Predictive History - The Story of "Civilization", "Secret History", "Game Theory" and more - Civilization #58 - Birth of the Nation-State

Episode Date: October 7, 2025

Civilization #58 - Birth of the Nation-State

So good morning. We have three more classes. The first class we are doing today is on the nation state. Next Tuesday we will do the Soviet Union and then the last class next Thursday will be the immigrant empire. And that will do it for the year. 60 classes we've covered the entire span of human history. So today we are doing the nation state. Nation state is composed of two words, nation and state. State is easy to understand, it is just the supreme executive authority sovereign to a territory. The nation is a new idea and it's the idea of a people with a shared identity, whether it's a language or a culture or history or ethnicity.

Okay, so for example, the Jews were for the longest time a nation or the state. It was only until the founding of Israel that the Jews had a nation state. Today, there are many people, including the Kurds, who are people living in the Middle East. They are a nation, but they don't have a state. Okay? And this idea of the nation state, it is probably the most powerful ideology in human history. It has led people to tremendous achievements, but it has also led people to catastrophic wars, including World War I and World War II. All right. All right, so first thing I want to do is go over

where this idea comes from. And in many ways, it is the culmination, culmination of different religious, economic, and social-cultural factors. Okay? So let's look at them individually, religion. All right. So as we discussed last class, with the Protestant Reformation, there is now a crisis of faith. Because Christianity creates the idea of the individual, the individual is in direct connection with God.

Before, the church would mediate this connection. So you didn't have to worry about God. You just have to worry about the church. If you did what the church told you, you could be promised entry into heaven. The Protestant Reformation removes the Catholic Church from the equation. Now you are in direct communion with God.

And you must show absolute faith if you were to achieve salvation. And so this creates a crisis of faith Because as an individual, how do you know you truly believe in God? You know you love your mothers, but do you love your mother every single day all the time? Probably not, okay? But in religion, you cannot doubt God ever. You can never throw a temper tantrum at God, or you will be sent to hell.

So it creates this conflict, okay? And historically there have been different solutions to this problem. So the first solution that you have proposed is the idea of money. Let's just replace God with money. And that gives us the idea of capitalism. The Calvinists believe this. Like God is money, money is God. If you accumulate enough wealth, then that shows your absolute faith in God and God's love for you.

So that's the idea of money. Then people have said, nope, God is reason. So as long as you pursue reason, as long as you show enlightenment, then that shows your faith in God. And this gives us the idea of the enlightenment, as well as liberalism. Then others have said, nope, God is the individual itself. Okay, so as long as you believe in yourself, as long as you engage in a process of self-discovery and self-growth, then that will lead you into heaven. And this was most famously proposed, and we discussed this last class by Freud and Eune. And this has become the basis for we call modernism, right?

which is still with us today. And then there's proposed another solution to this problem, and it's the idea that God is in the nation. And it turns out that of all these ideas, the most powerful, the most resilient, the most enduring is this idea, that by celebrating your nation, you are celebrating your faith in God.

Why? Because the other solutions propose a problem. And the problem it creates is the individual is still isolated from others. It still creates a problem of alienation. And the nation solves this problem, right? Because a nation has to be, by definition, a community of individuals with a shared identity. So the nation is the perfect solution because it both solves a problem of religion and it solves a problem of politics and community.

In fact, the nation is the conflation of both religion and politics. And that's why historically, it has been the most emotionally, emotionally, the most powerful idea. Does that make sense? So from a religious purpose, the nation state solves the problem of faith and alienation. All right. Now, let's look at economics. So during this time, you have the Industrial Revolution. And there are many issues created by the Industrial Revolution.

The first problem is you need to constantly expand because you need markets and resources, right? So expansion. Another thing in this is that you need to engage in imperialism. Another problem created by the problem of the Industrial Revolution is the rise of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie. Historically, it was the priests and the warriors who were the elite of society. But now with the Industrial Revolution, the bourgeoisie, the industrialists and the capitalists, are now the new elite. And as such, they obviously want more political power.

But what they really want is property rights. They want to be assured that the wealth they've generated can be protected and inherited by their children and their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren. Now the problem is this. The problem is the system of the monarchy cannot really ensure property rights. And the reason why is the king can be overfrown, okay? Their stock is that can be overgrown. overgrown and this is what happens throughout European history but the nation state cannot be overgrown right does that make sense so the nation state is a

solution to the problem of property rights for the partial of Z also the nation state has the resources to engage in imperialism and it has the desire to engage in imperialism Monarchies are usually pretty conservative. They like to maintain their position, and they will form alliances in order to maintain their position. The nation state is aggressive and expansionist and imperiless. Does that make sense?

