Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Left - Right Out

by John Gordon

Political principles which are founded only on a posture of character or a feeling – like “conservative” (i.e., being resistant to political change, especially if that change is of a fundamental nature) and “progressive” (an older term for being inclined towards a liberal or revolutionary political stance) are prone to lose their meaning over time if they are not linked to substantive principles (viz. fundamental principles of politics which do not change over time as objectives of policy). This loss of original meaning has also occurred with the terms “left” and “right” – which are no longer pure concepts, but now hopelessly conceptually skewed and mixed into their opposites, and therefore almost useless for purposes of clarification or analysis. The clear meaning that they once possessed – as they did, at their origin – has long since passed and this has had a negative impact on the understanding of contemporary politics and on what the way forward is for those who want a good society or who want to work towards such a society. However, the course of this progressive confusion of terms can be readily traced.

The origin of the terms (“left” and “right”) was in a specific political and historical context, and an examination of what they meant at their birth can provide us with both the type of character which tends to favour either one and – more importantly – the substantive content which they were meant to embody.

These terms arose in relation to the French Revolution, when in the Legislative Assembly of 1791 supporters of the ancien régime sat on the right side of the chamber, while its opponents sat on the left side. The right side represented the side in power at the time, and the left side that of the opposition who were not in power and want to change the state of affairs (in this case, to take revolutionary control).

The “right” or the “conservatives” originally stood for “Throne and Altar” – preserving the political and religious status quo AT THAT TIME.

The “left” or the “progressives” originally stood for “popular sovereignty” and the separation of Church and State in advocating the “universal rights of man” of the French Revolution it was opposed to the status quo AT THAT TIME.

The battle between left and right (understood in their original sense) was won by the left. The French Republics prevailed over the old aristocracy; the British reformed the basis of their constitution in favour of popular sovereignty; Russia catastrophically underwent a revolution of the extreme left; and Germany lost its own ancien régime to the Weimar Republic – specifically based on liberal principles; (and the US was founded on principles compatible with those of the French Revolution[1]).

The situation for us in the contemporary West has only worsened since these events. The outcome of WWII was a disaster precisely for the allies, as it led to the attempt at a proto-world government based on left principles: the United Nations (UN). It was able to achieve this because the US at that time saw the inherent compatibility of the UN’s aims with the advancement of its own geo-political objective: bankrupting the British and ensuring their own ascension to global dominance (at least over the West) at the British Empire’s expense. The ostensible goal of WWII was the removal of a tyranny, but the actual result was in addition the foundation of one on a permanent basis: the war was started to avert a disequilibrium between the various European powers, but it ended up with erecting an unelected and unrepresentative global surveillance and control system. (The UN drafted its charter deliberately to exclude withdrawal from it, thereby admitting that it is a tyranny since it has knowingly removed any possible basis of consent, which requires freedom to choose to be a part or not to be part of any group). The foundation of this tyranny was temporarily obscured by the more massive confrontation between the victors of WWII – the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The UN has a veneer of consent because the Western Powers – or rather, the Allies – had complicity in its founding. But the UN gained support precisely by obscuring its intentions and withholding decisive information about itself, which otherwise would have prevented it gaining support, at least in the Western world.

It follows as a consequence of this that those who have won (the “left”) are today’s supporters of the status quo since it now embodies their own principles, so that they are the true right in today’s terms and hence are fundamentally conservative towards the status quo. Conversely, those who have lost the battle over our own societies (the “right”) are today’s “progressives” who want fundamental change for the better, so that they are the true left in today’s terms.

The perverse effect of this perverse situation is that people are often misled about what is in their true interest: the status quo is the contemporary right’s problem, conservatism is a feeling which inclines one to preserve what exists, but what exists is precisely the right’s problem.

So what is the situation for the right once the left have won? To be conservative in that situation (which is our own) is to fight for and preserve the left’s and not the right’s substantive principles. To try to work within the system now is to operate contrary to the right’s principles. In order to get back to the substantive, non-ephemeral core of the right’s political objectives requires the adoption – as means, not ends – of the left’s own originally revolutionary approach (the Establishment/the Left can hardly complain on that matter, since it won via this very same method). Why should the intellectually derelict structures of the left stay intact and be defended by those of us who are in principle opposed to them? Why should loyalty to these retrograde ideas and institutions be expected of those whose own positions are founded on diametrically opposed ideas? Too long has the left relied for the maintenance of its own structures on the compliant loyalty of those against whose interests those very structures embody, and it even now still insists on relying for support on those whose principles are in direct opposition to the left.

The left relies on the tacit support of contemporary conservatives to maintain its rule. But conservatives need to be made conscious of the fact that their own interests are not, have not and never will be served by their own compliance and submission to leftist dictates and dogma.
Often conservative voters are bewildered that – having voted for a conservative government (even in landslide elections) – the conservative party elected fails to implement “conservative” policy. They are stunned and become disgruntled that the legislation and policy of the previously elected left party has neither been repealed nor often even ameliorated: it is preserved and thereby conserved and incorporated into prescriptive right and becomes part of the status quo.
It is in the left’s interest for voters to be unreflectively non-revolutionarily conservative. For the left merely has only to get into power from time to time to ratchet up its preferred political positions in order to achieve its full programme. They can rely on conservatives never to revoke, invalidate, or repeal their fundamental platform.

