consider the Nationalist philosopher Julius Evola, considered by Umberto Eco to be just about the most evil man of the 20th century and whose life of mountaineering, occultism and eventual paralysis provides fruit for consideration. After all, who has heard of a 'Roman Nationalist', and was Dante one, what about Michaelangelo? How, we wonder, out of these divided city states did the phenomenon of the tyrannic Mussolini develop?

It is suggested that most roads to tyranny lead via the door of the Pope.