Globalists: how do we respond to resurgent nationalism?

[Ferak]

Well, I actually agree with most of your analysis there (albeit belatedly, perhaps) - but I'm not sure it solves our problem. I don't think liberal democracies in the modern world are particularly well-equipped to handle nationalist populism, and I'm not sure that they are even compatible. How can you maintain a "liberal" society and shut the gates? That might have worked 50 years ago, when barely anyone knew anyone from somewhere else. And maybe to some people in fly-over country, closing the borders would not make much difference to their lives. But to a large proportion of Americans it would: they have friends abroad, they have lived abroad, studied abroad. Some of their friends might be migrants, as would many other people they interact with.

You vastly overestimate the amount of people this is true for, and even if it was, this does not equal respect for foreigners. Trump was the most popular with whites, by and far compared to others, in ethnically diverse communities. The only foreign ethnicity that Americans come into regular contact with are illegal immigrants. Actual legal immigrants and migrants are far rarer, and most of them are on H1B visas - abused by these globalist multinational companies to depress wages.

Like, to be specific, what would you think about some sort of federal government subsidy/taxation program to try and relocate some business activity from the coasts into areas that are economically depressed following the departure of old manufacturing or mining? Or how about having government bureaucracies spread out more... government departments that are more decentralised, with less public sector staff concentrated in DC, for example?

I would like welfare and financed relocation, but that isn't what they want, they want their old lives back. Nothing else. and they have been getting violently more insistent about it. Dispersing the bureaucracy doesn't matter now, that is long gone. The international elite don't have to live in DC anymore - they are a transnational body.

Relocating businesses is also never going happen. You will never convince Apple to rebase themselves from Silicon Valley to Williston, North Dakota or the depths of West Virginia. These places already have next to no tax - they still choose California, New York etc.

The Democrats realign themselves along class conflict or they will fail.

[Neu Leonstein]

You vastly overestimate the amount of people this is true for, and even if it was, this does not equal respect for foreigners.

Even if you were right, it wouldn't be relevant to the point. You can't really have a liberal democracy and shut the gates when you have a significant minority of people who live and want to live in cross-border social networks. When it comes right down to it, it really is just the government telling people that they can't live their life a particular way. You can't be committed to liberal democracy and nationalism at the same time in the 21st century. Again, that's why you get this overlap between authoritarians who seek to advance the power of the executive against all other parts of the state, and people who support nationalism.

Trump was the most popular with whites, by and far compared to others, in ethnically diverse communities.

I don't assume that you're incorrect on this, but I'm still going to ask for a source - just because we have to have a common set of facts to talk about.

The only foreign ethnicity that Americans come into regular contact with are illegal immigrants. Actual legal immigrants and migrants are far rarer, and most of them are on H1B visas - abused by these globalist multinational companies to depress wages.

This sounds like you made it up just now. There are far more legal than illegal immigrants in the United States (see here and here) and most of the undocumented immigrants live in places that did not vote for Trump - they live in solidly blue places.

This is a pattern that we've seen in so many places now that it's almost a truism - if you look at regional distributions of votes within countries, the more migrants there are in a place, the less support anti-migrant populists get. Brexit, the various Swiss referenda, German state elections, the Austrian presidential election, Australian general elections and so on. You can't easily argue that votes for anti-immigrant populists is a reaction to stuff migrants actually do, at least not stuff that those voters actually personally experience. What those voters react to is the idea of immigration, not the people. Which makes perfect sense, because we know that people's behaviour is completely different depending on whether they are talking about a person in front of them or some person they can think of in the abstract.

But it means that any response to this can't be about the facts of immigration, and it can't really be anything that migrants can do themselves. And similarly, it's not valid for you or anyone else to justify anti-immigrant populist votes as a reaction to stuff immigrants do.

I would like welfare and financed relocation, but that isn't what they want, they want their old lives back. Nothing else. and they have been getting violently more insistent about it.

Dispersing the bureaucracy doesn't matter now, that is long gone. The international elite don't have to live in DC anymore - they are a transnational body.

Relocating businesses is also never going happen. You will never convince Apple to rebase themselves from Silicon Valley to Williston, North Dakota or the depths of West Virginia. These places already have next to no tax - they still choose California, New York etc.

The Democrats realign themselves along class conflict or they will fail.

And how will the Democrats realigning themselves solve any of these problems? It sounds a lot like you think that the cliche Trump voters' concerns are just not addressable in a way that will actually work to make their situation better. But is the solution to just... ignore them? That doesn't sound feasible either: given the geography of how these people are distributed, and the way the US electoral system values geography over population or economic output, you can't easily win elections that way. And even if you could, the point of a democratic government is that it is meant to govern for all its citizens rather than just its voters.