The left is quite aware about what it is doing and the effect of what it demands. This is why the media (most notably the ABC, but not confined to that political propaganda broadcasting agency) and the left wing parties insisted upon the (conservative) Coalition parties placing their preferences to Pauline Hanson’s party last on the ballot paper, thereby favouring the election of the left’s own politically preferred candidates – even though the allocation of party preferences was entirely an internal matter for the Coalition parties and that the left would never bow to pressure from parties of the right to favour a candidate against its own political interests. (This is not an endorsement of Pauline Hanson, merely a critique of the extremes that the left – which includes the media – will go to when there is a perceived threat to leftwing parties and principles). The compliance of the conservatives in this case was a victory for the left at the conservatives’ own hands. A tougher response admittedly risked losing an election, but it would have strengthened the right in two ways: firstly, by the cleansing of the party of leftist elements (who would have left voluntarily) and by placing a non-leftist position within the frame of legitimate political discussion within the media (making the leftist positions contestable again publicly).

The prominence of “hate-speech” legislation and – insidiously – the expansion of it to include “holocaust denial” is entirely a product of the Left. It is unchallenged by the media or by any mainstream political party, despite being an obvious infringement of democratic norms such as freedom of thought and speech. “Hate speech” is little examined by those on the right and by conservatives and it is worth our while to examine it because it is entrenched politically and academically.

Basically, it is the way the Left can enforce its own political dogma without being in office: the criminalisation of all political thought which is against its own agenda or view of the world. “Hate speech” laws and their like are also a good example of the left achieving its ends without challenge from conservatives.

What is “hate speech”? “Hate-speech” is usually just anger speech. Anger is a normal part of what makes a human being a human being – it comes to the fore politically as the expression of condemnation of injustice. The sight of injustice being done gives rise (in normal individuals, at least) to anger: the desire to punish the wrong-doers. People unable to restrain their sense of injustice may well lash out and act violently, but the inherent injustice that the feeling of anger expresses exists independently whether someone controls their feelings or does not. So, there are two types of anger-speech – only one is reprehensible, while the other is not. “Hate” speech legislation should not infringe upon the freedom of speech – certainly of political speech – which we are presumed to enjoy in free societies. The infringement constitutes an injustice against all members of society even when “thought criminals” are not prosecuted since it acts as a threat of punishment in an area where such a threat of punishment should not be tolerated. “Hate” speech legislation is used to mask the injustice it perpetuates by conflating the two types of anger-speech, which are merely two different ways of responding to injustice, as both being criminal. Here “hate” speech legislation infringes on the Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech upon which our liberal democracies rely to sustain their own case for legitimacy.

The UN and leftist principles cannot preserve our societies or look after their interests – this is not accidental or incidental, it was apparent from the very beginning of the UN. The Australian diplomat, writer and war veteran, Sir Walter Russell Crocker KBE, provides insight to the internal workings of the UN being a witness to it from within:

“It came as a shock to the British, not least to the British Labour government’s minister for Colonial Affairs, Creech-Jones… to discover that the British were regarded as an enemy, in some UN quarters as the enemy. Churchill in the latter days of the war had said, in response to one of Roosevelt’s anti-colonies policies, that he had no intention of seeing Britain put in the dock. That was precisely where she was put by the UN. That she had done so much, and at such cost, to bring Hitler and his Nazis down, standing up to them alone for two years, holding the pass until America came into the war, counted for nothing. At Lake Success [viz. the temporary headquarters of the United Nations while its headquarters building in New York City was built], Britain was the whipping boy.”[2]

Some of the members of the “Negro colleges” which “were too often… poisoned with hate and with anti-white racialism… got themselves appointed to the [UN] Secretariat.”[3] The tone and direction of the UN was set by this racialism which was anti-white in nature, leading Crocker to observe:

A piquant thing about the American drive against colonies was not only their de facto alliance with the [Soviet] Russians in the drive but the part played by American Negroes. The Negroes saw the UN as a whip to be used against America for the racial inferiority to which they saw themselves condemned. More than once I had the experience in my first months at Lake Success of a Negro taxi driver refusing to accept payment – he saw me, as a UN official, as somebody striving to get a better lot for the Negroes against white Americans.”[4]

The UN can thus be seen as the world’s “Weimar Republic” – a constitution thrust upon a people (in this case, numerous peoples) based on leftist principles which does not look after the interests or good of those it governs, nay it has been emphatically designed to rule at the expense of national, cultural, political, ethnic and economic interests of the nation.

The practice of the UN has been racist and anti-nationalist, but what about the theory behind it? Is there just a bad coincidence here which a little (or a lot of) reform could fix, or is there something fundamentally wrong with the UN (and the attempt at world government based on “human rights”) which will also impact negatively on national sovereignty and the exercise of the rights attached to citizens of nations?

How extreme is the left these days and how entrenched is it? A new culmination of leftist thought replaces a previously held right which was limiting the leftist agenda into an “unright.” Larking and Abizadeh both independently argue that there is “No Right to Control Your Own Borders Unilaterally.”[5]

Abizadeh does this by re-interpreting the meaning of the basic political unit of the demos (people). In contrast to conventional understandings, he re-interprets it as not being “bounded” by anything (in particular, not by a nation), but as “unbounded” or infinite in extension (at least in principle). This infinite extension of the political unit is consistent with the leftist notion of political universalism, but is fundamentally at odds with the conservative and nationalist position of the primacy of the particular. Since Abizadeh argues on the basis of leftist understanding of terms his argument is unsuccessful, and he pre-supposes his position to begin with and then is surprised that his argument miraculously coincides with the leftist position he wants. To achieve his universalist position he would have to prove that the coercion of the state is legitimate “only insofar as it is actually justified by and to” both citizens and non-citizens.[6] In other words, it cannot account for the legitimacy of war and in a situation of attack could not provide a rationale for resistance to aggression. His notion of legitimacy (upon which his argument rests) is therefore fundamentally unsound and unconvincing.

