I discuss Alt-Right and New Right universal nationalism.
Universal nationalism is the view that 1) every people wants a nation of its own, 2) every people is entitled to a nation of its own, and 3) every people should rule itself and not be ruled by others. [1] This view is central to some in the Alt-Right and New Right.
In his "The Relevance of the Old Right," Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents writes:
I am a "universal nationalist," meaning that I believe that ethnonationalism is good for all peoples. Thus I am opposed to imperialism, whereas Old Right regimes practiced imperialism against their fellow Europeans as well as non-whites. Defending imperialism is basically telling your neighbors that you are not above a little murder and theft when it suits you. But that is no way to build solidarity among white nations or a peaceful planet in general, to the extent that these are possible.
In his article, "A Brief Case for Universal Nationalism," Guillaume Durocher writes:
I would like to briefly make the case for universal nationalism, a political ideology defined here as the belief that every nation should have a society and a state of its own. Put more simply still: Every people should have its own country; every people should rule itself, rather than be dictated by outsiders. I believe universal nationalism encapsulates many of the principles which would allow all human beings to live in a more peaceful, prosperous, and progressive world.
First, it is erroneous for Johnson to argue that his support for ethnic nationalism among all peoples is incompatible with imperialism. [2] Ethnic nationalism is the view that a nation should reflect the ethnic identity of the people it houses: Historical, cultural, linguistic, and racial interests should be reflected in the domestic and foreign policy of that nation and its state. This may or may not coincide with independence and national sovereignty: A people can have a nation without having autonomy. From the fact that humanity is a diverse amalgam of peoples, it does not follow that every people must have its own nation. Even if peoples were entitled to a nation, it does not follow that they warrant autonomy.
Second, Johnson's immediate inference is not just fallacious. It is also naive. Historically, one of the motivating forces behind imperialism was the observation that primitive peoples objectively existed but lacked what European peoples had: A structured society. This led to building dependent societies and nations that lacked national sovereignty.
This historical reality is also a reminder of the contrasts between peoples and their capacity to build a society. That is, some peoples seem constitutionally incapable of maintaining their own nation without the perpetual support of others. This leads to a third criticism of the universal nationalist prescription: That its ambition to ensure that every people has a nation of its own will require the very same deprivation of autonomy that Johnson and Durocher both reject imperialism for. There is a very strong likelihood that arbitrary decisions about borders will have to be made. We have no reason to believe that nations will always seek to engage in peaceful population transfers or border disputes without external compulsion.
This leads to a fourth criticism: Durocher implies that multiculturalism is a cause of conflict between distinct peoples. The problems caused by multiculturalism are symptoms of this conflict. Conflict exists because ethnically distinct peoples exist. It does not matter if this is an outcome of expanding peoples or peoples compressed into one society.
Finally, and related, natural and human history is an unending conflict of biological types. In the course of history, various groups form and then differentiate into communities. In some cases, human communities formed nations. In this natural arena, a community is only entitled to what it can take and keep. Imperialism and settler colonialism, as well as the correlates of these activities at a more basic level, are extensions, not abrogations, of ethnic nationalism. This process is responsible for the biological and human diversity in the world, and that is what the universal nationalist claims to admire and want to preserve. The point is that a nation is forged, not doled out, a result of organic, not managerial, processes. [3]
This leads to a fourth criticism: Durocher implies that multiculturalism is a cause of conflict between distinct peoples. The problems caused by multiculturalism are symptoms of this conflict. Conflict exists because ethnically distinct peoples exist. It does not matter if this is an outcome of expanding peoples or peoples compressed into one society.
Finally, and related, natural and human history is an unending conflict of biological types. In the course of history, various groups form and then differentiate into communities. In some cases, human communities formed nations. In this natural arena, a community is only entitled to what it can take and keep. Imperialism and settler colonialism, as well as the correlates of these activities at a more basic level, are extensions, not abrogations, of ethnic nationalism. This process is responsible for the biological and human diversity in the world, and that is what the universal nationalist claims to admire and want to preserve. The point is that a nation is forged, not doled out, a result of organic, not managerial, processes. [3]
--------------------
[1] Frank Salter, in Chapter 7 of his On Genetic Interests, is one of the first writers to plow an argument in favor of “universal nationalism.”
[2] Another problem with universal nationalism is that it does not distinguish between types of imperialism: Cultural, economic, ethnic or racial, geostrategic, and other manifestations of imperialism exist. Some of these are not in a nation's long term vital interests.
[3] The post-World War I and II settlements resulted in arbitrary boundaries between and even within places Iraq and Syria. Saddam's Iraq inherited Anglo-French arbitrariness, but there is and was an Iraqi people even if there are or were arbitrary layers insulating it.
[3] The post-World War I and II settlements resulted in arbitrary boundaries between and even within places Iraq and Syria. Saddam's Iraq inherited Anglo-French arbitrariness, but there is and was an Iraqi people even if there are or were arbitrary layers insulating it.
