Divided and Ruled by Nationalism

[Neser Boha]

Hello my dearies,

I've come to share another piece of my cranial diarrhea with you today! Isn't that exciting!

This time, the topic is that of dangers of Nationalism. I posted the little opinion piece on my blog Huliganyetta Herald and I hope some of you will take the time to wade through it. I will not pretend that I think I wrote anything to be praised as I found it very hard to organize my thoughts; however, I do believe that the overall point of the piece is very damn good (and so are some of the sub-points). Obviously, if I did not think so, I would not have even bothered spending a couple of hours typing this up ...

I will be grateful for any feedback, opinions, arguments, tips and so on.

NB

 

[editec]

Interesting blog, Nesar.

I think patriotism is somewhat different than nationalism.

Patriotism is the love of one/s country/social unit.

Nationalism is merely the idea that one must put one's nation ahead of other nations, because we live in a world where nations exist, and right now there's really no choice but to do so.

For example...

I am a unrepentent USA nationalist (even though I personally created and currently lead an international charity to foster international goodwill!)

I am a atiopalist not because I believe that the people of the USA are fundamentally better than all others, but simple because this nation is the nation that I am a member of, and therefore their fate and mine are inextricable liked.

So, for example, I object to the way this nation has structured its trade policies. They are, I believe, detrimental to the nation's economic health.

Now, I have nothing against other nations.

But MY NATION needs to structure its policies to benefit the it's nationals, no less than China needs to put the wellbeing of the Chinese first, or France needs to put the wellbeing of the the French, first.

Patriotism appears to me to be the belief that your nation/tribe/people (whatever) is inherently superior to others.

Nationalism is merely the belief that your nation/tribe/people(whatever) needs to work for the benefit of the members of that social unit.

Now obviously in cases where a people do NOT HAVE a nation (take the KURDS as a current example) their nationalism is mostly concerned with creating that nation-state.

But I do not think there's anything inherently wrong with nationalism or patriotism even though those motives can/might be taken to excess.

We do not live in one great big happy world, Nesar.

Different people believe in very different ways of living.

Nation states give humankid the opportunity to try out various ways of life.

This is NOT a bad thing for our species, unless our nationalism drives us to seek to dominate other nations.

Sometimes it does, but I see no way to stop that since, that is more a manifestation of human GREED and patriotic SELFISHNESS than it is rational nationalism.

 

[Neser Boha]

Interesting blog, Nesar.

I think patriotism is somewhat different than nationalism.

Patriotism is the love of one/s country/social unit.

Nationalism is merely the idea that one must put one's nation ahead of other nations, because we live in a world where nations exist, and right now there's really no choice but to do so.

For example...

I am a unrepentent USA nationalist (even though I personally created and currently lead an international charity to foster international goodwill!)

I am a atiopalist not because I believe that the people of the USA are fundamentally better than all others, but simple because this nation is the nation that I am a member of, and therefore their fate and mine are inextricable liked.

So, for example, I object to the way this nation has structured its trade policies. They are, I believe, detrimental to the nation's economic health.

Now, I have nothing against other nations.

But MY NATION needs to structure its policies to benefit the it's nationals, no less than China needs to put the wellbeing of the Chinese first, or France needs to put the wellbeing of the the French, first.

Patriotism appears to me to be the belief that your nation/tribe/people (whatever) is inherently superior to others.

Nationalism is merely the belief that your nation/tribe/people(whatever) needs to work for the benefit of the members of that social unit.

Now obviously in cases where a people do NOT HAVE a nation (take the KURDS as a current example) their nationalism is mostly concerned with creating that nation-state.

But I do not think there's anything inherently wrong with nationalism or patriotism even though those motives can/might be taken to excess.

We do not live in one great big happy world, Nesar.

Different people believe in very different ways of living.

Nation states give humankid the opportunity to try out various ways of life.

This is NOT a bad thing for our species, unless our nationalism drives us to seek to dominate other nations.

Sometimes it does, but I see no way to stop that since, that is more a manifestation of human GREED and patriotic SELFISHNESS than it is rational nationalism.

