Nationalism is trending globally. It isn’t just manifesting in elections, it’s expressed, without self-recognition, in western identity politics. Minority groups within nations are beginning to identify as separate ethno-nations, albeit confusedly (and mostly obliviously) using the language of liberalism or globalism. What passes for a civil rights movement in America now is in fact vociferous ethno-nationalism expressed by blacks, Hispanics and others. Even identities based on fringe behavior, such as the trans movement, ascribe to themselves a sort of global-nationalist identity. The progressive movement in the West today can be understood as an alliance of imputed, contrived and genuine nationalities fighting in alliance against whites, condemning them for, among other things, having invented “nationalism”.
Nationalism is still building its critique of globalism. Nationalism is forming an analysis, in the Marxian sense, of our sick world. As a global movement it’s still unguided (despite Establishment hysteria); most people–including the incidental nationalists of, say, Black Lives Matter–don’t see themselves as such. Ethno-nationalism is encouraged in all but majority populations in western nations; you can be a black nationalist but not a white nationalist.
Nationalism based on ethnicity is society’s natural state, which people everywhere are trying to defend or restore in the face of globalism; even, or especially, minority rights activists in the West.
Nonetheless, nationalism, like Marxism before, is still developing an analysis of society and culture, one that questions every postwar premise upon which the present order is based.
We don’t have a whole critique yet. At the present we’re like sixties radicals, floundering between action and argument.
“We’re the Motherfuckers…we’re like a street gang, only with an analysis…”
Brazil’s new foreign minister has written a nationalist manifesto for like-minded world leaders. Here he is quoted in Frank Gaffney’s neoconservative Center for Security Policy:
There is no ‘us-versus-them logic’ here, contrary to what Trump’s detractors are fond of saying. There is instead an ‘us seeking to reclaim ourselves’ logic”
Despite invoking it all the time, it isn’t an “us v them” mentality the progressives fight against–obviously, for every concern they voice is expressed in precisely those terms, men against women, black against white, trans against “cisgender”– itself a word jimmied up precisely to provide the “trans community” with a “them” to hate on.
No, what power right now is hostile to is the idea of “us”, for white people. If you ignore the bullshit you see the sum total of all this demagogy is to establish whites as the ultimate “Other”, by which to motivate resentful non-whites to plunder what is seen as their rightful share of the nation’s wealth and culture.
It matters less to the emerging globalist order that nations be democratic than they be open to capital and immigration and otherwise integrated into the economic system. Elections in one-party states suffice to pass for democracy, but a democratically elected figure like Trump is seen as a crisis for democracy because, all of a sudden, elections have meaning.
They now threaten the global order, because such states will confound the free movement of capital and labor–though it’s getting hard to view what Europe is being subjected to as the free flow of labor.
The free flow of consumers? Those faux refugees in Europe may not be working, but they are consuming. It’s just that ultimately the working, indigenous Europeans are subsidizing their sloth through the welfare state.
From the CSP article linked above:
[Brazil foreign minister Ernesto Henrique Fraga Araújo’s] scholarly article, “Trump and the West,” published in 2017, provides a coherent historical, cultural, and philosophical base that not only should guide the populist diplomacy of the Bolsonaro government, but can be a guide for the Trump Administration in the United States.
In Araújo’s view, military weapons do not present the greatest threat to mankind today. Brazil’s top diplomat argues that “the real huge danger is the disappearance of Western identity itself.” He sees Donald Trump as sharing that same basic, if less historically grounded, approach.
The new Brazilian foreign minister’s point of view, as a profoundly grounded outsider looking in, should be instructive to all Americans to understand who we are and what we stand for. His outside observation, as a foreigner, can lead to developing a theoretical base for 21st century populism and nationalism worldwide.
“This vision of the West does not mean conflict with non-Westerners,” Araújo says, writing of Trump. “The enemy of the West is not Russia or China, nor is it an enemy state, but indeed primarily an enemy within, abandoning one’s own identity; and an outside enemy, radical Islamism – which, meanwhile, plays second fiddle to the first, because Islamism only poses a threat because it finds the West spiritually weak and disconnected from itself. There is no ‘us-versus-them logic’ here, contrary to what Trump’s detractors are fond of saying. There is instead an ‘us seeking to reclaim ourselves’ logic”
It’s the left that insists on pitting us against one another, throwing us into close proximity and condemning us for the ensuing chaos, demonstrating just how dependent they remain on the potential for demagogy that arises. Class demagogy didn’t pan out; the West became too wealthy, too comfortable, the poor too docile in their comfort, so racial, ethnic, sexual and now deviant resentments, which will never be sated by mere plenty, naturally replaced class resentments.