nationalism, internationalism and globalism

If you’ve ever spent more than five minutes in the dissident right corner of the internet you’ve heard the phrase, “The real political divide today is not between left and right but between nationalism and globalism.” I’ve said it myself.
Are things quite as simple as that? Is nationalism really more organic, more traditional, more healthy, than globalism?
Nationalism is a fairly recent phenomenon. It did not exist in the ancient world, nor in the medieval world. In fact it did not really exist until the mid-17th century. The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War marked the formal recognition that nation states were now the effective political units of Europe. And nationalism did not take deep root in the European psyche until the end of the 18th century.
Prior to that there were of course strong local sentiments based on shared language, culture and religion but these had little bearing on the actual political arrangements of Europe. The political unit was the dynastic unit. Insofar as people had political loyalties those loyalties were owed to the local lord and ultimately to the king, or in central Europe they were owed to the local lord, to the prince and ultimately to the emperor. A kingdom could comprise a variety of ethnic groups and cultures and languages and even religions. The boundaries of kingdoms shifted constantly as dynastic marriages split existing political units or caused larger units to coalesce.
You might not speak the same language as your king, you might not belong to the same ethnic group, you might not share his culture or his religion but that did not affect your loyalty.
Prior to the Reformation most (but by no means all) of Europe belonged to a single entity known as Christendom but this was not a political unit. The head of Christendom was the Pope. His spiritual authority existed side by side with the political authority of kings.
Europe functioned perfectly well without nationalism. Multi-ethnic multi-faith multi-cultural political entities such as the empire of the Habsburgs were extremely successful. No modern nation state has lasted as long as the empire of the Habsburgs.
The Europe of the dynastic system and of Christendom had nothing in common with modern nationalism, but at the same time it also had nothing in common with modern globalism. It represents a third option and it is an option that is usually ignored, partly because it most people don’t understand it and partly because it didn’t suit modern political agendas.
It’s also worth pointing out that internationalism as such is by no means identical with globalism. Take for example the European Union. The EU is evil not because it’s internationalist. The idea of European political unity is not inherently evil. The idea of Europe has much to recommend it. The Second World War demonstrated with brutal clarity that European nation states were defenceless against the power and wealth of the United States. If Europe was going to avoid becoming an American colony then some degree of political and economic unity was essential. 
The problem with the EU is not that it’s corrupt and undemocratic (although it is corrupt and undemocratic). The problem is that it’s run by people who hate Europeans, hate European culture and are ashamed of themselves for being European. It is run by people who are fundamentally hostile to European civilisation. It is run by people whose loyalty is to bankers.
This is the problem with almost all internationalist organisations today. They are run by bankers for bankers.
It is extremely unlikely that organisations like the EU can be reformed. The EU will never serve the interests of Europeans. The idea of Europe on the other hand still has some validity. The question is whether it will ever be possible to bring about a European unity that will serve the interests of Europeans.
The idea of regional internationalism is also not inherently evil. Countries like Australia cannot exist in the modern world as viable independent nation states. They simply do not have the economic, military and political muscle to be anything other than satellites of great powers. Countries like Australia (and Canada and Britain) are, in political terms, merely American vassal states. In the long term their only hope of avoiding such vassalage is by being part of regional power groupings.
It is also clear that, in the absence of such regional power groupings, the entire world is going to end up being divided into two gigantic spheres of influence, one dominated by the United States and one dominated by China. This is why the idea of resurrecting the caliphate is so attractive to many Muslims. Independent Islamic nations are merely pawns in the game of power politics played by great powers. A caliphate uniting a large part of the Islamic world would have some chance of political independence. It is their only chance of preserving their culture and their religion and it ids therefore going to be increasingly seen as not only desirable but essential.
Nationalism is certainly preferable to globalism. It is however doubtful whether in the modern world nationalism can defeat globalism. While I’ve been quite sceptical of ideas like white nationalism I can understand why such ideas seem attractive. If nationalism is a spent force then perhaps other options for fighting globalism need to be considered.
Advertisements