So in an economic perspective, the nation state solves a problem of created by the Industrial Revolution. So that's the economic factor. Then let's look at the social-cultural factor, social-cultural aspect of this. So what's happening because of the Industrial Revolution is that people are moving from the towns, sorry, I said this wrong,

people are going from the villages to the cities. You have this massive process of urbanization. Also because in the revolution, there's more trade. There's another market, right? So these goods are proliferating throughout the entire country. And this creates the idea of systemization and centralization. And you have mobility of people, of goods, and of ideas.

The mobility, and then you have new technology, right? Not just in factories and not just in like steamships. but also in print. And this spreads literacy and information. So think of this as just the beginning of globalization, right? In China, we're inundated with new ideas all the time because of the Internet, because of access to the world. But for people, for most people, this can be frustrating and bewildering.

and it creates psychological issues, primarily the idea of enemy. Enemy just means a loss of sense of cultural rootedness. As things change, you don't know how to adapt to the change. Your values are based on the past. You're not sure if your values can confront the future, okay? Also, alienation. alienation just means a sense of powerlessness, a powerlessness, you lack agency.

These changes are happening so fast and so quickly, you don't know if you can control these changes. Also, this enchantment, this enchantment. This enchantment means all these changes are dehumanizing. You're becoming just a caulk and machine. You're becoming no more than a machine. In today's world, AI could possibly replace us all. So it's creating all this doubt, all this confusion.

And the nation state, okay, so there are different solutions to this. There's communism, there's liberalism, and then there's nationalism. And for people, okay, all three ideas are appealing, but, um, Communism preaches the idea of international solidarity, right? Which can be for people even more confusing. Liberalism preaches the idea of individual rights. But if you're poor, the right to speak, the right to organize does not really apply to you. And the fact of the matter is that most are poor.

But nationalism, the fact that we are one group of people in a struggle against other groups of people, this is powerful. This is appealing. Also, if you think about it, nationalism can absorb other ideas. You can be both a nationalist and a liberal. And in fact, most people were. You can also be a nationalist and a communist, which was what Joseph Stalin proposed, right? And that's what Muslim proposed. So nationalism is the one ideology that can absorb and control all other ideologies.

Does that make sense? So for these three particular reasons, religious transformation, economic transformation and social cultural transformation, the nation state became the best idea of that time. And it spread really quickly. All right. So let's talk about widespread. Okay. To understand widespread so quickly, let's talk about game theory.

Game theory. So let's imagine, let's do a thought experiment and say there are millions of us playing a game. It doesn't matter what game we're playing. It can be like checkers, it can be chess. It could be Monopoly, it could be a game of tag, it doesn't matter, but there are millions of us individually playing this game. We're all individual players.

The problem is this, the problem is that if maybe a group of us, maybe three or four or five, they decide that they will coordinate, they're gonna play the game together. Maybe because they're family, maybe because they're friends, it doesn't matter why. But the moment they decide to play as a group, this automatically forces everyone else, to group together.

Okay, and I say I give the nation state. The moment that France decide where a nation state, that forces everyone else, Germany, Russia, Italy, to become nation states as well. Because otherwise, you're going to lose this game, right? The other thing that's really important for us to remember about this theory is this. To win this game now as a nation state, it does not actually matter your size. What matters is your cohesion.

how well you're willing to work together to play this game, right? Or maybe unity of will. So for example, maybe there's a bar fight between four brothers and ten strangers. Well, I would bet the four brothers are more likely to win than the ten strangers, right? Because ten strangers don't really know each other, they don't really care. There's not much at stake here. The four brothers need to protect each other, and they love each other. And so they're going to fight a lot harder.

They're going to fight to the death. Whereas the 10 strangers, if they feel, they're going to lose, they're going to run away. So that's the idea of the nation state. What determines the strength of a nation state is unity of will, cohesion, not size, not wealth, not territory. That's really important to remember. Does that make sense? Okay.

So the idea of the nation state comes from. from two different sources. The first is the Enlightenment. The second is Romanticism. Okay, so to summarize, to recap, the Enlightenment is this major intellectual trend happening in 17th and 18th and 19th century Europe at this time, right?

The spread of reason as a god. The spread of science, of literacy, of three thinking, of debate. Romanticism is something we didn't really talk that much about, but romanticism is a direct response to the problems created by Romanticism, sorry, by the Enlightenment. Because Enlightenment preaches the idea of science, of social forces, of an idea called the theism, which is God has set the rules of the game, he's left us, and we're free to play the game. And this creates a lot of anxiety in people.