Thank you for taking the time and reading my little opinion piece.

I will respond with a longer post later on, but now I'm uber tired.

I'd just like to say that I am very well aware we are not living in a big happy world and I think it is a shame we're not as I think it is definitely possible were it not for the numerous barriers to world-wide peace ... and I see nationalism and patriotism as two of the biggest barriers that our human race has to finally pronounce undesirable and noxious - and finally get rid of them. They are INDISPUTABLE sources of conflict, friction, and general bullshit that goes on and on around the world. I won't argue that there are no positive outcomes of ones 'love' for one's nation, but just because Hitler gave jobs to hundreds of thousands of unemployed Germans and made them once again be able to be proud of themselves doesn't mean that several tens of millions of dead were worth it.

That is how I see it - a little provable good at a monstrous price that is hard to calculate due to how huge it is.

 

[José]

Excellent reply, Neser.



Contrary to editec's beliefs, there is no such thing as "good patriotism/nationalism" as far as the well being of mankind is concerned.

As soon as you divide the human family into tribes you immediately create a myriad of different and, more often than not, CONFLICTING interests.

Whenever these conflicting interests cannot be solved through diplomacy they are solved by violent means.

From the first prehistoric war, fought with sticks and stones, to the wars of the future that will be fought with nukes and even more devastating weapons, nationalism is responsible for a great deal of the misery inflicted by humans on themselves.

I could call all forms of human tribalism the biggest blight on our species but that would still be an understatement.

 

[Neser Boha]

I guess, nationalism to me is an unnecessary concept even in its most benign form.

It is natural that we all prefer (to a certain extent) what we are familiar with as opposed to what is new and foreign to us. But that is simply just a natural human reflex that is consistent with survival instinct and all that.

However, those sorts of feelings, do not have to take a form of nationalism. Nationalism is not natural nor consistent with survival instinct, nationalism is human-made, it is an ideology, just like religion is.

For example, If a kid born in Serbia wasn't taught that he-she is a part of some 'society' and belongs to some sort of a 'superior group' that has to be in some way preserved and protected, he/she would never give a damn where he or she lives as long as they WAY he/she lives is consistent with the way she/he WANTS to live.

The other day, a guy told me he is proud of using cyrillic. I asked him why. He looked at me as if he never pondered that question and then answered - I just am. That is exactly what nationalism is ... it is a knee-jerk reaction that we were taught, that we were spoon-fed and that now we don't even critically analyze because it's become such a big part of our reality. But if we sit down and think about it, we find out that the reason why we think we love our home-country is because we love the values that it supposedly represents, defends, etc. Values such as freedom, democracy, etc. The problem is when we realize that these values are virtually universal. Nothing is 100% universal, but the basic values of personal freedom are shared everywhere. And if they are ... why is it our 'country' we cling to? Is it really America you love or is it those values? I'd say it is the values, if you're a rational being.

Also, I'm sure that in your many years of existence on this planet, you know that not every American has the very same values as you do, and that there are people around the world that do ... so why can't we just cherish the values, the principles, why do we have to cherish a 'country'. Whatever a 'country' really is.

Effin' hell I'm tired again ... what is it with fall that makes me want to sleep 12 hrs/day.

 

[Shorebreak]

Interesting blog, Nesar.

I think patriotism is somewhat different than nationalism.

Patriotism is the love of one/s country/social unit.

Nationalism is merely the idea that one must put one's nation ahead of other nations, because we live in a world where nations exist, and right now there's really no choice but to do so.

For example...

I am a unrepentent USA nationalist (even though I personally created and currently lead an international charity to foster international goodwill!)

I am a atiopalist not because I believe that the people of the USA are fundamentally better than all others, but simple because this nation is the nation that I am a member of, and therefore their fate and mine are inextricable liked.

So, for example, I object to the way this nation has structured its trade policies. They are, I believe, detrimental to the nation's economic health.

Now, I have nothing against other nations.

But MY NATION needs to structure its policies to benefit the it's nationals, no less than China needs to put the wellbeing of the Chinese first, or France needs to put the wellbeing of the the French, first.