Larking tries to argue much the same thing: “Constitutional democracies must abandon the sovereign assertion of a right to act primarily in the interests of their own citizens.”[7] This should send shivers down the spine of anyone who calls themselves conservative. Luckily, her case is even weaker than Abizadeh’s, resting on an ignorance of parliamentary sovereignty and its justification by Dicey, and assuming that John Locke is an unchallenged and unrefuted constitutional source (especially for democracies which incorporate the “Westminster” or British system of government – like Australia).

Larking and Abizadeh are merely drawing out the inferences based on the premises set forth in UN declarations. The fault is in the UN and its declarations. Conservatives have to learn not to treat the symptoms by complaining about what is being taught in universities, but to remove the cause of the problem.

What is the essential, non-ephemeral core of the right which is not subject to fluctuation? The substantive principle of the right is: the common good of a community of people in a political formation. Or, more abstractly: the right of the particular, not the universal. A number of consequences follow from this: that no world government is possible or desirable (and if instituted, would constitute a tyranny). Two other consequences follow from this:

- the greater or lesser attainment of other races/nations has no priority of claim over one’s own nation, the group has to ensure its own survival and its own good.

- Aid, assistance, or help of any form therefore becomes an act of grace, and not a moral duty: it is an uncompelled favour – freely given (if given), and cannot be compelled.

These are not politically irrelevant considerations because the right to self-determination is derivative from these principles. There is no other secure basis for it. This can be easily seen when one examines the fact that the UN cannot even secure its own raison d’être as outlined in its own Charter. Even putting aside the unrealistic goal of world peace (however desirable it has not been achieved since 1945), the UN undermines its own basic objectives. This can be clearly seen in the case of self-determination of peoples: “…when self-determination becomes associated with the right of particular ethnic groups to determine their own political status [self-determination] ceases to be a human right because it becomes discriminatory in nature.”[8] The UN and its charter of “human rights” is therefore unable to secure self-determination of particular ethnic groups, despite claiming as its legitimation the security of self-determination. Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of the UN Charter states its purpose as: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.” This sounds like it is compatible with nationalism – but the UN compromises that principle by its denial of the right of self-determination of ethnic groups. The only secure principle consistent with self-determination is the nationalist principle of the right of the particular over the universal. This is also a fundamentally conservative doctrine as it preserves the distinctive individuality of nations and underwrites their preservation into the future. The UN and universalist/leftist position in contrast places all nations and people in jeopardy in the face of globalisation and eventuates in the removal of national borders and the total abolition of any sovereignty besides that of a global government, indifferent to the common good of any nation.

So, what specific policies or positions do the principles of the right call on us to adopt? The laws and institutions which back, support, monitor or enforce “Hate speech” legislation or any other Orwellian curtailments of freedom of thought, speech, or association need to be abolished and revoked. However, what must be observed is that they were not removed or abolished by the “conservative” Howard government in its eleven years in office. The only possible excuse for such failure to act to remove these leftist institutions, treaties, and laws is that the media and the left have grown so powerful that any opposition to them is now impossible to achieve, even for a democratically elected government. That is an admission in effect that parliament and our liberal democracy have failed, are dead, and need to be replaced. And that such a radical position must be the conservative political policy and agenda of our times.

But this excuse of a too powerful media is an insufficient reason for the “conservatives” to give in their defence, since it does not stop one talking about such a deplorable state of affairs and thereby garnering public support to écrasez l’infâme. But Howard and co. have been noticeably silent on this matter. This means that we are in a situation where only one side of politics has any opportunity to advance its agenda, while the other is entirely excluded from acting on its political principles.

But the situation is even worse than that, because the “conservative” position as expressed by “conservatives” politically and in the press/tv does not acknowledge this situation and may even support the left and their institutions here. That is to say, the publicly, self-identified conservative movement does not act on the principles of the right, but has already lost the battle and is fighting for or supporting the leftist institutions and ideas.

Only a clear understanding of the substantive, non-ephemeral core of the right’s political objectives can find a way for conservatives to be successful in their political endeavours by tackling the root causes of the problem.

Abizadeh, Arash. 2008. “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders” Political Theory 36.1: 37-65.

Crocker, Sir Walter. 1985. The role of Sir Raphael Cilento at the United Nations. University of Queensland Press. Brisbane.

Larking, Emma. 2004. “Human rights and the Principle of Sovereignty” Australian Journal of Human Rights (AJHR) 10.1: 15-32.

Musgrave, Thomas D. 1997. Self-Determination and National Minorities. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Zifcak, Spencer. 2003. Mr Ruddock Goes to Geneva. University of New South Wales Press. Sydney.
[1] Even pro-US political scientists recognise this compatibility, see for example page 83, Harry V. Jaffa, Crisis of the House Divided, 1959, University of Chicago, 1982 Reprint.[2] Crocker (1985) 13.[3] Ibid. 15.[4] Ibid. 16.[5] Larking (2004) and Abizadeh (2008).[6] Abizadeh (2008) 41.[7] Larking (2004).[8] Musgrave (1997) 179.John Gordon is an Australian New Right activist and can be contacted through the New Right Australia/New Zealand website http://www.newrightausnz.com/

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The Struggle between Nationalism and Globalization
(Part 2)

