George Soros is a billionaire who consistently funds globalist and multicultural initiatives. He is a pariah to anyone interested in preserving and advancing nation states and their citizenry. He has done great damage around the world because he is ruthless in his opposition to unique national cultures. However, while he is a well-known figure, he is not alone – Merkel, Macron, Trudeau, Obama, the Clintons not to mention much of academe and the news media are on the globalist bandwagon.
The election of Donald Trump to be President put a temporary stop to the ideas of world rule by Plato’s oligarchs. Trump, by focusing on the needs of the people rather than the power of the State, has seriously blunted the open society globalist agenda. Notably, Trump’s election has emboldened the popular conservative movements and leaders throughout the Western World – much to the dismay of the globalists who have reacted with violence and vitriol.
The European Union is split into two camps. For example, the globalist leaders of France and Germany have embraced the multicultural and anti-nationalist agenda by admitting millions of refugees from the muslim world. The nationalist leaders of Poland and Hungary, on the other hand, have reacted by blocking those refugees. However, to me, the refugee issue has little to do with refugees and much to do with how power will be wielded – global oligarchs or popular nationalist leaders.
The battle for Hungary represents the spear point of the Soros inspired globalist versus nationalist war. Soros has interfered with Hungarian society to the point where Prime Minister Viktor Orban has effectively declared him to be an enemy of the state. Soros, however, is resourceful and uses Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to keep himself at a safe distance from the arms of Hungarian Law. The obvious concern is that these NGOs are Trojan Horses within the Hungarian nation state.
To me, the idea of a global oligarchy or one world government is dangerous not only to the nation state but the future of humanity. With a one world government, there is no real competition to improve, to try out different forms of government as the future progresses. A one world government can easily become stagnant or, as we have seen throughout the past century, unbelievably destructive when it comes to people. To quote Aristotle, “To the size of the State there is a limit, as there is to plants, animals and implements, for none of these retain their facility when they are too large”.
56 comments
I am glad that the Visegrad group is standing up to the EU, Soros, and other nefarious utopians. Czechs, Slovaks, Poles and Hungarians have a right to their countries.
And they drive the EU bureaucrats crazy by standing for their own nations and citizenry.
Free Trade only promotes one Freedom; The Freedom to exploit a man’s labor for profits.
We need look no further than the uniparty trade agreement NAFTA.
The past two Presidents have shown us this and even taking it a step further by opening up our borders and allowing mass amounts of immigrants to come here to America/Virginia to be exploited and suppress and some cases drive down American/Virginian wages.
This week as I look to hire two more men I have the opportunity to illegally exploit foreigners with a 1099
or hire , train and employ Virginians to produce superior quality built homes and abide by current, civilized Va . Employment laws.
No this both ways will end the end sell homes at the same finished square foot price. The legal way just does not undermine the Workers Compensation Industry , Va. workforce, Va. budget or the Federal budget by requiring Va to accept more Federal revenue for unemployment.
The rule of law way is the American way, the only way.
The alternative to the rule of law is the rule of the king. As the federal government grows it creates ever more law and thus dilutes the meaning and value of existing law. Saw this in the regulatory swamp of the DOD where there were over 40,000 regulations that applied to military procurements. It turned out that only 200 of the regulations were actually relevant to every procurement. The then Secretary of Defense for Acquisition created an entirely new procurement process to streamline the system. He still left the Gordion Knot of the old system in place.
I can only imagine the amount of unnecessary regulations at the DOD for the ability to even bid for contracts.
Kings suck and I now feel that the uniparty is very similar.
For the life of me I can’t believe that Va. Republicans haven’t looked at the idea of combining our Dept.of Labor and our Va. Employment Commission, then to take a look at the Department of Professional and occupational regulation operating under the Department of Commerce.
Surely it is completely unnecessary to have four State Depts. instead of two.
I like the idea of less Goverment but it seems to be nothing but party talking points.