Trump isn't going to fix any real problems for those people, though he might "solve" some imagined ones. But if I'm right about the long-term impact of the sorts of economic policies Trump seems to be favouring, then things are just going to get worse for those people on every front outside the culture wars. I would expect that they'll be annoyed with that. Trump's response, like that of all populists, will be to blame others (foreigners are a good target, though "elites" also seems to be doing the job). And then we are again on the slippery slope towards authoritarian populism that endangers liberal democracy as a system.

So I think it is actually important to find a way to make things better for these people, in a concrete way. A "oh well, can't do it" is tantamount to giving up on liberal democracy as we know it.

[Arkolon]

Globalism is seen as the antithesis to nativism or nationalism. I feel as if explaining my personal situation would offer a new perspective on this front.

I am a European citizen. It is not a romantic ideal that makes me say this. I identify with the European flag and the European Union more so than I identify with any national flag or any nation in particular. Consider this: neither of my parents have lived in the countries they are from for many decades, and I have never lived in any of the places I am supposed to be "from". I have been an immigrant my whole life, never having resided in any country in which I have been told I "come from". Sure, I have a couple citizenships and I've been to visit my grandparents, but I feel no attachment to the lines on the map that delineate "where I'm from" versus "where I'm not from". I identify with the European Union because it's the only institution that represents me: I cannot vote in the UK despite being a UK national, but I can vote in European elections. My parents have worked for EU institutions for as long as I have been alive - to put it in more tangible terms, every cent of pocket money I have ever received, or every piece of food that was bought so that I could eat has been funded by the European Union. Even my education was at the first European School, founded for the children of EU employees in 1953.

Countries don't mean a lot to me. They have not provided a great deal for me, and I've only seen them as sources of conflict. For as long as I can remember, there have been no borders between countries for hundreds of kilometres on either side of me; nationalism brings up memories of a day where "us" and "them", "you're from here" and "they're from there" is exaggerated. In all honesty, to me, it upsets me when people say "globalism is dead", or "the EU is an invented country". Every country is invented, existing nowhere except in our social construction of the world around us. Every country, however invented, has people who identify with it. And I identify with the European Union. It is not a failure, it is not "unsuccessful" (its stated goal was peace in Europe, and it's been quite good at that). It's not a bureaucratic morass, it is not an impersonal monolith resistant to change. It's an institution like any other, and most importantly for me, it's basically my entire life.

I reject nationalism because I cannot conceive of a way in which I could relate to any nation in particular. So when considering globalism as the antithesis of nationalism, that "globalism is dead" or that "the EU is a failure" and so as a consequence nationalism must necessarily prevail, keep in mind that there are many people like me. If anything, in my eyes, nationalism is dead. The nation-state is being wiped away, its importance eroded in the face of international capitalism, globalisation and technological advancement. But even if you disagree, consider that the twitch in your eyes when reading "nations are dead" is the same twitch in my eye when you suggest "the EU is dead" - in both cases, we are missing an important worldview and making gross oversimplifications.

I in turn would like to give my view as an American citizen that has had extremely limited impact with anything not American.

I was born in a no-name town in Missouri thousands of miles from another country, right in the middle of the "American Heartland". Everyone I ever talked to, was related to, was friends with, and worked with were Americans, and my family had existed there for generations, for years and years and years. These kinds of communities have not gotten wealthier, they have gotten horrifyingly more poor. Drugs, crime, unemployment, poor education, no social mobility - part of this is there fault for routinely voting in a government that makes it worse for them, but there is a reason it is the GOP that ended up taking protectionism under their wing, and not the Democrats (although they do too now).

Ah, but here there is an important difference. The United States of Europe is the final form of the European project. I can believe that you feel part of a greater whole composed of 50 smaller states, but only in the way that I too feel part of a greater whole composed of 28 smaller states. In our time, it's this global whole that I feel part of whose existence is being threatened. The real question would not be whether you feel American (as I feel European), but whether you feel Missourian. Has everyone you ever talked to, been related to, been friends with and worked with been from Missouri as well? Should Missouri have greater independence in deciding its own laws outside of federal interference, should we implement border checkpoints on Missouri's frontiers with Kansas or Iowa, should we instate a Missouri Dollar to give the state monetary sovereignty? After all, these are similar arguments to those pushed for by parties where I live. All of these parties want less interference from "the bureaucrats in Brussels", the ability to "take control" of our borders, the romantic ideal of "monetary sovereignty", for instance French coins for French people. I doubt this would be the case for you: I'm sure you know people from out of state, that you can live, work in and move freely between states. I'm sure your neighbourhood and the first neighbourhood closest to you in Nebraska both stand up when they hear the American anthem played, and that you both identify with the American flag and its government. That's exactly what I want for my continent: the United States of Europe is the final form of the European project, and the far-right populists of the day are all too keen on breaking it - my country - into pieces.

