Patriotism, not nationalism, is the ideal political attachment. The patriot is proud of and happy about his country and the variety of cultures, languages, races, institutions, estates and classes, traditions and opinions it harbors. The nationalist is in danger of considering himself (as part of a collective unit) superior to the members of other nationalities (ethnic groups). He comes dangerously close to the racist. His loyalties have taken on a horizontal rather than a vertical character.
Nationalism is a “natural” tendency: the nation is the cultural group one is born into (natus). The patriot, however, takes a supranatural, an ethical stand. He vows loyalty and affection to the country of his birth, of his forebears, or to an adopted fatherland. Indeed, there are great countries on this globe which have grown by virtue of choice and adoption on the part of their citizens rather than by birthrates.
Nationalism (and racism) have repeatedly created dissent, rebellion, and wars. The modern “popular” mass-war has ideological or nationalistic roots and sometimes even racist undertones.
-Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, The Portland Declaration Article 21
The War for Christendom 
Have you read FreeNortherner’s article on ‘Thedism’. I highly recommend it.
http://freenortherner.com/tag/thedism/
LikeLike
I have, and while it certainly has its merits, I don’t think that it allows enough for the multilayered identities and interactions that are the result of Civilization. I will go into more depth in a later post, but I think that ultimately attempts to build unity based on Culture will fail for two reasons. Firstly that Culture is something much more organic than either politics or civilization, something growing, changing, and subdividing too quickly to be a stable basis. (However, within the framework of Civilization, cultures are shaped somewhat by the cultural “form” of the Civilization, which is primarily moral. Besides which all Cultures do hold at least some of those elements which are the Common heritage of Mankind.) Secondly, “thedes” as proposed would exist on too small a scale (especially if divided by National schisms as cultures become more localized) to resist the threat of a more unified Civilization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You might want to check this article out before your next post:
https://neociceroniantimes.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/two-kinds-of-nationalism/
LikeLike
Thank you for the suggestion. I would first note that the author focuses on Greek understandings of words, while ignoring the fact that Latin has both the word Natio and Gens. Secondly, the emphasis on Culture, which is as I have said, something that changes more quickly than the stable and moral basis of law and jurisdiction. And finally, I would like to point you to the explanation of the necessity of ordering society along “international” or interpatrial lines in the Thomistic Manual of Henri Genier.
LikeLike
Pingback: On the Current Crisis | The War for Christendom
Pingback: Was there ever a “Medieval Nationalism”? | The War for Christendom