It is not politically correct to be a ‘nationalist’ these days, but that’s largely because of the self-serving myths that globalists like to engage in and a general lack of historical knowledge and rational thinking. The word ‘nationalist’ brings to mind the Nazis, where we are regularly reminded that they were “National Socialists”, emphasizing the first word in the phrase, but never the second. Like I said, self-serving myths.
However, while the word ‘socialist’ hasn’t changed all that much since the 1930’s, the word ‘nationalist’ has. In other words, its a logical fallacy called ‘equivocation,’ where the same word has two different meanings. Globalists (and the MSM, the general public, liberal progressives, etc) invoke the old meaning to criticize adherents of the new meaning.
There was indeed something nasty about the “old” nationalists, but people don’t really like to acknowledge what it is. Was much of it ‘racist’? Yes, of course. But it was ‘racist’ for a reason: they believed that SCIENCE had shown, in light of Darwinism, that the races were definitely different, and indeed some races were superior to others. And yet, it is still not fair to equate the “old” nationalism with racism, as, in point of fact, racism was infused into anti-nationalist, communist, and even progressive views, as well. Yet, people recoil in horror at the word ‘nationalist’ but carry on their merry way when they hear the word ‘progressive.’
The reason why people don’t like to admit the historical reality of the pervasiveness (beyond, except, when ascribed to ‘nationalists’) of ‘scientific racism’ is because they still like to claim the mantle of SCIENCE, which at present still accepts Darwinism as true and valid. They want their Darwinism without the part where they behave as if it is actually true, which is pretty much all that separates them from the progressives of the 1920’s to 1930’s, where they were courageous enough to behave as though Darwinism was true.
I have a whole page on my eugenics website dedicated to progressives complaining that people would not submit to SCIENCE and instead resort to sentimentality.
The short story here on how Darwinism became attached to these ‘political’ aspects is that the prevailing notion of the time that a ‘nation’ was basically a repository for a particular subset of the human species, and that such subsets could themselves be seen as operating on Darwinian principles. Eg, the ‘social organism.’ Thus, there was ‘survival of the fittest’ not just between rival, individual organisms, but also between populations. We still have the concept today, actually. It is called “intraspecific competition.” (And thus, why it is the case that so long as Darwinism is believed to be true, there will be people who believe it ought to be extended to ‘race’, etc).
Germany believed it was the fittest and that it had the evolutionary right and obligation, as a people, to devour those who were not as fit–and this would be good for the entire human race. This explains that little known fact that before the Nazis began wide scale extermination of the Jews, they first launched the T4 project, in which hundreds of thousands of GERMAN citizens who were disabled, mentally ill, etc, were exterminated. Such people dragged down the ‘social organism’ (eg, “useless eaters”) and stood in the way of a ‘fit’ “body.” This was laid out in Binding and Hoche’s “Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life” which was published years before the Nazi party even existed. The ‘nation’ was in essence an ‘organism’ subject to Darwinian principles.
Germany was not by any means the only country to have a large concentration of people who believed such things. Turkey (when killing the Armenians) had a similar conception, as did Japan (the Rape of Nanking, killing of prisoners, etc). WW1 was, as you can imagine, a humiliation for Germany and Turkey, who believed they were biologically superior. Likewise Japan after WW2. But there were people who had this notion diffused throughout the world, including the United States:
This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track.Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life,
Woodrow Wilson. American president.
It will be hard to find many more ‘internationalist’ than Wilson without going full Bolshevik. So, like I said, this ‘nasty’ business is not at all uniquely identifiable with early 20th century ‘nationalism.’
So, look. Even if it logically follows from Darwinism that nations should be seen as “living organisms” that must “obey the laws of life”, there are very few people who believe that, today. And certainly not most ‘nationalists.’
AND CERTAINLY NOT ME. (I, for one, think Darwinism is excrement.)
I lead with this, because the Globalists like to think that it is thanks to them and their institutions that the world has enjoyed relative peace after WW2. Ah, no.
First of all, this Darwinian-infused notion of ‘nationalism’ that existed prior to WW2 disappeared for the same reason that eugenics itself fell by the wayside. Eugenicists were humiliated by the outcome of WW2, shocked that their ideas could lead to such horrors. They repackaged and pursued their views via ‘crypto-eugenics‘ afterwards. But there was not much room for a ‘social body’ explanation anymore, as the countries which postured as Supremely Superior biologically speaking were destroyed… by American mutts.
The Globalists like to invoke international organizations, especially the UN, but they are reluctant to mention NATO in the same analysis. NATO is an international organization, but it is an organization centered on exerting MILITARY POWER. And within NATO, the number one puncher is, hands down, without a doubt, the United States of America. To cut to the chase, the relative peace the world has enjoyed has been thanks to the USA and its doctrine of being ready to fight–and win–a global war fought on two fronts.
Without the US, most of the world would be speaking German, Japanese, and/or Russian right now. That’s a fact.
