The data doesn't support that: The predominant, most prosperous, safest, most free societies have been the internationalist ones, in Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, S Korea, etc etc.
There are strong hypotheses to back the data: Nationalism divides people at arbitrary borders, limiting their ability to travel, trade, and work together. Nationalists isolate themselves. We know well from economics that trade is best when it depends on economic merit, not on which artificial border you happen to live behind; it helps buyers and sellers - nobody will buy your goods if you don't buy theirs. Imagine science without internationalism. Imagine the IT industry - FOSS has contributors world-wide; the web was developed in Switzerland by a Brit, and shared by the world. Linux in Finland, etc.
In terms of security, the nationalists have only themselves; the internationalists have each other, such as the most successful and powerful alliance in history, NATO. Imagine the Cold War without internationalism in Europe, as the USSR took one small country after another. The free world's enormous advantage in military competition with China is that they have each other, they have allies.
Nationalism has a horrible track record, creating war and poverty, and the underlying curse, hate - arbitrarily, purposefully created - often by leaders using nationalism for their own power: 'be loyal to the nation, and I am the nation, I make the decisions'. Many, including Churchill, blamed nationalism for WWII (which is why the survivors built the UN and the predecessor of the EU).
The internationalist world has produced freedom, security, and prosperity at orders of magnitude beyond what humanity ever experienced before. It seems bizarre to me to trade that in for the old nationalist ideologies.
There are strong hypotheses to back the data: Nationalism divides people at arbitrary borders, limiting their ability to travel, trade, and work together. Nationalists isolate themselves. We know well from economics that trade is best when it depends on economic merit, not on which artificial border you happen to live behind; it helps buyers and sellers - nobody will buy your goods if you don't buy theirs. Imagine science without internationalism. Imagine the IT industry - FOSS has contributors world-wide; the web was developed in Switzerland by a Brit, and shared by the world. Linux in Finland, etc.
In terms of security, the nationalists have only themselves; the internationalists have each other, such as the most successful and powerful alliance in history, NATO. Imagine the Cold War without internationalism in Europe, as the USSR took one small country after another. The free world's enormous advantage in military competition with China is that they have each other, they have allies.
Nationalism has a horrible track record, creating war and poverty, and the underlying curse, hate - arbitrarily, purposefully created - often by leaders using nationalism for their own power: 'be loyal to the nation, and I am the nation, I make the decisions'. Many, including Churchill, blamed nationalism for WWII (which is why the survivors built the UN and the predecessor of the EU).
The internationalist world has produced freedom, security, and prosperity at orders of magnitude beyond what humanity ever experienced before. It seems bizarre to me to trade that in for the old nationalist ideologies.