All this talk of Globalist is for political advantage.
Next Presidential election Republicans
will cry a foul about the Democrat Candidate McAuliffe in his China investments yet under *my* current President he will allow America to import cars from Communist China;
Trumpchi will be here soon.
No foreign cars in my driveway, EVER!
Can anyone else here say that?
I am an American loyalist.
Every time I read one of these pieces I always have to wonder exactly what the author means when he uses the word “globalist.” There does not seem to be a universally accepted definition of the term, and like other terms in use today it is often misunderstood. For instance, the term populist is meant to mean the evolution of conservatism, yet those self described populists never see just how similar some of their arguments on behalf of “the workers” against the “ruling class” are to Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto.’ Similarly I hear a number of people call themselves “Constitutional Conservatives,” yet they espouse some of the very same arguments of states superseding the Federal government made in “The Anti-Federalist Papers” which argued against ratification of the Constitution.
In this case it appears that globalist means supporting the establishment of a “One World Government” (which will never happen, btw). I really don’t know anyone, especially here in America, that would prefer to have the United States under the rule of some all-powerful global government, and I expect the majority of people in the world would oppose this scheme as well. Oh, I am sure there are some out there who would like to see something like this come about, but only if they were the ones in charge.
But the problem with taking a term such as globalist, and altering its meaning in the manner that this piece does, serves only to try and move people into an “anti-globalist” or “isolationist” camp, which really does go against the capitalist ideology of the United States. In the push to expand free trade across the globe, the US is one of the leading forces of globalization in the world, seeking market globalization and the adoption of neoliberalism (or “classic liberalism”) in countries previously closed off to us.
In the foreign policy arena the US has a vested interest in maintaining a strong, dominant global presence as the worlds leading super-power, if for no other reason than to beat back the efforts of other countries hostile to us and to political and economic freedom from achieving undue influence and dominance over other parts of the world.
Maybe in the future it would be of benefit for a piece designed to establish a generally accepted definition of the term ‘globalist,’ because I, as a fiscal and social conservative, wholeheartedly support the globalization of free markets and the universal adoption of American ideals. Does that make me a globalist?
Expanding free trade is not the problem. That was the original purpose of many economic agreements. Unfortunately, that is never enough for those who seek power. After all, if we can have a good global economic structure we can certainly have a good global political structure – thus the EU, an organization that is anti-nation and pro multiculturalism.
I don’t see the EU as the gigantic, socialist, globalist boogey-man that many see it as. In fact, the model that most closely represents what the EU is trying to establish is…the United States of America. A collection of sovereign (nation) states coming together for their common good under a Federal government. The reason it is failing is, in point of fact, it’s multiculturalism. What the EU lacks is that shared ancestry and shared beliefs we had here in America, as Jay said in Federalist #2:
“a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsel, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
You are absolutely correct that we have no history of imposing through conquest. In that manner the United States has proven itself far superior to the United Kingdom in the advancement of Western Civilization throughout the world. We lead by example. We are that shining city on a hill that others can look on and aspire to. We hold out our hand and say, “follow our lead, and we can help you achieve the same kind of freedom and prosperity.”
It is that kind of leadership that is needed on the world stage. The last thing we need is for America to hide it’s light under a bushel and tell the world that it’s on it’s own. By doing so we leave other countries vulnerable to the rising tide of Islam and communism.
The EU and the USA aren’t even comparable. The USA was founded as a constitutional republic of freemen while the EU is predicated on a socialist and statist world view. Maybe we in the USA are descending in that direction but we never started that way. The EU is failing not just because of multiculturalism but because of excess welfare that punishes success and rewards failure. It is also failing because it has invited in an utterly totalitarian and violent culture that intends world domination.