By Colin Godfrey*

As promised, this second part of the article will talk about more issues in relation to the struggle between Nationalism and globalization. My apologies for the long wait between the first and the second parts of this article. The second part will also attempt to address some comments that have been made about the first part of the article. Readers need to remember that this article is discussing the problem of globalization in relation to how it clashes with Nationalism. Too much talk about economics would lead to this article going on even longer than it already has and go onto never-ending tangents. The issue of globalization is very broad and this article tries to be metapolitical by giving a Nationalist perspective on the topic. The ideology of globalism itself, believes that people are “global citizens” who have no loyalty and cannot identify with any individual group which, is in total contrast to the ideology of Nationalism that believes in indentifying yourself with a specific nation, culture, language, heritage and way of life. When discussing Racial Nationalism (RN) in particular, Ian McKinney states that

RN has its foundation in biology and treats economics as an important, but secondary issue. The fact is that RN has no predefined economic philosophy. Economics are viewed primarily as to how the racial well-being of the people is affected. In short, RN rejects both the conservative model of unrestrained capitalism and the massive state-control of Marxism’. [1]

Capitalism goes hand-in-hand with globalization. These are ideologies that only care about how well economies are going and how much money they are making. Any human suffering or hardship that happens along the way is merely collateral damage.
Capitalism itself does not care what your heritage is or where you are from in the world or if you are dying of hunger or overwhelmed with bills that need to be paid. As Noam Chomsky remarks

‘Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because its anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic — there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced — that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance’.[2]

So basically the grand plan of the capitalists and globalists is to make all the peoples of the world into merely producers and consumers of products. The idea of unique identity, culture, or heritage is seen as being irrelevant and an annoyance to keeping the money flowing in. Therefore it is the job of state authorities to quash any discontent by Nationalists or other anti-globalist groups that go against the status-quo.

Nonetheless, it must be taken into account that Nationalists are not all isolationist in their views either. A country which had a Nationalist government would of course trade with its neighbours (if they are willing) and to think that it would not is quite ridiculous. The whole issue of economics and Nationalism can be saved for another article in the future as globalization is the core issue here. In the article Confronting Globalization Alain de Benoist argues that

‘far from being an aberration or a radical innovation, or even the result of some plot, globalization is simply part of a long term dynamic of capitalism’.[3]

This relates to the ideologies of both communism and capitalism being imperialist/ globalist in nature and having machinations of forming their own kind of “World Order” to enslave the entire population of the Earth.

The various anti-globalization associations that are around the world fail to see the hypocrisy behind their own agenda. On the one hand, they will strenuously protest big multi-national companies and how 3rd world people will be so greatly disadvantaged because of all the inequality of wealth around the world and how the unique culture and heritage of these 3rd world people will be under serious threat. But on the other hand, is there any thought or effort put into the threat that also faces people from Western nations? The silence is deafening from those involved with the Traditional Left who have a sense of hatred and self-loathing for anything considered part of Western civilization. It is the calling of Nationalists from those Western nations who must stand up to this hypocrisy from the Traditional Left. Because as we all know it will be the symbolic example of the jackboot of Nationalism that will crush any coercive imperialist/globalist agenda which seeks to destroy our sense of identity, pride, heritage and culture. Historically, this has happened on the streets (just like in 1920s-30s Germany) and it will continue to do so. This is because Nationalism is like a flame which burns brighter and becomes larger with more and more passion, feelings, and emotion from people. Nationalism also gives people a sense of belonging and a sense of pride and self-worth. People believe they belong to a particular group and want to keep that group strong, healthy and help it survive. Nationalism wishes to help that group to become free, independent, successful, and find glory. Professor Lars Ingelstam also mentions that in

‘...returning to the context of globalization, it is important to recognize that the rapid escalation of all the different processes that are so rapidly linking everyone living on our planet today is a result of modernizing forces rooted in the industrial revolution, democratization, and the rise of ethnic nationalism. All of these changes entail the abandonment of traditional caste-like social differences rooted in hierarchic principles of inequality and sacred authority’.[4]

This explains how in some regards it is globalization which is destroying the natural order of societies and cultures around the world. Therefore, leading to conflict and rebellion by different ethnic groups who are quite content living the way they do and do not want to be globalized.
Another major issue that relates to globalization is how it intends to create a 20-80 society. This is a phrase coined by Hans-Peter Martin in his book The Global Trap which envisages a world where only 20% of the population has permanent well-paid jobs. The remaining 80% will be on casual work, will experience low income, and have poor financial security. Hans-Peter Martin explains that

‘...this was actually a scenario that world leaders in the political field and the field of economy came up with at a conference in San Francisco that I had the chance to attend, behind closed doors. And they would actually argue that 20 % of the world population would be enough to produce all the goods and services needed for the world population as far as purchasing power is concerned. And the rest... the 80 % would have to be kept quiet by what they call “tittytainment” - the mixture of entertainment and tits - but they were not referring to pornographic movies, they were referring to the breast of a feeding mother’.[5]

So basically, the ultimate plans of the globalists is to have a very small minority to do the majority of the work while the rest of the world are kept in low-paid, casual jobs and brainwashed/bemused by all this “tittytainment” so they don’t complain or rise up against these injustices. For the globalists it is all about making as much money as they can. The globalists have no concern for the welfare of people’s freedom, heritage, culture, identity, nation and way of life.

