Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, which is a.) shocking and b.) does wonders for his legacy among multiple groups. It's also a huge middle finger to conservatives and even security-state Dems. Wow.
For those who do not remember, Ms. Manning's document dump while working as an Army intelligence officer turned into what we now know as WikiLeaks. Most of the intel was pretty harmless but a lot of it also detailed abuses being committed by Iraqi military officials under the mostly-uncaring eye of American military advisors.
Julian Assange also boldly claimed that if Manning were commuted, he would turn himself over. Given what we now know about Assange, I'd say that's highly unlikely. Put up or shut up.
It's actually true. Historians across the board agree that, until the 19th and 20th centuries, few people anywhere owed their loyalties to their nation. Instead, people's allegiances lied with their families, villages, tribes, and clans.
Before mass transit and electronic communication systems, people had barely any understanding of the world outside their hometown, even in their own country. If you've never left your hometown, and you don't know anyone who has, why would a distant king in a faraway city land matter to you in the least? For you, the king is a face on a coin. You don't even know what the capital city looks like. Your village is the only world you've ever known. In your life, the one person closest to the king is a tax collector who only comes once a year. And you probably despise him, like everyone else you know, because he skims money off the top.
Your nation is your village. It's the only world you've ever known.
Nationalism was a powerful force in Italy in the 20th century, but it only dated back to the 19th century. When Italy was unified, most people in Italy didn't even speak Italian; one of the unification leaders joked that "We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians."
And Italy was not the only country where national identity had to be created from scratch. Many of Japan's national stories, including the emperor's prominent status and a portion of the Shinto religion, were flat-out invented by Meiji oligarchs to build up the country.
If I had never seen Obama's face or heard his voice, if I couldn't name more than one or two presidents, if I had no idea what the U.S. capital looked like, if I didn't know anything about the Constitution or the Founding Fathers or the American Revolution, if I couldn't understand out-of-towners from my own country because they spoke a different language, if I couldn't draw a map of my homeland, and if I didn't have the vocabulary or education to even discuss national politics, then I would not be a nationalist.
It's actually true. Historians across the board agree that, until the 19th and 20th centuries, few people anywhere owed their loyalties to their nation. Instead, people's allegiances lied with their families, villages, tribes, and clans.
Before mass transit and electronic communication systems, people had barely any understanding of the world outside their hometown, even in their own country. If you've never left your hometown, and you don't know anyone who has, why would a distant king in a faraway city land matter to you in the least? For you, the king is a face on a coin. You don't even know what the capital city looks like. Your village is the only world you've ever known. In your life, the one person closest to the king is a tax collector who only comes once a year. And you probably despise him, like everyone else you know, because he skims money off the top.
Your nation is your village. It's the only world you've ever known.
Nationalism was a powerful force in Italy in the 20th century, but it only dated back to the 19th century. When Italy was unified, most people in Italy didn't even speak Italian; one of the unification leaders joked that "We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians."
And Italy was not the only country where national identity had to be created from scratch. Many of Japan's national stories, including the emperor's prominent status and a portion of the Shinto religion, were flat-out invented by Meiji oligarchs to build up the country.
If I had never seen Obama's face or heard his voice, if I couldn't name more than one or two presidents, if I had no idea what the U.S. capital looked like, if I didn't know anything about the Constitution or the Founding Fathers or the American Revolution, if I couldn't understand out-of-towners from my own country because they spoke a different language, if I couldn't draw a map of my homeland, and if I didn't have the vocabulary or education to even discuss national politics, then I would not be a nationalist.
Sorry it's not true Semiticgod. These Hellenic Gods beg to differ.
It seems that there's been quite a bit of misunderstanding as to what my last post was actually advocating. I can't address everything and I certainly don't want to make this article about me, or my views, but there are a few things I want to put out there:
First of all, there is a big difference between left nationalism, or nationalism of the oppressed, and the kind of nationalism that teaches you that your country, ethnic group, race, etc is better than all others, and attempts to parlay the mass-action of deluded and reactionary masses into play for more political power.
I also want to make it clear that what I am advocating is not communistic, fascistic, or even totalitarian. It is totalitarian only in as much as it relates to "people power". In that sense, yes...I want a totalitarian, all-encompassing State where THE PEOPLE reign supreme. To those who do not want this, I ask: how much power should be withheld from the people? Do the people themselves need to be checked? To what agency would you assign this task?
