Marine LePen has said about our current struggle that “It’s no longer left vs right but nationalism vs globalism”. This more accurately describes the key political divisions today than “left vs right”. That is not to say that there isn’t a Left/Right divide, there most definitely is, but that the Left/Right divide doesn’t have the same repercussions for the future of Western Civilisation that the Nationalist/Globalist divide does. That is, whether we have lower taxes for business or higher taxes to fund a universal healthcare program, matter less to our overall future than whether we go down a Nationalist or Globalist path, especially in respect to immigration. While those on the right consider tax cuts for ‘job creators’ and reining in government spending as being the key issues for our future, we an only laugh to ourselves at the silliness of it all, as if it would matter to use whether China inherits an Australia who’s budget is in good order to not. Westerners are acting like tenants who are facing eviction due to spiralling rents, who are still concerned about leaving the carpet steamed cleaned when they are pushed out onto the street.

The “alt” movement, whether Alt-Right or Alt-Left, can be seen as being against the globalist hegemony. We saw that many Bernie supporters didn’t want to support Hillary, despite both candidates being Democrats. We saw that some of the Bernie Bro’s would rather have supported Trump over Hillary. Viewing the political divide as that being between Nationalism and Globalism, this makes more sense. Both Bernie and Trump represented the anti-establishment, anti-globalist wing of politics.

We are no longer a nation for people, but have become an aggregate of human souls who exist to service an economic system, a system with no allegiance other than that to the 1% who steer it and benefit most from it. Since the end of the Second World War, and perhaps the roots were established earlier, a slow transformation has occurred where the nation-state has been supplanted with a neo-liberal economy. Our countries have changed from being states to serve a particular nation, to administrative entities which exist for money. Germany is no longer a country for the German people, but an administrative entity which calls anyone who is registered with the right bureaucracies “German”. The same is true all throughout the West. China on the contrary, remains solidly pro-Chinese, solidly for the interests of Han Chinese. Our country will consider itself just as valid if our population were replaced en masse with people from elsewhere around the globe. A globalist would see an Australia which has been replaced demographically as still Australia. A nationalist on the other hand, wouldn’t recognise this ersatz state as Australia, because it is no longer predominantly Australia. A nationalist would see this future Australia as a changeling.

The arguments and attitudes against racism serve to perpetuate this system. The anti-racists who attack Nationalists are essentially defending the globalist status-quo. The argument, which are often economic in nature, such as immigration being good for jobs and growth, GDP, the economy indicate a thinking which pushes the welfare of the economy above the welfare of the nation. While the two are interlinked, it is still possible to damage a nation while improving the economy, and vice versa. What benefit is there in one increasing their liquidity or their asset prices, if in doing so they degrade the future of their descendants?

Nationalists believe that economic gain and be, and should be, to a degree, sacrificed, if necessary for the nation to maintain itself as a cohesive and sustainable ethnic and cultural entity. The choice is rarely between economic growth or nationalism though,as most of the arguments about immigration benefiting us don’t match what is observed. High population growth in Australia has demonstrably been detrimental resulting in a housing bubble, stagnating wages, record private debt and high structural debt. Young people are stressed and panicked about buying a house, having to compete with the hundreds of thousands who enter Australia each year, presumably to enrich us.

There may be an opportunity for the Left and Right to form a synthesis. The left, with its desire to maintain economic fairness, a secular and free society, and the “far right”, who want to be left alone from the pressure of existential threats that immigration creates, are in some way working towards the same goal. Many on the left are realising that open borders runs contrary to secular and free societies, and many right wing nationalists are realising that neo-liberal economics and Big Business Capitalism run contrary to national cohesion and continuation. The people who are entering our country don’t necessarily share our secular ideals, and rather than being brought here to enhance our lives, to create ‘diversity’ or teach us, are being brought here because shopping centres need more feet stampeding through them, employers need more competition for the few available jobs and property developers need high demand for housing.

The left may be loathe to associate with the ‘hard nationalism’ as put forward by the Alt-Right, both genuinely and ironically, but a ‘soft nationalism’, which is little more than the realization that a state and its institutions are for a people and not just anyone may be more palatable

Tagged with:
 

2 Responses to Islands of Nationalism in a Globalist world

  1. nineofclubs says:

    ‘The left may be loathe to associate with the ‘hard nationalism’ as put forward by the Alt-Right..’

    You might be pleasantly surprised.

    There are a number of us who you’d categorise as being on the economic left who have no problem at all with nationalism.

    There is no logical inconsistency between policies that maintain strong borders, low or no immigration and trade protection on the one hand and a more socialist economic structure on the other. In my personal opinion, that would be an ideal outcome.

  2. natalt says:

    There is a degree of convergence in the goals of those who seek economic structures which ensure the wellbeing of a people over the needs of multinational empires and global capital, and Nationalists. Our brand of Nationalism is people-oriented, as oppose to a state-oriented Nationalism or economic Nationalism.

    It is ironic that many left-leaning activists support the moral imperatives of big business. Gina Reinhart and Harry Triguboff are some of the most eager pro-immigration people there are to be found in Australia. Porter Davis is running an ad-campaign subtly promoting diversity under the guise of “respect”. Who can see the actions of these people and business as anything other than a grab to increase the market and increase their power and economic standing? There is a strong correlation between a champion-of-business’s support of mass immigration, and their desire to plunder and bleed Australia dry at all cost. Compare the aforementioned Gina to Dick Smith as an example.

    Perhaps decades ago there were politicians who genuinely believed that diversity and a one-race world would be a utopia, but this has been replaced by cynical manipulation and obliteration of culture and peoples and history for the sake of turning nations into resources for the ruling elite. The cultural Left haven’t caught on, and are unwittingly the vanguard of Capitals preferred morality.

    We do note that many on the economic left are critical of our current immigration policy. Articles on the Age about Australias population policy have far more comments against our immigration levels than in support of it. Even on this ‘left leaning’ publication, the weight of opinion leans towards closing that immigration gate to a degree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *