B.S. Haldane observed “I would lay down my life for two brothers, four nephews, or eight cousins.”

In otherwords, kin altruism does not go far, being pretty much limited to the nuclear family and the extended family.

It can be stretched to somewhat larger groups by deliberate inbreeding, by the practice of father’s brother’s daughter marriage, but then you get moderate IQ depression due to inbreeding, and the achievable group size is not all that much larger.

Nazis tend to believe that whites would not make war on each other except for the evil mind control rays emitted by Jews. Thus world wars One and Two were supposedly Jewish plots.

History demonstrates otherwise. Whites are markedly better at war than other races, because we have been practicing on each other so hard for so long.

The program of Nazism is Socialism for white people only.

To hell with that. Lets be really racist and have capitalism for superior people like ourselves and socialism for inferiors, for people we don’t like and wish to see crushed.

So where does nationalism come from?

New International Outlook tells us

then nationalism becomes not dissimilar to other forms of modern identity politics which afflict the world at present. The Gay community, The Feminist community* or any other such constructs are purely a result of the media fragmenting and power considerations (democratic needs, desperate scramble for state justification) just as much as the nationalism of the 19th and 20th century was the result of mass media identity formation and power considerations (mass conscription, democratic needs etc).

This seems to argue for empire – but empires as we have seen undermine trust and cohesion. In the end the founding ethnicity of the empire winds up being oppressed by the empire, as Turks were oppressed by the Ottoman Empire, and Americans are now oppressed by the American empire.

New International Outlook continues to argue that Nationalism is inherently leftist:

Nationalism is leftism, it arose as a question of equality based on ethnic similarities and has merely been overtaken by an even more inclusive version of nationalism which holds that all of humanity is one nation.

The validity of Nationalism comes, not from altruism as Nazis tend to argue, but from trust, from the assurance of reciprocity, from the confidence that bad behavior within the group will be prevented.

Nationalism works, is real, if near is actually more trustworthy than far – because word of bad behavior will get back to those close to the person behaving badly, and this word will have bad consequences.

Observe how tourist girls go wild and fuck around indiscriminately, having sex with all sorts of people, old men and blacks that they would never have sex with at home, because they figure that sex overseas does not add to their count.

If, however, this word getting back to near has no consequences, nationalism is unreal. A nation does not really exist, is unreal a mere construct of propaganda, unless bad conduct has bad consequences, at least for members of the elite.

Collective action is hard, the central insight of the neoreaction being that extremely bad solutions are better than pretend solutions. Diversity undermines asabiyyah, making collective action even harder.

The Nazi error is to imagine that collective action is easy – hence their error of socialism, and that asabiyyah comes naturally. It does not.

Nationalism is necessarily ethno nationalism, since diversity destroys trust. Nationalism only works to the extent that near is more trustworthy than far, and that near is indeed trustworthy.

Thus nationalism requires a social order that encourages and rewards virtue – where being a bad guy has consequences, and by consequences I don’t mean chicks giving you their number for booty calls.

Jewish cohesiveness rested on strict patriarchy. A Jew would give his daughters to someone talented and virtuous, which compelled all Jews to behave virtuously to other Jews (but not necessarily to non Jews)

Thus, Jews dominated the diamond trade because if one diamond merchant cheated another, he or his sons would not have wives.

As Jewish patriarchy evaporates, as progressivism successfully assimilates Judaism, Jewish cohesiveness evaporates a generation or two later. The Orthodox will slowly follow the path their reform brethren have already taken. Today, they are no longer all that patriarchal. Soon they will no longer have social cohesion and resistance to decadence and fraud.

On the one hand Nationalism is solidly in the left, and yet there is something very left wing about the fact that empires tend to wind up being run for the conquered at the expense of the founding ethnicity, as hordes of foreigners migrate to the capital.

It is obviously easier for the ruled to admire and respect the rulers, and the rulers to look after the ruled, if ruled and rulers are the same ethnicity and religion.

It is obviously easier to build functional institutions, to have reciprocity and trust, between people of the same ethnicity and religion.