In America, people comparing such views to the communists and fascists is nothing new. But there are major differences that anyone can clearly see if you just try. Communism, at least non-revisionist communism, views the State as a bourgeois apparatus which needs to be crushed, and looks for a stateless, borderless, international communist society.
The Fascist concept of State and my concept of State are also completely different. For the Fascist, the State is nothing more than a means to an end; a vehicle for the advancement of a master race (or master people).
I believe in bypassing representative democracy, this is true, but I believe in replacing it with a more direct form of democracy, with weekly/bi-weekly referendums, etc. One in which the people themselves, the whole people or a people's vanguard, are mobilized and educated in defense of a State whose sole purpose is the health of the great masses.
I do not believe in total nationalization. Just nationalize the things vital to the health of the people and the functioning of the people's State. You can still have your i-phones and coca-cola; you can still have your nice vehicles (provided they are environmentally friendly). The State itself might also open up it's own factories, as a way to employ the underprivileged of our people, and offer more affordable alternatives. But if you are an entrepreneur and you genuinely have a good product, a useful product, then by all means, make your millions (but NOT billions). Just expect to pay your fair share. And you will not rip people off or take advantage of them. Penis enlargement pills and anti-aging creams...or televangelism promising miracles for $$$ are just a few examples of predatory capitalistic behavior that should not be allowed. A government that allows the weak and insecure to be taken advantage by predators is not a government worth defending.
As for the press, I do not believe that partisan press is fair. Not when the bulk of all media is owned and controlled by the few and the privileged. Just looking at how Sanders was ignored and Hillary, an establishment candidate and true corporatist crony, was promoted. And I never said that the government itself should dominate the media. The government should run the media...but under such a system the government is truly the people. And in any case, it should be overseen by ethics committees made up of private citizens (to ensure neutrality and that a political agenda is not being pushed).
If you call this anti-American, fine. I call it pro-people. And if we have a set up where being pro-people makes you anti-American, I think I would begin to question the validity of that set up.
I believe in bypassing representative democracy, this is true, but I believe in replacing it with a more direct form of democracy, with weekly/bi-weekly referendums, etc. One in which the people themselves, the whole people or a people's vanguard, are mobilized and educated in defense of a State whose sole purpose is the health of the great masses.
Oh, this isn't socialism. Call it what it really is. HELLENISM
Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, which is a.) shocking and b.) does wonders for his legacy among multiple groups. It's also a huge middle finger to conservatives and even security-state Dems. Wow.
I believe in bypassing representative democracy, this is true, but I believe in replacing it with a more direct form of democracy, with weekly/bi-weekly referendums, etc. One in which the people themselves, the whole people or a people's vanguard, are mobilized and educated in defense of a State whose sole purpose is the health of the great masses.
Oh, this isn't socialism. Call it what it really is. HELLENISM
I guess if you want to take just one paragraph, without looking at anything else posted alongside it, you could make that case.
I believe in bypassing representative democracy, this is true, but I believe in replacing it with a more direct form of democracy, with weekly/bi-weekly referendums, etc. One in which the people themselves, the whole people or a people's vanguard, are mobilized and educated in defense of a State whose sole purpose is the health of the great masses.
Oh, this isn't socialism. Call it what it really is. HELLENISM
I guess if you want to take just one paragraph, without looking at anything else posted alongside it, you could make that case.
There is nothing new under the sun. I mean under Hellios (Apollon)
James O'Keefe is a complete and utter fraud whose bullshit is lapped up by the right-wing media and, by proxy, the mainstream press. As a matter of fact, his partner in crime in "Project Veritias" was recently caught in a counter-sting, on camera, offering to PAY groups to violently protest during the inauguration so they could then turn around and make videos like this one. If this slimeball is involved, you can be sure it is almost 100% manufactured nonsense and garbage. The only reason this guy isn't a convicted felon for his attempted bugging of a Louisiana Senator's office is because his dad was a good friend of the judge. He might even still be on probation .
One of the interesting things about history is how people in the past were so like us in ways we don't expect, and so little like us in ways we would expect.
Nationalism did not exist until relatively recently in history. The concept of a "nation-state" would be a completely foreign one to the Romans, or to the Han Dynasty, or to anywhere else in the world through most of humanity's existence.
