Globalists: how do we respond to resurgent nationalism?

[Great Minarchistan]

Point at World Wars One and Two and say "Remember those? They were started by nationalism and they sucked."

I'd frankly say WW2 was Hitler's revenge attempt in response to Versailles'. Sure, nationalism pumped it, but it wasn't the primary reason.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

I dunno.
People bitch about multinats enslaving people in third world countries, though, I think we can fix that by somehow extending the jurisdiction of places with labor laws that prevent such things.

Point at World Wars One and Two and say "Remember those? They were started by nationalism and they sucked."

I'd frankly say WW2 was Hitler's revenge attempt in response to Versailles'. Sure, nationalism pumped it, but it wasn't the primary reason.

The whole war was driven by the need to seize glory and land for the German nation and from the untermenschen and the dirty Franzosischen to form Grossdeutsches Reich.
He was driven by nationalism.
It was a nationalist glory hunt from beginning to end.
So was the war he sought to avenge, and the war the French sought to avenge. When the meta-psychopath wants to get his back, he makes sure he gets it or his soldiers will die in heaps and his nation will be reduced to near nothing in the effort.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

The collapse had everything to do with the failure of internationalism, specifically multiculturalism. The Soviet Union never "fell" in any sense but the various national republics severing their ties to one another. Russia is legally the same thing as the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. If the Soviet Union had been a unitary state, it would have been able to reform its economy without "falling", just as China has done.

I'd say It was national sovereignity that people in member states wanted. They were willing to eat potato peels to get that. They could have said that let's reform the Soviet Union (an idea that is pushed now by pro EU commentators) but most didn't, they wanted out. So It wasn't about economy really but at that point the Soviet Union had nothing to offer economically either. It was just a good time to break away from It when it was at its weakest.

Yes exactly. The USSR fell on the nationalities question, not the ineffectiveness of its economic system.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

It wasn't at all. Rome began as an ethnostate, Rome. Then it became a small ethnic elite (the Romans) ruling a broad multinational empire. As it struggled to rule this empire, it lost all its historical institutions and freedoms. Then foreigners took over the dictatorial apparatus that replaced them. Then other foreigners moved in and swept that away too. By 500AD Rome, its culture, its religion, and its genetic stock are dead. That is what Rome's empire won her.


I didn't suggest any course. Athens lost wars; well, that can happen to anyone. They didn't build their own funeral pyre. Rome did just that by winning wars.

Your suggested course was the rise to supremacy of one ethnic group; Athens followed that

I am afraid you have missed the point entirely. I have described an inevitable historical progression, not a policy proposal. If some nation - like the Romans - declines to assert its national interest, it will die. And the Romans did die. If some nation - like the Athenians - asserts its national interest and fails on the battlefield, it may also die.

Rome, meanwhile, had aspirational citizenship; freedmen gained the rights of most citizens and their children full Roman citizenship, for example, which meant that freed (and, theoretically, the most skilled and virtuous) slaves were given every opportunity to contribute to Roman society.

And by 500 AD there was nothing left of Roman society. What called itself the Roman Empire spoke bad Greek, worshipped a Jewish god, and had lost control of the city of Rome. The Romans first enslaved themselves with their empire, and then their empire murdered them. You think Rome is a great example of what multiculturalism accomplishes? I agree.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

The collapse had everything to do with the failure of internationalism, specifically multiculturalism. The Soviet Union never "fell" in any sense but the various national republics severing their ties to one another. Russia is legally the same thing as the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. If the Soviet Union had been a unitary state, it would have been able to reform its economy without "falling", just as China has done.

You and I must be operating under very different definitions of multiculturalism, and therefore a suffering some form of fundamental disconnect. Enlighten me as to what you believe multiculturalism, because I do not see ramming the ethnic traditions of one group (Russians) down the throats of the others as multicultural.