You very much sound like a member of the "international elite". Quite clearly given immense privileges and opportunities hundreds of millions are not. For every one American who gets privileges such as you do, 10,000 are still out in the country with no hope or chance of anything close to that. The only thing they had was a stable job and family life, and those were robbed from them because they cannot attend the same schools you could (and eventually, I could). What was once a culture of a fairly good community is now one of poverty and misery. The US government often times seems more concerned about the welfare of European and Asian citizens than American citizens.

What makes me part of the international elite? You have to remember that where I live we also believe there's an international elite above us. We don't feel like elites at all. Consider that I have less political representation than you do, as no national parliament represents me; that according to "my" government, I am a pawn in their "dealmaking" charade with the European Union in Brexit talks. I'm forgotten by the political elite, and can only find representation in the European Parliament that represents all Europeans. Worse still, there is the xenophobia attached with living in a foreign country. Just the other day we were approached at a bus stop by a local and told that we should be "sent back to England", because we didn't belong here. Also consider that I went to a public school, that my parents are public sector employees, that their parents were schoolteachers and tractor repairmen. No one there is part of the capitalist class, the 1%, the wealthy or the "international elite". And finally consider - not to partake in the Oppression Olympics or anything - that because my parents didn't own their apartment, that most likely makes your family more asset-rich than mine, because many Americans in rural communities own their detached houses. I've never lived in poverty myself, but that doesn't mean poverty and misery don't exist here. Crime exists here, violence exists here. If it's just in the last few years that you've started noticing that these things exist in your community, why aren't you part of the world's sheltered elite?

"The international elite" is a buzzword that never appealed to me because the first time I heard it it was used against people like me. But no one here considers themselves part of the elite - we too see a class above us, controlling the important functions of civil society to the detriment of ordinary people like us. For us, that ruling elite is the billionnaire class: people like Trump, Ross, DeVos, people who could not care less about ordinary working people but use their wealth to push their self-serving agenda. From where I stand, we saw Trump's victory as the very opposite of the victory of the common man. The common man elected a New York businessman who turned his inherited millions into billions - how can you say that this man has more in common with people from a neighbourhood in rural Missouri than, say, someone like me? Missouri has a much higher median income than both countries I come from, so in all likelihood you're at least as wealthy as those in my social class, and you suggest that you got a more worthy education, so it's definitely not a question of wealth or privilege, because you definitely have a lot of those. So why identify with the billionnaire class before me?

[Ferak]

I don't assume that you're incorrect on this, but I'm still going to ask for a source - just because we have to have a common set of facts to talk about.

http://fusion.net/story/366271/election ... diversity/

The areas that are still a majority white but have changed to become more diverse drastically over the few years voted for Trump pretty overwhelmingly. It's the same story with Europe and refugees.

This sounds like you made it up just now. There are far more legal than illegal immigrants in the United States (see here and here) and most of the undocumented immigrants live in places that did not vote for Trump - they live in solidly blue places.

I did not say all ethnically diverse counties voted for Trump, obviously, minorities did not vote for him. What I did say, was whites in ethnically diverse communities voted for him. This was extremely obvious in the primaries (where the vast majority of voters in the GOP primary were white), where Trump won border counties, and newly diverse communities overwhelmingly.

These immigrants largely live in areas where American minorities live, who voted for Hillary overwhelmingly. While many of them might be upset about their newly changed communities, most of them don't care so much as to drive them away from they usually vote for.

This is a pattern that we've seen in so many places now that it's almost a truism - if you look at regional distributions of votes within countries, the more migrants there are in a place, the less support anti-migrant populists get. Brexit, the various Swiss referenda, German state elections, the Austrian presidential election, Australian general elections and so on. You can't easily argue that votes for anti-immigrant populists is a reaction to stuff migrants actually do, at least not stuff that those voters actually personally experience. What those voters react to is the idea of immigration, not the people. Which makes perfect sense, because we know that people's behaviour is completely different depending on whether they are talking about a person in front of them or some person they can think of in the abstract.

