does not recoil in the face of betrayal. Already the other one that does not have sufficient reasons for its national feeling. Today, as in the past, the village schoolmaster has new ideologies. Today, the poor pastor also feeds old feelings[...]The alliance between democracy and nationalism was the greatest political fact of the nineteenth century that ended in 1918. Today this alliance has been broken and turned into mortal enmity, which is the greatest political fact of the twentieth century. How was this possible? To tell you the truth, this alliance was not very firm. On both sides perpetually threatened. The alliance between democracy and nationalism was based on liberal individualism, extended from the individual to the nation, but individualism will always threaten the cohesion of a nation. On the other hand, the sentimental and instinctive forces of the nation are always irreconcilable with the rationalism that is the basis of liberal democracy. And this dual mutual threat was initially expressed by an issue that had no connection with the national question: the social question. Liberalism stands in bourgeois liberalism, economic internationalism. In times of prosperity one can still celebrate the "peaceful co-operation of all nations". In times of crisis this economic interdependence is a regrettable chain, a threat against national sovereignty. On the other hand the notion of "people", in which it was replaced by the proletariat, is organized in an international class.The euphoria of the nineteenth century, its heyday in the Victorian era was accompanied by severe symptoms of decay. Conservative thinkers, a Donoso Cortes, a Burckhardt from there draw their dark prophecies. All modern states are based on the principle of nationality but this principle is threatened, the decadence of the Order is predicted. Against this decadence it is necessary to restore the Order. That is why we are trying to break the alliance between nationalism and democracy, for the inevitable fall of democracy, to base the new Order on nationalism. This breakup is the work of George Sorel, Wilfredo Pareto, Charles Maurras. [...] Sorel comes from revolutionary socialism. Pareto comes from big bourgeois liberalism. Maurras from aristocracy. In fact the movements that derive from these three political thinkers will not be sharply separated: Sorel influenced the bolshevik marxism and facist syndicalism at the same time; Pareto influenced italian fascism and the "French Front"; Maurras all counter-revolutionary nationalism. [...] . All are reflections of the advance of a growing geopolitics that necessarily indicates now an internal and external discourse, very distinct and delineated in relation to their respective nationalisms that try to close the internal demands of net exports within sovereignty of growing states. The two great world wars are the result of this dynamic that ended up insoluble. Needs to be insoluble because it generates demands and political agendas that are supported on this axis, as they necessarily feedback and disagree between themselves.[original]No seculo dos nacionalismos exaltados, o fim do nacionalismo parece uma blague destinada aconsolar o burgues. E, porem, mais do que um paradoxo. E um fato historico. O presente tem sempre ma memoria e a historia