the ten stages of nationalism.

From 1900 BC to present.

Before critiquing the political ideology of nationalism, it is helpful to disaggregate scientific concepts of ethnocentrism from nationalism. Ethnocentrism is biologically generated and can be observed in animals. Different colonies of ants, bees, herds, hives, or collectives, tribes, sub-species, breeds, or races all exhibit ethnocentrism in nature. Nationalism, on the other hand, is a human ideology with an evolving (and often contradictory) set of principles.

Nationalism is often equated with ethnocentrism, but when nationalists object that they are “not supremacists,” or that they are “not imperialists,” or that they “don’t hate other people,” they are putting moral limits on ethnocentrism. These limits contradict the argument that nationalism is “merely biological.”

Supremacism, imperialism, hatred, genocide, are all natural consequences of ethnocentrism. This is not a moral argument: it is an empirical observation that hives, herds, and other biological collectives with sufficient ethno-centrism engage in hostile destruction of competing sub-species. Often times, when two species compete in the same environment, the victorious species is described as an “invasive species,” while the declining species is described as a “native species.”

To be clear, there are many good moral, environmental, and aesthetic arguments for the defense of “native species” against “invasive species.” The observation that “genocide occurs in nature among other species” is not an endorsement of genocide. Rather, it is a demonstration of the non-biological origin of nationalist ideology. Before tracing the development of that ideology, it may be of interest to describe exactly how ethnocentrism operates on a biological level.

the biological basis of ethnocentrism.

Humans, like all animals, have evolutionary mechanisms for in-group preference. The Selfish Gene Theory of Richard Dawkins states that in-group altruism is advantageous from the point of view of individual genes, even when altruism presents some cost to the individual organism.

Evolution selects not for survival, but for reproductive success. Survival is a precondition for reproductive success, but it is not sufficient for evolutionary success.

At the broadest levels, taboos against cannibalism show that humans can have a “species wide” sense of in-group preference. This extends beyond humanity to species which we consider genetically close to us (such as apes) or animals which we have domesticated (such as cats, dogs, and horses). While animals which we have domesticated do not necessarily share more genes with us than any wild animal, our co-evolution with these animals, and the symbiotic or mutualistic relationship we form with them, causes us to view these animals as within our “in-group,” despite being lesser and separate from us.

However, these taboos against cannibalism or domestiphagia (eating domesticated animals) are not universal. The Vedic religion called the original inhabitants of India “dog-eaters,” which is practiced throughout other parts of Asia. The peoples of the steppe not only rode horses, they also ate horse-meat. In Roman times, the French were accused of eating cats. In Cameroon, Togo, and Benin, cat-meat is part of a magical ritual which will “guarantee a safe return from a trip.”

Prohibitions against animal cruelty, if they have any genetic basis, are not universal in the human species. Given the history of human violence, it is difficult to determine the degree to which humans are “in-group selected” by negative means.

Turning this question on its head, we can inquire to what degree humans are socially or sexually selective on a genetic basis. The most simple test of this question is to determine to what extent phenotypic similarity impacts sexual selection. Are people who look more similar more likely to form friendships and breed than people who look dissimilar?

According to a 2023 study, “people actively look for partners who are similar to them, a phenomenon known as assortative mating (AM).”¹ This leads to gametic phase disequilibrium, where “otherwise independent genetic variants can become correlated.” In other words: the genes for blonde hair are completely independent from the genes for blue eyes. However, blonde hair and blue eyes tend to be “bundled” more than we would expect according to random chance, due to “linkage disequilibrium,” the nonrandom association of alleles of different loci.

These are very fancy scientific words, but they can be broken down simply. “Linkage” refers to the way in which traits are bundled together. “Disequilibrium” refers to the emergence of patterns out of random noise. For example, imagine that in a population, 50% of people are blonde, 50% of people are brunettes, 50% of people are blue eyed, and 50% of people are brown eyed. In total “equilibrium,” we would expect no “linkage” between hair and eye color. This would mean that 25% of the population would be blonde-blue, 25% brunette-blue, 25% blonde-brown, 25% brunette-brown. But due to assortative mating, this “equilibrium” is disrupted, and a pattern begins to emerge. That linkage could be as small as a 1% difference: 26% blonde-blue, 24% brunette-blue, 24% blonde-brown, and 26% brunette-brown.