So Romantics were a movement to respond to the problems created by Enlightenment. So they focus more on nature rather than science. They believe that there's a divine power to nature that we can access by embracing it. They believed in the idea of individual will to change the course of history, that the individual, that we are stronger than the historical social forces of the around us and they rejected materialism they were they were very spiritual okay and now the romantics are a huge movement of people have you studied this before okay so I don't want to generalize too much okay but the Romantics were

response to the Enlightenment thinkers okay so from the Enlightenment we have Rousseau and Rousseau so I'm sorry I'm sorry Miseriegel We saw, remember, wrote a book called the Social Contract. And in the book, he argued that as individuals, we are born free with inedible rights, like the right to life and liberty. We choose to surrender some of these rights in order for more safety and security and wealth possibilities, okay? So the people come together and it creates something called the general will, which is the

collective mind of the people. And from the general will you will have the government. The government exists in order to serve the general will which serves the people. Does that make sense? The government exists in order to protect individual rights of people, to ensure their happiness. They're insured their well-being. This is where Abraham Lincoln gets a famous phrase, all the people, by the people, for the people.

He is just reiterating the idea of Rousseau. And this, of course, is implemented by the French Revolution. Napoleon and the French. French, France. And the general will becomes manifest in the nation state. Does that make sense? So we're so proposed the idea and actually discussed. The French Revolution implements this idea and gives us the first iteration of the nation state.

Now, this is really successful because what it does is it conceives of a country as a unified whole, almost as a body, as a body. almost as a body. This is new in human history, because before, in the monarchy, the monarch, the people and the military were all separate. In fact, it was very common at the time for monarchs to hire foreign mercenaries

to fight their wars. The people weren't really engaged in war. But now that, in the French Revolution, when you can see the nation, the country as you have a whole, you can now draw the people to become your soldiers and in fact when you do this you can create almost an infinite supply of soldiers and because the people believe that they're fighting for themselves they're more motivated they're more energetic they're more willing to sacrifice themselves than for mercenaries who are just in it for the money and that's why the French Revolution was able to

spread throughout Europe and basically conquer Europe including Spain Italy and Germany But once the French conquered most of Europe, it now stirs resentment against the French. Because before, these were three independent people who had control over local matters. And now the French were coming and posing a new political, economic, and so-so regime on them. And there were foreign troops, French troops, to make sure that you had to obey. So this creates a lot of resentment. And the people's response was to create their own form of nationalism, but in response to French nationalism.

So now they're being influenced by romanticism. And in romanticism, their response is this. There is a culture, and it gives us a people. So from the beginning, there are no individuals. There's only a culture. And so it creates a community. And the people, their responsibility is to protect their culture, to enhance the culture, to spread the culture.

And the best way to do this is through the nation state. So this gives us a different interpretation of the nation state. And because the French are now imposing their culture on our indigenous culture, then we have responsibility as a people to rebel and fight back. And this will give us German nationalism. So it's the Germans who first proposed this idea, but then it spreads to Italy as well. So these are two extremely different interpretations of nationalism. In the French interpretation, which is also supported by the Americans and the British,

the nation exists to protect individual rights. In the second interpretation, a romantic German interpretation, the nation state exists in order to protect a culture. Because it's culture that gives life to people. What the Germans will say is, the culture is something that you don't think of, it's already in your blood. Does that make sense? Okay, so that's a general introduction.

We need questions before I move on to specific examples and evidence. Okay, great. So we're going to summarize and look at the origins of the nation state, okay? All right, so really important is to understand the nation state replaces the monarchy. Okay, and there are three fundamental differences that I want you to remember and emphasize. The first is for the monarchy, the bureaucracy is ultimate authority. Why? Because the bureaucracy is what represents the monarch, right?

But in the nation state, it's the people or the culture. In a monarchy, the elite are the aristocracy, those that have been rewarded by the monarch. But in the nation state, it's usually the bourgeoisie that are the elite, okay? The industrialist, the capitalist. The monarchy, it's pretty flexible because it is really about shifting alliances, right? Monarchs cooperate with other monarchs to maintain the peace and to prevent other monarchs from coaching on their territory. And as a result, the monarchs tend to be conservative people.

They like the way things as they are. And they work towards that, okay? So after France Revolution, there's something called a Congress of Vienna in 1815, where the monarchs of Europe basically decided to never fight again. And this was a successful model until 1848, when the people rebelled against them. Okay? And the nation state, because it is almost like a new religion.

It wants standardization and systemization. It wants everyone to buy into the nation state. And as a result, it's expensive. It's either expensive outwards or it's expensive inwards. Okay. Does that make sense, guys? All right. All right, so let's look at some evidence or support for this argument.

So this is a really good book called Seeing Like a State by James Scott, published by Yale University Press. Fantastic book, okay? If you are interested in this stuff, I highly recommend you read this book. And he explains how the nation state comes about because of systemization and civilization created by all the social forces happening in Europe at this time, okay? So let's just read quickly what he wrote. Three factors in the end conspired to make what Kula calls the metrical revolution possible.

