If there should prove to be a core purpose of NRx, it is the restoration of a pre-ideological framework for considering issues. Rather than the contemporary situation in which cohesive, internally consistent ideologues compete with the expressed purpose of temporary rent-seeking at the expense of the governed in exchange for platitudes, NRx is concerned with the nature of government itself, and finding a model of government that produces optimal results. Knowing from contemporary experience that this cannot be democratic, but still must remain at least casually demophilic, Moldbuggian neo-cameralism is the orthodox position endorsed by this blog.
With this in mind, ideological nationalism should never be a part of NRx. Nationalism is a construct that seeks to shoehorn an artificial unity over a people, against their rulers. It is an inherently democratic phenomenon, and one with limited regard for the people it rules at that. On the occasion of his murder, King Charles I said:
For the people. And truly I desire their Liberty and Freedom as much as any Body whomsoever. But I must tell you, That their Liberty and Freedom, consists in having of Government; those Laws, by which their Life and their Gods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government (Sir) that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a soveraign are clean different things, and therefore until they do that, I mean, that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves.
The tendency for nationalist ideology to be used to dispose of legitimate authority cannot be disputed, whether in the German Empire or elsewhere. It is well known in reactionary circles that where a ruler comes from is far less important than either how he rules or the simple fact that he does rule.
However, the construction of nationalism is based on the simple reality that, as a general rule, the area in which you live would be the one in which you share the most common ancestors, prior to the advent of modernity. NRx is still reactionary, in that it seeks to rebuild the fences we find broken and electrify the ones we find intact.
As an aside, the sneaky Socrates is my least favourite debate method to see, as it is almost always used in bad faith. To use the sneaky Socrates is to place yourself on top of a mountain that everyone who disagrees must surmount before they can even begin to engage with the material. It is used to say nothing, set the scope of the debate, become status quo, and shift all responsibility onto those you disagree with, who probably ought just to ignore you. If you ask a question, but have an preconceived answer to that question that you are too lazy to articulate, just don’t. If you have a position that you want to discuss, state and support it, and enter a good faith debate over whether or not you are right. The Socratic method should only be used didactically, never when you are seriously interested in a conversation among equals.
Glib not-so-sneaky-Socrates moments aside, animals do act in ways that improve their unique genes chances of replicating. Animals are more likely to sacrifice themselves for a family member than for a non-family member, and for a closer relation than a more distant one. Of course mammals don’t assess every other animal in the area and establish some fatuous hierarchy of similarity for which they would sacrifice themselves for should the need arise. Of course they are broadly disinterested in another mammal if the latter dying increases the chances that the former will pass on its genes.
Even the lack of propensity to kill members of your species in competition for mating rights demonstrates that sacrificing species members is generally not adaptive. Perhaps it speaks to the smaller population sizes of animals, or the relatedness of localised populations of species that violence between groups of humans that generally shared more ancestors intra-group than inter-group has proven to be so adaptive, and why fictionalised accounts of Aryan Germans and promises of land in which to spread your offspring to proved both popular with the masses and wildly potent as an ideology with which to galvanise seemingly (and traditionally) disparate people together, unless we forget how short a period of time a united Germany has existed.
To suggest that animals do not exhibit pro-genetic altruism, especially towards closely related members, or that mutually beneficial predator defence does not exist between species is ridiculous. Equally, to suggest that generalisations cannot be made about the various human races is ridiculous. Not all of the issues surrounding the problem of diversity are rooted in genetics. Rather, the fact that diversity causes social problems regardless of genetic justification is sufficient cause for scepticism.
If I was to suggest a NRx compatible position, it would simply be that generally, it should be expected that in any given area, one would find more overlapping family trees, and that leftists should be entitled to neither eliminate nor enforce this situation. Over time, there will always be human movement, and it is undesirable to simply exclude all potential migrants because of an overblown, artificial sense of group identity. High trust societies will inevitably be abused by members from low trust societies, even if physical/ genetic justification for concentric loyalty peters out after more than a couple of movements. That we understand inherited genetic variation does fade into the background noise of the broader population should not be considered a justification for insanity. To suggest that having a large and growing segment of a population from the Third World, with utterly foreign ways, and no desire or ability to cause their assimilation is unprofitable, and therefore undesirable. While white nationalists and Wilmot Robertson ethno-statists are problematic, they are basically powerless. Anti-nationalist progressives, that is to say progressives who actively seek to replace white majorities with non-white populations are in power, and therefore hugely dangerous.
And if NRx is the intellectual status quo ante immunised against the revolutionary virus, there must be a place for common ancestry in it as a general rule. To try and remove any vestige of ethno-centricism from neoreaction would be to render it not reactionary.