I don’t see Trump hiding from the world, quite the opposite. He wants a global economy predicated on mutual interests not the kind of destructive anti-American globalism of the Obama administration and, sadly, a lot of Republicans The American citizenry have been put upon and they are rightfully frustrated and angry at the political leadership of both parties. Frankly, it is hard to separate Democrats from establishment Republicans and I advise the establishment to pay heed and quickly. (The tax cuts might assuage the damage of the failed obamacare repeal but I wouldn’t bet on that for 2018)
As far as Islam and communism. Western Europe invited Islam into its midst and is still doing so. Islam is committed to the destruction of the West and so far, thanks to the global socialists, they are being successful. I fear a massive and violent reaction roughly equivalent to a people’s war in the streets for WWIII. As far as communism, there is antifa and, in the USA, BLM and other social grievance groups that scream social justice at every turn. (Academe is a Trojan Horse)
I guess we could ask the Southern states in 1869 whether they thought the Federal government was totalitarian or not, but I really don’t think you quite understand what the EU is at all. Washington, DC has far more control over the states in America than the EU has over its member nations. The goal of the EU was to establish free travel, free trade, and common laws on things like trade, agriculture, regional development and the like. Each member nation still has their own economy, their own military, and their own sovereignty. The EU ruling bodies can’t dictate internal laws of a member nation, and can only implement rules and regulations that are covered by treaty. If a member nation does not want to live under EU regulations, they can leave like the UK.
While the goal of the EU was to fashion a Constitutional coalition government, what they got is more like the Articles of Confederation.
As far as Islam is concerned, each country is inviting refugees based on their own internal policies. The EU cannot force a nation to take refugees, as evidenced by Hungary and Poland. If the leadership of other European countries want to allow Islamic refugees in, that is their business. When their citizens have had enough of it, they will throw out those leaders and choose new ones.
Here in America, the Pew research center estimates that there are about 3 million Muslims. That’s about 1% of the US population. Not exactly enough to enact Sharia law. The Pew research center also estimates it will take them another 35 years for that number to double in size so I think we have time to sound the alarm bells, don’t you think?
I really have a hard time getting worked up over the folks like antifa and BLM. They are a small group of thugs that like to run around and break things. They do more harm to the Democrats and liberalism because that is who they are associated with, and though antifa may have its roots in socialism, the kids running around in antifa today probably have no idea what they are involved with.
I similarly have issues with folks who make the claim that college is evil. All we ever hear about in the news are the stories of the handful of trouble makers that make a stink about something, or do something stupid. We never hear about the other 95% of college kids who are too busy going to class, studying, and partying to be bothered with the whack jobs giving their school a bad name.
It is important to keep the proper perspective about these things.
I imagine there were a lot of people telling Churchill to keep things in their proper perspective. After all, Chamberlain had it well in hand. And then the winds of change suddenly blew quite hard – and for a lot of poor souls reflection on the errors of their thoughts and ways was much too late.
If the EU was as benign as you imply, then the leaders wouldn’t be pushing for an EU military. Yes, there has been a recent setback because the citizenry of nations is seeing the danger in allowing the EU to dictate multiculturalism (but the EU is far from over in pushing the global socialist agenda). I think the article of confederation as a baseline is a bit less than true as the EU has massive economic power to force small states to adhere to even the silliest of dictates. Admittedly, and thankfully, they are not America’s federal government.
As far as Islam is concerned, there is nothing benign about it. It really doesn’t matter what percentage of a nation’s population it represents as that percentage can and does create havoc. Muslims represent about 10% of the population of France, but they now have a beachhead of nearly a thousand no-go zones and have forced France to employ its military throughout the country because the average cop is incapable of dealing with the mayhem. The Swedish police have already sent out a cry for help because they cannot police the no-go zones there. Sweden, with its feminist leadership, is a disaster.
ANTIFA and BLM should not be ignored. They are most active on campuses where they disrupt anything considered conservative, Republican, or opposed to the leftist socialist/communist agenda. You are correct that most students attend college to obtain a certain set of skills and knowledge. However, this doesn’t mean that they are not set upon by college administrators and faculty. as well as ANTIFA and BLM, to toe the leftist line while there.