Historically, the strongest pressure on assortative mating is geography. If 12 distinct phenotypes are thrown onto an island, they will mix together, forming “linkage.” In fact, blonde hair and blue eyes evolved entirely separately, but came together in a population (possibly Indo-Europeans) and were subsequently subject to assortative mating and disequilibrium linkage.

Let us summarize this web of vocabulary simply: disequilibrium linkage is the process of ethno-genesis or ethnic emergence, and the maintenance of ethnic distinction over time. It is a genetic process, and occurs in animals without any need for ideological “racism.” However, this does not mean that racism cannot cause disequilibrium linkage. Eugenics, for example, is a consciously directed form of disequilibrium linkage.

the history of nationalism.

There are, broadly speaking, seven stages of historical nationalism. Put briefly, they are:

1. Ethnic Imperialism (10,000 BC - 1900 BC)

2. Homeric-Platonic Nationalism (1899 BC - 32 AD)

3. Pacifistic Nationalism (33 - 300)

4. Integralist Nationalism (301 - 1313)

5. Linguistic Nationalism (1314 - 1543)

6. Humanist Nationalism (1512 - 1775)

7. Secular Nationalism (1776 - 1847)

8. Leftist Nationalism (1848 - 1896)

9. Fascist Nationalism (1897 - 1945)

10. Patriotic Nationalism (1946 - present)

The dates provided obscure the truth that all of these concepts overlap chronologically. Fascists still exist today, and did not all die in 1945. Similarly, Leftist Nationalists still persist. The distinction between Secular and Patriotic Nationalism is not a matter of innovation, but of amalgamation with Christianity and Cold War sentiment, as well as the ill-defined spirit of “Neo-Conservatism” and “Neo-Liberalism.” In short, none of these ideological movements have hard chronological boundaries. With these caveats, a slight-less-brief outline can be sketched:

ethnic imperialism.

In the ancient world, there was no concept of “the rights of nations.” Instead, city-states like Greece and Rome expanded, spreading their language and culture. Prior to 1500 BC, each individual city state had its own identity (far more than how New Yorkers distinguish themselves from LA). The concept of a “national” identity is not clearly present among the multi-lingual empires of Sumer or the Hittites, but it is demonstrated in the Iliad as “the nation” of Greece against “the city” of Troy.

homeric-platonic nationalism.

The date of 1900 BC corresponds with the earliest possible dates of the Indo-European invasions of Greece and India. 1800 BC is the archaeological date when we first find evidence of Linear A used as a writing system in Greece. Around 1600 BC is the date given by the Athenians for their first kings, Actaeus and Cecrops, who taught them writing, invented marriage, and taught them to bury their dead. The Greeks and Hindus view the years 1900 BC to 1100 BC as a mythological age of Gods and heroes.² This is when entire races were born out of mysterious processes. This age ended with the Bronze Age collapse, represented by the Trojan War and Battle of Kurukshetra.

Depiction of “Abisha the Hyksos," 1900 BC.

The Hyksos, who likely play a role in the development of Judaism, appear in the historical record around 1900 BC. According to Chabad, Abraham, the first Jew, was born in 1813 BC. Jewish nationalism distinguished itself from Greece or Roman polytheism in that it had a single national God, and it persecuted other religions with no hope of integration or reconciliation. Whereas the Spartans ruled over Helots, and the Romans over foreigners, Judaism demanded a strict separation of the Jewish nation from other nations.

It is proper to connect Homeric Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism together because both were influenced by the Dionysian or Eleusinian mystery cult which authored Platonism. The Torah was likely written by Platonic scholars, influenced by the Hellenistic empire of Alexander, after 400 BC. The development of Homeric-Platonic Nationalism had a clear influence on the development of the Roman Empire, and bridged the gap between imperialism and Christianity.

pacifistic nationalism.

Pacifistic nationalism represents the brand of nationalism promoted by Christianity prior to the seizure of power with the conversion of Constantine. It could also be referred to as “Christianity for All Peoples.” Christianity introduced the concept of “the great commission” or Pentecost, in which the Jews would be taught to speak many languages (tongues) in order to convert the whole world.