When you look Europe though, you are really missing on something. European countries did not have massive amounts of minorities. They are extremely racially homogeneous. Whites in the US are only something like ~60% of the country. These diverse communities with immigrants usually have Democratic aligned voters to being with - African Americans, Latinos etc. When you look at Europe, these counties are still going to be largely French, or British, since the migrants aren't voting. In the US though, the parties are way more racially slanted, so these diverse communities are more often than not majority-minority. Diverse communities that are still majority white went for Trump most of the time.

But it means that any response to this can't be about the facts of immigration, and it can't really be anything that migrants can do themselves. And similarly, it's not valid for you or anyone else to justify anti-immigrant populist votes as a reaction to stuff immigrants do.

I'm not justifying it, but I would say the Democratic Party's constant defense of illegal immigration has gotten to the point of absurdity. Europe has deal with migrants certainly, but the US has deal with millions of illegal immigrants that falsify their social security status.

And how will the Democrats realigning themselves solve any of these problems? It sounds a lot like you think that the cliche Trump voters' concerns are just not addressable in a way that will actually work to make their situation better. But is the solution to just... ignore them? That doesn't sound feasible either: given the geography of how these people are distributed, and the way the US electoral system values geography over population or economic output, you can't easily win elections that way. And even if you could, the point of a democratic government is that it is meant to govern for all its citizens rather than just its voters.

They are not getting their old lives back. They just aren't. It's not happening. Their prosperity was an anomaly - it was only possible because every other country at the time was devastated from WW2. They could, for a short time and at significant cost to rest of the country, potentially get some plants back but that isn't a permanent solution.

These are people who routinely vote for the Party that deprives them of healthcare, of education, and of worker rights. They do not vote for the party based on policy, they do it for culture reasons. Race and religion. Whites are becoming a Republican voting bloc.

Trump isn't going to fix any real problems for those people, though he might "solve" some imagined ones. But if I'm right about the long-term impact of the sorts of economic policies Trump seems to be favouring, then things are just going to get worse for those people on every front outside the culture wars. I would expect that they'll be annoyed with that. Trump's response, like that of all populists, will be to blame others (foreigners are a good target, though "elites" also seems to be doing the job). And then we are again on the slippery slope towards authoritarian populism that endangers liberal democracy as a system.

So I think it is actually important to find a way to make things better for these people, in a concrete way. A "oh well, can't do it" is tantamount to giving up on liberal democracy as we know it.

Trump will fail and he will blame minorities, foreigners, and an imaginary globalist conspiracy. The Democrats have to frame the election in a way where they are not seen as the party of minorities but as the party of the working class - white or minority. The GOP is not interested in fixing their problems, they will just continue the decay of the US as a superpower.

[Ferak]

Ah, but here there is an important difference. The United States of Europe is the final form of the European project. I can believe that you feel part of a greater whole composed of 50 smaller states, but only in the way that I too feel part of a greater whole composed of 28 smaller states. In our time, it's this global whole that I feel part of whose existence is being threatened. The real question would not be whether you feel American (as I feel European), but whether you feel Missourian. Has everyone you ever talked to, been related to, been friends with and worked with been from Missouri as well? Should Missouri have greater independence in deciding its own laws outside of federal interference, should we implement border checkpoints on Missouri's frontiers with Kansas or Iowa, should we instate a Missouri Dollar to give the state monetary sovereignty? After all, these are similar arguments to those pushed for by parties where I live. All of these parties want less interference from "the bureaucrats in Brussels", the ability to "take control" of our borders, the romantic ideal of "monetary sovereignty", for instance French coins for French people. I doubt this would be the case for you: I'm sure you know people from out of state, that you can live, work in and move freely between states. I'm sure your neighbourhood and the first neighbourhood closest to you in Nebraska both stand up when they hear the American anthem played, and that you both identify with the American flag and its government. That's exactly what I want for my continent: the United States of Europe is the final form of the European project, and the far-right populists of the day are all too keen on breaking it - my country - into pieces.[/quote]

To begin with, the US is inf act growing increasingly divided and polarized. Whether this will continue to radicalize - but look at the election by breakdown of the counties.

Every single blue spot on that map is either a city, or an ethnic conclave (like the south-east border in Texas).

While I do not feel particularly Missourian, it is difficult to feel much in common with a wealthy urbanite. The states speak the same language, have always used the same currency, have never had borders, have the same system of government, share the shame history etc. but even that is not really enough to assuage the feeling that people in this country do not really share much but a flag. We do not have the value structures, we have seemingly bi-polar politics, the races have less and less in common, and I am fairly frightened about the future of the country.