You complain that this is a strawman:

That's pretty tendentious. The USSR gave a lot of rights to national minorities, certainly relative to the Tsar time, not least making them republics as in Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Russian Empire wasn't a union of kingdoms of national minorities; it was a Russian monoculture that happened to contain a lot of non-Russians.

The USSR has been rationalised to be right wing, evil, etc. after the fact so that leftist don't have to defend it. Wasn't the case.

Then you make precisely that argument.

The USSR was as much Russo-supremacist as it was capitalist or as the US is anti-black. The USSR was explicitly anti-Russo-supremacist. Sure, that didn't change the fact there were just so damn many Russians, so they always had a lot of influence, but the structure of the USSR was set up to minimise their influence, not maximise it.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

That's pretty tendentious. The USSR gave a lot of rights to national minorities, certainly relative to the Tsar time, not least making them republics as in Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Russian Empire wasn't a union of kingdoms of national minorities; it was a Russian monoculture that happened to contain a lot of non-Russians.

The USSR has been rationalised to be right wing, evil, etc. after the fact so that leftist don't have to defend it. Wasn't the case.

The USSR gave rights to minorities, what?

Ask the Cossacks about that, or most especially the Balts and Caucasian peoples. You can also inquire about the Ukrainians and how their efforts to assert their cultural status turned out from roughly 1919 to the late 1950s. Hell, ask the Jews of Russia about the Doctor's Plot among other "tender mercies" of the Soviets. You can also ask the Central Asians about intense Russification campaigns, most especially in Kazakhstan.

Their efforts to assert their cultural status resulted in the legal and peaceful establishment of independent republics under the Soviet constitution.

[Former Citizens of the Nimbus System]

Your suggested course was the rise to supremacy of one ethnic group; Athens followed that

I am afraid you have missed the point entirely. I have described an inevitable historical progression, not a policy proposal. If some nation - like the Romans - declines to assert its national interest, it will die. And the Romans did die. If some nation - like the Athenians - asserts its national interest and fails on the battlefield, it may also die.

'inevitable historical progression'? You appear, my friend, to have taken the Whiggist approach to history and applied it to your own sociological theory; there is nothing inevitable about societies developing in a certain way, as any modern historian will tell you.

Rome, meanwhile, had aspirational citizenship; freedmen gained the rights of most citizens and their children full Roman citizenship, for example, which meant that freed (and, theoretically, the most skilled and virtuous) slaves were given every opportunity to contribute to Roman society.

And by 500 AD there was nothing left of Roman society. What called itself the Roman Empire spoke bad Greek, worshipped a Jewish god, and had lost control of the city of Rome. The Romans first enslaved themselves with their empire, and then their empire murdered them. You think Rome is a great example of what multiculturalism accomplishes? I agree.

To argue that the Romans failed as a result of multiculturalism is to first misunderstand the issue of Roman recruitment of extra-imperial barbarian soldiers and then to massively blow it out of proportion. In relation to the use of Greek, that had been the lingua franca in the Hellenistic world since Alexander conquered it and was as useful as for communication as Latin was in the Empire's west, so nothing bad there; as for the adoption of Christianity as Rome's state religion, imposition of one religion on diverse peoples runs counter to modern interculturalist thinking - the Romans before their adoption of Christianity had been incredibly willing to accept other peoples' gods into the Roman pantheon, their only real hesitancy being in regards to militant (extremist, we would call it) religious practice (such as Druidism) and monotheism itself (which, of course, was set directly against the acceptance of all other gods).

[Great Minarchistan]

Ayo HMS, slow down with that quad-posting

[Devernia]

Also, for how we should respond to the rising nationalist populism, I have no idea. Best thing is to leave it alone. We can't really do anything, it's populism for crying out loud. We are the minority, they are the majority.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

I am afraid you have missed the point entirely. I have described an inevitable historical progression, not a policy proposal. If some nation - like the Romans - declines to assert its national interest, it will die. And the Romans did die. If some nation - like the Athenians - asserts its national interest and fails on the battlefield, it may also die.