So, back to my opening paragraph. I am more likely Churchill and you are more likely Chamberlain. I hope you are right because if I am right all hell is going to break loose and we better have a president with the courage to recognize the dangers and get ahead of the geo-political war games.
You sound a little more like Chicken Little than Churchill. In case you didn’t know we have been through something like this before. If you are this worried about antifa and BLM, I can’t imagine what you would have been like in the 60’s. Black Lives Matter can’t hold a candle to the Black Panthers, and SDS makes those antifa punks look like posers. What we are going through now with these groups and the special snowflakes is nothing compared to what this country faced during the height of the Vietnam war. The biggest difference is that back in the 60’s those radicals were true believers. Today we have a bunch of bored kids running around causing mayhem in the hopes their twitter feeds go viral.
The same can be said for your concerns about an EU military. I am sure there are few people who would love to see that happen, but it never will. They can’t even keep one of their strongest nations from leaving (UK), so how are they ever going to force the rest of their members to allow it to create a military force that could then be used against THEM? I really suggest you read up a little bit on the EU. Remember, they can only do things that have already been approved by treaties.
I never said Islam was benign, but your claims are nonsense, and have already been debunked. There are not 1,000 “no-go” zones in France. In fact, one of the people making that claim went and visited France and said these areas were rather dull, and nowhere near as dangerous as somewhere like the Bronx in America.
https://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp
I live in Loudoun County, about 15 minutes from the largest Mosque in Northern VA, and I haven’t seen any no-go zones or massive increases in crime. Radical Islam is indeed a real problem in the world, but the issues affecting Europe that stem from the influx of refugees have more to do with poor hungry people who are stuck in horrendous conditions and don’t speak the language of the country they are in. The other problem has to do with a lack of cultural assimilation. We face that here in America, too, and not just from Muslims, but also Indians, and Hispanics, and Asians.
The problem with your pronouncements of doom and gloom is that they are not based on facts, but on hysteria, driven by some who, I believe, would LOVE to see the very “war in the streets” you are worrying about. In fact, I believe there are some on our side that are itching for that very thing. I believe that before you can really deal with a problem, you have to understand the problem, not just react based on fear.
Here is some information from wikipedia as of 2015.
A sensitive urban zone (French: Zone urbaine sensible, ZUS) is an urban area in France defined by the authorities to be a high-priority target for city policy, taking into consideration local circumstances related to the problems of its residents.[1]
There are 751 sensitive urban zones in France, including 718 in mainland France.[1] The government has published the list of zones and maps of each one.[2]
Since 2015, the French have invited in hundreds of thousands more “refugees”. Maybe there aren’t a thousand no-go zones. Maybe the existing ones have just expanded. Am betting the French authorities know the situation – and it hasn’t gotten better.
Regarding Churchill. He was considered a loser and a lush. He was ridiculed and laughed at constantly. He was kind of a pathetic figure fighting a past war. Chamberlain was the new world. Peace and all that old chap. As I said, I hope the world is more Chamberlain than Churchill – but somebody has to be Churchill when everyone else is screaming “peace, peace, glorious peace”.
By the way, ANTIFA is a new phenomena in the USA. Long active and violent in Europe, it is now here and collaborates with its European brethren. BLM went to school on the Black Panthers so I would expect different tactics but similar ends.
Finally, I question the reasoning for an EU military when all of the various nations have a military. Why is it needed? Why are some EU bureaucrats pushing the idea? My suspicion is that they recognize the likelihood of internal warfare in specific European nations and believe that an EU military will be needed if a nation is overwhelmed by the forces of Islam (most likely scenario as the “refugees” are bringing lots of good quality weapons in from the various war zones.)
By the way, I don’t fear for myself at all. I do, however, fear for the future of my children and grandchildren who are being force by government to accept multiculturalism and socialism. Hungary and Poland can still resist, thank God, but I question whether Sweden and France can do so.