We stand up for the American flag, but that doesn't mean much. I mean for one, it has become a political tool to not do exactly that - I don't put much stock in it, but increasingly the urbanites have, rightly or wrongly, criticized the US as a country, and as a union.

And it is in fact a common slogan to run against the "Washington elite", that was Trump's entire campaign. The "DC insiders" need to let the states sort out their own issues, as they would say. "State's rights" is a massive right-wing argument here. They whitewash the entire Confederacy by saying they fought for that, rather than slavery.

What makes me part of the international elite? You have to remember that where I live we also believe there's an international elite above us. We don't feel like elites at all. Consider that I have less political representation than you do, as no national parliament represents me; that according to "my" government, I am a pawn in their "dealmaking" charade with the European Union in Brexit talks. I'm forgotten by the political elite, and can only find representation in the European Parliament that represents all Europeans. Worse still, there is the xenophobia attached with living in a foreign country. Just the other day we were approached at a bus stop by a local and told that we should be "sent back to England", because we didn't belong here. Also consider that I went to a public school, that my parents are public sector employees, that their parents were schoolteachers and tractor repairmen. No one there is part of the capitalist class, the 1%, the wealthy or the "international elite". And finally consider - not to partake in the Oppression Olympics or anything - that because my parents didn't own their apartment, that most likely makes your family more asset-rich than mine, because many Americans in rural communities own their detached houses. I've never lived in poverty myself, but that doesn't mean poverty and misery don't exist here. Crime exists here, violence exists here. If it's just in the last few years that you've started noticing that these things exist in your community, why aren't you part of the world's sheltered elite?

These communities were never really wealthy. Most Americans can own a home only because the land is incredibly cheap - but that comes at the cost of services. So while these rural communities might have homes, they do not have jobs, or healthcare, or schools (funded by property tax, making their value dependent on the value of the community). Violence, poverty, and drug abuse are pretty common - the recent opiod epidemic is claiming thousands. I don't how many of these homes you've seen, but most of them look like this. What I think you imagine is more the subruban American home, which is generally owned by the professional class. Most importantly, there is no opportunity here, there is no social mobility. Almost every European country has better social mobility than the states.

The fact you can afford frequent travel, employment abroad, and access to public goods most Americans don't have is what makes you international elite. Yes, you aren't the 1% - but I would also call people in US cities that can do the same as you, but are not millionaires, as elite. I only qualify myself as not elite because of my current situation but in a few years you'd be right - I will be in a career that is fairly lucrative and urbanized. But I would recognize my priorities as different than the vast majority of the country.

Elite is not meant, but is often used, as an insult here. It is meant to communicate a severe disconnect with the majority of the country.

"The international elite" is a buzzword that never appealed to me because the first time I heard it it was used against people like me. But no one here considers themselves part of the elite - we too see a class above us, controlling the important functions of civil society to the detriment of ordinary people like us. For us, that ruling elite is the billionnaire class: people like Trump, Ross, DeVos, people who could not care less about ordinary working people but use their wealth to push their self-serving agenda. From where I stand, we saw Trump's victory as the very opposite of the victory of the common man. The common man elected a New York businessman who turned his inherited millions into billions - how can you say that this man has more in common with people from a neighbourhood in rural Missouri than, say, someone like me? Missouri has a much higher median income than both countries I come from, so in all likelihood you're at least as wealthy as those in my social class, and you suggest that you got a more worthy education, so it's definitely not a question of wealth or privilege, because you definitely have a lot of those. So why identify with the billionnaire class before me?

I would like to mention that Missouri has a higher income because it has a massive city - Saint Louis, and also borders Kansas City. The rural county medians are much worse off.

But I agree with you - Trump does not represent the common man. He does not have anything in common with me. What he does have, is has his race. People in these counties do not think the Democrats really care about the poor, and think they stand as the party of minorities instead. Mind you I did not vote for the man. I have consistently admitted these people vote for the wrong party and have skewed perspectives - but the Democrats need to realize that if they want to win.

But their insistence on things like globalization and multiculturalism, above and beyond class politics, severaly harm them there (but helps them in cities).

[Ictus]

What those voters react to is the idea of immigration, not the people. Which makes perfect sense, because we know that people's behaviour is completely different depending on whether they are talking about a person in front of them or some person they can think of in the abstract.

This.

[Alouite]

In twenty years, globalism will be a distant memory, and humanity will be all the better for it.

You saw it here first.