'inevitable historical progression'? You appear, my friend, to have taken the Whiggist approach to history and applied it to your own sociological theory; there is nothing inevitable about societies developing in a certain way, as any modern historian will tell you.

I'm taking a Darwinian approach to history. Societies that choose approaches that result in them growing and strengthening will survive; those that take other approaches will die. So over time we will inevitably end up in a world full of assertive ethnostates (eventually, perhaps, just one assertive ethnostates). That doesn't mean every individual society will follow that path, just that those that don't will disappear.

And by 500 AD there was nothing left of Roman society. What called itself the Roman Empire spoke bad Greek, worshipped a Jewish god, and had lost control of the city of Rome. The Romans first enslaved themselves with their empire, and then their empire murdered them. You think Rome is a great example of what multiculturalism accomplishes? I agree.

To argue that the Romans failed as a result of multiculturalism is to first misunderstand the issue of Roman recruitment of extra-imperial barbarian soldiers and then to massively blow it out of proportion. In relation to the use of Greek, that had been the lingua franca in the Hellenistic world since Alexander conquered it and was as useful as for communication as Latin was in the Empire's west, so nothing bad there; as for the adoption of Christianity as Rome's state religion, imposition of one religion on diverse peoples runs counter to modern interculturalist thinking - the Romans before their adoption of Christianity had been incredibly willing to accept other peoples' gods into the Roman pantheon, their only real hesitancy being in regards to militant (extremist, we would call it) religious practice (such as Druidism) and monotheism itself (which, of course, was set directly against the acceptance of all other gods).

IDK what is your point. Thanks to its linguistic, religious, and demographic tolerance, the Romans started speaking Greek, adopted Christianity, and were replaced as the dominant population in Rome by foreigners. I.e. Rome killed itself during the period of its empire, before it fell, the fall just formalising what had long been the reality. If you regard that as a basically acceptable outcome, and a result of reasonable policy choices, fine. My only assertion is that is the inevitable outcome of such policies.

[Mostrov]

‎

[Theodorex]

How to respond? Best responce is probably the truth, there has been nothing particularly good for regular people about globalism.

here is a good videohttps://youtu.be/KmE0M9TOIxU

[Kwartsland]

The big issue about globalism is that I've yet to see any good things come out of it.

I'm from a poor Dutch family with relatives in South Africa. I've both seen the result of businesses screwing over a large part of the European work force and extreme racial hatred between peoples in places such as South Africa which have resulted in extreme brutal murders of entire Boer families on South African farms.

I think when we have to choose between living in a mostly one-culture community and a multicultural society, most people of the lower and lower middle class would choose for the first option. Unless you start providing actual live proof that globalism works for everyone it will never happen.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Your only chance is uniting the world is under the auspices of America. That's your option.

[Alaizia]

Also, for how we should respond to the rising nationalist populism, I have no idea. Best thing is to leave it alone. We can't really do anything, it's populism for crying out loud. We are the minority, they are the majority.

You are very mistaken if you think that you are the minority. Sadly it's quite the opposite, as the international elite constantly tries to shove up the idea of a multiculturalist society down people's throats. People like me, who value nationalism and the respect and preservance of an ethnic group's culture, are much lower in number from those who say otherwise. Thankfully, nationalist movements are steadily growing. But if anything, as of now, we are considered to be radical voices on the sidelines.

[Mattopilos II]

Also, for how we should respond to the rising nationalist populism, I have no idea. Best thing is to leave it alone. We can't really do anything, it's populism for crying out loud. We are the minority, they are the majority.

You are very mistaken if you think that you are the minority. Sadly it's quite the opposite, as the international elite constantly tries to shove up the idea of a multiculturalist society down people's throats. People like me, who value nationalism and the respect and preservance of an ethnic group's culture, are much lower in number from those who say otherwise. Thankfully, nationalist movements are steadily growing. But if anything, as of now, we are considered to be radical voices on the sidelines.