The statements of Jesus on the state, “give unto Caesar,” and those of Paul on nationality, “there is neither Jew nor Greek,” are mysterious, paradoxical, and allow for a wide variety of interpretations. The writing of the Bible in Greek had clear universalistic implications, destroying the supposed “sanctity of Hebrew.” While Jesus never speaks Hebrew in the Bible, he does speak Aramaic, another “imperial” or multi-ethnic language.

One of the mysterious effects of pacifistic nationalism was to begin to create both a Welsh and Germanic identity separate from and outside of Rome. Previously, the Celtic and Germanic tribes had no concept of a united “nation state.” Christianity provided some glue to tie these tribes together and think of themselves, as the Greeks at Troy or the Jews in Egypt, as a single political or military force. This would later be tested by the invasion of the Huns in 451, which divided Germans between pro-Hunnic and pro-Roman.

The term “pacifistic nationalism” refers primarily to the fact that early Christian nationalism did not conquer by the sword, but by reducing the friction between tribes. Eventually, this friction did require a Frankish sword to completely subjugate the rebellious Saxons, but it did not progress by sword alone. Christian pacifism provided a psychological foundation which was later completed or fulfilled by military violence. This is especially obvious in the later example of Scandinavia, which had nothing approaching a “nation state” until its Christianization in the 11th century. Accordingly, the “pacifistic” stage of nationalism should not be understood as belonging to a particular century, but should be seen as an intermediate between “pagan” nationalism and Integralist-Theocratic nationalism.

integralist nationalism.

The first Christian state was Armenia in 301, and it could be described as one of history’s first ethno-states. This is not to say that Armenia in 301 AD had no ethnic minorities besides Armenians. It was, like Rome and most normal states, effectively a multi-ethnic empire. But what distinguished Armenia from previous states is that it had a national church, the Armenian Orthodox Church. This church provided services in the Armenian language, with an Armenian liturgy.

It is difficult to argue that Armenia was extremely influential on Rome, given the lack of evidence. But whether or not Constantine was aware of it, Armenia presented a clear example of how Christianity could take control of the state and forge a new identity. When Constantine adopted Christianity, it was at that time still largely associated with the Greek language and Greek identity. What truly created an Integralist Latin Church was the translation of the Bible into Latin, performed by St Jerome, between A.D. 383 and 404.

Although Europe was invaded by Huns, and Rome by Germanic tribes, the Latin Bible survived as one of the few remnants of Roman culture. It then formed the basis of the western churches in Italy, Spain, France, Britain, and Germany. This Latin Christianity was instrumental for the crowning of Charlemagne as the Emperor of the Franks in 800 by Pope Leo III. Again, the Empire of Charlemagne was not in any sense an ethno-state. It was religiously Latin, aristocratically German, and, at the level of the peasantry, Gallic or Celtic.

But by combining the powers of pacification and indoctrination of the church with the sword of the aristocracy, three new nations were forged in the succeeding centuries: France, Italy, and Germany. In the case of France and Italy, the Germanic aristocracy was subsumed into a Latinized identity, while at the same time, the Latin language differentiated into French and Italian.

linguistic nationalism.

There is evidence for the differentiation of French from Italian as early as 842 AD, although it wasn’t until 1539 that King Francis I eliminated the use of Latin in administration and replaced it with modern French. In England and Germany, the transition to the “national” language (which was referred to as the vulgar or popular language, language of the people) the shift came a bit earlier. Louis IV, in 1314 AD, made German the official language of administration in the Holy Roman Empire. In England, the Pleading in English Act of 1362 replaced Norman French with English in courts and laws.

Hence, the period from 1314 to 1543 can be described generally as the period of linguistic nationalism, where Integralist states relied less on the authority of the Latin church, and turned toward the secular, popular, and vulgar languages of the people as the basis of the legitimacy of the state. This was also a period of religious shift, with Wycliffe’s Bible translation in 1382 presenting the English people with the word of God in their own common tongue.

humanist nationalism.

The rise of Protestant nationalism was unique to northern Europe, and excluded much of southern and eastern Europe. However, it occurred in the wake of humanism and the Renaissance, which had a significant impact on the concept of “the people” and “the state.” Machiavelli’s The Prince did not originate in northern Europe, but in Italy, and it would ultimately come to define a hard break from Latin Integralism, preferring a secular basis for Republicanism in “the people.”