It's a completely artificial concept, and is no more intrinsic to humanity than hating the New York Yankees is. It's just the current paradigm. There have been others. There are others. And there will be others.
I wrote a post about James O'Keefe and Project Veritas in a thread a while ago. It involved a Democratic party official named Scott Foval who tried to artificially stir up trouble at a Trump rally. The details appeared to check out; it didn't look like Project Veritas was totally misrepresenting Foval's actioins.
I don't completely trust Project Veritas as a source, but I'm not convinced that all of their work is lies and fabrications.
Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, which is a.) shocking and b.) does wonders for his legacy among multiple groups. It's also a huge middle finger to conservatives and even security-state Dems. Wow.
Well, it doesn't make him any less the worst President in history (worse than Nixon! I never cease to wonder at that) for treatment of whistleblowers, but I guess it's better than literally nothing?
It's actually true. Historians across the board agree that, until the 19th and 20th centuries, few people anywhere owed their loyalties to their nation. Instead, people's allegiances lied with their families, villages, tribes, and clans.
Nationalism as a concept is actually pretty old (IIRC Machiavelli talks about the loyalty to the Prince from his vassals in chapters VI and VII I think, which are about territorial expansion and the unification of the conquered lands).
Also, remember there was some sort of nationalism going on in Napoleonic France, not nationalism by-the-book (which I think is a 20th century phenomenon) but it was pretty close.
I believe in bypassing representative democracy, this is true, but I believe in replacing it with a more direct form of democracy, with weekly/bi-weekly referendums, etc. One in which the people themselves, the whole people or a people's vanguard, are mobilized and educated in defense of a State whose sole purpose is the health of the great masses.
Oh, this isn't socialism. Call it what it really is. HELLENISM
Wasn't hellenism the name of the movement Lord Byron and other romantic poets belong to? If it means something else, care to explain because I'm not getting it.
I believe in bypassing representative democracy, this is true, but I believe in replacing it with a more direct form of democracy, with weekly/bi-weekly referendums, etc. One in which the people themselves, the whole people or a people's vanguard, are mobilized and educated in defense of a State whose sole purpose is the health of the great masses.
Oh, this isn't socialism. Call it what it really is. HELLENISM
Wasn't hellenism the name of the movement Lord Byron and other romantic poets belong to? If it means something else, care to explain because I'm not getting it.
I would suggest looking at the alphabet you have used to communicate with me and go from there.
The plain and simple of it is to put State, Country and the Safety of the people first. Didn't always work that way but they tried.
Hellenics stayed in their individual States but when there was a greater evil they would come together and fight it to protect Hellas = ( Hellenes-Land )
Kinda like the US. All States have their own laws and governance but come together and bound buy an agreement of sorts, The Constitution.
I apologize, I can't see if your comment is in sarcasm or you truly are asking. Internets.
Hellenics stayed in their individual States but when there was a greater evil they would come together and fight it to protect Hellas = ( Hellenes-Land )
Kinda like the US. All States have their own laws and governance but come together and bound buy an agreement of sorts, The Constitution.
The US states have only gone to war with each other once, and only Rhode Island routinely sold out to a foreign power the others were at war with.
Neither of those statements are true of the Hellenistic city-states.
Nationalism as a concept is actually pretty old (IIRC Machiavelli talks about the loyalty to the Prince from his vassals in chapters VI and VII I think, which are about territorial expansion and the unification of the conquered lands).
Medieval feudalism isn't nationalism, though. The intricate webs of bounded family-based relationships that held together realms that often had nothing to do with their rulers ethnically or linguistically is actually quite different to modern nationalism.
Also, remember there was some sort of nationalism going on in Napoleonic France, not nationalism by-the-book (which I think is a 20th century phenomenon) but it was pretty close.
The French Revolution/Napoleonic era is usually credited as the birth of modern nationalism, so that's right (albeit it's a bit more complicated than that, it always is).
Hellenics stayed in their individual States but when there was a greater evil they would come together and fight it to protect Hellas = ( Hellenes-Land )
Kinda like the US. All States have their own laws and governance but come together and bound buy an agreement of sorts, The Constitution.
The US states have only gone to war with each other once, and only Rhode Island routinely sold out to a foreign power the others were at war with.
Neither of those statements are true of the Hellenistic city-states.
Hellenism is a way of life. They aspired to be God like. ( Deamon) Perfect and infallible.
