Globalists and identitarians: Why I oppose them both

identity europa

It has often been said by some on the right that the current political spectrum is not left vs. right, but rather globalism vs. nationalism. The definition of globalism is fairly self-explanatory. It’s the idea that we should live in a world with no national borders (thus no sovereign states), governed by one or more international bodies who all adhere to a set of ideas that are in some ways rooted in cultural Marxist thought. Nationalists, meanwhile, believe in the value of a sovereign state with the rest to self-determination.

However, nationalists aren’t the subject of this post. In recent months, a group called Génération Identitaire has been making waves since last month, after they attempted to block a boat that allegedly was carrying African migrants. Since then, members of the group have attempted to rationalise their actions claiming that they are merely adopting the tactics that were already successful when used by left-wing activists. Even Lauren Southern, a formerly respectable journalist turned alt-right activist, went down this rabbit hole last week, in a video wherein she defends her embrace of far-right identity politics.

This isn’t the only reason I think identitarians are no different to SJW’s however. Identitarians generally want to preserve some semblance of their native cultural identity (in this case European identity), but how might they go about achieving that? The problem with a society that tried to preserve a notion of “cultural identity” is that in order for it to be even possible, an identitarian society must inevitably become an authoritarian society in order to ensure the cohesiveness of said “European identity”. I’m sure they have no qualms with that, considering that the far-right identitarians reject democracy altogether.

My main problem with the identitarians is that to achieve their long-term goals would require a totalitarian system to be implemented. I agree with the identitarians only on the point that mass immigration needs to be curtailed because it is becoming unsustainable, but I think this issue can be solved democratically, especially once the SJW’s stop being a nuisance. The problem is that whenever people try to take ownership of a culture, as I believe the identitarians secretly want to do, they end up nearly destroying it. For a few historical examples, the Nazis burned books that went against their ideology, Francisco Franco banned the Basque language and tried to destroy the Basque and Catalan cultures, and Mao Tse Tung tried to destroy every article of pre-Communist Chinese culture he and his student minions could get his hands on.

Every self-appointed defender of their culture who’s tried to take control of it has ended up nearly destroying it, and given the chance, I believe that the identitarians in the alt-right would do the same. In practice and in principle, I think that the identitarians are no different to the social justice warriors on the far-left. After all, the social justice warriors are so focused on protecting BAME culture from the clutches of white people, but in doing so they would isolate different cultures by ethnicity, and stunt their development.

Don’t get me wrong, I oppose globalism all the same, but not for entirely the same reasons as the identitarians might. My main reason for opposing globalism is because it is the ultimate enemy of liberty. Robbing nations of their sovereign identity notwithstanding, the creation of a globalist system would require an extremely authoritarian system with an impossibly large, centralised government. Liberty can’t exist in such a system, and in such a system where all the power and the money are concentrated into the hands of a global elite, personal choice and freedom of opportunity would be crushed. I also oppose globalism because I know that the problems society faces now, along with the complete degradation of modern culture, are the result of decades-long shift towards globalism.

It is the globalists that have caused the economic sickness that we in the West live with today, not that I expect identitarians to be concerned with economics, and that’s another problem I have with these alt-right identitarian types. Social (or indeed racial) issues come first, economics comes second. Ask a neo-Nazi what economic policy he might want to implement and I doubt he’ll give you a coherent answer, unless they’re directly quoting from the Hitler playbook. But their views one economics might be oddly similar with that of the socialists – they both despise capitalism. It is said that it was easy to convert a nazi into a communist and vice versa, because both hated Western liberal values, and both hated capitalism. Adolf Hitler, a socialist who ran a command economy, viewed the Great Depression as a sign of capitalism’s supposed failures, and of the need for state intervention. I have no reason to assume that the identitarians give a damn about free market economics, and for me that’s a big problem because I firmly believe in free market capitalism. If the identitarians and the alt-right wanted to dismantle that system, even if to oppose globalism, I would oppose them.