In a number of ways this topic of globalization is very relevant to the current world-wide events that are happening. At this point in time we are facing a world-wide economic crisis. Now this article will not go into any details about economics but it does go to show what happens when the greed of capitalists and globalists goes too far. Capitalism itself believes that making money is far more important than anything else in life and if the means justify the ends then nothing else matters. Hans-Peter Martin also says that

‘...money has always been very important globally in almost all societies. What is new right now is that the importance of the financial markets is growing and growing, and that they are actually the power-house of globalisation. They have now become more dangerous to the world than nuclear weapons, and the really sad part about it is that they're not honest about their interest. They are just pretending - especially the analysts, the ones who play the markets - that they only reflect reality. But the last ideology left is the one of “free market is good for everybody”... this is simply not true. We see it happening in Asia, we saw it happening even here in this very country where I'm sitting right now in London, that if you liberalise too much you have a lot of negative effects’.[6]

However, we can see with the current global economic crisis that to rely far too heavily on free markets can seriously backfire on you. As a Nationalist we realise that there are many things insurmountably more important than material wealth and for that reason economics is never seen as being the be all and end all for us. It has been globalization that has forced the ideology of capitalism down the throats of people whether they like it or not. Many communities around the world were living quite happy and harmoniously before the spectre of globalism came around. Multiculturalism/Multiracialism, through mass immigration of peoples, is a by-product of globalization and there seems to be a rule of Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans and Western Nations for everybody! The hypocrisy of all this is pretty obvious, particularly if you are a Nationalist from a Western nation who is seeing the original demographic that helped create their country inevitably transform through the constant flood of migrants. It is not just the original inhabitancy that suffers, but also the native flora and fauna as well as the environment.

Globalization and imperialism has many similarities in relation to trying to dominate a particular set of values and practices over a multitude of vastly different peoples, cultures and countries. Professor Lars Ingelstam argues that

‘...as a result of the rise and collapse of industrial empires and the explosion of modern communications and transportation technologies, the whole world is now exposed to the utterly wrenching experience of trying to replace traditional caste-like social structures with modern class-based practices. Such a transformation cannot take place overnight. Instead, it is a violent and devastating process, producing many antagonisms: the more advantaged citizens seek to protect their threatened privileges while activists from marginalized communities strive to obtain the advantages promised to all by the new ethos. Moreover, although this transformative process was launched in the West, contemporary globalization has accelerated its spread throughout the planet. It has generated fundamental problems involving sovereignty, nationalism, and constitutional choices’. [7]

From this argument we can see that globalization has in many ways caused a lot more problems than it has solved. Particularly in regards to the upheaval of societies that have had to adapt to new technologies and practices at an alarming rate. Technology, over the last 100 years, has progressed far more rapidly than any other moment in time. This has led to situations us as humans have never had deal with before in our history and while this has been a good thing in many ways it has also been a bad thing in others. We are not as close to nature as we once were many generations ago and because of this our environment has suffered and many animal species have become extinct.

In keeping with hearing the opinions of other Racial Nationalists on the topic of globalization Fred W. Riggs states that

‘...black cultural nationalists deem the global context problematic and troubling, especially as it impacts the effectiveness of race as both a weapon of struggle, and framework for understanding reality. In their judgment, globalization has rendered blacks more susceptible to western and European hegemonic interests. To counteract this, they advocate strengthening, rather than weakening, the racial line’. [8]

In a multitude of ways many Racial Nationalists would agree with this and believe that racial identity needs to be strengthened against the spectre of globalization. Particularly as the ideas of globalization believe that there is “no such thing as race” but that we are all merely global citizens. Of course, there is the supremacist view that we should not bother listening to what African Nationalists have to say, but if they believe in the idea of separatism and each racial group having their own homogenous nation or territory then that is indeed a positive. In fact, there is much we can learn from different Nationalists all over the globe and by ignoring what they have to say we may miss something really useful. Nationalists from Europe, America, Australia etc should be pleased that there are other Racial Nationalists out there around the world that wish to live in their own separate nations without any interference from other racial groups.

Citizenship and globalization also has a link in regards to the idea of what it really means to be a citizen of a particular nation. There is now the common belief in many Western nations that gaining citizenship is about as worthless and meaningless as the piece of paper that it is written on. Fred W. Riggs believes that

‘...the conception of cultural citizenship implies human capacity, and willingness to deemphasize, or even transcend national or some other primordial construction of citizenship and identity—be it race, ethnicity, or religion. Afrocentric scholars who advocate an absolutist and monolithic construction of African and black Diaspora identity are opposed to, and deeply suspicious of, any global cosmopolitan construction of identity’. [9]

So we can see here that even African Nationalists are against the idea of global citizens as it takes away a person’s sense of racial identity and destroys any sense of genuine diversity around the world. The lies of globalism are seen by a variety of Racial Nationalists around the world who realise that it is a danger to be taken seriously because it attempts to fool people into thinking that racial difference is an illusion. White Civil Rights leader David Duke mentions that

‘...as all of us know, the world is getting smaller. Incredible advancements in transportation and communication make it so. Many national corporations that once had minor branches overseas have now become truly international, and their own loyalties have gone beyond their own national origins. Profit is their one flag, their one loyalty. It flies above nation, culture, race, morality, health, concerns over the environment, anything. These global concentrations of enormous wealth have become a juggernaut, amassing huge power and weight like a snowball turning into an avalanche. Interwoven with their enterprises, the globalists dominate the media, which, of course, has also become truly international. With it they control the democracies, where the sheeple cannot distinguish between a free press and a controlled one’. [10]

From this statement even our own media supports a globalist agenda and is “managed” to give a particular bias on events and only shows us the news that the media chooses us to see. This just goes to show that Nationalism needs to be internationalized, where Nationalists around the world network together and work in a kind of coalition to help fight against globalization. It must be acknowledged that globalization is a major world-wide threat that wants to destroy our culture, our heritage, our way of life and our nations. Being a mere “citizen” of a nation does not make you a true part of it. Somebody who is truly part of a nation must have been born in that nation and been part of the dominant ethnic/cultural group which helped to form and create that particular nation, for example; somebody would have to be an ethnic Swede, speak Swedish, have been born in Sweden, and been brought up by Swedish customs to be considered a real part of the Swedish nation.