So the fact that we use the meter that came about during this time. First, the growth of market exchange encouraged uniformity in measures. So capitalism. Second, both popular sentiment and enlightenment philosophy favored a single standard throughout France. Enlightenment. Finally, the revolution, especially Napoleon, the, the, the revolution, the, the, the The Napoleonic state building actually enforced the metric system in France and the empire. So we're just summarizing what we discussed in the first section.

And then Scott summarizes, the homogenization of measures then was part of a larger mandatory simplification. At one stroke, the equality of all French people before the law was guaranteed by the state. They were no longer mere subjects of the Lord and sovereign, but bears of illienable rights as citizens. So this is just repeating what I just said, which is the main purpose of the French Revolution was created a nation state that guaranteed individual rights. This is imagining communities by Benamek Anderson. And again, he goes into why the nation state was born and how it spread.

And he explains what made the new communities imaginable was a half-forteous that explosive in action between a system of production and productive relations, capitalism, technology of communications, print, the fatality of human linguistic diversity. Okay? So what he means by that is that at Europe at this time, there really is no conception of the idea of a national language. Everyone just spoke what's local to them. There's also no conception of race. We discussed this. Race is a really new concept that is that is that is that was alien to most people. Okay. But now that you have, print you're able to spread language and you're able to create a national

language and this is key to the nation state because print and language allows people to think the same way and to imagine a shared history right because culture it's all just made up history it's all just made up there's something real in it okay and because of this it's destroyed linguistic diversity. So if you go to France in the year 1800 and you go from village to village, they would speak different languages, right? All right, this is too long to read, okay, but I'll just summarize and what he says is this Before the nation state, the elite of Europe, the way they communicate with each other is through inner marriage, and as a result, there really wasn't a

a sense of national identity. But now, with the rise of print technology, there's now a separation, because you spoke your own language. And this is important because the bourgeoisie are the new elite. And in theory, they would want to move their capital around Europe.

They would want to move to places where the capital would be more safe, where it would be most productive, right? But the idea of a national language, which prevents them from doing that. Does that make sense? Great. All right.

John Dr. R. Rousseau, we talked about, we're just going to read a couple sentences from his book of social contract. Each of us puts his person and all his power and common under the same direction of the general will in our corporate capacity. We see each member as an individual part of the whole. Okay?

But I'm wrong to speak of a Christian republic. Those two terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches. only servitude and independent its spirit is so favorable to tyranny that it always profits by such a regime genuine Christians are made to be slaves and they know it and don't mind much this short life counts for too little in their eyes okay so this is the theory of the separation of church and state all right this is the beginning of the idea of separation of church and state

it's one of fundamental ideas of the French Republic and that's why in today there's so much antagonism between between Islamists and the government, okay? Because Islamists want to maintain their tradition, they want to wear the hijab, they want to maintain their cultural customs. But the French nation prevents them from doing so in public places and in schools, okay?

So as we discussed, Napoleon will spread French enlightenment principles throughout Europe. In 2005, he defeats both the Russians and the Austrians, the Austrians at the Battle of Austellates. And at this point, Napoleon should be made Holy Roman Emperor. He should be made Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire as his tradition. But the Emperor at that time decides, you know what, rather than give up the throne to Napoleon, I'm just going to dissolve this Confederation, the Empire.

And this was a major blow to these people. Because the empire, in their minds, existed for a thousand years. since Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire is direct here to the Roman Empire. So for a lot of these intellectuals living in the Holy Roman Empire, this was extremely embarrassing. The Napoleon will create something called the Confederation of the Rhine, which replaces the Holy Roman Empire and it's basically a vassal state to the French, okay? And this will antagonize a lot of the Germans because they feel as though their culture, their history, it is a being eroded. But at this time, this is really important. The Germans don't have a sense

of Germanness. They don't really have a sense of a national identity. So what will happen is to count on the French, German intellectuals will attempt to create a new German national identity. This is Ernst, he's a poet. And he believes that this new identity should be fashioned like this. Let the animality of your hearts be your church. be one people and let this nation be our religion let hatred of the French be your religion let freedom and fatherland be your saints to whom you pray all right so he's considered the father German nationalism because he's presenting this idea that we Germans must exist in opposition to the French okay

and this idea is going to drive a lot of the catastrophes of European history for the next hundred years this is Johan Ficti he is a student of Kant he is a major philosopher in his own right he's considered a founder of a German idealism school. And he explains that, okay, if you want to create a nation state, we have to figure out how to do so. What unites us as a people? And it's not history because we have different histories.

And he decides, because he's a huge kind of Shakespeare, that this shared heritage will be one of language. We will speak one language together. And this language, the German language, is what we'll define our culture. and our identity. He writes, Description and characterization in such a language is itself a directly vital and sensuous matter.