Patriotism appears to me to be the belief that your nation/tribe/people (whatever) is inherently superior to others.

Nationalism is merely the belief that your nation/tribe/people(whatever) needs to work for the benefit of the members of that social unit.

Now obviously in cases where a people do NOT HAVE a nation (take the KURDS as a current example) their nationalism is mostly concerned with creating that nation-state.

But I do not think there's anything inherently wrong with nationalism or patriotism even though those motives can/might be taken to excess.

We do not live in one great big happy world, Nesar.

Different people believe in very different ways of living.

Nation states give humankid the opportunity to try out various ways of life.

This is NOT a bad thing for our species, unless our nationalism drives us to seek to dominate other nations.

Sometimes it does, but I see no way to stop that since, that is more a manifestation of human GREED and patriotic SELFISHNESS than it is rational nationalism.

I'm mostly in agreement with you. Here's my take:

My ultimate desire as a human being would be to see a world without borders, where we're all citizens of a single system that places ultimate value on individual liberty, minimal government activity, aside from keeping the peace, regulating unfair or unsafe business practices, and possibly a small safety net for people who are incapable of providing for themselves.

No nation states to bicker over borders, no globalist banks creating wars and dominating governments and media like they do in the US, the UK, and so many other places. Just a single system where the law is founded on tenets that are inviolable by anyone - including government. Tenets such as the Bill of Rights in the US.

So... that would be ideal.

Now let's face reality. Reality is that the current foundation for a global system is the United Nations and the privately controlled organizations like the IMF and the World Bank that it weilds against target nations for control and domination. The current foundation rewards international regions that form regional trade agreements, like NAFTA, ASEAN, and the EU. Organizations like the EU are placed on pedestals for their emergence into a unified regional system, even though the organization is led by appointed commissioners - many who have criminal records or were thrown from office for crimes against the people - rather than by an elected body. Yes, the European Parliament has members sent from each nation, but all are answereable to non-elected officials who are answerable to nobody.

The UN is very similar. There are representatives from almost every nation in the General Assembly, but only the UN Security Council may take any action, and that action is subject to the agreement of five permanent members. It's not a United Nations - it's a dominated nations.

I could go on and on with details that argue against any international co-mingling of nations in todays corrupt environment. The UN was founded by banks and is still dominated by globalist minded finance. Their form of globalism is complete control, if you look at Agenda 21 on the UN website, which is a formula for managment of every aspect of your life, from cradle to grave.

Then there's the unfair trade agreements, where murderous communist states (China murdered nearly 100 million people to establish their current dominance over it's citizens) use nearly slave labor, poverty, and almost non-existent labor and pollution standards to undercut and undermine our businesses, while globalist banks buy up our most valuable manufacturing bases and ship them out of the country.

And people are really wanting to unite with the systems that these inhumane criminals are trying to inflict upon humanity? Really???

I live in a nation that has a Constitution that includes a Bill of Rights that gauruntees my individual liberty and promises a sovereign government that's chosen by myself and my fellow countrymen. Why would I possibly surrender that willingly in favor of a corrupt global system that wants nothing else but to take from me and to control me?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing in favor of the leadership that we've had in the US over the last 30 years. Our controlled media has used it's influence to usurp the Executive Branch away from us for several decades now, placing corporate globalist candidates in the spotlight rather than patriotic American candidates. We have a lot of fixing to do to make us a strong soveriegn nation again, who is a bastion of liberty and human rights. But we're probably the only country in the world with the Constitutional foundation to do so, and with a population who has the desire to remain free and sovereign.

To me, nationalism within the US is shared with Patriotism. We live in the most corrupt times in human history, but we have a foundational system of law that is designed to respect each individual and to limit the evils of excessive and murderous government. To be a nationalist means to reject the inhumane plans of the current globalism. And it means to promote the individual dignity of all people, starting with the leagal foundation that we have already established by the wisdom of the founding creators of our government.