In northern Europe, one of the most significant dates is 1534, when King Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy established the Anglican church. Soon after, in 1544, William the Silent smashed the power of Catholicism on the continent by leading the Netherlands to victory. William’s victory was more dramatic than Henry’s Act of Supremacy from a theological point of view. Henry merely shifted the center of Catholicism from Rome to London, while William whole-heartedly endorsed the radical theology of John Calvin.

At the same time that the English nation and Dutch nation divorced from Rome in pursuit of sovereignty, the Puritans within England were already forming a proto-nation. In 1605, they conspired to leave England altogether and establish a new Zion in America. To use a romantic metaphor, America was born in 1776, but mom and dad began dating in 1605. The hardship that the Puritans endured on this new continent was nothing short of legendary and heroic. King Philip’s War of 1675 remains the deadliest and most genocidal war in American history. The Puritan nation which emerged from the pile of scalped corpses, the harrowing burnt villages, and the rape of women and children was stock which would later found a world empire. President Obama, despite being half Kenyan, is nonetheless a descendant of this Puritan founding stock, along with most presidents, with the notable exception of Trump.

secular nationalism.

The Revolution of 1776 was, to a great degree, driven by Puritans. But at the highest levels of organization, propaganda, and finance, it could not have succeeded outside Massachusetts were it not for the Freemasons. The Freemasons were part of a lineage of Republican Secularists, who owe much of their ideas to Machiavelli. They introduced, in America and France, many ideas which are still radical today: that all men are created equal; that the church shall be separate from the state; that men are guaranteed rights. These are religious dogmas, not scientific principles. Just as Christianity helped to usher in a new age of nationalism in the time of the early church, Freemasonry also helped transform and empower nationalism in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The crowning jewels of secular nationalism are America and the Napoleonic state. No empires since Alexander’s achieved so much in so little time as Napoleon. And no empire since Rome has achieved so much over the centuries as America.

leftist nationalism.

By the standards of their own time, the founding fathers were leftists. In other ways, they were slave owning, land owning elites who believed in a limited franchise. By the standards of today, it is impossible to recognize the founders as “leftists.”

In 1848, this began to change. A recognizable left emerges from the national revolutions spanning the whole of Europe, from France to Germany and Hungary. Marx writes his communist manifesto. Wilhelm Marr, Richard Wagner, and Giuseppe Mazzini all rise to prominence during these revolutions.

It seems strange to associate nationalism with leftism today, but things were different in the early 19th century. Nationalism was associated with liberalism, anarchism, republicanism, secularism, and egalitarianism. This is when the cry of “nationalism for all peoples!” became loudest. In the Frankfurt Parliament, the German nationalists vote to emancipate the Jews, restoring that aspect of Napoleonic law, and argue to respect the rights of Poles to have their own nation free of imperialism. This is a very different form of nationalism from the Naziism that would replace it a century later.

fascist nationalism.

Fascism is a complex subject which requires its own in-depth analysis aside from this limited summary of the last 4,000 years of development.³ However, a few brief points can be touched upon:

1. In Spain, Portugal, France, and Austria, Fascist movements reintroduced or re-infused nationalism together with Catholicism. This was a “healing of the wounds” which occurred between the Catholic church and the Freemasonic nationalists in the early 19th century.

2. Fascist nationalism infused antisemitism together with nationalism, which was not previously a focal point of popular leftist nationalist movements. Wilhelm Marr was one of the pioneers in this field. In 1862, he was the first European to promote antisemitism from a purely secular, scientific, and leftist-nationalist perspective, while at the same time being opposed to Christianity.

3. Fascist nationalism attempted in many ways to bridge the gap between popular Nietzschean or Darwinian concepts (such as survival of the fittest) with Christian concepts of “the body of Christ.” The body of Christ was replaced with the body of the nation, and the nation was personified to be a singular Nietzschean Will, with its own Darwinian Evolution and spiritual destiny, born of blood and iron. Whether fascism was interpreting Nietzsche or Darwin accurately when it achieved this synthesis is not the point.⁴ Accurate or not, these distortions were successful at achieving a new “right wing” backlash to the “left wing” nationalism of 1848.