However, that doesn’t mean that our racial differences should be ignored and put aside to fight against the behemoth which is globalization. We need to respect all cultures but fight for our own culture above all. This interconnects very much with the idea of racial separatism and living the way we choose is appropriate for our own kind. We should not have anything to do with the genocidal multiculturalists that wish to transform us all into an unidentifiable mongrelized people. Fred W. Riggs states that

‘...the call for pan-blackist cultural vigilance and unity, and the projection of a monolithic African cultural world and identity, therefore, represent a response to the cultural implications of globalization. In the Afrocentric worldview, culture is an arena of irreconcilable conflict and antagonism between blacks and whites. Blacks are expected to maintain a respectable distance from, and vigilance against, white cultural contacts’. [11]

In many ways what is explained in the above comment is at the core belief of all Racial Nationalists who highly recommend that various racial groups should be separate and respect the right of self-determination and not allow the interference of other racial groups in their affairs. Globalization intrudes into the rights of people who are from different countries, cultures, ethnic groups etc who wish to live their own way according to their customs and beliefs. Globalists don’t care who is right or wrong or what the social or environmental consequences are when it comes to making profits.

Globalization is inextricably linked with the ideology of capitalism. This means that any view about what is right or wrong doesn’t apply when it comes to making profits. Morality is negligent for people who care more about how much money can be made from a particular business venture and not what the possible repercussions may be. A Pan-Blackist by the name of Professor Tunde Adeleke argues that

‘...those who preached Globalization couldn't tell the difference between ethics and morality. Ethics is the measurement of the public good. Morality is the weapon of religious and social righteousness. Political and economic ideologies often decline into religious-style morality toward the end. But Globalization had shoved ethics to the side from the very beginning and insisted upon a curious sort of moral righteousness that included maximum trade, unrestrained self-interest, and governments alone respecting their debts’.[12]

The individuals who take on the globalist viewpoint are not Nationalist minded people but are instead people who have no genuine understanding whatsoever to a sense of pride, identity or passion for their homeland or their own people. Globalists must be seen as people who cannot be trusted and would rather stab a person in the back if they could make a profit from it. They are kinds of people that believe that it is money “which makes the world go around”, anything else is of minor importance.

Globalization has only caused more pain and more suffering and conflict around the world than it has cured. Globalization is causing the genocide of unique cultures and ethnic groups around the world. Those ethnic groups that breed quicker than others are taking over places demographically and often replacing the original inhabitancy and creating a new area. Just like what happened with the Serbs losing the territory of Kosovo (which is Serbian ancestral homeland) to Albanian Muslims who became the dominant populace. People are being duped into believing that globalization is a good thing when in reality it is turning us into a very crowded, materialistic and mongrelized planet. Professor Tunde Adeleke believes that

‘...the reconceptualization of civilization through the prism of economics had reached a critical barrier. Beyond that barrier any international exchange that involved a commercial element would be treated as fundamentally commercial. Culture would be seen as a mere matter of industrial regulation; food, as a secondary outcome of agricultural industries’.[13]

This shows a prime example of how important things like culture, identity and even the food we eat is placed into economic value rather than being worth more than that .This shows how globalization and capitalism work hand-in-hand in dehumanizing us all.

We can already see the cracks forming in the idea of globalization being this wonderful, perfect, amazing thing which will help the peoples of the world all work together in harmony as “global citizens” in some kind of delusional fantasy. No matter what Globalization tries to do we shall always have religious and ethnic rivalries. Bringing people from far-flung places around the globe and dumping them all in the same place like various multicultural/multiracial societies try to do will only cause more and more problems in the long run. Globalization cannot stop a person’s sense of identity and belonging. When it comes to the collapse of globalism and the rebirth of Nationalism, Canadian John Ralston Saul raises a very interesting question when it comes to our sense of identity as a people. John Ralston Saul asks

‘what makes a people? A people has a common heritage and a will to a common destiny. A people exists despite superficial cleavages such as parties, interest groups, and passing trends in ideologies. As Georges Dumézil, Mircea Eliade, and Carl G. Jung have demon­strated, a people shares a "mythe fondateur"-a communal myth that gives birth to original cultural endeavors. The culture of a people, recalls Alain de Benoist, is its identity card and its mental respiration, and "it is the passport for a future that takes the shape of destiny." When a people becomes oblivious of its founding myth it is doomed to perish. Worse, it may turn into an aggregate of happy robots whose new dictum of universal human rights could be just another cloak for mindless hedonism’. [14]

As Nationalists we need to continually let the adherents of globalism know that we don’t believe in the idea of a “global citizen” and we don’t want to become a bunch of “happy robots” willing to do what is good for big business. It is the duty of Nationalists to wake people up to what is going on around them and to fight back against those who wish for us to forget our “founding myth” as coined by Alain De Benoist.

It is up to Nationalism to point out the obvious gaping flaws in globalization. Those who support communism cannot criticize globalization in an honest and unbiased manner because their own ideology only wants to replace capitalism with another internationalist world-view. Communism talks about giving the proletariat “freedom” when in reality it will lead to suppression and persecution of the people, just like during the reign of Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao in China, Tito in Yugoslavia or Fidel Castro in Cuba. Professor Tomislav Sunic who is a Croatian-American knows all too well the suffering of those under communism in the former Yugoslavia. As Tomislav Sunic explains

‘Yugoslavia, founded on similar principles of multiculturalism, is a product of the Russian 19th-century pan-Slavism combined with the Wilsonian dream. This experiment has not resulted in perpetual peace. In times of great crises host nations no longer look at aliens as purveyors of exotic folklore, but rather as predators snatching bread from their host's mouth. Peoples are not the same; they never have been and never will be. Ethnic groups can be compared to the inmates of large American prisons, who usually begin to respect each only when their turf is staked out and when their cells are separated by massive stone walls. Thrown into one cell they are likely to devour each other in a perpetual conflict over "territorial imperative"’. [15]

Is this the same fate that shall affect those nations that are having multiculturalism/multiracialism forced onto them now? What clearly needs to be understood is that it will be racial separatism that will help stop any possibly conflicts that arise and not integration or assimilation as the multiculturalists/multiracialists will try and tell you.

