Loyalty To A Propositional Or Notional Nation May Not Be Commanded; It Is Not Legally Punishable Treason To Betray An Ideational 'Nation'

Many impassable contradictions arise in front of the promotion of a conceptual nation, where loyalty is to some ideas, but not to the actual citizenry over against foreigners, some or all of them, as exemplified here: The Propositional Nation [Becomes] A State Of War More Than It May Be A Real Nation Of Mutual Allegiance Of Citizens...
On Wednesday, August 1, 2007, appeared this:
Global Nation or Universal Nationality is a Contradiction-in-Terms
The nation means an allegiance to fellow citizens relative to foreigners; especially relative to foreigners who increase the level of aggression within the borders. If there were no foreigners and no borders, there would be no such allegiance, and no universal nation or nationality. To try to make an ideal of such a contradiction-in-terms, is subversive of values.
[Updated 4-1-08] It is subversive of political values, where politics is the ethics of aggression.
It undermines the ethics of aggression to posit a notional nation over a real one.
It implies taking the side of aggression, against freedom-from-aggression, opening the way for hostiles to infiltrate, declaring themselves to be part of the ideational nation, while remaining in no way obliged to be loyal to the people of their new location.
Another earlier post on the same questions:
The Meaning of the Nation Contra Propositionalist Disloyalism II
The nation means the people who are loyal to fellow nationals over against foreigners, at least those foreigners whose entry increases the level of aggression inside the boundaries. Having this loyalty is a prerequisite for being really part of the nation, while beliefs in some political ideas cannot make a foreigner into a fellow national in themselves, as such a foreigner could and almost certainly would fail to have the loyalty as defined above. He would still say let my relatives in regardless of what increase of aggression or damage they may do to the pre-existing citizenry, as, for example the net taxpayer of our nationality. Not having this loyalty to the people of one's nation relative to aggression by foreigners is sufficient grounds for loss of citizenship, while disbelief in political principles never causes rescinding of citizenship. The nation cannot mean less than that this loyalty to fellows in the circumstance of foreign aggression within our territories is owed, but viciously traitorous one-worlders are trying relentlessly to destroy our nation in this exact way, by trying to break down these most basic loyalties. A secessionist region which copied exactly the laws of America would not thereby become part of the USA, nor would its residents become American citizens from that procedure, regardless of what they said about their political creed. If our nation were ideational, notional or propositional as they say, that and more would follow. When American ideas of what sort are said to be constitutive of the nation, in and of themselves, and are made out to belong to all humanity as well, it would follow that foreign hostility to America would be treason, and we could convict foreigners of it, and punish them, who had never been near this country. If all the world is assumed to share our ideas on account of their species character alone, since America is said to be for everyone, and essentially propositional, every other country would then be a rebel province of ours, in need of being subdued. If two such perfect propositional countries existed, each would have claims of sovereignty on the other, and the responsibility to wage war of aggression on the other, as well as responsibility to capitulate to the other; yielding multiple contradictions-in-terms.
Also, from 5-08, on how immigration tends to force all issues into the single one of sovereignty:
It tends to go further this way for each immigration cohort, and more quickly as the cohort is larger in quantity, or lower in quantity, or more hostile to the citizenry. The valuing of openness causes this very uncivilized outcome, in which the only issue is sovereignty, with the several sides in irreconcilable enmity. Those who promote the valuing of openness in the above way, really are trying for civil war, because conflict is the route to power, in what they would regard as a smug society.
And, also from May: One-worlders are very much interested in EQUIVOCATING national loyalties with romantic nationalism, and with further extremes of national feeling which tend to be equated with racism, fascism etc. The whole approach is a smear-mongering one, aimed at destroying the basic loyalties of citizens to each other over against the foreigner. At the minimum, the nation exists only to compel allegiance of nationals to each other in just that case where the foreigner enters with aggression. To want to destroy these loyalties is also a wish to destroy civilization, so that the assumption of good faith may not reasonably be given to universalists, one-worlders, and others who are found continually trying to smear national loyalties as leading inevitably to horrors.
Added 7-13-08 from: Saturday, July 12, 2008
Can A 'Propositional Nation' Be Fully Sovereign?
If it is less than the whole world, mustn't there be global ideas above it, in a position of sovereignty over it, if those ideas exist also in other nations? One-worlders haven't proven that sovereignty is not hopelessly degraded by propositionalism of that 'universal nation' kind; but seem really to be trying to prove that all sovereignties must degrade into one and only one.
Posted by John S. Bolton