S H A D I L A Y

That is doubtful. The pace and direction of technological advancement mean that the broad arc of history is continuing to trend toward global integration. Political setbacks serve to delay this inevitability. I'm saying this as someone who is neutral towards globalization.

I disagree, there is little reason to believe that the many cultures, ethnicities, religions, and ideologies held by people world wide will ever merge into one contingent group.

[Post War America]

That is doubtful. The pace and direction of technological advancement mean that the broad arc of history is continuing to trend toward global integration. Political setbacks serve to delay this inevitability. I'm saying this as someone who is neutral towards globalization.

I disagree, there is little reason to believe that the many cultures, ethnicities, religions, and ideologies held by people world wide will ever merge into one contingent group.

Possibly not, however we have seen in the long term a trend towards the gradual conglomeration of cultural groups into unified, larger ones. Emblematic of this fact is the fact that the majority of humans on the planet speak one of only thirty languages, or that roughly half of the world's population follows one of two religions, or that we have seen fairly consistent conglomeration of states in the long arc of history. Will complete integration happen within our lifetimes, almost certainly not, however the arc of history has trended towards greater global integration, and a homogenization of human culture. It is not my place to determine whether this is a good thing, however the process will continue barring a catastrophe on the scale of a nuclear war.

[Zurkerx]

I think regardless of what we do, we will see these kinds of trends again and again. It is now just a matter how long this trend will last in terms of nationalism. People are bound to repeat history again, they always do.

[Werftkrieg]

Actually, as a Middle Westerner, I personally am okay with globalisation. Just so long as our government doesn't do any of it, I'm cool.

[Militant Costco]

That is doubtful. The pace and direction of technological advancement mean that the broad arc of history is continuing to trend toward global integration. Political setbacks serve to delay this inevitability. I'm saying this as someone who is neutral towards globalization.

I disagree, there is little reason to believe that the many cultures, ethnicities, religions, and ideologies held by people world wide will ever merge into one contingent group.

Russia would like to disagree with you on that.

[Aclion]

Cooperation on fair terms is in every nations best interest. Globalism need not be exploitative or imperialistic.

[Ashkera]

Cooperation on fair terms is in every nations best interest. Globalism need not be exploitative or imperialistic.

Supposedly. And there is more to Globalization than just "international cooperation".

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

You vastly overestimate the amount of people this is true for, and even if it was, this does not equal respect for foreigners.

Even if you were right, it wouldn't be relevant to the point. You can't really have a liberal democracy and shut the gates when you have a significant minority of people who live and want to live in cross-border social networks. When it comes right down to it, it really is just the government telling people that they can't live their life a particular way.

What you want destroys their way of life too.

As I said the solution is to deport the internationalists to a homeland state of their own, Crossborderia, of which they will be enthusiastic nationalists. That way we don't need to have a conflict.

You can't be committed to liberal democracy and nationalism at the same time

That's a crazy statement. Democracy is inherently nationalist. Why else should I care what a few tens of millions of strangers vote to order me to do, if not feeling some national sense in common with them? Without national states, democracy will die and be replaced by empire. Seems to be what the globalists want at this point anyway, now that elections have started going against them.

Again, that's why you get this overlap between authoritarians who seek to advance the power of the executive against all other parts of the state, and people who support nationalism.

What you're getting is disintegration of national states - in which people are predisposed to be peaceful to one another - causing problems like terrorism and religious conflict to which the only possible response is increased arbitrary state power. The end point of all this is South Africa with the globalist elite sitting in barbed wire fortresses while society burns.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Globalism is seen as the antithesis to nativism or nationalism. I feel as if explaining my personal situation would offer a new perspective on this front.

I am a European citizen. It is not a romantic ideal that makes me say this. I identify with the European flag and the European Union more so than I identify with any national flag or any nation in particular. Consider this: neither of my parents have lived in the countries they are from for many decades, and I have never lived in any of the places I am supposed to be "from". I have been an immigrant my whole life, never having resided in any country in which I have been told I "come from". Sure, I have a couple citizenships and I've been to visit my grandparents, but I feel no attachment to the lines on the map that delineate "where I'm from" versus "where I'm not from". I identify with the European Union because it's the only institution that represents me: I cannot vote in the UK despite being a UK national, but I can vote in European elections. My parents have worked for EU institutions for as long as I have been alive - to put it in more tangible terms, every cent of pocket money I have ever received, or every piece of food that was bought so that I could eat has been funded by the European Union. Even my education was at the first European School, founded for the children of EU employees in 1953.