No, you are still more the "reactionary voices in the sidelines". Because, well, you are acting in reaction to change.

[Nationalist Brazil]

well it depends of what type of Nationalism, because there are many types of Nationalism, for example I'm a Liberal Nationalist and I still love globalism with all my heart I love the free market and I love capitalism with all my heart.

[Lautrec-]

"Globalist" political parties must find out the reasons nationalism is on the rise and deal with them. They must change their approach towards immigration and combat nationalist propaganda. Europe should do more to combat propaganda coming from Russia (most notably regarding the French election) and the US should address the growing movement of the "alt-right".

The people leading the alt-right are usually extremely vile (e.g Milo supported pedophilia on an interview), and journalists must do more to show that to everyone who believes the alt-right is pure and morally superior.

[Alaizia]

You are very mistaken if you think that you are the minority. Sadly it's quite the opposite, as the international elite constantly tries to shove up the idea of a multiculturalist society down people's throats. People like me, who value nationalism and the respect and preservance of an ethnic group's culture, are much lower in number from those who say otherwise. Thankfully, nationalist movements are steadily growing. But if anything, as of now, we are considered to be radical voices on the sidelines.

No, you are still more the "reactionary voices in the sidelines". Because, well, you are acting in reaction to change.

Say it as you prefer. The point is that people nowadays are increasingly beginning to react towards the effects that globalism brings on societies. Not every change is a positive thing.

[Soyouso]

As a nationalist who respects the cultures of nations and wants them to survive, I am threatened by globalism because of the loose immigration (News flash, now is a very bad time to free immigration!), the painting nations who want to be individual as bad, and the instability that would come with trying to run AN ENTIRE PLANET even through subunits of a government, or attempting world peace. Eventually they'd all split into countries again and all want to kill each other.
What I think you guys should do is address common nationalist fears so you come off as more reasonable, because many people think you're trying to bring the New World Order. Like, I don't think you guys are "evil" or anything, but others are terrified. Globalism is one of my dystopias.

"How do we respond to resurgent nationalism"

Nukes, and a lot of them.

*triggered nationalist sounds intensify*
But in all seriousness if anything it'll just make people think of globalists as terrorists, although that was a joke.

[Alvecia]

No, you are still more the "reactionary voices in the sidelines". Because, well, you are acting in reaction to change.

Say it as you prefer. The point is that people nowadays are increasingly beginning to react towards the effects that globalism brings on societies. Not every change is a positive thing.

People always tend to react negatively to change. The greater the change the greater the reaction.
Only time will tell whether or not said reaction is justified.

[Post War America]

As a nationalist who respects the cultures of nations and wants them to survive, I am threatened by globalism because of the loose immigration (News flash, now is a very bad time to free immigration!), the painting nations who want to be individual as bad, and the instability that would come with trying to run AN ENTIRE PLANET even through subunits of a government, or attempting world peace. Eventually they'd all split into countries again and all want to kill each other.
What I think you guys should do is address common nationalist fears so you come off as more reasonable, because many people think you're trying to bring the New World Order. Like, I don't think you guys are "evil" or anything, but others are terrified. Globalism is one of my dystopias.

"How do we respond to resurgent nationalism"

Nukes, and a lot of them.

*triggered nationalist sounds intensify*
But in all seriousness if anything it'll just make people think of globalists as terrorists, although that was a joke.

When the concerns of many nationalists can largely be boiled down to "er muh gerd brown people are coming into the country", it can be quite difficult to really seem reasonable. Because ultimately what many mean by tightening immigration laws is kicking all the brown people out. Similarly when fear of a new world order boils down to a fear of any multinational organization expanding its power, it becomes quite difficult to seem reasonable there.

