Benedict Anderson claimed that nationalism was an irrational concept. Clearly it also promotes a successful nation.

This relates to an idea discussed in "Imagined Communities" by Benedict Andersen regarding the negative effects of the enlightenment period on society. The disintegration of an external God often leads to worship of internal gods, for example, Ego-theism, where one's personal interest is prioritized beyond all else. This philosophy was popularized by Ayn Rand and Nietzsche. The effects of increased egoism are not overtly positive or negative, they include: increased divorce rate, greater technological progress, weaker communities, greater self-sufficiency, surge in materialism/consumerism, greater loneliness and increased suicide rates. Most people in Western societies can't imagine seeing themselves as unimportant, yet for thousands of people saw themselves as being a small part of a great system, whether it be government, a company, a religion, a community/nation or a movement. Both communism and fascism are good examples of what 's possible when individuals lack egoism. Because individuals hadn't yet learned to value their own uniqueness, Fascist and communist government were able to unite 90% of people under one idea. Similar to many of the rulers of antiquity who were seen to be chosen by God, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were similarly worshiped by all within their respective nations. People were united by the idea that they were a no more than a small part of a great nation which had been betrayed by the rest of the world. (I know that this i a bit of a contradiction to what I said previously about secularism leading to egoism (Fascism and Communism both secular movements) but I think that the 1st half of the 20th Century was a period of moral confusion where religion had recently been torn down and people were desperate for something to replace it.)

Within America, seeing another Hitler or Stalin, regardless of the political viewpoint would be an impossibility. The country is too divided and people's political opinions vary so much that it would be impossible to unite the nation under one idea. Part of that is due to a politics around identity, i.e. race, gender, religion which are inherently varied within America.

In the past, wealthier Americans were more likely to vote Republican and less wealthy American Democrat. This has now changed, for example, with Trump and Biden, we see a fairly even share of wealthy and non-wealthy voting both democrat and republican. As the author describes, this is because the focus of politics has shifted from economics to social issues, reducing the influence of economic position on vote.

Your nationality is something you have no control and it's direct influence on whether two people get along is small. Life experience and culture, something which has a greater bearing on who people get along with, is something that is learned overtime is a result of our nationality and is much more likely to be the glue that sticks people together. To say that nationality, in my opinion, actually connects people is irrational, lived experience as a result of our nationality, on the other hand, does foster unity.

That being said, the lived experience of the very wealthy and very poor is so different that their shared culture is insignificant regardless of their nationalities. I would argue that social class is a much more potent way of defining one's identity. Deep down people know this, but nationality, being used as a political instrument to influence the behavior of a nation (e.g. enlisting in wartime), is pushed to the forefront of the collective psyche.

Here is a deep and interesting idea. Without a God, some would argue, nihilism becomes unavoidable. The individual is minuscule in comparison to the world and negligible in comparison to the universe. Not only is he completely insignificant, but he suffers perpetually. However, God, with his infinite love, cares for you and promises you salvation from your suffering if you follow his commandments. For thousands of years, this prospect gave people purpose and clear morals. After the disintegration of religions during the enlightenment period, that comfort faded while the suffering remained and we all now find ourselves naked and alone in a harsh world when once we felt the warm embrace of a God and the promise of salvation. There is good in this world but there is also bad and the deterioration of religion has allowed you to ask the question; "Is the good worth the bad?". Life, morals, the self has lost much of it's meaning and now the universe has become mere happenstance made up of inanimate particles whizzing around and colliding with each-other. Ignore that love is just a chemical, that you don't really exist as a distinguishable entity and that nothing really matters. You are better off finding something to distract yourself with for the short time between the atoms in your body assemble and disassemble.