Okay? So our cultural identity, our geist, will be manifested in our language. All right. So at this time, there's a tremendous explosion of German literature to spread the idea of language. Okay? He also explains that the nation state, the nation, it is not just a collection of people, okay? Let's read this passage together because it's really important. Let the component parts of our higher spiritual life be just as dried out and thus let the bands or national unity also be just as torn apart, lying about in wild disorder, scattered and disarrayed as are the bones of the sear.

Let them be bleached and dried out by many centuries of storms, the luchess, and blazing sun. The animating breath of the spiritual world has not yet ceased to blow. It will also take hold of our national bodies in our bones and join them together so that they might gloriously exist in a new and transfer life. So what he's saying is, the nation is not a collection of individuals. What the nation is, it's individuals who are transformed together that creates a nation. A nation will transform everyone, okay? All right, so let's just summarize the differences between enlightenment and

Romance because the Enlightenment is what's going to drive the French nationalism and Romainism is what's going to drive German nationalism okay it's science versus nature reason versus emotions liberty versus will and struggle okay does that make sense for the struggle for our struggle as a people we can liberate ourselves from a French and we forge ourselves as a great nation all right so main difference between French autism and German nationalism Okay, separation of church and state. For the Germans, the nation is the church.

The French believe in the general will. What is in the best interest of everyone? The Germans believe in the geist, okay? The spirit of your people. Okay, does that make sense? Great. All right, so I'm going to use an example to highlight the difference between the French form of nationalism

and the German form of nationalism. It has to do with the Jewish question. So there are lots of Jews throughout Europe at this time. They're minorities in these countries. And the question is, with the rights of the nation state, what do you do about the Jews? And they're prone because the Jews believe themselves as a nation. They don't have a state, but they're a nation. And the Jews have the Bible, which gives them a shared language, a shared culture, a shared history.

Right? So how do you deal with a people in your nation that are explicitly not part of your culture? And they're very adamant about not being part of your culture. So the French, there is anti-Semitism throughout Europe at this time. But the response to animism is different in different nations. In 1894, there's something called the Gryphysphere. The Dreyfus affair is this man, Alfred Dreyfus, he is Jewish by ancestry. But at this time, a lot of elite Jews have already acclimatized, assimilated into the popular culture. And in 1984, he was arrested and accused of being a German spy.

Alfred Dreyfus was an officer in the French military. The problem is that French counterintelligence could have assured. investigation and they quickly found out that this man was not the spy but the French military didn't want to lose face also there were a lot of anti-semitic elements within the French military so rather than just say you know what we got the wrong guy we were wrong let's forget about this their response was to put this real spy on trial and acquit him's like no you know you're innocent even though the evidence also suggests he's guilty

And we're going to put Dreyfus, and they put Dreyfus in prison in a peanut colony far away for his entire life. And so news of this leaks, and this creates a national controversy. And a man named Elma Zola, who was part of the most famous writer in France at this time, he writes a newspaper article called I accuse. I accuse the French military of corruption, of incompetence, of negligence. I accuse the French state of corruption, incompetence, negligence. And so the question then is, why are these people so riled up about this one guy in prison? And the answer is, it has to do with the French identity.

At this point in history, there's this huge conflict between French liberals who see themselves as hears to the French Revolution and monarchists, who want to get rid of revolutionary elements. For the liberals like Emel Azola, the republic is about maintaining the rights of all citizens. And if one citizen loses his right, if one citizen is mistreated by the justice system, then all citizens will be mistreated by the justice system. So even though Alfred Dreyfus is a Jew, the French song first and foremost as a French citizen. Because the French nation exists to protect the rights of all those who are citizens of France. Does that make sense? That's why this was a huge deal in France. And it lasted

for about 10 years. And of course, the German response to the Jewish question was the Holocaust. Okay? So these are two different conceptions of nationalism, the French and the German. Any questions before I move on? Is this clear? Great. So let's... continue on the nation state, okay? So before 1848, the nation state, nationalism, it was contained in Europe because nationalism was actually a threat to the monarchy, right? Because nationalism would reduce a lot of their powers.

But in 1848, there are too many revolutions and rebellions throughout Europe. And monarchs at this point recognize that they can't really hold back the tide of social change. And so certain nations like Germany start to embrace nationalism as a way to contain these social changes. Okay? Once they should say came in a being, they needed a philosophy about culture. And this man, Charles Doran, provides that in the origin of species, right? He presents a new theory of human developed that contradicts all Christian teaching, which is the idea of evolution.

