Globalism vs Nationalism
At a recent political rally, President Donald Trump declared himself a “nationalist”, causing something of a stir in the press. On his late night program, Stephen Colbert pounced on the President, chiding Trump for his use of the word. Colbert claimed that Trump should avoid the word, since the word “nationalist” is the second half of the term “white nationalist”. I wonder if Colbert believes that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should also cease using the term “socialist” to describe herself. After all, “socialist” is the second half of the term “national socialist”. Don’t expect to find out anytime soon though. Colbert is not keen on telling jokes which alienate his ever-shrinking base of mindless millennial Bolsheviks.
Many in the press made clear their preference for the term “patriotism” over “nationalism”, given that it lacks the same kind of historical baggage as “nationalism”. The problem, however, or perhaps the point, is that it also lacks teeth. Patriotism, after all, amounts to little more than national pride, or at most allegiance. It is a term sufficiently devoid of content that it won’t irritate the globalists at the helm. Saluting a flag does not threaten the interests of banksters and multinationals in the same way real political action does (like tariffs or pulling out of climate accords).
Others in the press denounced Trump’s self-declaration as another brazen assault on American democracy. It seems any time the people of a nation choose a path our Cultural Marxist overlords don’t approve of, those choices instantly become “anti-democratic”. Do these people not understand that choice is the essence of democracy? If the common people choose leaders the Deep State doesn’t approve of, or choose not to be overrun by third world hordes, that is not fascism, it is democracy at work. It seems that unless we are doing precisely what the liars in the Western press and power structure command we do, we are undermining democracy. Apparently, the only way a people can be truly free and democratic is if they concede all democratic choice to corrupt plutocrats and crypto-Marxist elites.
So, what is nationalism, and moreover, what is globalism, its ideological arch-foe? Well, the distinction is largely one of emphasis. Nationalists emphasize the national community and national interests, in contrast to globalists who emphasize the global community and global interests. Nationalists believe that the peoples occupying nations around the world will not be well-represented or well-served unless they have national leaders fervently representing them in international affairs. They emphasize the cruciality of the nation-state, and the particular interests and values of its citizens. Globalists do not. Globalists emphasize the cruciality of international organizations like NATO and the EU and the IMF, and large international treaties and the like, the power and ramifications of which often come at the expense of national interests and sovereignty. They also take a negative view of the rights and interests of particular peoples and regions. Globalists see national boundaries as an unfortunate impediment to the free flow of goods and labor (human beings), whereas nationalists see national boundaries as essential barriers which preserve the distinctiveness of cultures and populations, and keep ordinary people safe from external threats.
You may even detect some subtle parallels between statism and globalism, and I think you’d be right to. You see, globalists, like statists, always want to cede decision-making power to the next level up. Globalists believe in wise overseers and all-knowing elites, and in the goodness of their accords and designs, whereas those of us on the right have traditionally been cynical about power structures and their innate benevolence. That is a fundamental distinction worth noting, because firstly, it is in this sense that globalists are not merely statists but super-statists. They believe not only in bureaucracies, but international bureaucracies. They not only distrust common people and local communities to do what they think is rational and right, they even distrust national leaders to do so. Even regular old elites are insufficiently “educated” for hyper-elitist globalists. What’s more, this impulse, this attitude, betrays the true nature of globalists. Globalists purport to be for the global poor, but their general approach to power and decision-making reveals their lack of trust in the common people. Those who do not trust the common people can not be trusted to grant them any real power.
Thus, while globalists may emphasize empowering people everywhere, they rarely empower anyone but themselves. Globalism is therefore, in effect, highly anti-democratic, and consistently so. What’s more, democratic officials like Trump are not supposed to place the interests of the globe or of people elsewhere over the interests of their own citizens. Our representatives are supposed to represent us, not foreign peoples or lobbyists for foreign governments. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. So, the mainstream media, often accused of being the mouthpiece for gigantic multinational corporations and rich globalists, has it exactly backwards, as you would expect it to, given who it speaks for.
It should be evident then to all honest observers that the left is accusing Trump of what it is itself guilty of, although this should be expected of the left at this point. As Antifa uses mob violence to terrorize right-leaning dissidents all over the nation, the media portrays the right as the violent side when we merely dare to defend ourselves. As our Cultural Marxist overlords accuse Trump of assaulting democracy, they silently try to wage a coup against him via cooked up FISA warrants and never-ending witch hunts. It is obvious anyhow that the globalists detest democracy (which the Wikileaks leaks should have made clear to anyone paying attention) and should detest democracy more than Trump. Democracy has only ever treated Trump well, whereas the globalists have been hemorrhaging power for a decade now to wholesome democratic outrage from ordinary Westerners. Voters in Britain, Hungary, Italy and America have all soundly rejected the globalist paradigm. Unsurprisingly, in Britain and America, nations where corrupt oligarchies are better financed and more firmly entrenched, globalist forces have been behind the scenes doing all they can to nullify those recent decisions by the voters. It is not Trump that is the enemy of democracy.
I can not help but wonder, however, if globalism amounts to little more than consistently opportunistic and parasitic behavior by uber-rich Westerners, condensed down to a single term. If the term "globalism" is indeed just a symbol for corruption and the ruthless self-interest of Western oligarchs, it is almost certainly quite malleable. Western elites believe today that the current international finance system and global free trade benefit them, but if conditions should change, expect their globalist “values” to change with them. Much like how men like casino magnate Sheldon Adelson are strongly for gaming at their own Vegas casinos, but strongly against online gaming because it cuts into their profits (Adelson vowed to spend “whatever it took” to stop online gaming a few years back), globalists will only be globalists so long as they believe globalism makes them rich. The thinking is merely a function of financial interests for men like Adelson, and moral consistency isn’t even an afterthought. “Globalism” then is at least half glorified insult, and if it can be called a worldview (or political orientation) at all, it is probably a makeshift one. Its most enduring characteristics are not to be found in its ideas or its policy prescriptions, but in its function as a symbol of corruption at the top of Western institutions, institutions that ordinary Western folk rightly perceive to be representing everyone and everything but them.