This is from the article I linked to above:
“While some pockets of citizenry (including high-density Muslim populations)
in France have indeed been identified as ZUS, and the term is not a designator for large populations of Muslims. Rather, the highlighted areas are ones that have been afflicted with issues such as crime, poverty, unemployment, and blight and are therefore targeted for urban renewal initiatives.”
So basically a ZUS is urban blight and has nothing to do with any kind of Muslim takeover of these areas and the imposition of Sharia Law as has been claimed. We have a helluva lot more zones like that here in the US. Just look at Detroit.
Are you really trying to compare Hitler’s violations of the Treaty of Versailles, rebuilding the German military, invading the Sudetanland, and parking his tanks along the border of Czechoslovakia with the immigration of Muslims to Western Europe? Do you think some Imam in Iran or Afghanistan is going to go on TV, give the secret code word, and every Muslim man, woman, and child across the globe will suddenly rise up, grab a weapon, and start killing infidels?
The key to dealing with radical Islam is three-fold. 1. Kill the radicals and terrorists in the Middle Eastern countries (thereby cutting off the flow of refugees). 2. A merit-based immigration system and the reduction of current levels of legal immigration. 3. The assimilation of Muslim communities and immigrants already here into Western culture and civilization.
Finally, there is no reason for an EU military which is why..it…will…never…happen.
First, are you denying that a substantial percentage of the ZUS areas are not muslim dominated? The authorities obviously would prefer to deny, deny and deny. But I ask why are French troops on the streets for the third consecutive year to enforce martial law? If police were capable of handling the situation there would be no troops.
Second, as far as Hitler is concerned, I do not see any direct correlation between his professional military and the muslim invasion of Europe. (By most estimates I have seen, 80%+ of the refugees are young muslim men. There are very few women and children. These are not groups of families so logically they have a different purpose.)
Third, how do you force muslims to assimilate when such a thing is blasphemous because it would mean conspiring with infidels. If you have an answer, there are a lot of Western leaders ready to listen. Unfortunately, a lot of the terrorist attacks are being committed by third and fourth generation young muslim men so something is not working when it comes to assimilation. (Muslim violence is increasing in amount and variability. Acid and IED attacks is increasingly prevalent as are riots. By the way, there were three muslim riots in Brussels within the past two weeks.)
Finally, if there is no reason for an EU military, then why is it being proposed. I don’t have any answer for that but I don’t buy your argument that it will “never” happen. There are a lot of “nevers” scattered around throughout history –
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10404/france-no-go-zones
Re: France
It is hard to say which has the bigger problem – France or Sweden.
Am quite familiar with gatestone and its analyses. They do a comprehensive job.
I have no idea how many of them are “Muslim dominated” and neither does anybody else, but considering they appear to be less dangerous the hailing a cab on MLK blvd in downtown Atlanta, I doubt they are the hotbeds of Sharia Law and chaos you are making them out to be. Fox News had to make no less than four on-air apologies for allowing those claims to be made on air.
The 80% of refugees being young Muslim men is also false. Just over half of the 5 million Syrian refugees registered by the UNHCR are women.
https://www.snopes.com/refugee-invaders-meme/
The reason there are French troops on the streets in Paris and around the country is in response to the terror attacks they have experienced there in the past few years such as Charlie Hebdo, Paris, and Paris. Would you prefer the French government to NOT be proactive in trying to protect its citizens?
You get Muslims to assimilate the same way we get any other group to assimilate. You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that every single Muslim in the world is a committed, practicing, fundamentalist follower of Islam. Over 80% of Americans call themselves Christian, yet pornography is a booming business, marital infidelity runs rampant, and about half of all marriages end in divorce. Does that sound like ever Christian in America is a committed, practicing, fundamental Christian?
If you assume every Muslim you see is a terrorist, you create a hostile atmosphere that turns them away from Western civilization and makes it easier to radicalize Muslim youth against us infidels.