And so the idea of this is that God has no design. We are who we are by random chance for the process of evolution. And this will give birth to the idea of systemic racism. Because if it's true that God has no say in how we develop, if it's true that we develop by chance, then we can also extrapolate from this that, well, there's certain people that must be inherently superior to others. There are certain people that must have evolved to be more intellectual, to be more scientific, to be more brave. And because Europe at this time is the wealthiest and strongest and most advanced part of the world, then we can also reason that Europeans must also be superior as a people to everyone else, the Africans, the Asians, right?

So this introduced the idea of some racism. And this is a really popular thing to do back then. One thing that they were really interested in is skull, right? because they figured out if they can measure the skull, then they can make generalizations about the different brains of different cultures. And of course, the entire point of this exercise was to prove that, in fact, Europeans were superior.

Okay? This also leads to the idea of eugenics. This is Francis Galton, who is a cousin of Charles Darwin. And both Charles Darwin and Francis Galton was concerned about the gene pool. Because for Darwin, evolution meant that bad genes were systematically eliminated from the system. But at a time of improved sanitation, of improved hospital care, then people who should have died are living. And this is going to dilute the quality of your gene pool.

So Francis Galton proposed the idea of eugenics, that a nation that society should systematically eliminate eliminate bad genes from the gene pool in order to maintain purity. And there are three ways that you can do this, right? The first is you can do forced sterilization. So people who might be handicapped or they are criminals, you sterilize them to prevent them from reproducing. That's one solution. Another solution is, well, execution, right?

So if you're a criminal or you are physically violent or if you are low IQ, then we should just execute you to prevent you from polluting the gene pool. The third solution is to limit migration, limit immigration and limit migration. And this is an extremely popular idea in the United States, right? Because at this time in history, you have all these Europeans from low genetic stock, the Polish, Irish, the Italians, the Eastern Europeans coming into the United States at this time. And this was posing a real threat to the WASP elite. Okay? And that's why in the United States this eugenics movement really takes off, okay?

Really the center of the eugenics movement in the world at the end of the 20th century, sorry, at the end of 19th century, the beginning of the 20th century is really the United States. Okay? There are many, many states in the United States that pass forest sterilization. laws. This is Madison Grant. He wrote a very popular book about how there are different races. And the Nordic race, the Germans, the Scandinavians, and the British, they are the dominant race. They are the superior race. But over time, the numbers are diluting. And therefore, the Nordic people must work together okay and guess who really enjoys this idea who who was a big

fan of Madison Gratz Hitler right and Nazis will translate his book and spread his book and a lot of his ideas will become a basis for Nazi eugenics policy right and the Nazis were notorious for taking the disabled the handicapped and basically forcing them into gas chambers This is what he says. A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit, which solved the whole question in 100 years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowded our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums.

It's hard for us to imagine, but in the 1930s, this is a really widespread idea in America, in Britain, and in Germany, extremely widespread among the elite. elite. In fact, in 1935, if you asked me what was most likely to happen, then I would tell you that America, Britain, and Germany would ally themselves because they saw themselves as one people and they would attack the Soviet Union because the Soviet Union was a Slavic country that was communist and both the slavs and the communists were a threat to the Nordic people who were capitalistic, right? In 1935, that was the most likely scenario. In fact, there were a lot of people proposing this scenario. So why is it that it would be American Britain who supports Soviet Union and destroying Germany?

Well, that's the question we will look at next class, okay? Because it's a huge mystery why that happened when the, when in reality it should have been America, Britain, and Germany versus Soviet Union, okay? All right. So this now gives us the age of imperialism. The Europeans now need more resources, but they're also spreading their cultural mission to civilize the entire world because they are the master race, right? They have the white men's burden to civilize all others. Now, they didn't go into Africa before because of malaria issues. If you're a European, you went into Africa, you're going to die. But with major advancements in medicine, they now had medicine against malaria. And very quickly, they basically carved up Africa amongst themselves.

They had a conference and they decided who would get who. And their imperialism in Africa was notorious, right? It was one of the worst atrocities in human history, especially in the cause. in the Congo, which was controlled by Belgium. Basically, the king of Belgium, Leopold, had a mercenary army go in, enslave the people, and extract all the resources from the Congo, and it was his own personal property, his own personal estate, okay? All right. Also China. So China was basically carved up by the Europeans. The Americans negotiated something called the open door policy, and they've been agreed to

carve turn up into different sections. We call these the treaty ports. Now the problem for the Europeans though are the Japanese. So when so in the European understanding the world the Europeans are superior right especially in northern people so everyone else should on and submit and surrender to the Europeans and that's what happened in Africa and that's what happened in China but not Japan Japan underwent tremendous social change called a major restoration to go from a feudal society into a modern industrial nation that in 1905 was able to defeat a major European power, the Russians, in a war.

And this was shocking because this went against all understanding of the world at this time. What really surprised people was the rapid pace of transformation in Japan. It was as though everyone decided that we as people needed to change and we're going to change today, okay? And that's what Japan did. So you look at politics. In 1890, they will establish basically a parliament. And by 1928, you had universal male suffrage.

