Nationalism Revisited

Fascism, Nationalism, Imperialism, and Globalism are very different systems

Painting depicting the ratification of the Treaty of Münster, which played a key role in the “Peace of Westphalia” that ended the Thirty Years' War (1648)

“The Westphalian peace reflected a practical accommodation to reality, not a unique moral insight. It relied on a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power. No single claim to truth or universal rule had prevailed in Europe's contests. Instead, each state was assigned the attribute of sovereign power over its territory. Each would acknowledge the domestic structures and religious vocations of its fellow states and refrain from challenging their existence.”

Henry Kissinger (2014). World Order. Penguin Books.

Words and their meaning matter. They help structure human consciousness and thought and are the basic units used to convey abstract concepts between human beings. One common PsyWar tactic is to distort and then weaponize politicized definitions of words intentionally. We have all seen this tactic deployed throughout the COVIDcrisis in a wide variety of ways. The redefinition of “vaccine” is one example. Another is the redefinition of the pejorative term “Anti-Vaxxer” to include any who disagree with policies involving mandated vaccine acceptance.

Current headlines support the hypothesis that center-right populist movements are rapidly disrupting current political alliances and consensus throughout the “Western” nation-states. But the language being used to resist these movements has been actively and intentionally distorted to advance the political interests of the current status quo. Of course the election of Republican Party candidate Donald Trump in the USA is particularly notable, but this was foreshadowed by the rise of the Brothers of Italy party and the election of Georgia Meloni, the election of Argentine President Javier Milei (an Austrian school Economist), the popularity of Marine le Pen and the French National Rally group, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Nigel Farage and the Reform party in the UK, Geert Wilders’ Dutch Party for Freedom, and Viktor Orbán’s Hungarian leadership (and impending EU Presidency). The list goes on and on, and the global momentum is undeniable.

The WEF-influenced totalitarian left-wing Trudeau government of Canada is teetering on collapse, the governments of France and Germany are currently in crisis mode, and the WEF-influenced left-wing UK government of Keir Starmer is circling the drain. Multiple political missteps have contributed to this momentum, including comprehensive O’Biden administration mismanagement, EU, UN and WEF-promoted open border policies, COVIDcrisis lies and mismanagement, failing “Green Energy” policies, lockstep Western and EU support of the disastrous and escalating war in Ukraine that now threatens to go nuclear, declining standards of living, national indebtedness (that seems to have been the trigger in Canada), the hidden tax of inflation, the censorship-industrial complex, and a wide range of PsyWar campaigns against politically inconvenient distribution of “mis- dis- and malinformation” as defined by current Western administrations and globalist alliances.

To understand the modern system of sovereign nation-states, it is necessary to understand the origins of this system dating back to the early 1600s. Before that time, sovereign large cities were often autonomous from what we might call nations (think of the historic network of Italian city-states, for example), as the modern concept of sovereign nation-states did not exist.

The post-1600s “Westphalian” structure of autonomous nation-states that share a common commitment of sovereignty and autonomy is now being intentionally and aggressively replaced by a centralized global command economy-based system commonly referred to as the “New World Order,” led by an alliance formed between the United Nations (a socialist organization) and the World Economic Forum (a corporatist organization) and described in part in the infamous Klaus Schwab book “The Great Reset.” The truth is that the Westphalian system has been progressively undermined almost since its inception by various European Nation-States pursuing expansionist imperialistic objectives (the British Empire provides a notable example).

With the collapse of these European Imperial networks after WWII, a victorious and dominant United States bolstered by the logic of American Exceptionalism developed an internal consensus that the USA should fill the resulting power vacuum left by the formerly dominant European nation-states and step into their roles as the new global hegemon. This was justified by “realpolitik” logic as geopolitically necessary because otherwise, less ethical and worthy geopolitical opponents of the United States (notably former ally and ideological opponent - the Soviet Union) would fill the resulting power vacuum. An alternative strategy could have been for the USA to recommit to the Treaty of Westphalia and actively support the autonomy and sovereignty of independent nation-states while helping them resist Soviet and Chinese adventurism. Still, there is no evidence that this was seriously considered then. These post-WWII decisions, strategies, and resulting tactics (such as regime change programs) set in motion the forces that have led us to the present and the emergence of the current wave of center-right populist “nationalist” movements.

To help lift the fog of information war as the “Empire” seeks to strike back via its various surrogates by distorting both issues and language. and to help improve interpersonal communication and clarity of thought, it will be useful to revisit the related core concepts and definitions.

What is the Treaty of Westphalia?