Tough but fair is the order of the day. You increase and improve the mandatory education and classes on American history that used to be required for any immigrant applying for citizenship, and you limit immigration levels from hotbed Middle Eastern countries, with increased scrutiny and vetting (just like Trump is doing).
I think you and I have to disagree respectfully about the problems here. You readily admit that the French military is there because of islamic terrorism but then you turn around and excuse Islam by pointing to a supposedly equally bad situation in Atlanta. You say that you get muslims to assimilate the same way other groups assimilate, but then you decry multiculturalism. You and I agree that Trump is on the right track, and that is a good thing.
The problem here is that I differentiate between radical Islamic terrorists, and your generic Muslim, while you seem to lump the two together.
You made a claim that their are 1,000 different areas of France that non-Muslims are not allowed to go and are dominated by Sharia law. I pointed out that this was false and even that one of the people making the claim went to visit some of these zones and said they were safer than many urban blight areas in the US. That is not excusing Islam.
I also don’t see how encouraging Muslim assimilation into Western Civilization and requiring immigrants to pass a stringent civics education is somehow supporting multiculturalism. Are you advocating we restrict immigration, or even citizenship strictly to Christians? Are you calling for the revocation of citizenship for Muslims and their forced ejection from the country? If not, then why would you be against trying to get them to accept the American way of life?
I prefer to work with a factual basis for the problem but there is a lot of hysteria and fear mongering about this issue, and it makes it very easy for the left to brand anyone who sees a real problem with radical Islamic terrorism as kooks.
Yes, aside from the tweets and thw stupid flame war with Kin Jon Un, I am generally happy with Trump’s foreign policy so far.
I suggest you actually study muslim history. Your first sentence is the problem as there is really no distinction than one of tactics. The ideology of Islam and its expansionist approach is clearly spelled out in the Koran and the other holy books.
The terrorist uses violence while the generic muslim simply out breeds its competitors or takes over geographical areas by settling them. Earlier you said that the no-go zones in France were largely benign – something that is disputed by facts. However, even if they are benign, they are growing and displacing the French citizenry. In some areas, citizen pensioners have been displaced to allow for greater refugee housing, this by rule of government. In other areas, the French police and fire personnel are effectively banned so muslims police themselves using Sharia law. In other areas, muslims take over public streets for prayer thus preventing ease of commerce.
Fortunately, America is not yet there and has the luxury of time to watch and decide. You suggest that education and stringent laws will somehow lead to abating the damages of multiculturalism. Well, the left has done a great job of undermine the relevant connections by resisting immigration controls and proclaiming that multiculturalism is best for the world. Jefferson did say something to the effect that a little revolution now and then is a good thing. It will be interesting to see the results.
I am well aware of Muslim history, and I am aware of the origins of how a little known guy went into a cave and came out claiming to be the prophet of the moon god. I also know about all the contradictory statements in the Koran because when Muhammed was getting chased out of Arab communities he was preaching a religion of “peace,” but when he started building a bigger following, and his forces grew in strength, the message changed to one of conquest as he returned to those Arab communities that previously kicked him out.
What you still don’t acknowledge is the difference between a fundamentalist, practicing Muslim, and a secular Muslim, just like the difference between a practicing Christian and a secular Christian. There are people all over the world that claim to believe in God and Jesus Christ, and then proceed to completely ignore every word in the Bible as they live their daily lives. In your world there is no such thing as a secular Muslim. In your mind there is no difference between a guy who prays to Allah, then goes to a football game with his Christian neighbor, and the guy who is cutting off the heads of Christians in Syria.
Please tell me what your solution is to the problem. You seem to be full of reasons why assimilation into American culture won’t work, and choose to reject any evidence that contradicts your opinion, yet refuse to provide any facts to back up your side of the argument. I’ve told you what I think we should do, so please enlighten us all to what your solution is in dealing with Islam. We are all dying to know.