Globalization in many ways is actually the scourge of diversity and not really the helper. It is full of inconsistencies and contradictions all in the name of making all the things we do and hold dear into economic commodities that are given monetary value. There is no need to have the same kind of restaurant or particular kind of soft drink all around the world, when people go overseas they shouldn’t expect to find the same things they have back in their own countries. As David Duke mentions

‘...building a McDonald’s and a coca cola machine on every street corner of the world is not only injurious to the health of the people of the world, it is uniformity, not diversity. It is unicultural not multicultural. Supporting massive immigration into Western nations is not multicultural; the nations the immigrants come from offer a truly different cultural environment. Melting them into one brown mass does not create diversity; it eventually destroys the indigenous culture of that particular nation. Even more so, it destroys the unique genetic heritage and character of those people and the unique nations that they created. Is it really a good thing for Germans to be outnumbered by Turks in their own nation? Is it good to remake Germany into a land foreign to its own people? Is it good to make whole sections of America into a replica of Mexico? Should The Russian people in the 21st century become dissolved by a massive influx of Asians, a fate Russia diligently avoided for two thousand years?’.[16]

These are all valid questions by David Duke that people need to ask themselves if they believe that globalization is a good thing, particularly those defenders of diversity and multiculturalism. Do these people actually realise that they are not supporting genuine diversity at all, but are really trying to turn us all into one mass-mongrelized world where everything is the same? Do these people who support this fake globalist diversity want to be responsible for the genocide of various unique cultures and peoples around the world? I hope those who support multiculturalism/multiracialism and read this article have a really good hard look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they are really supporting true diversity.

Now I realise it is unfair to lay all the blame of Globalization on the United States of America but they did play a major role in the beginning of it all. In his book Revolt against the Modern World Julius Evola clearly states that

‘America ... has created a “civilization” that represents an exact contradiction of the ancient European tradition. It has introduced the religion of praxis and productivity; it has put the quest for profit, great industrial production, and mechanical, visible, and quantative achievements over any other interest. It has generated a soulless greatness of a purely technological and collective nature, lacking any background of transcendence, inner light, and true spirituality. America has [built a society where] man becomes a mere instrument of production and material productivity within a conformist social conglomerate’. [17]

However, it can now be said that globalization has become a kind of Frankenstein’s Monster for America because of the world economic crisis with so many companies going bust and almost most of the world facing recession. Globalization has also caused big businesses to look elsewhere for cheap labour as they want to make more profits rather than having to pay workers more as they would in Western nations. The association between globalization and cheap labour has caused many Western nations to lose jobs to those 3rd World nations that pay their workers a lot less and it is the big businesses that reap the rewards. As Brenda Walker explains

‘...hundreds of thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs have moved from the U.S. to Mexico, where they have become low-paying manufacturing jobs, even by Mexican standards. As Ralph Nader has said, “Globalized trade is a race to the bottom.” Such a result should not be surprising, however; globalized economic rules are completely skewed to benefit capital and investors. Mere citizens get zero’.[18]

From this comment it explains that the idea of a “trickle-down effect” for those workers doesn’t really happen. If anything, those workers in 3rd World nations who work for these massive multi-national companies are nothing more than slaves that are given a pittance compared to the millions of dollars the executives get for those companies.

Many people seem to forget that globalization is something that not just affects things like the products you buy, the restaurants you eat in and the clothes you wear, but it also affects entire Nations. It allows capitalism to run rampant without any concerns for what future consequences may arise. Ali A. Mazrui, an African academic, believes that

‘..globalization is negative when it allows itself to be a handmaiden to ruthless capitalism, increases the danger of warfare by remote control, deepens the divide between the haves and have-nots, and accelerates damage to our environment’.[19]

Plus there is the view that having a successful economy in more valuable than saving human lives. Starving people in a country cannot get in the way of making money. For example; if a tribe of people needed livestock because they are facing famine but they had not enough money to pay for these livestock what are they to do? Would those owners of livestock in the marketplace be expected to make a loss and give away their livestock for free just to help this tribe? We unfortunately live in a globalized world where profit margins supersede any value on human life. In the article Environment, Globalization and Genocide, S. Rowan Wolf, Ph.D. explicates that

‘...if there is a refusal to feed people when there is food available for fear of "disrupting" capitalist economics, then what is the likelihood of providing feed for the livestock of these tribes? None. So, the human influenced environmental catastrophe is worsened by the influence of globalization, resulting in the genocide of a people’.[20]

Now this relates back to one of the banner used at APEC in Sydney, September 2007, which says Globalization is Genocide! This is because the Globalists are more than happy to see entire cultures and peoples either amalgamated or wiped out so long as the mass multi-national companies they are part of continue to make profits. Keeping shareholders happy is far more important than the loss of human life. Globalists do not care if a country is being slowly demographically taken over, house by house, street by street, suburbs by suburb, city by city by various alien cultures.