So there you have it. I oppose globalists because they’re the rotten, corrupt establishment we have today, and I oppose identitarians because their ideology is frankly a retarded brand of collectivism all the same. They’re the sort of people that we conservatives rightly distance ourselves from (not least because the left-wing media uncharitably lumps the far-right extremists in with the rest of us whenever they get the opportunity), and why not? They don’t want anything to do with us more moderately right-wing conservatives. To them, I may as well be the equivalent of a left-wing pinko because I want the government out of my bedroom and my wallet.

What bothers me more is supposedly more moderate conservatives like Lauren Southern going to bed with these extremist identitarians and abandoning all sense of principle in the process. They honestly believe that these people are their friends because they have the same enemy, but the reason I don’t see it that way is because once in power the identitarians would turn on the very concept of rights, and they’d shit on the US Constitution if they felt like it. They would be just as authoritarian as the social justice warriors we all criticise, and that alone should be reason enough to stay away from these people.

Advertisements

When did national identity become a cardinal sin?

 

082dd5e5ed7edc19580f6a7067008ab2_c0-316-3280-2228_s885x516

Today is of course American Independence Day, and as I celebrate the 240th anniversary of the great nation where I spent my formative years, I’m reminded of the reason why America was founded, and the revolutionary war that led to the creation of a country that believed in liberty from the beginning. If I lived there, of course I would be proud to call myself an American, but over the past decade the left has been working to making American culture seem like an unequivocally shameful thing in what I understand is some sort of vainglorious attempt by the progressive establishment to shame people into rejecting their national identity.

The same has been happening in Britain for a long time, and I think that the ongoing aftermath of Brexit has exposed the leftist elite’s contempt for the very concept of national sovereignty. People who voted Leave in the referendum were vilified as racists, xenophobes and fascists simply because they valued their own national identity and culture, rather than the empty globalist farce that is the achievable dream of a borderless world. Until then, I had no idea just how much the British electorate valued their culture, and even before the vote, I sympathised with one of the driving concerns of those who intended to vote Leave – they were tired of being called “racist” simply because of their concerns about immigration. Indeed after the vote, the young people who voted Remain began dismissing their elders as “racist xenophobes” who “robbed their future”.

How is this relevant? It showed that the young Remain supporters had complete and utter contempt for the very idea of national pride, or even a national identity. Living in Wales, I find this rather odd because you have plenty of people who have a strong belief in Welsh identity. Indeed, I know one or two young people who would happily support Plaid Cymru because they think Wales should be run by the Welsh government rather than from England, and yet the majority of young people in Wales seemed to be in support of Remain, indicating that they have no problem with Britain being controlled from Brussels. I fail to see the logic in that.

What I want to know is how did national identity become such a cardinal sin to modern society? I think the problem is that many people seem to have been convinced that national identity is only capable of dividing people based on arbitrary conditions, but while I agree that it’s stupid to label people based on something that they didn’t choose, I also believe that if people choose to embrace their national identity, then we have no right to judge them for it. I also believe that national identity has been given a very bad image by the mainstream establishment in both Britain and America.

In America, patriotism became associated with supporting the inept interventionist policies of George W. Bush, and a lot of conservatives in America did exactly that. This led to a number of liberals and progressives leaping to the assumption that patriotism was synonymous with blind acquiescence to the will of the state, and I think that’s a mistake. What followed was a continuous assault on American exceptionalism (as demonstrated by the monumental bullshit spewed by Jeff Daniels’ character in The Newsroom), and now that conservatives have lost the public debate in America, the progressives have continued their campaign of liberal guilt and political correctness, and now it has given rise to the success of Donald Trump.

In Britain, the media has created a narrative in favour of multiculturalism, such to the extent that any who dare question it are branded as either “racists” or “far-right extremists”. In 2011, current PM David Cameron delivered speech in which he said that “multiculturalism has failed”. Naturally, critics such as Sadiq Khan accused him of effectively giving propaganda material to the English Defence League, a far-right protest group that was created in order to combat the rise of radical Islam in British communities. Of course, I’m not a nationalist, and I certainly would not support the EDL, mainly because they are too extreme for my tastes, but I believe that the rise of organisations like the EDL are a symptom of a deeper problem.

