Nationalism is NOT Fascism / Nazism / Racism / Sexism (or any other politically incorrect –ism you wish to attach to this term). Nationalism is based on this idea: a country or state is a sovereign, lawful entity. Based on international law. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The core issue to address here is this: sovereignty.
I would like to unpack the idea of national sovereignty…
If Country A sends troops planes or ships into Country B’s territory, this is an invasion of the national sovereignty of Country B. But, what if Country B is invaded by citizens of Country A? Is this not some kind of “socio-economic invasion”? Is this not also an assault on the sovereignty of Country B and the citizens of Country B?
To understand the angle I am literally coming from, I would like to explain how I look at political systems. In most countries you have the left wing, with the leftist extreme is some form of communism / socialism, and you have the right wing, with the right-wing extreme is fascism.
Now, this is a two dimensional line oscillating between two poles, political left and political right. My view adds a triangulated third point, which is neither left nor right, and stands in polar opposite to both of those.
The extreme to my point of view hard to label, but I simply call it the personal sovereignty point of view. And in that sense, I am an extremist. I am a “personal sovereignty extremist”.
What is the personal sovereignty point of view?
In this point of view, the government / state exists exclusively as a mechanism to protect the freedom of the citizens of a country. The state does not make any laws. It does not provide the citizens with anything. It does not even print any money. It exists as a public protector of freedom. That is it.
Therefore, if some other state invades our state, we defend ourselves by the force required to defend ourselves. If some group inside the country acts in a way which undermines the freedom of the citizens, the state arrests and prosecutes those individuals or groups. That’s it as far as the state’s function goes.
Everything else, is decided democratically by the citizens. And all decisions are be made at the level where they are affecting the lives of people. Thus cities make decisions regarding their own city. But roads or water issues, as an example, affect more than one city, then these decisions are made on a provincial or even national level, NOT by the state, but as a co-operation between cities, for the common national good.
On local (city) level, a city should operate in a direct democratic way (from the personal sovereignty point of view). Like ancient Athens did. There is some kind of agora, some kind of forum (preferably on-line these days, but it could easily be the city hall), by which citizens of a city raises the issues, elect those who will be responsible for managing which issue, and monitor (in real-time) the progress of each issue raised.
This is my point of view.
You can say it is a kind-of holographic sovereignty, starting with the individual, then the city, then a province, then a country, then the world.
In each case the interaction between a globe full of sovereign individuals, are regulated by a very simple law: common law.
Common law is the unifying force which binds the whole thing together.
What is common law?
It is a simple idea: as long as I do not harm you, or your property, I am free to do whatever I like.
Therefore it can be stated in a simple slogan: “do no harm”.
That is it. That is the law by which all citizens of all cities of all provinces of all countries should interact with each other.
So.
When I look at political affairs, my personal point of view, and personal judgement about current affairs is this: to what extent does a politician or any other person support this philosophy of personal sovereignty? And to the extent that that person or politician does support personal sovereignty, I am happy to co-operate. And equally, to the extent that the person or politician opposes personal sovereignty, I am willing and able to resist.
And this is why, if I have to choose between Nationalism vs Globalist Collectivism, the choice is a no-brainier. I will choose Nationalism. However, if the Nationalism turns to Fascism (which it could easily do), I would resist the Fascism. Because I reject both the political left as well as the political right.
Why do I reject both the left and the right? Because BOTH undermine the sovereignty of the individual through a state / government which simply forces the citizens to do stuff against their sovereign will. This is the key understanding. The will of the individual should always transcend the will of the collective AS LONG AS common law is in effect. "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will" - the wiccan rede.
Clear as mud I hope :):)
This philosophy I am explaining here does not exist in my mind alone. There are many people globally which thinks like this. These people are loosely called the “freedom movement”.
