I am opposed to nationalism. The concept is collectivist in nature and throughout history it has had devastating consequences. It is not possible to put American citizens first and have a nationalist theme. Because nationalism is collectivist, it is a virulent form of putting the individual's importance beneath the nation (dictatorship) rather than free and alone. Eventually, regardless of the intent of the nationalist to save his nation (Hitler also said he was trying to save his nation), the result is a devastated nation, isolated and in ruins. Please, we must challenge this nonsensical perspective. The only proper nation is one in which the individual is autonomous and free. The opposite of nationalism is individual rights. Limited government is the key, not one man rule.
Below is a quote on nationalism from an excellent book cited below.
"Ethnic nationalism appeals more often than not to primary instincts of unity and identification with one’s own group: foreigners are often seen as vicious destabilizers, dishonest breakers of traditions, and agents of dissolution. Nationalism, indeed, sanctifies tradition, once described by Gilbert K. Chesterton as the “right to vote granted to the dead people.” Especially in times of social frustration, foreigners tend to be demonized and scapegoated. A Ukrainian nationalist, for instance, would see Russians (or Jews) as forever conspiring to undermine Ukraine’s independence and prosperity. A Romanian would regard members of the Hungarian minority as belonging to a unified body perpetually involved in subversive and irredentist activities. A Croatian militant nationalist would never trust Serbs, while Serbian ethnic fundamentalists would involve Croatia’s alliance with Nazi Germany as an argument against trust and ethnic coexistence. Estonian, Latvian, or Lithuanian nationalism are colored by the memory of the Soviet (and previously Russian) occupations of the Baltic states. National discourses not only preserve a sense of ethnic identity but also continuously “reinvent the tradition” (Hobsbawm), regenerate historical mythology, infuse an infra-rational, transcendental content into a sense of national identity. During imperial collapse, nationalism becomes an ideological balm used to calm sentiments of despondency and rage.
“With its shattered identities and wavering loyalties, the post-Communist world allowed delusional xenophobic fantasies to thrive and capture the imagination of millions of disaffected individuals. National homogenization became the battle cry of political elites, for whom unity and cohesion were the ultimate values. The Leninist exclusionary logic (“us” versus “them”) has been replaced by the nationalist vision, which sanctifies the ethnic in-group and demonizes “aliens.” Those who criticize this trend are immediately stigmatized as a “fifth column” made up of “inside enemies.” For the late Croatian president, Franjo Tudjman, for instance, it was only the intellectuals supportive of the “national spirit and self-determination” who deserved the name of intelligentsia. All others, he maintained, were just Pharisees. The continuous invention of enemies and hatreds aggravates the climate of insecurity and makes many honest individuals despair about the future of their societies.” - The Devil in History, Vladimir Tismaneanu, Hardcover, University of California Press, Page 187. https://amzn.to/2Q856cz