1897 can be used as the first year of fascism as it was the election year of Karl Lueger, who was a popular antisemite and mayor of Vienna.

patriotic nationalism.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, fascism was crushed, but nationalism lives on. The term “patriot” has become associated with Zionism, evangelical Christianity, libertarianism, low taxes, sovereign citizens, conspiracy theories, vaccine skepticism, and the personality cult surrounding Donald Trump. Patriotic nationalism could be accurately called the “global Americanization of nationalism.” Whether the country is Russia, Hungary, France, or Britain, all nationalist movements seem to be attempting to emulate the United States.

This is least obvious in Russia, but after the fall of the Soviet Union, its constitution was clearly modeled off the American constitution, as well as the United Nations charter (an American project). Putin still claims that Russia is a democracy, not some kind of Orthodox Monarchy, or whatever else Duginists claim it “should” be.

America can be criticized for “empty” forms of patriotism, which mean nothing. Russia, as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire, is subject to a second-hand form of nihilism.

American conservatives and Russian patriots share one thing in common: they are both rebelling against hegemonic American liberalism, while at the same time, their entire political philosophy is merely based on a slightly older version of American liberalism. Both American conservatives and Putin constantly complain that the “new” America isn’t playing by the “old” rules.

afterward.

Each form of nationalism is complex enough and contains enough history for entire books to be written on the subject of each of them. However, the purpose here wasn’t to write ten books, but to provide a broad overview, to compare and contrast historical forms of nationalism, and to trace its evolution and development.

With this in mind, the attempt is to avoid a myopic view of nationalism, which sees Catholic Integralism as “traditional,” or constitutionalism as “conservative,” but captures the full picture and spectrum of historical political forms. Rather than viewing imperialism as “inferior,” and Christianity as “superior,” the competitive advantages of each system are noted in relation to one another, while at the same time acknowledging that, as conditions change, these past advantages may be neutralized.

In other words, the philosophical and theological conditions which led to the rise of various forms of nationalism (Christianity, Freemasonry, the myth of Nuremberg) are now under threat by a distrust in institutions. The mood as of late seems similar to the nihilism of Rome as Christianity filled the void. Therefore, it seems appropriate to question this linear development in history away from imperialism and toward nationalism. History is not monodirectional. Just as imperialism gives way to nationalism, nationalism can give way to imperialism.

Such a proposal of what could be is a hypothesis of political philosophy, or political science. It is not, in itself, a defense of any of these systems, or an answer to which one is “best.” The question of the goodness of a system may vary, and this was admitted by Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli, who understood that in times of crisis, politics must verge from the ideal and stray toward tyranny.

If we are indeed in a spiritual crisis of the greatest magnitude, then proposing an “ideal solution” to our present problems seems, from this Platonic-Machiavellian standpoint, entirely unreasonable. Instead, a period of great crisis requires a state of exception. While it may be morally desirable to have “nationalism for all peoples,” the present circumstances may not allow such niceties.

Instead, to borrow a phrase, we are entering a period of Turbo-America.⁵ The results will be brutal and ugly. Those attempting to maintain their dignity are likely not cut out for the politics of our age. But wishful thinking, hysterical objection, and moralistic nagging (the “dissident” right) will not accomplish anything.

Science has this relation to technology: with knowledge, there is power. By understanding the historical dynamics at play, each individual can assess their own position in the system, and act with the greatest degrees of freedom. Those with a private jet can take flight. But it would not be advisable to jump off a building under the pretense that, “I should be able to fly too! It’s only fair!”

Life isn’t fair. Politics is big. We are small. Yet every dictator begins as a small child. The difference between the child who ends up homeless and the child who becomes king is largely a question of spirit. What spirit do you have? This is a question for the individual, and unanswerable without testing. No one can know what they are made of until they try. No one can know their limit until they reach the breaking point. Then, it is victory, or death.

1. 2023, “Partner choice, confounding and trait convergence all contribute to phenotypic partner similarity”: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01500-w

2. Hindu chronology is extremely distorted, often claiming that certain historic events occurred millions of years ago. Zoroastrianism encountered similar issues with the dating of the birth of Zoroaster; sometimes placing him around 600 BC, other times around 10,000 BC.

3.

4. Nietzsche was opposed to nationalism.

5. Turbo-America