As for the Megapolis Athens and other City States they where separate but they would come together to fight common enemies. The 300 movie and sequel would probably be an example for Americans to understand. They all did their own thing but Hellas came first. Alexander the Great made it official.
Πας μη Έλλην βάρβαρος. (If you’re not Greek, you’re a Barbarian) This phrase was not talking about race or colour. It meant that if you didn't live by the Hellenic ways you where basically ignorant to the world around you ( Civility, Nature, Social, Gods, Charity, Heroism just to list a few)
Sacrificing yourself for the good of the people, State and Homeland was expected and a right to be Hellenic.
Ελευθερία ή θάνατος (Eleftheria i thanatos) Freedom or Death was not just a catchy phrase from a Hollywood movie. It was Hellenism, it still is. Todays Greek flag has nine (9) stripes, one for each syllable so Hellenes never forget their debt to Hellas and their ancestors.
The National anthem that Hellenes use today sings of liberty and the blood spilt to keep it Hellenic. Nationalists over 2000 years ago and Nationalists now. Denying it is ignorant and embarrassing.
As for the Megapolis Athens and other City States they where separate but they would come together to fight common enemies. The 300 movie and sequel would probably be an example for Americans to understand. They all did their own thing but Hellas came first. Alexander the Great made it official.
1) As I already pointed out, they didn't. They turned on each other all the time, including against Persia in that very war.
2) Recommending 300 for a history discussion? Really? Even worse than mentioning it is the fact it completely goes against your own point: in 300, the Spartans do everything of importance on their own and are openly contemptuous of other Greeks, especially those "Athenian boy-lovers". Of course, that's not how real history went (also in real history, Xerxes wasn't 8 feet tall, and the Persians did not employ ninjas, so, y'know).
3) Plenty of people at the time and today didn't consider Iskander and the Macedonians to be properly Hellenic.
Πας μη Έλλην βάρβαρος. (If you’re not Greek, you’re a Barbarian) This phrase was not talking about race or colour. It meant that if you didn't live by the Hellenic ways you where basically ignorant to the world around you ( Civility, Nature, Social, Gods, Charity, Heroism just to list a few)
Sacrificing yourself for the good of the people, State and Homeland was expected and a right to be Hellenic.
None of which stopped them from hating, killing and betraying each other. A lot. Or enslaving each other (and murdering for sport), as long as we're talking about the Spartans. And since it didn't stop this (Greeks invited in the Romans to fight other Greeks, to name but one example), then what exactly was this nationalism you think you see beyond a polite fiction and a real belief that everybody outside Greece was subhuman (also subhuman: women, other Greeks)?
Like, every society has this kind of thing about how they're better than others, and how people are supposed to give their all for the homeland and all that jazz. While you can make the argument that the Hellenistic city-states were special, it wasn't because of their xenophobia and rah-rah-sacrifice-for-the-polity sermonising. The Achaemenids did the same thing, and so did Republican Rome (and Imperial Rome, and, like, everyone else).
The National anthem that Hellenes use today sings of liberty and the blood spilt to keep it Hellenic. Nationalists over 2000 years ago and Nationalists now. Denying it is ignorant and embarrassing.
And for most of that last 2000 years, the exact same Hellenes scorned and despised that heritage, tied up as it was with pagans. Greeks in Greece itself, in Crete, in Cyprus and in Anatolia itself would call themselves Romans. Because that's what they were - the heirs of a multiethnic universal Christian state, the Roman Empire. The Ottomans knew this - that's why they were the "Millet of Rum".
All of this cherished calling back to classical Greece was made up. A fantasy. Just like Japan made up a fantasy about a warrior code called "bushido" that the samurai supposedly followed as part of its national myth-making. The cold hard fact is that Greek "nationalism" didn't exist until after the French revolution, and it took the form it did primarily because a) Western Europe was really into classical Greek philosophy and science, and b) Western Europe could help them throw off the Ottoman yoke. Until then, Greek "nationalism", such as it was, was tied to the Byzantine Empire and the Orthodox Church, not Athens or Sparta or Corinth or Thebes or Macedonia. This is historically well-attested.
Beyond that, in insisting that modern nationalism has existed throughout history, you are going against the consensus of historians (the people who actually study this stuff for a living). If you want to change my mind, please link to some published papers or books defending your point of view.
Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, which is a.) shocking and b.) does wonders for his legacy among multiple groups. It's also a huge middle finger to conservatives and even security-state Dems. Wow.