True nationalism is not a rejection of other nations. It's an insistence upon honest, fair, and lawful leadership within our own nation. If fair leadership here means the rejection of unfair and predatory trade relationships that have decimated our economy and taken advantage of an enslaved communist population, that is a good, just, and humane thing.

Ultimately, a single world system would be the best for humanity. That is clear. But not under any current construct. What we have now is the emergence of a global system of control. If the opposite of internationalization is nationalism, I will be a sworn nationalist until my dying breath.

 

[José]

No one here is denying the obvious fact that nationalism is an incurable cancer in the 21st century.

Today's human beings indentify themselves primarily by the microscopic physical and cultural differences that sets them apart.

So, whether we like it or not, as long as humans continue to emphasize those tiny differences and cannot agree on the basic tenets upon which they could build a unified society, prehistoric tribalism will continue to shape the political structures of all human societies.

The only thing that's being stated here is, in fact, a platitude:

The fact that a given cancer is incurable by today's medical science does not make it a good thing for humans.

The same goes for nationalism. At best, it must be considered a necessary evil.

A cancer we have to put up with until the cure is finally found (besides praying it won't kill us all first).

 

[Bfgrn]

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
George Orwell

The people on the right that have shown nothing but contempt and utter disdain for other Americans are not patriots...


We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Shorebreak]

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
George Orwell

The people on the right that have shown nothing but contempt and utter disdain for other Americans are not patriots...


We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

To me, nationalism isn't about blind loyalty or patriotism. It's a distinction between being a homogenized global subset without constitutional protections v. a sovereign national system where individuals still have a vote and are still protected by the Bill of Rights (in the case of the USofA).

A true nationalist won't cover up crimes committed by the state, because those are ultimately crimes against the system of law that enable the citizens to live a life of liberty, free from the abuses of government. I can understand why Orwell might choose a different definition for England, for example, because England is a constitutional monarchy without the legal foundation that places the citizens in ultimate control of the government.

But in the US, nationalism also means a healthy regard for the fact that our governance starts at the bottom, not the top. It is the role of the citizens to maintain and police an honest and ethical government, and to take them to task when they commit atrocities.

For me, it's the leaders of the US who have most convinced me that before we can eder consider a global system, we must have a secure and ethical national system. If the globalists who have been chosen to run our own nation are part of the same cast of thugs who are orchestrating the international framework of a global system (and they are part of the same cast of thugs), how can we ever agree that proceeding with their desired framework can ever be a good thing?

If it's not (and it isn't), then I choose nationalism v. globalism, with the caveat that we will never be successful in a global system of fairness and equality if we can't get it right within our own nation. Get it right here first with fair and honest government.

 

[Neser Boha]

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
George Orwell

The people on the right that have shown nothing but contempt and utter disdain for other Americans are not patriots...


We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

To me, nationalism isn't about blind loyalty or patriotism. It's a distinction between being a homogenized global subset without constitutional protections v. a sovereign national system where individuals still have a vote and are still protected by the Bill of Rights (in the case of the USofA).

A true nationalist won't cover up crimes committed by the state, because those are ultimately crimes against the system of law that enable the citizens to live a life of liberty, free from the abuses of government. I can understand why Orwell might choose a different definition for England, for example, because England is a constitutional monarchy without the legal foundation that places the citizens in ultimate control of the government.

But in the US, nationalism also means a healthy regard for the fact that our governance starts at the bottom, not the top. It is the role of the citizens to maintain and police an honest and ethical government, and to take them to task when they commit atrocities.

For me, it's the leaders of the US who have most convinced me that before we can eder consider a global system, we must have a secure and ethical national system. If the globalists who have been chosen to run our own nation are part of the same cast of thugs who are orchestrating the international framework of a global system (and they are part of the same cast of thugs), how can we ever agree that proceeding with their desired framework can ever be a good thing?

If it's not (and it isn't), then I choose nationalism v. globalism, with the caveat that we will never be successful in a global system of fairness and equality if we can't get it right within our own nation. Get it right here first with fair and honest government.

