Nationalism is Limited Government by Design

Throughout political discussions you begin to see that the uniting principle for the right, at least in America, is that they worship the idea of limited government. This piece was prompted by some Steven Crowder talking points and a few other prominent Right-wing Youtubers. They have fetishized the idea of limited government and anything that they perceive as counter to that they oppose.

This plays out in all the political ideas from Neo-Cons all the way to Anarcho-capitalism. They all seek to limit government in one way or another. While limited government is not the only argument of the right in America, it has become a huge sticking point for many sects of the right. Especially when it comes to the idea of Nationalism.

I believe that in order to convince enough people on the right that nationalism is the route to follow, we need to show that nationalism is not a means to a larger state or that it requires big government to enforce. The idea of big government is rarely discussed on the nationalist right, but we should use it to bring the cucks over.

While there have been large governments in the past with nationalist sentiments, that does not mean that nationalism is a means to big government. In fact it is the opposite. Nationalism is the anti-thesis to big government.

In order to understand this claim you have to have a solid definition of nation and by extension nationalism. According to Oxforddictionaries.com’s definition:

A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.

The important part of that is the, “people united by common descent, history, culture or language.” A nation is a group of people not borders. The politically enforced borders of a landmass is a country. According to Oxford Dictionaries, a country is:

A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
‘the country’s increasingly precarious economic position’.

I feel like this clarification isn’t needed, but I constantly hear this annoying misconception. It’s not ever stated explicitly, but when you hear someone discuss America they inevitably will say, “the American nation is a nation of immigrants” or something to that effect. They of course mean country instead of nation, because the make up of a nation can’t be 100 different ethnicity’s. A nation is one group of people. America is many nations.

Then to say you’re a nationalist is simply a defense of a group of people. This is why civic nationalism is nonsensical. Laws and regulations can’t make a people.

In fact the civic nationalist is more of a statist than a nationalist by definition. A nationalist defines his people through organic means, but a civic nationalist uses the state to define his. The civic nationalist then increases the size and power of the state to lord over his people by defining them. The nationalist lets his people define themselves.

When considering the formulation of a country, one must have a means of governance. Be it through the state or other means, somehow a society will have leadership and protections in order to have an organized society that will stand the test of time. When building up these institutions would it be easier to have a voluntary populace or one that need constant policing? Of course the voluntary populace will be best as it requires less effort to govern.

With that in mind think about America as it currently stands with many different nations. There are going to be groups of people that do not get along. In fact many of them will carry out atrocious acts against each other. Being as my favorite Libertarian once called this problem the  “bad neighbor problem.” Reducing and attending to such events would require massive state intervention as we see in the California example of Hispanic gangs attempting to genocide blacks. Group conflicts in America are only getting worse since that 2007 article.

Do you believe that blacks voluntered to be genocided? Did Hispanics volunteer to be pushed into ethnic conflict? No, of course not, but they are in that position because of the excessive use of government to cash in on their cheap labor.

Did the founding stock of America, W.A.S.P’s, volunteer to be replaced by Hispanics? Did the peoples of Europe volunteer to be replaced with Muslims? No, of course not. All of these types of “diversity” campaigns only serve to increase the police state and government power.

Don’t believe me? Ask yourself, “how come after a terrorist attack in the US or Europe they enact stricter laws to prevent terrorism, but it still happens?”. Why after 9/11 did the US government pass the Patriot act to listen in on its citizens, only to have more terror attacks. All the while allowing more Muslims into the US.

Also, think about the war on drugs. Where do the majority of the drugs in the US come from? South and Central America. Then if the US truly was conducting such a war, would it allow people from these regions into the US? No, it is a power grab.

Nationalism eschews all of these issues. You have one people and one country. This makes having the dream of voluntary society that much easier as everyone would have the same language, traditions, religions, mean intelligence, fears, and beliefs on government style.

The number of laws and regulations that a government would need to enact for this group of people would be minimal. The taxation to fund this government too would be minimal and in all reality nationalism is the way to a limited government. Standing against nationalism is a stand against limited government and freedom.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s