The problem is that state multiculturalism (which David Cameron was criticising) really has failed, and before you get the wrong idea, there is a reason why. Before David Cameron was elected, the New Labour government was promoting a doctrine of state multiculturalism with the intention of “changing the face of Britain” forever. However, the Blair government oversaw a blatant open border policy which was implemented purely for political ends. Multiculturalism succeeds when migrants assimilate into the culture they emigrate to. Blair’s multiculturalism, however, involves allowing the free expression of all cultures except the national culture. His plan was to make our national culture into a cosmopolitan culture, but you can’t claim to be open to all cultures while silencing those who express our indigenous culture. The reason multiculturalism isn’t working is because you often have people who refuse to assimilate, and if you dare point out the problems associated with that, you are condemned as a racist. UKIP’s Nigel Farage is a man who often gets called a racist (if, that is, he’s not being called a twat) simply for standing up for national identity. New Labour’s failed experiment also led to a rise in crimes that weren’t punished because the authorities feared being called racists. Because of that, we saw the rise of the EDL and the British National Party, and the tempers of some of the nastier elements of society are only getting worse.

To me, the establishment is forsaking the concept of national identity in favour of the idea of “global citizenship”, a concept that nobody really wants any part of when they actually learn what it is. The idea of global citizenship is based on getting rid of the idea of nations and replacing it with state-free citizenship of a globalised world, and the only people pushing for that idea are leftist celebrities, opportunistic politicians, EU bureaucrats, educational institutions, and idealistic youngsters who found themselves conned by any of the former. Is it any wonder why people are rejecting it?

The idea of global citizenship is really empty and pretentious, and it’s impossible to achieve, mainly because the very idea of getting rid of one’s national identity is profane to most of us. This relentless push for global citizenship at the expense of alienating working class Britons is exactly what is causing the populist revolution spreading across the Western world. They’re also tired of being racist if they object, and I’m getting tired of leftists trying to use the worst parts of our history in order to shame us into agreeing with them. Why should we be ashamed to British? We live in the country that abolished slavery, and made sure the rest of the world ended it as well, and we played a key role in defeating the Nazis. Are we Britons supposed to be ashamed of that?

Progressives in America won’t stop trying to make Americans feel like America is a horrible country, and I refuse to believe that because America was the first country that was founded on liberty from the ground up. America also ended the Second World War (albeit in a very regrettable fashion), landed a man on the Moon, and they also gave the world the technological advancements that the rest of the world takes for granted. It might not be perfect, but I think it’s very immature to judge a nation just for its faults, whether they’re in the past or the present. It’s not good for a country to become ashamed of itself. Look at Germany for example, a country so mired in guilt over the atrocities of the Nazi government, that it is a cultural norm. You even have an “anti-fascist” movement that is actively against their own home country, to the point of openly calling for the death of ethnic Germans. I’m thankful that Britain isn’t at that point yet, but if this is what the globalist progressives are aiming for, then it’s no wonder that British people are rejecting the globalist ideas the establishment and the media are propagating.

In conclusion, a lot has been said about national identity. If you believe the mainstream media and the leftist social justice mob, then you’ll be convinced that it is racist or stupid to even consider national identity, or that nationality is another useless concept that serves only to divide us. While I think it’s pointless to divide people based on something they do not control, I don’t believe that nationality is only capable of dividing people. In fact, nationality can be something that unites people, because for most people nationality reminds them of the country’s heritage, and we in Britain enjoy a very rich cultural heritage, but whether or not you value any of that is ultimately your choice. You shouldn’t have to feel bad about it just because somebody told you that you’re racist if you care about national sovereignty.

