It worked, clan houses were extremely strong mutual-aid organizations, where you had common religious rituals, found help in finding a mate for your children or some capital for your business. All based on a lie.

I don’t get Identitarianism. It seems to me that relatedness is relative. If I’m surrounded by two-headed space aliens, pretty soon the one-headed space aliens are going to start looking like kin. If I’m surrounded by northern Europeans, pretty soon the distinction between Swedes and Norwegians is going to start looking important. The question I would have for prospective neighbors is, “Can I trust you?” Saying that our ancestors came from the same country doesn’t get me very far towards being able to answer that.

I think our host said that any traditionalism that will succeed must be ‘neo traditionalism’. The same goes for Identitarianism — it must be ‘neo’ as well.

When they approach the problem as ‘let’s all get us similar/family related folks together and form an enclave’ doesn’t answer questions of Tradition or Governance (since traditions usually vary amongst even relatively small ethnic groups, and most people do not have governing experience or theory.)

The result of this is that they adopt the traditions and values most commonly thought to ‘work’ or to not cause problems and maybe get the USG’s structure to react against them and ensure their demise. So you get waffly semi-religion and heavy Social Democracy.

These states, because they inherently are ‘adapting to’ the USG’s Modern Structure as the Law of Gnon, are subject to the stability of that law. While the laws of necessity are utterly stable and only mutable by pure Authority, (there are no truly immutable laws) the laws of the USG and the implicit laws of its Modern Structure only provide carrots and sticks so long as there are carrots and sticks to be provided via the USG’s guarantee (the dollar?)

Needless to say, building one’s house on the sand of the USG’s system is foolhardy even if the only rocks available are high, cold and windswept.

This aint about nationalism, this is about the cathedralized government doing its favorite thing – wasting tax money. Your average venetian doesn’t give a single fuck about all this nationalism sovereignty and w/e crap. Just don’t waste his tax money.

(Don’t tax me, bro. Don’t tax me.)

It should tell you something that even goddamn Bhutan is holding elections.

Basically today you have to be a progressive democracy, preferably a republic, else USG will refuse to play with you. And everybody wants to play with USG.

Which is why in the end nationalism is a red herring. Who gives a shit if Scotland or Veneto go independent. Call me when they close the legislature and throw the Somalis back to the sea.

There are (at least) two very different proposed mechanisms for regime diversification, and they confusingly point in different directions. (a) Ethnic identitarianism could rise, producing division into ever more particular enclaves. (b) Ethnic identitarianism could diminish, freeing people to locate according to ideological preference (roughly, Dynamic Geography). It seems to me the latter is more intrinsically divergent than the former, but the opposite case is certainly arguable. Some mix of ethnic and ideological disintegration would surely maximize variation.

I agree that there are a LOT of yawning gaps to fill in before we’re looking at convincing arguments.

ne. Expecting universal solutions is a weird prog legacy many NRx still prone to. (Not accusing you of that, naturally (to use a passive-aggressive NBS locution)).

You might have noticed that regime diversity isn’t as common as it used to be? Not that it ever was very common.

The historical trend is towards big neighbors bullying their small neighbors into adopting their political structures. And thus uniformity. Nobody has bothered to explain how the Hundred Flowers will suddenly Bloom and this anomalously tolerant Patchwork of states will celebrate diversity.