I understand your problems with the UN and other supra and super-national organizations. In my little OP about nationalism, I was in fact not going to argue for any such organization as I'm quite well aware of their faults. My whole 'essay' if I may call it that was aimed strictly at the concept of nationalism/patriotism and that in its core, it is deeply flawed and I could even argue that it constitutes bigotry since it compels one to blindly and irrationally adhere to the view that their 'country' or 'nation' is and JUST IS better than any other.

While one may very successfully argue that the US in general is a 'better' society than let's say Turkey, it is much harder - if not impossible - to argue that 'Serbs' as a nation are superior to 'Albanians' and vice versa. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's not about whether it is or isn't true, it's about it being simply a wrong way of approaching one's country of origin and one's 'nationality', which is basically just a slot one is put into after birth. One's nation or country should be viewed as what it is - a group of people born in the same geographical location, ruled by a certain government - minus all the idiotic emotional bullshit.

I am not arguing that one should not work towards the betterment and profit of one's social circle, group, etc. because it is logical - if you better the ones closest to you - you will profit from it yourself. However, one should not do so to the exclusion or to the detriment of others based on an irrational feeling that they do not deserve what you do.

I think it would be much more logical to unite under a banner of a shared value or principle than under a banner of a 'country' or a 'nation'.

Am I getting any clearer?

I apologize, but I do have a problem expressing myself on the subject for some reason. Maybe that is why I want to discuss it, so I can more easily formulate my arguments in the future.

As a matter of fact, after reading what you have to say, I would not consider you a nationalist.

 

[Shorebreak]

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
George Orwell

The people on the right that have shown nothing but contempt and utter disdain for other Americans are not patriots...


We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

To me, nationalism isn't about blind loyalty or patriotism. It's a distinction between being a homogenized global subset without constitutional protections v. a sovereign national system where individuals still have a vote and are still protected by the Bill of Rights (in the case of the USofA).

A true nationalist won't cover up crimes committed by the state, because those are ultimately crimes against the system of law that enable the citizens to live a life of liberty, free from the abuses of government. I can understand why Orwell might choose a different definition for England, for example, because England is a constitutional monarchy without the legal foundation that places the citizens in ultimate control of the government.

But in the US, nationalism also means a healthy regard for the fact that our governance starts at the bottom, not the top. It is the role of the citizens to maintain and police an honest and ethical government, and to take them to task when they commit atrocities.

For me, it's the leaders of the US who have most convinced me that before we can eder consider a global system, we must have a secure and ethical national system. If the globalists who have been chosen to run our own nation are part of the same cast of thugs who are orchestrating the international framework of a global system (and they are part of the same cast of thugs), how can we ever agree that proceeding with their desired framework can ever be a good thing?

If it's not (and it isn't), then I choose nationalism v. globalism, with the caveat that we will never be successful in a global system of fairness and equality if we can't get it right within our own nation. Get it right here first with fair and honest government.

I understand your problems with the UN and other supra and super-national organizations. In my little OP about nationalism, I was in fact not going to argue for any such organization as I'm quite well aware of their faults. My whole 'essay' if I may call it that was aimed strictly at the concept of nationalism/patriotism and that in its core, it is deeply flawed and I could even argue that it constitutes bigotry since it compels one to blindly and irrationally adhere to the view that their 'country' or 'nation' is and JUST IS better than any other.

While one may very successfully argue that the US in general is a 'better' society than let's say Turkey, it is much harder - if not impossible - to argue that 'Serbs' as a nation are superior to 'Albanians' and vice versa. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's not about whether it is or isn't true, it's about it being simply a wrong way of approaching one's country of origin and one's 'nationality', which is basically just a slot one is put into after birth. One's nation or country should be viewed as what it is - a group of people born in the same geographical location, ruled by a certain government - minus all the idiotic emotional bullshit.

I am not arguing that one should not work towards the betterment and profit of one's social circle, group, etc. because it is logical - if you better the ones closest to you - you will profit from it yourself. However, one should not do so to the exclusion or to the detriment of others based on an irrational feeling that they do not deserve what you do.

I think it would be much more logical to unite under a banner of a shared value or principle than under a banner of a 'country' or a 'nation'.