Basically in 1928, every man in Japan, could vote. Economically, right? The giant Japanese economy exploded. If you go to Japan today, you'll be amazed by how well organized the society is. Almost everyone in Japan reversed parks. If you look at this picture, maybe there's this one guy for whatever reason who decides not to reverse park. Everyone else reverse parks.

There's no law that says you must reverse part. Everyone just does it because of a sense of social cohesion. In the 13th century, the Mongols haven't conquered Korea and China and most of Asia launched two invasions of Japan, which both of these invasions fail. Now the myth is the kamikaze, the divine wind, which say, Japan from the invasion. That's not true. That's just part of Japanese mythology. The real reason is, what really happened is the Mongols were able to land forces both times. But what they discovered was they could not divide and conquer. Usually the

policy of an invader is to find local allies, establish a beachhead on the island, and then slowly expand outwards, okay? That's a policy. But in Japan, the Mongols could not find any local allies. The people were united against the invaders. And as a result, it became too expensive and too burdensome for the Mongols to take over Japan. Does that make sense? And this creates the sense of national identity and national unity that still persists today. And that's why I just say this. But the strongest nation in East Asia is not China.

It's Japan. You have to look at social cohesion. You have to look at how willing people are willing to fight and die for the nation. And historically, the nation with the most patriotism has always been Japan, not China. So please keep this in mind. All right. Now we go into World War I and World War II. In 1871, the German Empire is proclaimed, okay?

The Russians unite all Germany into one below entity. And now there are threats to Britain. Because remember, the British foreign policy is we must always ensure a balance of power in Europe. If one power arises, we must fight it. So when Napoleon arose, Britain spent infinite amount of money and resources to feed Napoleon, which it only did. Now with Germany and power in Europe, Britain is now going to challenge it and ensure a balance of power in Europe. Does that make sense? At the same time, what's happening is the spread of nationalism throughout the Ottoman and Austria-Hungry empire.

Remember the Ottomans and the Austria-Hungary Empire of these multi-ethnic empires that don't really have any reason to exist anymore in an age of the nation-state and of nationalism. So this is the Ottoman Empire. They're based in Istanbul, but they also occupy what we call the Balkans, Greece, Macedonia, modern Negro, Serbia. So the Greeks rebel against the Ottomans, and they're successful in doing so in the Greek war of independence. Now, we talk a lot of the Greeks. And it may surprise to you to hear, like, for most of its history, the Greeks didn't consider themselves as one people, as one culture, as one nation.

So that's why the Greeks never were able to expand that far. The Athenians, the Spartans, were too busy finding each other to deal with others. Ultimately, it was a Macedonians who conquered Persia, not the Greeks. This is the Italian War of Independence. The Italians rebelled against the Austria-Hungary Empire. So the Austria-Hungary Empire comes into threat as well. And again, the Austria-Hungary Empire, it is a multi-ethnic state. And the nation and the different ethnicities in the Austria-Hungry Empire, it is clamoring for independence.

The Austria-Hungary Empire, there are lots of Slavs, Slavic people within it, and they're calling to Russia for aid. And as you know, what starts World War I is the assassination of the here to the Austria-Hungary Empire by a Syrian nationalist in Sierra Yable, which brings the Austrian-Hungary Empire into direct conflict with Russia, which then brings in Britain and Russia, sorry, which brings in Britain and Germany as well. And this creates World War I. And World War I and War II are the deadiest wars in human industry by far, okay?

Millions and millions of people are killed. After World War I, you have the rise of extreme nationalism, which is what we call fascism. Fascism is just the extreme version of nationalism. This is Mussolini, who is the founder of fascism. And he explains fascism in this way. We have created our myth. The myth is a faith, a passion. It is not necessary for it to be reality.

It is a reality in a sense that it is a stimulus, its hope, it's faith, its courage. Our myth is the nation. Our myth is the greatness of the nation. And to this myth, this greatness, which we want to translate into a total reality, we support everything else, okay? The foundation is the people is in the eternal struggle of the fittest.

It must defeat other nations if it is to survive. And even though the nation looks weak, as long as we stick together, as long as we believe in each other, as long as we fight together, we will be invincible. And this is the, again, this is the romantic nationalism driving both Italy as well as, of course, Germany. This is a fascist, Philippe Pallarini, and he says, we want to glorify war. the only cure for the world and militarism, patriotism, and the beautiful ideas which kill. So for fascists, war is a good thing because war automatically unites people together in the final struggle for survival.

And war is a process that you can use to re-mode people into the most extreme nationalist. Does that make sense? This of course leads to the rise of Hitler in Germany, as well as Stalin in the Soviet Union. So we're going to focus in Tyler and Stalin next class. I mean, he's not important of a historical figure, okay? So, but after World War II, people started to look at the tremendous carnage catastrophe of what had happened. This is Hannah Arendt, and she wrote a book called The Origins of Traulitarianism.

It is a fantastic book, by the way. It's one of my favorite books. Definitely the considered the greatest work of political philosophy in the 20th century. It's basically required reading in university when you go there. And in it, she basically tries to explain why the Holocaust happened, why World War II happened. How is it possible for the Nazis to rise in power in Germany and for the communists to rise in power in the Soviet Union. And what she explains is this.

The ideal subject of authoritarian rule is not to convince Nazi or the dedicated communists, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction true and foes no longer exists. So what she believes, what she argues is that these regimes systematically eroded people's capacity to judge for themselves. Basically these regimes destroyed the idea of the individual. And that's what allowed for totalitarianism to arise in these states. This is Karl Popper. And Karl Popper is like Hannah Arendt, a European Jew who escaped the devastation of the Holocaust and the war. And they both went to America. And he wrote a very famous

book called The Open Society. And he argues, the Open Society is one in which men have learned to be some extent critical of taboos and to base decisions on authority of their own intelligence. So what he argues is for peace to happen, for peace to ultimately thrive in this world, we need to celebrate the individual rather than the nation. Also we need to be skeptical of these grand theories of human history. We need to avoid Hegel. We definitely need to avoid Marx, but also Plato.

These are the three bodies of the Western tradition, Plato, Hegel, and Marx. Because there are anti-democratic, they are anti-individual, but also they have a theological view of history, of things that's moving towards the final end. That is a megalomaniacal view to understand the world. We need to be skeptical.

We need to incrementally make changes to society. And so what he's really doing is he is proposing that Anglo-American civilization is far superior, far more scientific, far more advanced than both Russian and German civilization. That's what he's really doing. And that's why Karl Popper's open society has become an intellectual basis for the American empire. So very quickly, let's understand the difference between World War II and the Paxon-American, which is the age we live in today.

World War II was about the nation-state, the rights of nationalism and fascism. The Pax of America is about the international rules-based order. The United Nations, human rights, the Genomic Convention, all these things, okay? It's what they call the rules-based international order. Another difference is War II was about mercantilism, okay? Mercantilism is basically you have your own separate trading zone. You only trade within this zone. So that creates an incentive for Britain, for Germany, for France,

to go and conquer other colonies in order to facilitate their own industrial production. America is saying, no guys, let's just focus on global free trade. Let's have everyone trade together, and if everyone tries together, there is going to be peace. War II is a separation of the unit of will, right? That's what fascism is, the unit of will. We as a people, if we come together, we will be this invincible, inevitable historical force that will overwhelm the whole world. Today we just focus on consumerism. Just go buy things, guys, okay? Buy things, be happy, we're good. All right? So this is an introduction. We will discuss this when we finish the class with American Empire, okay? That's the next third.

All right, but that is bad. Okay, so call purpose open society rubric, and the American Empire creates these new trends in society that really weren't there before, okay? So for example, identity politics, okay? Identity politics is one such trend. Identity politics is really the celebration of individual helplessness okay we're all individuals and we all require the state to help us okay so

the state is fundamentally about protecting the vulnerable including minorities including women including immigrants okay does that make sense that's what identity politics is really you also have mass immigration okay and this again um and and mass immigration is celebrated in America and in European nations right now. And historically, this was not true, okay? Maybe they had immigration, but it was more of an academic need. And there's a lot of political pushback against mass immigration. Today, it's celebrated.

Okay, but when you do that, when you have identity politics and mass immigration together, that ultimately creates a conservative pushback, which is what we're seeing today. Okay. So the Trump era, which started only a few months. months ago, there's mass deprotations going on. It's possible that you guys will not be allowed to go to the United States. All this is possible because of this conservative pushback.

So in other words, even though the nation state created a lot of problems that the Paxon American is trying to resolve by focusing on more individual rights, the focus on individual rights, is going to create more problems that may also allow for a return of nationalism in the future. And I think that's a very strong possibility that we'll discuss at the end of the course on Thursday. Okay? All right, so that's it.

And again, what's really important for us to remember is that this is all just set up for the next two classes, which will end the course. All right? So this is all just backward information for you guys. But was anything unclear about today? Anything you guys? I'm not clear about. Any questions? Oh, what's the difference between nationalism and a cult?

So there's a little difference between nationalism and religion. But occult is something that we mean it's much more limited, much more small, and it requires rituals as well. But I think you're right. I think like you can make the argument that nationalism it is a form of religion definitely great okay does that make sense thank you any more questions okay okay okay so next class we will do the the communist revolution the Soviet Union and the rise of Salon okay