Collective decision making is an unsolved problem, and the reactionary insight is that it is better to have horribly bad solutions to this problem, than fake solutions. It is a much harder problem when you have diverse ethnicities involved, because of the lack of trust and reciprocity.

So if we wind up saying that collective decisions need to be made on the ethnicity scale, because larger scales are even harder, that is remarkably similar to ethnonationalism.

Chan/Pol interprets Jewish degeneracy as ethnonationalism, as a plot by Jews to destroy the white race.

Against this analysis: The most cohesive Jews, the believers, and the most cohesive of all, the orthodox believers, are not degenerate, and generally don’t show up pushing degeneracy or launching lawsuits against Christmas.

The observations that the pol hypothesis explains are also explainable as Jews as jumping on the prog bandwagon.

If someone is pushing degeneracy, or trying to destroy the white race, he is probably a Jew. If, however, someone is torturing archaeology and history to supposedly prove that Moses, King David, and King Solomon never existed, also a Jew – and often the same Jew.

The Jew that denies the existence of King Solomon is attacking the Jewish identity.

If Jews were trying to take over the world they wouldn’t be sabotaging themselves as well.

The fact that they are drinking their own koolaide means that they are just as pwned as your average white progressive

I see orthodox Jews torturing their holy texts to get the conclusion that Orthodox Jews should be accepting of gays – and I see progressive Jews torturing the historical and archaeological evidence to get the conclusion that King Solomon’s temple never existed.

Judaism is lagging in its assimilation to progressivism, so progressivism is upping the pressure, and clever Talmudic scholars are cleverly finding increasing amounts of progressivism in the Talmud.

The only religion I see showing real signs of life is Jihadi Islam. Every other religion is just piously going through the motions while slowly being digested by progressivism. Putin is trying to stitch up an authentically Russian Orthodoxy, but has not got far. China is furtively sneaking away from Maoism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics towards Confucianism and the Mandate of Heaven, but they are still mighty furtive. Meanwhile lots of Chinese go to western universities, where they get brainwashed with progressivism, and since these are the wealthiest Chinese, progressivism is high status for Chinese.

A lot of reactionaries are converting to Roman Catholicism, as the religion with the most credible historical claim to universal religious authority.

If you get married in a Roman Catholic Church, they will shoot the husband in the back by undermining in his authority and promoting divorce in accordance with progressive doctrine and contrary to New Testament and official Roman Catholic doctrine

Further, universal religious authority is a logical implication of of a universal god, one god for all peoples, but I observe the British empire, which the world’s greates empire, the scientific revolution, and the technological revolution happened under an ethnic national church.

Universalism is harmful, because universalism undermines social cohesion and asabiyyah, so universal churches are harmful, so universal gods are harmful. And in that sense, the Jews really are to blame – the problem being not undue Jewish influence in banking and Hollywood but that Christianity is a Jewish heresy, and progressivism is a Christian heresy.

National Christian Churches can work, as for example Anglicanism from 1660 to 1820, but they have an innate tendency to turn universal. Perhaps if we made sure that warriors were on top of priests, and made priesthoods into semi hereditary family businesses as in Shinto or Icelandic paganism, the tendency to universalism could be adequately restrained.

Universalism leads to universal empire. Multiple universal empires lead to war. A single universal empire tends to sacrifice its central nation, its founding ethnicity, for the good of the empire, which is what so pissed off the Turks about the Ottoman empire, that they ended the Caliphate.

Like white anglo saxon protestants today, the Turks were oppressed by their subject nations, rather than oppressing them. And that is the problem with worshipping a universal creator God. Not necessarily an insoluble problem, but it is a problem nonetheless. Obviously you need one church per nation – which would suggest one god, or set of Gods, per nation. The Japanese have the sun god and a bunch of vaguely defined lesser deities, and they do fine. It is not apparent that Japanese believe in the Sun God, but they believe in believing. The Japanese are hopelessly decadent now (watch any anime) but they were not decadent before MacArthur.