The ‘national’ character of nearly all modern political programs is being supplanted by what we only have recourse to call the ‘hyper-national,’ meaning that political statements in the media sphere of the Information Age have both a latent or actual virality (reproducing themselves across multiple platforms at a high rate of transmission), creating a fluctuating pastiche of related content which remains semantically ‘open’ to a wide array of interpretations—‘takes’—, and a kind of inability on the part of any one of us viral ‘hosts’ to ascertain a total view of the political ecosystem. There very well may be dominant strains or not; there may well be equilibrium or outright confusion; but whosoever finds themselves involved in the political discourses proliferating today will either believe their side on the ascendant or to be utterly deprived of outlets for expression. Even when objectivity is sought in making sense of the entire semantic environment in which a discourse appears, one seldom finds anything but an incomplete or mistaken view.
What does this mean for professedly ‘national-ist’ political projects? The shortcomings of actors involved in these projects may be just as acute as those of their counterparts in other groups, if not more so. The increasingly transnational character of these projects may also prove to be a false marker of the actual spread and impact of the discourses so considered in this critique.
It should be at this point no shock that our people, by and large, do not have the wherewithal to make accurate judgements about the actual current state of the impact of their own efforts. This is at once assuring and troubling: for however hopeless seems our situation, our ideas disseminate quite far afield; yet, it is also the case that we may have overestimated the relevance of our own positions for the mainstream, and the habit of delusion being such as to perpetuate itself despite all reasonable arguments against it, our people find themselves isolated, estranged, and witnesses only to their own frustrations.
Nationalism, as a popular project, has in many ways run its course. It has become anachronistic, irrelevant, and even ridiculous. It will reattain currency when its votaries can be convinced that the nation has yet to be built, and is not something that already exists by nature. This is the common misconception among the so-called nationalists. They believe that if only their nation be preserved from incursions (culturally, phenomenologically) that an ideal state can be maintained. Rather, it must be the aim of any sober—that is, realistic—‘nationalist’ movement to build the very nation they claim to represent. That is, nationalism must necessarily serve revolutionary ends. The nation is a great work of art—irreducible in the final analysis to political-scientific formulations and abstracta—and like any work of art, requires vision, and a sense for the future, more than anything else, to be created.