Am I getting any clearer?

I apologize, but I do have a problem expressing myself on the subject for some reason. Maybe that is why I want to discuss it, so I can more easily formulate my arguments in the future.

As a matter of fact, after reading what you have to say, I would not consider you a nationalist.

I understand where you're coming from. I agree with you on one level and I disagree on another.

Here's where I agree: Geopilitical and economic boundaries should not be imposed or maintained based upon nationalistic identities that are centered around race or faith.

Here's where I disgree: I believe that our cultural and racial diversities are part of the beauty of humanity. Whether you are a Mali tribesman, a Norwegian fisherman, a US farmer in the Mid-West, a semitic goat herder in Iran, or a resident of the East End of London, you have a unique and individual value and set of characteristics that add color and depth to the tapestry that represents our world.

I certainly would never recommend imposing political or economic divides that intentionally separate or isolate these groups, but it would be a shame to encourage a planned assimilation of us into an eventual homogenous race/culture. I'm proud of my heritage. It's certainly no better than any other, but it's unique and it's mine. I expect no different from other peoples from different heritages. To me, life is more colorful when i can experience them.

But I have a feeling that we're probably on the same page there too. Nationalism/national identity that is exclusive of others is not a good thing.

But in the meantime, in the face of increasing global turmoil as we go through what GWH Bush called the "growing pains" of a New World Order (growing pains means the decimation of markets and the elimination of governments/nations who are resistant to assimilation into a regional economy), I prefer to maintain a strong sovereignty and to push for leadership who are for the US Constitution and the people rather than for globalist finance and private interests. it has nothing to do with race or culture, and everything to do with maintaining individual liberty and citizen control of government.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Shorebreak
Nationalism/national identity that is exclusive of others is not a good thing.

The exact opposite of what you said is true.

Nationalism is, BY DEFINITION, the exclusion of all those who are not members of the "tribe" = nation state.

Nationalism that does not exclude those who are not members of the nation state is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

 

[José]

Why do virtually all rich countries keep the agricultural subsidies that hurt the economy of Africa's poorest countries so much?

Because poor africans are aliens instead of members of their respective nation states.

Why did Nazi Germany kill so many jews, gypsies and people from slavic countries?

Because they weren't part of the Geman nation.

Why did Japan commit so many atrocities in China?

Because the chinese people were not part of the Japanese tribe.

Why did the US commit so many war crimes in Japan through fire and atomic bombing of Japanese cities?

Because american nationalism didn't see those people as human beings entitled to the same consideration as american citizens living in LA or NY.

I could spend the next 48 hours providing additional examples of the exclusionary nature of all nationalisms and boring the entire Board to death in the process : )

The dehumanisation of the other is so deeply embedded in the nationalist ideology they cannot really be separated.

 

[Said1]

Hello my dearies,

I've come to share another piece of my cranial diarrhea with you today! Isn't that exciting!

This time, the topic is that of dangers of Nationalism. I posted the little opinion piece on my blog Huliganyetta Herald and I hope some of you will take the time to wade through it. I will not pretend that I think I wrote anything to be praised as I found it very hard to organize my thoughts; however, I do believe that the overall point of the piece is very damn good (and so are some of the sub-points). Obviously, if I did not think so, I would not have even bothered spending a couple of hours typing this up ...

I will be grateful for any feedback, opinions, arguments, tips and so on.

NB

There's a 100000 page thread about the dangers of nationalism around here somewhere -you may want to cut and paste.

 

[José]

Extremely mediocre "debate"... One of the weakest I had the misfortune to participate.

Mainly due to the sheer lack of knowledgeable posters capable of putting up a strong defence of nationalism.

It's a shame since the topic is fascinating.

 

[Bfgrn]

Extremely mediocre "debate"... One of the weakest I had the misfortune to participate.

Mainly due to the sheer lack of knowledgeable posters capable of putting up a strong defence of nationalism.

It's a shame since the topic is fascinating.

Nationalism and conservatism are based on the same three circumstances...

Latitude, longitude and date of birth...