Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Defining "Globalism"

The good news is that "globalism" is slowly becoming a pejorative word, much like "liberal." The latter has been replaced by "progressive" in most circles now — I suppose it's fooling somebody — but I don't believe anybody has thought of a replacement for "globalist," they just try to avoid it. And, if you go by the quibcag to the left, almost all our politicians in the Western World these days are globalists, to include American Democrats and Republicans, and British Labourites and Tories, and whatever the European parties are calling themselves these days. Any parties that aren't globalist, like the French National Front, the German Alternative for Germany, the Danish People's Party, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Swiss People's Party, and Golden Dawn in Greece, etc. etc, are naturally, all called "neo-Nazi" by the MAG (Media, Academia, Government). And of course the main reason for the almost psychotic reaction against Trump in both the Republican and Democratic parties is that Trump has basically positioned himself as a nationalist, with his "America First" slogan, and implicitly rejected globalism, an ideological position which the elites of both parties share passionately.

One reason this blog is called Libertarian Nationalist is because one of its missions is to make it clear that libertarianism, for all its virtues and flaws, simply can't exist outside of the framework of a nation, or at least a state of some sort that keeps it from falling to pieces due to its own structural inconsistencies, or being brought down by immigrants/colonists/invaders eager to lap up the products of free market capitalism without doing any of the producing. Our Founding Fathers pretty much understood that dynamic, which is why they came up with a government and a Constitution, instead of going all Rothbardy. They knew that you couldn't preserve freedom outside of a state, simply because any such society would be devoured by the most nearby state ASAP. Not only does freedom need a state, it needs one powerful enough to fight other states. Just ask Norway 1940. So, seriously, folks. I'm all for open carry and old curmudgeons living in cabins and refusing to do paperwork, but that doesn't translate logically into the conclusion that the state isn't necessary. That's the stuff of heavy dorm room discussions and everybody I know has grown out of all that except for a few useful idiots to be found mostly among our liberals and libertarians. The libertarian kind can be recognized by their tendency to email me with their insight that "libertarian nationalist" is an oxymoron. A little such sperginess can be a good thing, but that's crossing the line.

Now, the reason so many of us on the non-useful-idiot faction of libertarianism and the quite similar traditional right — you have to go back at least to Barry Goldwater way before the hijacking of conservatism by the Bushes and other neocons — have moved speedily to Trump is simply because he always seems to talk in terms of what is good for Americans. Not various American pressure groups, but basic working class Americans. He seems to want to keep our basic institutions healthy. He doesn't have to natter on and on like Hillary about the importance of the family, because it's implicit in his whole rhetoric and demeanor that he thinks families are great. Somewhat unlike Hillary, again, who talks family but who seems to have rented her daughter.

Ironically, Hillary fits just about any definition of neocon, while Trump is the opposite. And this really frustrates and confuses many "conservative" institutions. Lawrence Murray discusses one of them at The Right Stuff:

How Trumpenvolk Talk

1 comment:

  1. We have finite lifespans, but the question is when we have to replace a plank in the USS Theseus, do we replace the original balsa wood with petrified wood - and do we expect it to float as well.

    Also the churches and culture on the right and whites adopted the sexual revolution and no-fault divorce. They had large nuclear families, but how many urban white collar whites today have more than 3 kids? You can't expect to remain a majority without having more kids than the minority (except a monoculture like Japan which then dies out and is eventually displaced).