I have a tiny little post up from 2010 about That Rotten Bismarck, the progenitor of German nationalism. Why? Because he sacrificed the German peoples so that he could play Realpolitik with his contemporaries.
I have mentioned Erasmus a few times. In response to some of Annissimov's early neo-reactionary stuff in 2014, another one about culture that was posted in 2014 but likely written much earlier, since it looks like one I had on my hard drive for a while, and the one in 2105 asking how much of a heresy is phyletism.
So, to paint the picture- I do not find the nationalism of the modern state particularly helpful. I think it tends to degrade and destroy its people. I prefer small realms- a city and its hinterlands, preferably ruled by a switched on monarch who would understand things, like Von Mises's Human Action.
I think the tendency for these small realms to go come from expansionary dreams and the aristocratic young female's desire to marry up- this is why I mention Erasmus a few times- these are temptations he warns against. They both mean entanglements with foreigners, and the latter often ends up meaning a ruling class that looks and feels a fair bit different from the lower classes.
Expansionary dreams were effectively ended by atomic weapons.
But we still have this other problem- we need a hierarchy that works. This is why I think Jim's The Trouble With Fashism is not as Deconstructing Leftism would have it, mere signalling.
The modern state must be ended. The incentives women face are one of the key problems we face in terms of creating a harmonious society- and this is something apparently hidden to those inordinately worried about the Jews. Notice how many of these Euro politicians who let the immigrants in are women. They aren't just operating on an ideological level- this is a seriously screwed up mismatch between and evolutionary drive and an artificial environment.
It didn't end well for Pinochet, and Franco would be pretty unhappy with what Spain has become.