You call nationalism a cult, I call it a grand narrative underpinned by shared values that allow people to more easily trust each other (and hence coexist).
That just isn't going to happen globally.
That just isn't going to happen globally.
If you are from a locale where low-trust, feuding groups are interacting with each other but on a largely negative basis, and you're tired of it - then nationalism looks like something positive that can unify people into something more peaceful, and more capable of doing large scale projects together etc.
If you are from a locale where low-trust feuding nations are interacting with each other on a largely negative basis, and you're tired of it - then you want to develop a global structure which unifies them into something more peaceful, and more capable of doing large scale projects together etc.
What is it about nationalism that makes that particular level of abstraction become reified and hard to move beyond?
It seems to go back to before nationalism per se as a term. See Genhis Khan and the Mongols who ironically had little cultural influence over those they once conquered. Just uniting into a lack of war wasn't enough - they needed outside targets. Feudalism in general had that issue where a post unified country is left with an excess of fighters to burn off on foreign adventures for stability to prevent infighting fiefdom expansions. Both Japan post Sengoku Jidai and the Crusades fit that model as well. It also made them long term enemies even jf it didn't result in same generation "show up to pillage your holdings" retaliation.
People seem to prefer something which flatters their ego over something that works.