In other words you're a European nationalist, not a globalist; just like an American nationalist isn't a globalist just because his nationalism attaches to the USA rather than to Iowa or Michigan. I appreciate it's awkward for you to be a European nationalist and a citizen of the UK which is now withdrawing from the European nationstate; on the other hand you say you have several citizenships so probably it isn't going to make any difference. Just renounce the UK one.

[Kyrinasaj]

There is nothing inherently wrong with nationalism, unlike common belief it doesn't start wars. As long as democracy and civil rights are still respected. However, the will to expand your borders and to unite an entire region of culturally and ideologically diverse people in an undemocratic way is bound to lead to wars. Globalist Imperialism, it's nothing else than imperialism at this point. A small group is expanding their influence across different nations borders. Every nation should have the right to enforce their borders, there is nothing bad about or strange about it. No-one has the right to cross borders of a certain country. It is in fact a privilege and if you're abusing that privilege by breaking the law then you should be definitely be deported.

[Neu Leonstein]

That's a crazy statement. Democracy is inherently nationalist.

Note that I said "liberal" though. You can definitely have nationalist authoritarian democracies, like Venezuela, Turkey or Russia. Those don't have any problem with cracking down on minorities of any kind, because the will of the majority need not be limited by institutional protections. But if the idea of a liberal democracy is that institutional protections are meant to protect the rights of individuals and minorities against the will of the majority, then to me it seems rather inconsistent to make an exception for the minority of people who don't have the same passport as others. You're making the membership of the community and society contingent on a majority vote.

As a thought experiment, imagine that there really was only one nation in the world. Would you still assign the majority the same rights to decide who gets to be part of society as you would when there were multiple nations?

Why else should I care what a few tens of millions of strangers vote to order me to do, if not feeling some national sense in common with them? Without national states, democracy will die and be replaced by empire. Seems to be what the globalists want at this point anyway, now that elections have started going against them.

Because I can understand on a thinking level, rather than a feeling level, that democracy is a good way to organise a large body of people. Tribalism isn't required to understand the merits of democracy - self interest suffices.

Which is good, because this often-cited national sense in common isn't exactly easy to find in daily life. Self interest is rather more common. I mean, I have spent enough time on rush hour tubes to see how far national solidarity and the disposition to be peaceful to one another goes.

What you're getting is disintegration of national states - in which people are predisposed to be peaceful to one another - causing problems like terrorism and religious conflict to which the only possible response is increased arbitrary state power. The end point of all this is South Africa with the globalist elite sitting in barbed wire fortresses while society burns.

Isn't that rather like blaming the victim? Taken at face value, there are two readings of what you're saying that I can see. Either it is the nationalist reaction to globalism that leads to war, destruction and/or authoritarianism. Therefore you say we need to end globalism and make sure the nationalists get everything they want. Or, it is the failure of nation states to stop terrorism and religious conflict that leads to war, destruction and/or authoritarianism. Therefore you say we need to end globalism and make sure the nationalists get everything they want.

The only way that what you're saying could work is if you actually think that terrorism and religious conflict and all the other stuff going wrong with modern nation states are somehow globalism's fault. But you're a long way yet from demonstrating that.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

That's a crazy statement. Democracy is inherently nationalist.

Note that I said "liberal" though. You can definitely have nationalist authoritarian democracies, like Venezuela, Turkey or Russia. Those don't have any problem with cracking down on minorities of any kind, because the will of the majority need not be limited by institutional protections. But if the idea of a liberal democracy is that institutional protections are meant to protect the rights of individuals and minorities against the will of the majority, then to me it seems rather inconsistent to make an exception for the minority of people who don't have the same passport as others. You're making the membership of the community and society contingent on a majority vote.

As a thought experiment, imagine that there really was only one nation in the world. Would you still assign the majority the same rights to decide who gets to be part of society as you would when there were multiple nations?

I didn't say anything about majorities getting to decide who is part of society. I said that democracy doesn't work without a nation. Democracy assumes a great deal of common culture and mutual tolerance and respect. It assumes that I can feel safe spending 4 or 5 years out of power. If democracy becomes a competition of ethnic blocs that have no feelings for one another then no one feels that safety. The stable solution is Saddam's Iraq or Assad's Syria, where the most militarily competent ethnic bloc conquers and rules the others. And the more liberal you the want the state, the more this must be so. What do Russia and Turkey have in common? And other "authoritarian democracies" like Singapore? Lots of ethnic conflict. You need strong government to stop everyone fighting each other. (Venezuela is a mess because of socialism not nationalism)

Why else should I care what a few tens of millions of strangers vote to order me to do, if not feeling some national sense in common with them? Without national states, democracy will die and be replaced by empire. Seems to be what the globalists want at this point anyway, now that elections have started going against them.