Now if he would only do the same for Snowden...
he can't because snowden hasn't been arrested and sentenced yet.
Comments
Before mass transit and electronic communication systems, people had barely any understanding of the world outside their hometown, even in their own country. If you've never left your hometown, and you don't know anyone who has, why would a distant king in a faraway city land matter to you in the least? For you, the king is a face on a coin. You don't even know what the capital city looks like. Your village is the only world you've ever known. In your life, the one person closest to the king is a tax collector who only comes once a year. And you probably despise him, like everyone else you know, because he skims money off the top.
Your nation is your village. It's the only world you've ever known.
Nationalism was a powerful force in Italy in the 20th century, but it only dated back to the 19th century. When Italy was unified, most people in Italy didn't even speak Italian; one of the unification leaders joked that "We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians."
And Italy was not the only country where national identity had to be created from scratch. Many of Japan's national stories, including the emperor's prominent status and a portion of the Shinto religion, were flat-out invented by Meiji oligarchs to build up the country.
If I had never seen Obama's face or heard his voice, if I couldn't name more than one or two presidents, if I had no idea what the U.S. capital looked like, if I didn't know anything about the Constitution or the Founding Fathers or the American Revolution, if I couldn't understand out-of-towners from my own country because they spoke a different language, if I couldn't draw a map of my homeland, and if I didn't have the vocabulary or education to even discuss national politics, then I would not be a nationalist.
I apologize, there is no visual or audio difference between these new gods. They are not diverse enough I guess?
First of all, there is a big difference between left nationalism, or nationalism of the oppressed, and the kind of nationalism that teaches you that your country, ethnic group, race, etc is better than all others, and attempts to parlay the mass-action of deluded and reactionary masses into play for more political power.
I also want to make it clear that what I am advocating is not communistic, fascistic, or even totalitarian. It is totalitarian only in as much as it relates to "people power". In that sense, yes...I want a totalitarian, all-encompassing State where THE PEOPLE reign supreme. To those who do not want this, I ask: how much power should be withheld from the people? Do the people themselves need to be checked? To what agency would you assign this task?
In America, people comparing such views to the communists and fascists is nothing new. But there are major differences that anyone can clearly see if you just try. Communism, at least non-revisionist communism, views the State as a bourgeois apparatus which needs to be crushed, and looks for a stateless, borderless, international communist society.
The Fascist concept of State and my concept of State are also completely different. For the Fascist, the State is nothing more than a means to an end; a vehicle for the advancement of a master race (or master people).
I believe in bypassing representative democracy, this is true, but I believe in replacing it with a more direct form of democracy, with weekly/bi-weekly referendums, etc. One in which the people themselves, the whole people or a people's vanguard, are mobilized and educated in defense of a State whose sole purpose is the health of the great masses.
I do not believe in total nationalization. Just nationalize the things vital to the health of the people and the functioning of the people's State. You can still have your i-phones and coca-cola; you can still have your nice vehicles (provided they are environmentally friendly). The State itself might also open up it's own factories, as a way to employ the underprivileged of our people, and offer more affordable alternatives. But if you are an entrepreneur and you genuinely have a good product, a useful product, then by all means, make your millions (but NOT billions). Just expect to pay your fair share. And you will not rip people off or take advantage of them. Penis enlargement pills and anti-aging creams...or televangelism promising miracles for $$$ are just a few examples of predatory capitalistic behavior that should not be allowed. A government that allows the weak and insecure to be taken advantage by predators is not a government worth defending.
As for the press, I do not believe that partisan press is fair. Not when the bulk of all media is owned and controlled by the few and the privileged. Just looking at how Sanders was ignored and Hillary, an establishment candidate and true corporatist crony, was promoted. And I never said that the government itself should dominate the media. The government should run the media...but under such a system the government is truly the people. And in any case, it should be overseen by ethics committees made up of private citizens (to ensure neutrality and that a political agenda is not being pushed).
If you call this anti-American, fine. I call it pro-people. And if we have a set up where being pro-people makes you anti-American, I think I would begin to question the validity of that set up.
sun. I mean under Hellios (Apollon)Nationalism did not exist until relatively recently in history. The concept of a "nation-state" would be a completely foreign one to the Romans, or to the Han Dynasty, or to anywhere else in the world through most of humanity's existence.