The bottom line here is that we shouldn’t go around convincing people that caring about one’s national culture is “racist” just because a few nasty characters have used nationalism as an ideology to justify bigotry, because that kind of intellectual dishonesty can only lead to one being just as bigoted as the nationalists towards people who hold different ideological beliefs. If we are to learn anything from Brexit, it’s that clearly people aren’t buying the whole “global citizenship” nonsense anymore, and it’s only a matter of time before we reach the nadir of the globalist fad.

Is the idea behind Black History Month racist?

black history month 2013

In the UK, it’s apparently Black History Month (I used to think it was only in America). In a multicultural society, we would embrace other cultures. However, something seems rather fishy about the idea of dedicating an entire month to just one group of people.

The idea of Black History Month is basically about “celebrating black history” and “remembering important historical events and figures of black history”.

The UK has recognized Black History Month since 1987, but there’s a bit of a problem. If we don’t want people to think that “black people” are different from “white people”, then why single out black history and treat it differently from history in general?

If we value equality, and if we despise racism, then why even bother giving one group of people special treatment over the others? After all, wasn’t the civil rights movement fighting against special treatment based on race?

Strangely, what I’m saying is quite similar to Morgan Freeman’s criticism of Black History Month in America. He doesn’t want a “black history month”, because to him, “black history” is American history.

While that is a very valid point, that’s not what I’m getting across. My point is that if race wasn’t a big deal to us, why dedicate entire month to one particular culture or group of people?

In that sense, the idea of Black History Month is sort of racist. I say sort of because it’s not exactly direct, or in the conventional sense. What I’m referring to is the kind where we demand equally, whilst hypocritically treating certain groups as though they are different to the rest of us, when in reality, they aren’t.

Sadly, that’s all I have left to say about this particular topic.

Why we shouldn’t impose multiculturalism

rainbow

Let me be frank, multiculturalism is fine, and I think people from other countries have the right to their own culture. But what I don’t like about our “neo-liberal” society is that it likes to force everyone to accept multiculturalism. It’s not the people who are doing it, it’s the media. Once again, the media is guilty of a flaw in our society.

How do they force people to accept multiculturalism? By painting anyone who doesn’t as a complete, racist monster, even if he/she isn’t racist.

My view on multiculturalism is this: if people of different races and cultures are actually living in peace with one another, as its supporters claim, then I’m perfectly fine. But if it means some of our crucial freedoms must be lost, then I think we need to have a little talk.

Obviously I’m not a racist, but do like the odd politically incorrect joke whenever I feel like it. If multiculturalism means that I can’t joke about whatever I feel like, then I think we have a serious problem. In this scenario, multiculturalism would end up encouraging political correctness, and we all know how bad that is.

There also exist a number of problems with multiculturalism. The main problem with it is that it actually encourages the idea that people of different races are different to white people, which would make the equality-loving supporters of multiculturalism guilty of hypocrisy. With this in mind, this also leads to a nation being divided over culture, which doesn’t help the cause of equality. Think about it this way: if any culture formed a community in a foreign nation, and complained about their culture “not being respected”, said multicultural nation would end up passing laws that restrict the freedoms of innocent people, just to protect other cultures from offence.

The other problem is that different cultures can, and do clash as a result. For example, one culture may find it acceptable for women to walk around not wearing much clothes, while another culture in the same area may oppose it. For another example, the Jews have a taboo against eating pork. Say a Jewish community was in the same area as another culture, which might accept eating pork. The two cultures would clash.

This has the same effect as hate crime laws: treating people of different races as though they are different groups, who need to be singled out for “protection”. That actually might make people more disillusioned with the ideal of multiculturalism.

On the other hand, the many flaws of multiculturalism do not justify racism and bigotry. Nothing really does. I think politicians secretly want to be racist, and are thus hiding behind things like multiculturalism as a way of treating people differently, in a manner in which it can be passed off as acceptable.

wolf in sheep's clothing

Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

In my opinion, multiculturalism is a solid concept, but due to the many problems it has, we shouldn’t make it the dominant mantra of our society. It just carries too many risks of culture clashes, rather than cultural unity.