Globalists want to trumpet the success of their institutions while ignoring the protective shield that the United States has provided for them over the decades. They are like the secretary who works in the office of a NFL football team that wins the Super Bowl. Sure, the secretary gets the ring, just like the players, and indeed, the secretary has contributed to the overall success of the team, but no one would fail to understand that the ones who chiefly provided the victory were the ones on the field, slamming away at another team for four quarters.
In the same way, the UN has perhaps done some occasional good, but whatever good they accomplished they accomplished because the US (primarily) was standing behind them with a billy club.
But I would dispute even the idea that we can even say there has been ‘relative peace’ after WW2. There hasn’t been another World War but that does not seem like the only criterion that should be on the table. Let’s be real: since WW2, hundreds of million were killed in various communist countries, there were civil wars, there were genocides in Rwanda (also infused with Darwinism) and Cambodia, etc., etc. Relative peace? I think not.
Events like Rwanda lay bare the failure of globalism… the eventual salvation of whatever Tutsis that were left was thanks to other, armed Tutsis, that came over the border. Maybe Kuwait can thank the international community for rescuing it from Saddam, but the Kurds, who were immediately abandoned after Kuwait was liberated might have another view. (Inexplicably, the globalists thought leaving Saddam alive and in power was a good idea, and Saddam used the opportunity to secure his position, by killing loads of Kurds.)
Relative peace in the United States and the West, perhaps, but that’s as far as it goes.
Having a realistic understanding of the true history of the 20th century is critical, I think, because there is very little in it to support the notion that any of us can trust our safety and security to bureaucrats who reside thousands of miles away, unless, perhaps, they are bureaucrats working in the Pentagon.
So, in my conception of ‘nationalism’, I am going back to something which pre-dates even Darwinism. When the United States was founded, the individual states were essentially and effectively viewed as sovereign nations in their own right. On this republican (small ‘r’) view, the powers of the federation were narrowly construed, and the nations–that is, American states–served as an important check and balance on tyranny at the federation level.
I am a ‘nationalist,’ in this sense, because I believe that in light of the realities of human history, extremely robust checks and balances are needed in every place where power is centered. Ultimately, the citizens of the many nations should be construed as the final check and balance, and should be armed in such a way that the tyrants really are afraid to over-reach. But what to do when other nations over-step and over-reach right into your own nation?
Well, in the past, one generally assumed that the people leading your own nation would put their foot down and attempt to protect the interests of the people who elected those leaders. But this is not the case when globalists run the show, especially when they are the ones at the steering wheel. Many examples could be given, but for the purpose of this post, I’m going to use the corona virus to explain, with some reference to the ebola outreak about six years ago.
The reaction to the corona virus has, in my mind, generally shown the powerful way that nations can be a check and balance against other nations. It did not take very long for individual countries to start locking down their borders, quarantining people coming from suspected regions in China, etc., etc. Excellent. As it should be.
Given such events, we do begin to see some of the narrow instances where are our international organizations have value. These epidemics have an international component almost by definition. But it is one thing to let these people do their work and it is quite another to give them governance.
Why? Because they don’t care about you, that’s why. Well, not exclusively, anyway. To the globalist, your interests needs to be weighed against the interests of other people’s interests, and, naturally, they are in their mind perfectly suited to be the arbiter in such things.
Thus, for example, let’s pretend that it was determined that it appeared there was going to be an outbreak leading to thousands of deaths in either region X or region Y. It could not be stopped. It was going to happen in one of these places. The only question was whether or not we could direct it to a particular region, and then actually do it. The globalist feels perfectly comfortable weighing the relative merits of each option. Perhaps they will not be quite happy that people in region X will suffer if region Y is spared, but again, on their view, it falls to them to be concerned about the people in both regions.
Now, if you happen to live in region X, you might feel altogether differently about it. It is your kids, your wife or husband, your livelihood, perhaps even your life on the line. It is you being asked to ‘take the hit.’ And the globalist? Well, he doesn’t answer to you, does he? You have no way to hold him accountable. You didn’t elect him. You will probably never learn his name. What if the entire premise is wrong–that is to say, perhaps in point of fact, there is no reason to believe that it WAS going to happen in one of those two places in the first place. That is, the globalist was wrong.
Can you imagine that? A globalist being wrong? (The globalist can’t believe it.) And to whom or to what can you appeal in that case?
If, in fact, there are significant checks and balances on the globalist and/or his institutions, the globalist can end up doing a lot of damage. The nationalist certainly can do a lot of damage, too. What is the only way to check either? Other nations.
In the Ebola incident, more than 11,000 people died. This is more than a third of all those believed to have been impacted. At present, almost the same number of people believed to have been infected (officially) is the same as in the Ebola incident (around 28,000) but there have only been a little over 500 deaths. [This seems reliable enough.] It strikes me as strange that in the Ebola outbreak, amid calls to shut down travel from that region, etc, there were globalists who decried such measures as ‘mean’, despite the disease killing 1 out of every 3 individuals, whereas with the Corona Virus, no one really had to issue any calls to take action because everyone–nations, international organizations, etc,–took appropriate action immediately… including shutting down travel from out of that region! This, when the Corona Virus, by comparison, is only killing (so far) 1 out of every 50 individuals. And no one accusing anyone for being mean!
