We interact with different levels of community in different ways. As the saying goes, "I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers." Unlike the monostructure of fascist thinking, which provides globalists like yourself with a strawman to use against real nationalists, I don't define myself by any one thing.
As for your objection, well, nationstates are usually defined by cultural and narrative similarities. We can see that that is enough for members of groups as similar as British and Americans to form tight diaspora bonds in each country.
I agree, they are so defined. But "defined" is a verb, and a verb implies an actor. Who is doing the defining? Who defines what differences can be accommodated by the bonds of nationhood, and which are themselves constitutive of national difference? What makes a person a Tajik rather than an Iranian? How was it decided that Russia should be so very big, and Montenegro so very small? Who decided that language is enough to provide for distinct nationality among Frenchmen and Dutchmen, but not Walloons and Flemings? Why are the Ulstermen true blue Brits or wayward Irishmen, depending on who you ask? If people cannot apply a coherent standard across cases, and cannot even agree on which standards to use in a given case, then we're looking at some rather less than a science.
You seem to acknowledge that the nationalist claim to represent a unique level of cultural significance is dubious, but you avoid saying as much, and also appeal to the upstanding character of "real nationalists", among whom you presumably count yourself. So how do you reconcile all this? I think the appeal to "narrative similarities" is likely to figure into your response, but does that not concede that the nation is not, if not artificial, then something
invented, and therefore difficulty to see as the natural, organic and authentic community you want us to perceive it as?
(Also, let's all take a moment to reflect on the surrealness of a Jew calling a European with at least nationalist-adjacent politics a "globalist". It would give your average Stormfronter an aneurysm.
)
You got all that just from my one example?
Well, from your entire posting history, at least from the last year or so.
Look, stop calling yourself Scottish already. We happen to have different beliefs, we come from different landmasses, and were raised in different cultures, but that's clearly no reason to apply any labels. Because of our ancestry? That's Nazi stuff, man.
Scottish national identity is quite interesting in that it's fairly explicitly
historical. The Scotland exists because it has existed for as long as anyone can remember. I think people tend to miss this because it's adopted a lot of the
trappings of ethnic and cultural nationalism, and liberal objections that Scottish nationalism is purely civic remain unconvincing because tradition and history are clearly very important in defining Scotland and Scottishness. From what I understand, this is fairly similar to how Sweden, Denmark and Norway tend to think of themselves, and how the English might think of themselves if they ever crawl out from under the baggage of their failed empire.
Speaking for myself, I believe that Scottish nationality is a simply empirical question. Scotland exists, because it clearly does. It hasn't always existed, and we might expect that it may one day cease to exist. It embodies no absolute principle, it simply
is.