My solution is simple. I am going to watch what Western Europe does. So far there are the appeasers, the practicalists, the opposers. I will wait to see who wins – or, more appropriately, who loses. So far, the Visagrad countries seem to be emerging as winners by opposing refugees. Germany and France are leading in the appeasement and thus loser category although I would argue that Sweden is dong a bang up job of losing. The Swiss, of course, will do what the Swiss do as they are by far the most practical of Western Europeans. Don’t have a solution for Italy or Greece, but I note that George Clooney bailed out and went into hiding in the UK. I would tell George that he ought to consider Poland but that would only mess up a very beautiful country.
So your solution is nothing. That’s what I thought.
Why would I tell you everything? I gave you one part of a solution. You apparently don’t like it – so be it.
By the way, I think a muslim can be a good citizen. However, we allow a lot of mosques to preach destruction of infidels, churches, governments – and that really has to be stopped. It is one thing to condemn the imperfections of humans, it is quite another to violate them.
Please. You’ve told me nothing because you have no plan other than to yell that the sky is falling. The worst scourge on the face of the earth is coming to kill us all and your plan is to take a “wait and see” attitude? What a joke.
I am sure we could get to work right away on silencing crazy Imams preaching hate, and then the left will shut down right wing talk show hosts all across the country and black out right wing blogs, like this one, for preaching hate. You can’t have a free society where certain groups have more freedom than others. That is why we need to do a better job as assimilating Muslims in this country to American culture and Western Civilization. No, that does not mean embracing Muslim culture or allowing little enclaves of Sharia law. It means getting them to embrace and accept that rule of law that exists today.
For some information regarding Europe and Islam, you might take a look at this site:https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/about/
Snopes?!
Not exactly a reputable site after having been found pushing the Democrat line for money.
I want to understand the logic of this argument:
(1) Soros is evil.
(2) Soros supports globalism.
(3) The European far right opposes globalism
(4) The European far right supports nationalism.
(5) Ergo, nationalism is good?
Globalization and the neo-liberal world order was a creation of three political leaders: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. It was the principle foundation of the Chicago School thinkers such as Milton Friedman and other “free marketeers” and it notched one scalp — the Soviet Empire.
Of course the socialists and the nationalists want to destroy the very tools America and a free Europe used to beat back communism. Of course there are going to be “useful idiots” here in the states willing to accept the idea that anti-liberalism or anti-globalism are net positives so long as they harm the opposition. Of course between globalism and nationalism lies the American response: patriotism. Of course, patriots are far and few between (and fewer as the months go by) and have their vicious opponents on the left and the right.
…but don’t dare call these opponents conservatives.
Conservatives have a few basic tenets we seek to uphold in the conservation of liberty. Free markets work because they spread freedom. Free minds work because they spread the “empire of liberty” our founders envisioned. Free societies work because that’s how we create the economies to provide the security our grandchildren deserve.
All of this is predicated on the observations of Bastiat and the grand tradition of classical liberalism that informed the thought of the Founders. That some are willing to cast this tradition off like a cheap rag in the face of Soros-fueled progressivism and flock to a European-style nationalist response should gall any American familiar with Teddy Roosevelt’s condemnation of both.
Americas has rested primus inter pares over the entire global order since 1945 — mostly in an effort to do what Churchill envisioned: to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. For over 70 years it has kept the peace, much to the chagrin of Russia, China, and the BRICs. We should be asking ourselves very carefully about what powers seek to change that dynamic and why.
Aristotle is an odd choice (appeal to authority?) in the defense of nationalism against so-called globalism. Remember what Aristotle wrote about the position of the state in relation to the family in his Politics: “[T]he state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part…” (Politics, Book 1, Ch.2)
The state above the family? That’s the problem with socialists and nationalists in their state-driven pursuit of power and utopia, is it not? Give that some thought before we lend credence to the far right or the far left.