Because I can understand on a thinking level, rather than a feeling level, that democracy is a good way to organise a large body of people. Tribalism isn't required to understand the merits of democracy - self interest suffices.

Which is good, because this often-cited national sense in common isn't exactly easy to find in daily life. Self interest is rather more common. I mean, I have spent enough time on rush hour tubes to see how far national solidarity and the disposition to be peaceful to one another goes.

Uh huh, and are you going to think that on a thinking level when 60% of the population is Muslim and wants to impose Jizya on you outlawing homosexuality? How about if 60% of the electorate wants to abolish democracy? It's happened before. Democracy is a good way for a large group of essentially similar people to make decisions. It is not a good solution to conflicts between distinct blocs.

What you're getting is disintegration of national states - in which people are predisposed to be peaceful to one another - causing problems like terrorism and religious conflict to which the only possible response is increased arbitrary state power. The end point of all this is South Africa with the globalist elite sitting in barbed wire fortresses while society burns.

Isn't that rather like blaming the victim? Taken at face value, there are two readings of what you're saying that I can see. Either it is the nationalist reaction to globalism that leads to war, destruction and/or authoritarianism. Therefore you say we need to end globalism and make sure the nationalists get everything they want. Or, it is the failure of nation states to stop terrorism and religious conflict that leads to war, destruction and/or authoritarianism. Therefore you say we need to end globalism and make sure the nationalists get everything they want.

The only way that what you're saying could work is if you actually think that terrorism and religious conflict and all the other stuff going wrong with modern nation states are somehow globalism's fault. But you're a long way yet from demonstrating that.

Try to define a nation.

Here is my definition of a nation: a group of people who consent to be ruled together according to a mutually agreeable scheme.

A non-national state is therefore by definition one in which consensual government is impossible.

According to this definition, globalists aren't so much anti-nationalists as world nationalists. They believe everyone in the world would consent to be ruled together according to a mutually agreement scheme. Except, look around you. This world is chock full of shithole states that can't do that. Why do you think moving their populations into Western Europe and the USA is going to fix all their problems? And have you noticed that the more their populations grow, the less governable European states and the USA are becoming? Half of France's army is on the street. Your belief in the world nation is a crazy delusion.

[Seraven]

I'm not sure whether this is terrifying, or not, but Globalists tried to shut Infowars down.

[Alvecia]

I'm not sure whether this is terrifying, or not, but Globalists tried to shut Infowars down.

Interestingly, that sounds a lot like something Infowars would say.
I wouldn't be sad to see them go, but what exactly are you refering to?

[Seraven]

I'm not sure whether this is terrifying, or not, but Globalists tried to shut Infowars down.

Interestingly, that sounds a lot like something Infowars would say.
I wouldn't be sad to see them go, but what exactly are you refering to?

I'm referring to one of their...video, where they mentioned at first Pence being part of Globalists, then result in a series of Globalists' successful attempts to locked down the Google ads revenue, locked them out from Google, and their attempt on locking down the Infowars.

[Alvecia]

Interestingly, that sounds a lot like something Infowars would say.
I wouldn't be sad to see them go, but what exactly are you refering to?

I'm referring to one of their...video, where they mentioned at first Pence being part of Globalists, then result in a series of Globalists' successful attempts to locked down the Google ads revenue, locked them out from Google, and their attempt on locking down the Infowars.

Oh well if it's a video from Inforwars talking about how people are trying to shut down Infowars, I see no reason anything they say shouldn't be trusted.

[SUNTHREIT]

The plan is simple- we're going to call white working-class voters stupid and bigoted for voting against our policies. That way we'll win over a ton of people and avert the polarisation of western politics.

[Alouite]

I disagree, there is little reason to believe that the many cultures, ethnicities, religions, and ideologies held by people world wide will ever merge into one contingent group.

Russia would like to disagree with you on that.

Lol, Russia, that after building a bloc based on internationalism shattered with ethnic based nations breaking off of it? The USSR is a literal example of how internationalism doesn't work.

[Post War America]

Russia would like to disagree with you on that.

Lol, Russia, that after building a bloc based on internationalism shattered with ethnic based nations breaking off of it? The USSR is a literal example of how internationalism doesn't work.

It didn't help that the USSR actively oppressed ethnic and religious minorities, as well as engaging in outright imperialism. The USSR's downfall would more accurately by traced to other issues than internationalism.