It's a completely artificial concept, and is no more intrinsic to humanity than hating the New York Yankees is. It's just the current paradigm. There have been others. There are others. And there will be others.
I don't completely trust Project Veritas as a source, but I'm not convinced that all of their work is lies and fabrications.
@jjstraka34: If you have a link, please share it.
Also, remember there was some sort of nationalism going on in Napoleonic France, not nationalism by-the-book (which I think is a 20th century phenomenon) but it was pretty close.
The plain and simple of it is to put State, Country and the Safety of the people first. Didn't always work that way but they tried.
Hellenics stayed in their individual States but when there was a greater evil they would come together and fight it to protect Hellas = ( Hellenes-Land )
Kinda like the US. All States have their own laws and governance but come together and bound buy an agreement of sorts, The Constitution.
I apologize, I can't see if your comment is in sarcasm or you truly are asking. Internets.
Neither of those statements are true of the Hellenistic city-states.
As for the Megapolis Athens and other City States they where separate but they would come together to fight common enemies. The 300 movie and sequel would probably be an example for Americans to understand. They all did their own thing but Hellas came first. Alexander the Great made it official.
Πας μη Έλλην βάρβαρος. (If you’re not Greek, you’re a Barbarian) This phrase was not talking about race or colour. It meant that if you didn't live by the Hellenic ways you where basically ignorant to the world around you ( Civility, Nature, Social, Gods, Charity, Heroism just to list a few)
Sacrificing yourself for the good of the people, State and Homeland was expected and a right to be Hellenic.
Ελευθερία ή θάνατος (Eleftheria i thanatos) Freedom or Death was not just a catchy phrase from a Hollywood movie. It was Hellenism, it still is. Todays Greek flag has nine (9) stripes, one for each syllable so Hellenes never forget their debt to Hellas and their ancestors.
The National anthem that Hellenes use today sings of liberty and the blood spilt to keep it Hellenic. Nationalists over 2000 years ago and Nationalists now. Denying it is ignorant and embarrassing.
2) Recommending 300 for a history discussion? Really? Even worse than mentioning it is the fact it completely goes against your own point: in 300, the Spartans do everything of importance on their own and are openly contemptuous of other Greeks, especially those "Athenian boy-lovers". Of course, that's not how real history went (also in real history, Xerxes wasn't 8 feet tall, and the Persians did not employ ninjas, so, y'know).
3) Plenty of people at the time and today didn't consider Iskander and the Macedonians to be properly Hellenic. None of which stopped them from hating, killing and betraying each other. A lot. Or enslaving each other (and murdering for sport), as long as we're talking about the Spartans. And since it didn't stop this (Greeks invited in the Romans to fight other Greeks, to name but one example), then what exactly was this nationalism you think you see beyond a polite fiction and a real belief that everybody outside Greece was subhuman (also subhuman: women, other Greeks)?
Like, every society has this kind of thing about how they're better than others, and how people are supposed to give their all for the homeland and all that jazz. While you can make the argument that the Hellenistic city-states were special, it wasn't because of their xenophobia and rah-rah-sacrifice-for-the-polity sermonising. The Achaemenids did the same thing, and so did Republican Rome (and Imperial Rome, and, like, everyone else). And for most of that last 2000 years, the exact same Hellenes scorned and despised that heritage, tied up as it was with pagans. Greeks in Greece itself, in Crete, in Cyprus and in Anatolia itself would call themselves Romans. Because that's what they were - the heirs of a multiethnic universal Christian state, the Roman Empire. The Ottomans knew this - that's why they were the "Millet of Rum".
All of this cherished calling back to classical Greece was made up. A fantasy. Just like Japan made up a fantasy about a warrior code called "bushido" that the samurai supposedly followed as part of its national myth-making. The cold hard fact is that Greek "nationalism" didn't exist until after the French revolution, and it took the form it did primarily because a) Western Europe was really into classical Greek philosophy and science, and b) Western Europe could help them throw off the Ottoman yoke. Until then, Greek "nationalism", such as it was, was tied to the Byzantine Empire and the Orthodox Church, not Athens or Sparta or Corinth or Thebes or Macedonia. This is historically well-attested.
Beyond that, in insisting that modern nationalism has existed throughout history, you are going against the consensus of historians (the people who actually study this stuff for a living). If you want to change my mind, please link to some published papers or books defending your point of view.