The Treaty of Westphalia was a peace agreement signed in October 1648, ending the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) and bringing peace to the Holy Roman Empire. The treaty was negotiated between Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III, the kingdoms of France and Sweden, and their respective allies among the princes of the Holy Roman Empire.

The key provisions of the Treaty included the following:

1. Sovereignty of States: The treaty recognized the full territorial sovereignty of the member states of the Holy Roman Empire, empowering them to contract treaties with one another and with foreign powers as long as the emperor and the empire suffered no prejudice.

2. Religious Toleration: The treaty extended the religious toleration of Lutherans to include toleration of the Reformed (Calvinist) Church, confirming the Peace of Augsburg.

3. Territorial Changes: The treaty resulted in significant territorial changes, including Sweden’s control of the Baltic Sea, France’s firm frontier west of the Rhine River, and additional lands for their allies.

4. Recognition of Princes: The treaty recognized the princes of the Holy Roman Empire as absolute sovereigns in their own dominions, greatly weakening the central authority of the empire.

5. Guarantees: Sweden and France, as guarantors of the peace, acquired the right of interference in the affairs of the empire, and Sweden gained a voice in its councils.

What is Fascism?

In prior essays and books, we have examined the political science definition of Fascism- as opposed to the weaponized use and commonly distorted meaning of the word as synonymous with the political right. Fascism, as initially embodied in the political movements led by Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, is a totalitarian system involving the fusion of socialism with corporatism. It is a political structure more closely aligned with the current left wing of the Western political spectrum.

Mussolini saw corporatism as a system where the state and economy are organized into “corporations” or guilds, representing specific professional or economic sectors. These corporations would be responsible for negotiating labor contracts, promoting the interests of their respective fields, and coordinating with the government. Corporatism aimed to create a harmonious and balanced society, where workers and employers worked together under state supervision. The concept of Stakeholder Capitalism aggressively promoted by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum rebrands Mussolini’s definition of corporatism.

Mussolini defined fascism as a system that “ought more properly be called corporatism” because it is the “merger of state and corporate power.” In his 1923 pamphlet “The Doctrine of Fascism,” he wrote, “If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.” Mussolini’s fascism was not about individual freedom or laissez-faire economics but rather about the state’s control over the economy and society, with corporations playing a key role.

With the rising tide of populist center-right parties throughout the Western political/economic alliance (NATO, EU, USA global sphere of influence) and continuing campaigns to distort and weaponize the meaning of the term ‘Fascism’ to support anti-populist agendas, it is essential to insist on the proper meaning and use of the term as historically defined.

What is Nationalism?

“Nationalism: An ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.” (Britannica)

President Trump on Nationalism (2018) summarizes his own ideology: “You know, they have a word, it sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist.…You know what I am? I’m a nationalist. OK? I’m a nationalist.…Use that word. Use that word.”

Nationalism: a collectivist ideology at odds with America’s founding principles and institutions, classical-liberal economics, and the realities of our diverse population. An ideology of group rights that denigrates individualism in favor of an abstraction called “the nation.” Its foundational principle is that government exists primarily to protect the culture and interests of the nation or its dominant group. This implies that the government can use its authority to protect the national culture against potential dangers — including other domestic groups and the possible spread of their cultures. To promote the dominant group, the government must have the power to act assertively on its behalf, which necessarily means constraining others. (Cato Institute)

---

From a Brave AI Summary:

Nationalism is a political principle that holds that the nation and state should be congruent, where a nation is a distinct and unique group of people sharing a common identity, culture, language, history, and geographic location. Nationalism emphasizes the importance of national sovereignty, self-determination, and unity, often prioritizing the interests and needs of one’s own nation above those of others.

Key aspects of nationalism include:

1. Congruence between nation and state: Nationalism seeks to align the political boundaries of a state with the territorial and cultural identity of a nation.

2. National identity: Nationalism emphasizes the importance of shared social characteristics, such as culture, ethnicity, language, and history, in defining a nation’s identity.

3. National unity: Nationalism aims to promote national solidarity and cohesion, often through the promotion of a single national identity and the suppression of competing identities.

4. National autonomy: Nationalism advocates for the nation’s right to govern itself, free from external interference, and to make its own decisions about its internal affairs.

5. Partiality: Nationalism prioritizes the interests and needs of one’s own nation over those of others, often leading to a sense of exclusivity and rivalry with other nations.

Nationalism can take various forms, from benign expressions of cultural pride and loyalty to more extreme and exclusionary ideologies, such as jingoism or chauvinism. Additionally, nationalism can be criticized for its potential to undermine global cooperation, promote conflict, and perpetuate inequality.

