“No one dreams of conducting national affairs with the principles which are prescribed to individuals. The meek and poor-spirited among nations are not to be blessed, and the common sense of Christendom has always prescribed for national policy principles diametrically opposed to those that are laid down in the Sermon on the Mount.”
Lord Robert Cecil

Strong nations are to feel guilty, be ashamed, denounce their own power, go against their self-interest; in short, they must repent and ask the world for forgiveness.

Such is the rhetoric that has inundated the West, and such is the rhetoric that will lead to its death. If an empire cannot be destroyed through tangible means then reverse the morality in such a way that what is strong is demonized, what is weak willed is praised, what is self-interested is wicked, and that which is native is made enemy. This is morality as a weapon, if one even cares to call it morality. The hegemon becomes self-loathing, but this self-loathing is considered morally righteous. It is considered the ‘higher path’, that of universal love and compassion. It is indeed a path, a path to its own execution, all in the name of universalism. Therefore the hegemon begins to poison itself slowly, thinking it is actually doing the morally right thing. Enemies and the desperate will take advantage, those lesser filled with resentiment. The hegemon sees the err of its ways, lowers its city walls, renounces power for the sake of righteousness, and declares itself ‘Lover of all humanity; a prince of peace and enemy to none’. Christ allowed himself to be crucified out of selflessness, out of love for mankind. This was never meant to be the model for national or international policy. Indeed, a hegemon must act in the exact opposite manner if it desires to continue its reign, it must be self-interested and mindful of power.

The recent mass immigration crisis has further fueled the already present euroscepticism and anti-globalist sentiment across Europe. With the enforcement of multiculturalism, or rather immigration without assimilation into the dominate culture and its values. The old expression, ‘If you should be in Rome, live in the Roman manner’ does not apply in the rhetoric aforementioned. At times quite the contrary, the ‘Roman manner’ is chastized and incoming immigrant culture is praised, or at least defended from criticism. One must ask if unrelenting cultural relativism inevitably leads to apathy, and if it does, then that in itself gives complete license for an incoming culture to dominate the native culture. If there is to be immigration, which is an obvious fact in our age, then assimilation must be a part of that.

Fear white males, embrace foreign Muslims.
hate Christianity, praise Islam.
condemn European history, laud other histories.
loath power, desire meekness.
reject national identity, embrace cosmopolitanism.

feel ashamed about strength, crucify self as repentence.

and this is how an empire dies.

Culture is the spine of a nation. God is dead, with this I fully agree, but culture nor tradition must die simply because one lacks faith in the theistic. It does not take a person of faith to see the vital function of various traditions and cultural mores. It does not take a person of faith to see how Christianity has shaped the West, has produced beautiful art and architecture, and has enrichened lesser developed countries, even if unnecessary destruction came along with that. With the death of God, the secularization of the West, there has been left an existential vaccuum. Consumerist culture has not been able to fill this void. No doubt it has provided us with prosperity, technological achievements, and medical discoveries unlike any other time in history; alas it cannot fill the existential absence with meaning because man is more than economics. This does not immediately call for religion, not for everyone, but religion has often provided that existential satisfaction. In a vain attempt secular humanism has tried to fill that role, it being little more than the saccharine moral qualities of Christianity minus the depth of meaning. It replaces the idea of a heavenly afterlife with a future utopia of equality. It substitutes Christian salvation with the facade of social justice and cosmetic niceties. It should be no mystery why Westerners have converted to Islam and even to radical Jihadism, both fill that existential vaccuum, that desire for transcendence and eternal purpose. With the decline of the Church, the rise of rampant empty consumerism, and the spread of secular progressivism which is little more than a plastic counterfeit Christianity, it is no mystery why Islam has appeal and gains influence. Whether identity is constructed or rooted in blood and soil, where does such an identity stand today if it is constantly engrossed in self-flagellation.

A nation should be devoted to its people and the state foremost, and secondmost to allies. This sounds fairly noncontroversial. A state must always aspire to act in its own rational self-interest, to maintain and if possible increase its power. Any acts which goes against this is antithetic to the best interest of the nation and the citizens thereof. Whether it be taking in foreign refugees, intervening in foreign conflicts, or being a part of something as binding as the EU; the most rational act is that which is self-interested, that is maintaining or increasing power, which all that I just named off tends to go against. I realize this is slightly simplistic, and rarely are decisions so clear cut, nonetheless it will do for the purposes of this discussion. It can be argued that the EU undermines the authority of the nation-state, and in its attempts to link nations together as a whole it only burdens the stronger nations. While alliances and stability is desirability, the EU seems to be yet another failed attempt at universalizing humanity. This is not to say the extreme opposite is preferred, that of fragmentation and squabbling wars. Rather what has been argued is multipolarity, in contrast with the current unipolarity in which the US is hegemon with the results being the spread of secularism, globalism, and consumerism. Whether a bipolarity or multipolarity occurs in the near future is something only time will tell.

What is to be said is that nations must act according to self-interest, not in sacrifice for the sake of a project such as the EU or for the sake of humanitarian missions. Nations must do what is best for themselves and their people foremost. I hesitate to use the word Nationalism as it has become saturated in negative connotation. Xenophobia and virulent racism does not benefit a people. These are hysterias and often used as a way for a political party to gain power for the sake of itself. It is all too easy to scapegoat a minority and be blind to the bigger issues at work. Nothing is more irrational and dangerous than the angry crowd. An angry crowd fueled by xenophobia or virulent racism regresses to the lowest instinct, without rhyme or reason, and will soon destroy itself and others than benefit a nation overall. That being said, in and of itself the concept of Nationalism should neither be tossed around nor heavily stigmatized. Ideally it is the pride one has in their nation, in their culture, in their religion, and in their ancestory. I find this concept more transcendent than mere patriotism. A pride in heritage or nation transcends the present temporal. It acknowledges the transcendent aspect of a nation, of soil, of heritage. It acknowledges the past and seeks to increase national capability for the future. National interest does not entail the hatred of other cultures or nations, such is a sign of baseness and insecurity. It is the preservation and further increasing of power. National self-interest seeks that which increases power, and avoids that which decreases power. In the present day rhetoric discussed above, that of self-flagellation and meekness, increasing power is deemed wicked and that which decreases power is deemed morally righteous. Without a doubt this is a death wish that turns a nation upon itself, a hegemon upon itself, resulting in anemia and dissolution.

It is becoming a difficult task for a nation to maintain solidification in the face of increasing globalism. Over time identity dissolves into the homogeneous vastness of a flat world. It no longer preserves itself as a separate subject, and any possible differentiation is in appearance only. Indeed, diversity requires differentiation, in both appearance and content. Nations must strive to maintain multipolar identity in a present unipolar world. If multipolarity actually manifests in the international realm or not is another issue entirely. Differentiation should not be presumed to be a destructive or negative element. Quite the contrary, differentiation is what defines and contrasts. Without differentiation there is no beauty, no attributes, no meaning or purpose. A nation that aspires to dissolve into the ‘oneness of universalism’ or abstract ‘humanity’ is a nation driven to suicide; solidification giving way to the ‘Other’, dissolving into the vastness, ceasing to be.