the real far right in France

The French presidential election next year is starting to look very interesting indeed. The victory of François Fillon in the Republican primaries means that there is now a genuine far-right candidate in the race. Fillon is not just copying the FN’s rhetoric on immigration and Islam. On economic issues he appears to be a kind of globalist Thatcherite. 
What this means is that Marine Le Pen is now the moderate centre-left candidate! Of course it remains to be seen whether she will be able to persuade the French voters that Fillon is a dangerous extremist who intends to destroy the French nation completely in order to serve his globalist agenda.
How will the media in France react to Fillon’s candidacy? Will they demonise him? It would certainly be easy to do. His economic policies will bring ruin and social chaos. He is an unabashed social conservative. He promises to crack down on immigration and Islam. He is pro-Putin. He is a long long way to the right of Le Pen. On the other hand he is a reliable supporter of globalism and the EU.
Will Fillon’s toxic economic policies lead to a revival of the fortunes of the Socialists? Le Pen’s best chance (and it’s a very slim chance) would be to face a Socialist candidate in the second round. At the moment the Socialists are so unpopular that they’re virtually an irrelevance but could Fillon’s Thatcherite policies galvanise disillusioned Socialist voters?
And if Le Pen faces Fillon in the second round of the election will Socialist voters throw their support behind a hard right candidate like Fillon?
Would the French actually be foolish to elect a man like Fillon? They were dumb enough to elect Hollande so anything is possible.
Gallia Watch has some interesting (and scary) stuff about Fillon.

Brexit – a Berlin Wall moment?

The Leave vote in the Brexit referendum is obviously very good news indeed. I just hope that Brexiteers realise that while this has been a glorious victory it’s just the opening battle in what will be a lengthy war. 
Britain cannot be a truly independent nation until the globalist  elites who created the mess are thoroughly eradicated. That means the existing Conservative and Labor parties must be destroyed. It can be done.
This victory was won by a temporary alliance that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago – dissident Tories united with dissident Labour supporters. In fact it was an alliance of what could be called old school Tories (the ones who actually cared about their country) and the old school Left (leftists who actually care about working-class people). They were united for one magnificent moment by their detestation of the smug elites who currently run the Conservative and Labor parties. This was what Peter Hitchens has described as “an alliance between the social conservatives trapped and ignored in a liberal Tory Party and the social conservatives trapped in a liberal Labour Party.” 
Hitchens fears that the referendum may have brought this alliance about too soon and that it may not last. He may be right. It is very much in the interests of both groups to burn the existing political establishment to the ground, but the danger is that after the euphoria of the referendum victory has worn off it may be back to business as usual with voters continuing to vote for established political parties that despise them.
On the other hand it may be that now that ordinary people have discovered that they can actually change things, and all they have to do is motivate themselves enough to go to the polling station, they might start taking an interest in finishing the job. There is the chance that this may be a Berlin Wall coming down moment for the British political establishment.
The elites of course have been sneering about the fact that the referendum was won by old white people. So it was. And now those old white people have had a taste of power. They’ve ditched the EU and they’ve ended the dismal disastrous career of David Cameron. They’ve discovered they can outvote the moronic Millennials. They can, should they choose to do so, take back their country.
In some ways it’s to be hoped that the EU is as obstructive as possible about Brexit – it will serve to maintain the rage. Maybe the British people will eventually figure out that if they want real independence they need to eliminate the current self-serving self-appointed political class.
Of course it could be a Berlin Wall coming down moment for the EU as well. Now everyone in Europe who hates the EU knows that it is possible to leave. What seemed like an impossibility has been demonstrated to be a very real possibility. Anti-EU movements in other countries are going to be really energised now.
Just remember, the collapse of the Soviet Union was an impossibility until it happened. And when history happens it tends to happen surprisingly quickly.

Britain, stuck in the Hotel California forever

I fear that Peter Hitchens is probably right – The EU is our own Hotel California: We can check out, but we’ll never leave – and that no matter how the referendum turns out Britain will not be permitted to leave the EU.

Quite apart from the determination of Britain’s elites to prevent any attempt to leave there is also the problem that the US does not want Britain to exit the EU. And I can’t see any British political leader having the courage to defy Washington. The British bulldog is now a well-trained lapdog.

Personally I’d like to see Britain leave NATO as well as the EU. The end of the Cold War meant the end of NATO’s usefulness. NATO is now a danger to the peace and security of Europe rather than a protection. It is useful only to those who want a new Cold War.