---

The US MAGA movement is intrinsically and unapologetically nationalist.

---

What is Imperialism?

Imperialism is a complex and multifaceted political concept that refers to the extension of a state’s power and influence over other territories, peoples, or countries. It involves the domination of one political society over another, often characterized by the establishment and maintenance of an empire.

Imperialism can be defined as a state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.

Imperialism can take various forms, including the exploitation of a conquered country’s resources, the imposition of political and economic control, and the use of military or economic power to maintain dominance. Imperialism is often associated with the use of power, whether military, economic, or subtle, to exert control over other territories or peoples. It can involve the domination of one political society over another, the exploitation of resources, and the imposition of cultural, economic, or political systems. Historical examples of imperialism include Greek imperialism under Alexander the Great, Italian imperialism under Benito Mussolini, and European imperialism in Africa and Asia during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Modern (post Theodore Roosevelt, and especially post WWII) US foreign policy is intrinsically and unapologetically imperialist.

---

What is Globalism?

“A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence. The development of social, cultural, technological, or economic networks that transcend national boundaries; globalization.”

From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

---

As summarized by Wikipedia:

“Globalism has multiple meanings. In political science, it is used to describe "attempts to understand all of the interconnections of the modern world—and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them". While primarily associated with world-systems, it can be used to describe other global trends. The concept of globalism is also classically used to focus on ideologies of globalization (the subjective meanings) instead of its processes (the objective practices); in this sense, "globalism" is to globalization what "nationalism" is to nationality.

Paul James is Professor of Globalization and Cultural Diversity at Western Sydney University, and Director of the Institute for Culture and Society where he has been since 2014. Professor James defines globalism as:

at least in its more specific use ... as the dominant ideology and subjectivity associated with different historically-dominant formations of global extension. The definition thus implies that there were pre-modern or traditional forms of globalism and globalization long before the driving force of capitalism sought to colonize every corner of the globe, for example, going back to the Roman Empire in the second century AD, and perhaps to the Greeks of the fifth-century BC

The term first came into widespread usage in the United States of America. The earliest use of the word is from 1943, in the book The War for Man's Soul by Ernst Jäckh, who used it to describe Adolf Hitler's global ambitions. The modern concept of globalism arose in the post-war debates of the 1940s in the United States. In their position of unprecedented power, planners formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which in economic terms meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively upon the United States. This was the period when its global power was at its peak: the United States was the greatest economic power the world had known, with the greatest military machine in history. In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." America's allies and foes in Eurasia were still recovering from World War II at this time. Historian James Peck has described this version of globalism as "visionary globalism." Per Peck, this was a far-reaching conception of "American-centric state globalism using capitalism as a key to its global reach, integrating everything that it can into such an undertaking". This included global economic integration, which had collapsed under World War I and the Great Depression.

Modern globalism has been linked to the ideas of economic and political integration of countries and economies. The first person in the United States of America to use the term "economic integration" in its modern sense, such as combining separate economies into larger economic regions, was John S. de Beers, an economist in the United States Department of the Treasury, towards the end of 1941. By 1948, economic integration was appearing in an increasing number of American documents and speeches. Paul G. Hoffman, then head of the Economic Cooperation Administration, used the term in a 1949 speech to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. The New York Times summarized it thus:

Mr Hoffmann used the word 'integration' fifteen times or almost once to every hundred words of his speech. It is a word that rarely if ever has been used by European statesmen having to do with the Marshall Plan to describe what should happen to Europe's economies. It was remarked that no such term or goal was included in the commitments the European nations gave in agreeing to the Marshall Plan. Consequently it appeared to the Europeans that 'integration' was an American doctrine that had been superimposed upon the mutual engagements made when the Marshall Plan began ...

Globalism emerged as a dominant set of ideologies in the late twentieth century. As these ideologies settled, and while various processes of globalization intensified, they contributed to the consolidation of a connecting global imaginary. In 2010, Manfred Steger and Paul James theorized this process in terms of four levels of change: changing ideas, ideologies, imaginaries and ontologies. Globalism has been seen as a pillar of a liberal international order along with democratic governance, open trade, and international institutions. At the Brookings Institution, David G. Victor has suggested cooperation in carbon capture and storage technology could be a future element of globalism, as part of global efforts against climate change.”

---

As can be deduced from the Wikipedia summary of globalism quoted above, the concepts and logic of globalism have been developed and systematically advanced by the United States Government, its State Department, associated think tanks, and US intellectuals, in support of United States geopolitical interests.

---

PANDEMIC POLITICS: GLOBALISM VS NATIONALISM?

---

---