I don’t think nationalism is of and by itself good. However, having said that, a lot of nations competing with each other is far superior to a one world totalitarian oligarchy with no competition. (Mao demonstrated that such power in the hands of a few is a genocidal machine.)
I find it odd that you somehow lament American supremacy. There have always been world supremacies – Rome and England, for example, but America is not an expansionist power trying to take territory by conquest.
Lament?
Well, then I am not sure what your point is. I am with Trump when he tells the leaders of the world that their jobs are to act in the interests of their national citizenry just as he intends to do for the American citizenry. MAGA is both patriotic and populist – and I find such to be far preferable to one world socialist ideas.
Let me add that the EU intends to have an EU military. Why? Are not the various militaries associated with the NATO nations sufficient? There are very dangerous and outright evil precedences being set by the EU officials centered in Brussels.
You realize you contradict yourself between this comment and your previous one — yes?
I am not commenting in absolutes. I find nations superior to one world government. Are their failed nations? Obviously, but the family and the the unique cultures of individual nations is far superior to the great multicultural abyss of the one worlders.
You’d reject the state as above the family — yes?
The State is the collection of the families of its citizens, it is not the collection of every family in the world. Thus the difference between the patriotic nationalist and the global socialist.
That sounds qualified.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. Nations have borders and citizens. They have a unique culture and often a unique language. Families depend on those borders to help facilitate commerce. They depend on culture because culture makes for common understandings of societal norms. Language avoids the chaos of the Towers of Babel. If you want to destroy a nation, destroy its institutions, culture, families, norms and, most important, history.
So for you, families really are subordinate to the state — is this correct?
No. As I said above, the USA exists to serve a free people. In Europe, it seems to be the other way around. I point out that we were warned by a number of founders about the behavior of politicians and their actions to amass ever greater power. Government always claims that it is doing something in the interest of the people but government is now so big that we get abuses like we saw with Lois Lerner, Comey, and Hillary herself – and, none of these people will see a day in prison.
(If you or I abused the secrets of the USA that Hillary did, we would probably spend our lives in prison.)
Let me add one more thought here. You have fallen victim to the idea that the European far right is the problem. I see it another way – that European citizens are seeing the dangers and starting to react. It is the far left that is advocating globalism/socialism and it is the far left that hates a patriotic people and nation. By using far right, we allow the media to minimize the concerns of the citizenry and, by inference, to maximize the power of the left.
Not sure what all the fuss is about. Since Trump took office the trade deficit has actually increased with our major trading partners. Also, less jobs are being created than were in 2016. This according to the Trump administrations own numbers.
“The Wall” is now got a fork in it. So, what all this proves is that globalization is what is actually up. Not nationalization.
The EU seems to me to violate the principle of subsidiarity, as does the US at times. Sorry to butt in, but do you reject subsidiarity? If one holds to it, do you think that person is outside the mainstream of 21st century conservatism?
Extremely well said Shaun. Doesn’t leave anything to add.
I don’t think many people realize that if one world government becomes totalitarian, there will be no one or group capable of contesting the result. When nations no longer exist there will be no nations to combat the evil.
I’ve found that most people ‘over there’ tend to be just like us here in America. We are all global citizens that guys who think and act like Soros don’t appreciate.
Actually, I am an American citizen who has global interests. But I put America and its citizenry first and foremost.
Be Free
Be Independent
Be an American first.
You don’t have to worry about that with me.
My loyalty to America is woven into my being like the Stars on Old Glory, now others is more like a printed star from an American Flag “heco in China”
But we have to proclaim it because there are a lot of folks who are afraid to even think it let alone say it.
I am not just an American but an Appalachian American.
We can jump to Ms. Jeanines piece on Virginia.
Tradition;
On Thanksgiving in Virginia
it is Hog Killing day.
I am simple; everything my family could ever need to survive and prosper is right here in America/Virginia.
jest; Maybe the exception is the Desert Eagle, made in Israel.