Further I should like to point out that no culture survives in stasis, and while respecting culture could be considered a good thing, it is another entirely to hold a dogmatic belief that (typically Western) cultures must remain exactly as they are ad infinitum. Cultures in stasis die, cultures that adapt survive.

[Ashkera]

When the concerns of many nationalists can largely be boiled down to "er muh gerd brown people are coming into the country", it can be quite difficult to really seem reasonable. Because ultimately what many mean by tightening immigration laws is kicking all the brown people out. Similarly when fear of a new world order boils down to a fear of any multinational organization expanding its power, it becomes quite difficult to seem reasonable there.

Further I should like to point out that no culture survives in stasis, and while respecting culture could be considered a good thing, it is another entirely to hold a dogmatic belief that (typically Western) cultures must remain exactly as they are ad infinitum. Cultures in stasis die, cultures that adapt survive.

Open Borders Progressivism logically leads to a world government. There is no way they will deny voting rights to migrants, or welfare. This will be deemed "second-class citizenship" and oppressive. However, since the migration can occur so easily, there is essentially no point to having different jurisdictions at a major level, so to eliminate tax evasion and combat all the national separatists that will inevitably arise, they will attempt to create a world government.

That's where this ends. It's obvious that's where this ends with a little thought and observation of their previous behavior.

Globalist arguments can largely be boiled down to "culture, religion, and ideology do not meaningfully impact behavior."

[Soyouso]

As a nationalist who respects the cultures of nations and wants them to survive, I am threatened by globalism because of the loose immigration (News flash, now is a very bad time to free immigration!), the painting nations who want to be individual as bad, and the instability that would come with trying to run AN ENTIRE PLANET even through subunits of a government, or attempting world peace. Eventually they'd all split into countries again and all want to kill each other.
What I think you guys should do is address common nationalist fears so you come off as more reasonable, because many people think you're trying to bring the New World Order. Like, I don't think you guys are "evil" or anything, but others are terrified. Globalism is one of my dystopias.

*triggered nationalist sounds intensify*
But in all seriousness if anything it'll just make people think of globalists as terrorists, although that was a joke.

When the concerns of many nationalists can largely be boiled down to "er muh gerd brown people are coming into the country", it can be quite difficult to really seem reasonable. Because ultimately what many mean by tightening immigration laws is kicking all the brown people out. Similarly when fear of a new world order boils down to a fear of any multinational organization expanding its power, it becomes quite difficult to seem reasonable there.

Further I should like to point out that no culture survives in stasis, and while respecting culture could be considered a good thing, it is another entirely to hold a dogmatic belief that (typically Western) cultures must remain exactly as they are ad infinitum. Cultures in stasis die, cultures that adapt survive.

Um, no. Maybe you should try asking us what we actually are concerned about instead of making assumptions, because not all nationalists are like "Dem dayum immigrants stealin' our jawbz"

1. I am not racist. I don't give a shit what color they are or their religion, my concerns with immigration are based on, you know, the bloodthirsty terrorists who want to kill and rape people just because we don't agree with their barbaric culture, that supports the rape of children, abuse of women, and murder of people who are not the same religion as them? And the fact that illegal immigrants are ILLEGAL? We should not be giving lawbreakers a break. It's not because of the race or religion, it's because of the troublemakers who want to fuck everyone else up. Hence why immigration should be strict so we can filter out the dangerous people. The terrorists DO NOT want peace, being nice to them will not help. They want to kill us, that's why they're sneaking in with the innocent refugees. We need a way to keep them out and bring those who are genuinely just refugees in.

2. I am not saying cultures are unchangable, I am saying people should be allowed to keep their culture as much as they want if it's not hurting people. Embracing cultures does not mean you automatically have to hate other cultures. Some of them just don't get along though, as we see with Shariah trying to interact with western nations. Forcing those cultures that are natural enemies together is not a good idea, they'll just kill each other.

[Neo Balka]

Globalism is one step away from treason and national suicide.