Another threat which faces countries through globalization is how the economy and keeping big businesses happy is far more important for governments than keeping the people of that particular Nation happy. The unique individuality and sovereignty of that Nation can also be filtered away to bend to the will of the globalists. Ali A. Mazrui also states that

‘...globalization in governance is also leading to dilution of sovereignty within each country and the reduction of the power of the central government. Those European countries which have adopted the EURO as their currency have lost some sovereignty in the arena of monetary control. Regional unification in Europe is reducing the sovereignty of each member’.[21]

That is why it would be the requirement of a Nationalist government to repel any globalist changes to preserve a nation’s unique culture, identity and sovereignty. The most ideal solution for a Nationalist government to undertake would be to encourage “economic patriotism” which favours goods and services in their own country. This can be implemented via either demand stimulation or through supply protection (e.g. tariffs). But as has been stated throughout this article the issue of economics will not be discussed in any detail as the prime topic is globalization. Ian McKinney sums it up best in relation to discussing Racial Nationalism when he elucidates that

‘RN places the well-being of the people above that of economics; Economics is treated merely as a tool for the advancement of the racial community and not an end in itself. Thus, dangerous pollution and worker exploitation would be necessarily restricted, not from a desire to increase state control, but for the protection of the environment that is necessary for healthy living. We also recognize the danger posed by the ultra-wealthy and corporations who are able to manipulate government policy for their own selfish purposes, which in many cases are destructive’. [22]

This sort of belief is probably the most sensible, realistic and caring when it comes to the interconnection between globalization and its effects on the economy in a particular country.

In many respects, it is the obligation of every Nationalist no matter where they are in the world to rebel against the encroachment of globalization. We cannot sit idly by while our culture, our people and our way of life slowly melts away in a mongrelized mass of “global citizenry”. As reiterated earlier, it is important belief of a Nationalist to respect other cultures but to fight for your own culture because it is your own culture which you belong to and that makes you different and unique to others. We cannot let the globalists, who work hand-in-hand with the multiculturalists/multiracialists, have their way as it would mean the total destruction of the future for your people, your family and your culture. Globalization is no friend to diversity or to Nationalism. If anything, it is a deceitful enemy of all the various cultures around the world who wish to remain independent, free and preserve their identity and way of life. As S. Rowan Wolf, Ph.D. cautions

‘there is a sad irony in the fact that the path that has brought the world to this place is not recognized as a failed paradigm. As the world groans and peoples and cultures die, the decision is to plow ahead at all due speed. One can hope that people will rise up in time to change the path we are on, but that change is already too late for thousands of cultures’.[23]

This warning must be heeded before it comes too late for us all no matter what part of the world we are from. Our civilization would simply fall apart because of globalization and the mass amounts of people from alien cultures demographically taking over our nations and this must be stopped.

Overall, the only question is, how are we supposed to do this? Well, I would suggest the most important thing is to go out there and do Nationalistic activism. Sitting around complaining about things over the Internet on a discussion forum will never achieve anything in the long run and neither will immature infighting amongst various Nationalists because they don’t agree 100% with your own views. We all know that it is actions that speak louder than any words. I encourage people who read this to go out there into the “real world” and get active! We need to rebel against the oppression in our countries that forces us to just allow the globalist agenda to have its own way without any hindrance. Striving for freedom and liberty for our nation, our culture and our people should be our ultimate priority. The Russian Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin pronounces that

‘I feel myself always the patriot of all oppressed fatherlands. . . Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every Nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principal of freedom.’[24]

While it is understandable that many in Nationalist circles are suspicious of Anarchism this particular quote shows that every Nationality has a right to exist and for freedom and it goes against the globalist belief of the entire world being forced to become “global citizens” and our unique ethnic differences being changed to sameness.

To stop this, as Nationalists we need to start networking and organising ourselves to work in groups to do more activism. We need make sure we turn up to political demonstrations or just create our own. It is crucial to be involved with activist groups with the long-term intention of creating a broader Nationalist movement and becoming politically active. As Nationalists we cannot just be reactionary and wait for something to happen we need to make things happen ourselves! We need to be Nationalist revolutionaries that want to change things for the better and to protect our own ethnic groups, our own culture and our nations before globalization destroys everything that we hold dear and special to us all. I encourage all you Nationalists out there who read this article to get out there and make a difference, that way when you are old and grey you can proudly and honestly say to your grandchildren you did your bit to fight against the scourge of globalization with a clear conscience. Get up from behind your computers and fight for your people, fight your culture, fight for your way of life and most of all, fight for your nation against globalization!

*Colin Godfrey is a supporter of New Right Australia/New Zealand and can be contacted through the NR website www.newrightausnz.com

2 http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://oskorei.motpol.nu/?p=522
3 http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/confronting_globalization.pdf
5 http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s303159.htm
6 http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s303159.htm
7 http://www.nnn.se/archive/globedem.htm
8 http://www.hawaii.edu/global/publications_media/Publications_Staff_Fac/riggs.html
9 http://www.hawaii.edu/global/publications_media/Publications_Staff_Fac/riggs.html
10 http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-lies-of-globalism_11.html
11 http://www.hawaii.edu/global/publications_media/Publications_Staff_Fac/riggs.html
12 http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.1/adeleke.html
13 http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.1/adeleke.html
14 http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/define/2004/03nationalism.htm
15 http://es.geocities.com/sucellus23/559.htm
16 http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-lies-of-globalism_11.html
17 http://blr.folkandfaith.com/billwhite2.htm
19 http://igcs.binghamton.edu/igcs_site/dirton15.htm
20 http://www.maavak.net/rwolf/rwolf054.html
21 http://igcs.binghamton.edu/igcs_site/dirton15.htm
22 http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/racnat.shtml
23 http://www.maavak.net/rwolf/rwolf054.html
24 http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://oskorei.motpol.nu/?p=522