Is it because the Chinese are not as lovable in the globalists’ eyes as the West Africans? I really don’t know the answer, but it does strike me as odd.
The thing that really bothered me during the Ebola incident was the clear fact that the Globalist-in-Chief, Obama, seemed perfectly prepared to subsume the interests and welfare of the United States. The US was basically the ‘region X’ from the scenario above. The nightmare was that the one actually elected to represent us didn’t seemed to care all that much about us. And hence, a lesson about electing globalists to represent you.
There are many examples that I could give to expound on this, but the corona virus thing seems to illustrate one of the benefits of having nations led by people concerned for the people who have placed them into power. There is no hint that this time around there are going to be calls for a global kumbaya because individual countries are proactively defending their own citizens.
Might this mean that somewhere down the line we may have to ‘rescue’ China? Perhaps. I’m sure many a ‘nationalist’ like myself will be happy to consider the prospects and act if necessary. What we don’t like is being called upon to sacrifice our own lives, the lives of our loved ones, or our general welfare, by the very people who were supposed to represent us.
Indeed, in a case like this, it seems the oxygen mask analogy would be appropriate. When you are on an airplane, they counsel you to put the oxygen mask on yourself, first, before tending to those less able to fend for themselves. The reason for this is very simple: if they are less able to fend for themselves, they are less able to help YOU, if you falter. Thus, helping yourself first isn’t merely being ‘selfish’ of ‘uncompassionate.’ By saving one (yourself), you increase the odds of saving both.
If healthier nations are asked to accept risks in order to dilute the risks to the other, less healthy nation, this could jeopardize our ability to help both.
Other examples abound, as I said. I am using the corona virus to illustrate.
But an aside before I move on.
I recently had a face to face conversation with a politician and the topic was oriented towards protecting the interests of my family. This politician, very earnest and genuine, hastened to remind me that he had to look after the interests of all the families in the area. This is the globalist spirit, writ smaller. You see, there are two ways of approaching such issues. In one approach, you recognize that you can’t be everyone’s daddy, even if you wanted to, and so, being concerned (genuinely) for all the families in the area, you strive to equip ALL the parents so that they can do what they are best situated to do–tend to their own families. In the other approach, you say, “Well, there are families that will not have parents who can do their job, so, hell, I guess I’ll just be everyone’s parent.”
There is no argument with the former viewpoint. It is the second viewpoint where problems emerge. Practically speaking, nobody can be everyone’s daddy. The globalist pretends that he is intellectually, spiritually, and morally capable of balancing the unique needs and interests of every single person on the globe, and from his Godlike perch, able also to act appropriately. But, although he may not ever see the damage he does (he probably won’t bother to look to see if he hurt someone along the way; for the globalist, only his good intentions matter, not the actual outcomes), there will be thousands of unanticipated consequences because, well, in point of fact, the globalist is NOT God.
One of the unanticipated (to them) consequences is that by acting to be everyone’s daddy, they necessarily enact and pursue policies which make it harder for actual fathers to appropriately protect their own family.
Consider a hypothetical to illustrate. Let’s say that I lived in a flood zone. Being the proactive father that I am, let’s say that I acquire a boat in order to get my family out of the area if it came to it. But my local globalist thinks its unfair that some people don’t have boats in case of flooding. To solve the problem, he outlaws private ownership of boats, and creates an agency which is in charge of all the boats, which they will then dispatch as necessary. On paper, perhaps, this will help the overall community in case of a flood, but it has come at the expense of taking my boat. Now I don’t have a boat if there is a flood. I cannot get them away and return in my boat to help others, because I have no boat.
And if my family drowns because the new agency fouled up in their response–or even if they acted effectively, but were constrained by circumstances–should I be happy that I was asked to sacrifice my family so that other people, who had perfectly good opportunities to be proactive themselves, but didn’t, could, theoretically, live?
Your globalists thinks you should be very happy. And why not? It isn’t his family.
Many, many, many, many policies and viewpoints are advanced exactly along those lines. In the name of the community, they deprive, disarm, defund, etc, individuals. At least as long as there are such things as ‘nations’/’states’, counties, municipalities, and townships, etc, where there is a halfway decent chance of reflecting the actual interests of the actual people who elect them, there is a good chance that some seriously bad (totalitarian level) things never take place.
Thus, I am a ‘nationalist,’ in just the same sense that I consider my home state to be a nation. Or, at least it used to be. With the steady encroachment of wanna-be-daddies over the last hundred years, even what we have is at risk. Someday, the globalists will foul it up so much that even they can’t deny what happened. (Remember, as a general rule, they rarely investigate the outcomes of their policies). Can you imagine how many people will have suffered and died in order to catch their attention at last?
It makes me shudder to think of it.