Nationalism: The True Anti-Globalization Movement
by Karl Kammler
July 14, 2002
Organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) laughably accuse White Nationalists of "infiltrating" the anti-globalization movement. They make these charges against racial nationalists to imply that we have no philosophical or political stake in the anti-globalization movement, and that we have no right to even address the issue of globalization. The professional Jews (as distinct from Jewish professionals) over at the ADL, in pinning a "No Trespassing" sign on the anti-globalization movement, arrogantly seek to claim sole, private ownership of a public issue. Talk about chutzpah!
But who are the real infiltrators and trespassers?
First, let's define our terms. "Globalization" can be defined as the process of quickening the free, uninhibited movement of goods, services, cultural ideas, and people across national borders. A number of practices both flow from and further globalization, from economic ones that facilitate wealth transfers across borders to technological ones that promote greater communication and transportation across borders. The United States leads in applying these practices and technologies, so globalization has rightly been criticized as a sometimes subtle, sometimes violent "Americanization" of the world. "Globalism" is the name of the ideology that holds globalization as a positive good for the world.
The Jewish Left (a redundant term) moves quickly to stamp out the anti-globalization activism efforts of racial nationalists. They desperately manufacture all sorts of distractions. For example, they rally their troops by raising the usual tired cry of "racism." These hysteric responses indicate that the Jews know they are vulnerable on the globalization issue. This issue is one where the veil runs particularly thin, so urging people to look away is the only way the Jews feel they can prevent people from seeing through to the truth.
The Left jealously guards the anti-globalization issue, monopolizing it to prevent true challenges to globalization. They are not interested in the abolition of globalization, merely its reform along more socialistic lines. The Left resents that globalization is largely the result of the expansion of capitalism, especially financial capitalism. They oppose the current economic form of globalization, but otherwise support globalization in terms of its social and cultural aspects -- the idea of "one united humanity" as well as the abolition of national borders. Hence, the "anti-globalization Left" remains "globalist" in its desires and intent. For these reasons, the Left offers tightly circumscribed solutions, such as debt forgiveness for Third World nations, which purposely fall short of endangering their universalistic and utopian visions.
If the Left's inherent ideological inability to muster a true opposition to globalization does not make its adherents infiltrators and trespassers, then the Left is at best filled with frauds and impostors who mislead idealistic youth.
The Leftist approach to the issue of globalization is riddled with contradictions, further weakening its claim to ownership of the issue.
Environmentalism, for example, is one issue area relevant to the globalization issue that the Left bungles. The Left criticizes multinational corporations (MNCs) for their destruction of the natural environment, but fails to grasp that the "diversity" and affirmative action programs MNCs sponsor are equally destructive of the natural order. Miscegenation is the ultimate outcome of these kinds of programs, and miscegenation is a devolutionary, downward course. Miscegenation results in the loss of differentiation of human lifeforms -- a lack of "diversity," if you will. Those who value the diversity of life would not seek "racial equality" or promote racial mixing.
Leftists also pay more attention to population growth besides diversity. Contradiction in the Leftist position arises here as well. Leftists love the idea of open borders and unlimited immigration from the Third World, but fail to fully acknowledge that the immigration problem is a population-growth problem. Thus, their concerns about unchecked population growth are also a sham.
Leftist opposition to nationalism on "moral grounds" also turns out to be baseless. They are likely to moan that "nationalism kills people," not realizing that the civic nationalism promoted by the French and Soviet Revolutions oppresses and kills more people than any brand of ethnic nationalism.
If Leftist opponents of globalization were serious about the issue, they would abandon their universalism for nationalism.
Fortunately, the impostors cannot control the unexpected ways that events have shifted and reformulated the political spectrum. The famed Left/Right divide is increasingly obsolete and irrelevant. The ironic part about this destabilization of the political spectrum is that the Establishment caused it by its own actions. When Jewish Leftists seized the conservative movement, the rightward pole of the spectrum ceased holding up its end of the deal, abdicating to the Left. Everything froze and congealed into the "center." One ideological pole and one political party characterize officially approved politics, the surface appearance of two opposing camps notwithstanding.
Everyone knows that Republicans and Democrats, or mainstream conservatives and liberals, agree on everything but minor, peripheral issues. They may haggle over tax cuts or school prayer, but neither dare challenge the official state religion of "racial equality," "open borders," "American engagement overseas," "free trade," and the like that underpins "modern," "democratic" post-1965 America. The liberals and neoconservatives declared nationalist ideas dead when they merely conspired to bury them alive, and failed. Not only is the obituary for the Old Order premature, but also completely misplaced. They pinned the toe-tag to the wrong bodies -- both mainstream conservatism and the Left are dead; only their taboo-shaking, smear-shrieking ghosts spook people away from calling the political coroner. The stale, static death-stench of this artificially arrested political climate is getting harder for everyone to ignore. Eventually, someone will throw open a window, even if the Jews can't stand a draft.
Conservatives should find the nationalist alternative to globalization attractive as well. Those who advocate globalization are, after all, fundamentally un-conservative so far as they attempt to do what has never been successfully done before: unite the world under a single banner. Some will recognize the warning inherent in the famed story of the Tower of Babel. Globalization is clearly radical, extreme, and dangerous because it disturbs tens of thousands of years of separate evolutionary development in a very short period of time. The potential for the introduction and spread of infectious disease or crop-damaging pests, for example, is staggering. Loss of community resiliency is another danger of globalization--when a natural or man-made disaster strikes one area of the world, there will be little to insulate every other area from its effects. Much truth is stored in the time-honored warning against putting all of one's eggs into one basket, and the sensible and rational approach is to heed that wise advice. As Vanguard News Network editor Alex Linder points out, it is not we nationalists who are the radicals, but our opponents who insanely think the uniformity they call "diversity" is a strength.
Linder's observation has sound and deep roots going back to Professor Charles Josey, who argues in his 1923 book, The Philosophy of Nationalism, that nationalism is the Golden Mean between an infinitely narrow, atomized individualism and an excessively broad collectivism toward the undifferentiated mass of humanity. From the 1920s all the way back to the founding of this country, every "conservative" of the day was effectively a White Nationalist, while most self-described "conservatives" of today are merely the moderate liberals of a couple decades back. Virtually everyone was "exclusionary," "xenophobic," "racist," and "anti-Semitic"; in fact, those smear labels didn't even exist. Those attitudes were healthy and were encouraged because they contributed to the kind of societal cohesion that only comes in an environment with a maximal degree of homogeneity, something John Jay recognized in Federalist No. 2. Who says the old days were bad?
In a radical departure, the alien-controlled mass news and entertainment media have shifted the spectrum Leftward over the years. Their negative portrayal of White Nationalists as un-American, crazy, or extreme is just another form of "camera trick." Sadly, we live in an age in which too many people are blindly motivated by labels and manipulated by fleeting surface images. To understand White Nationalism, or any other political point of view, it is necessary to step back from the emotional baggage the media has strewn all over the scene and take a longer, calmer historical look.
These times call for a protean flexibility on the part of racial nationalists, replete with creativity and a little opportunistic legerdemain. Fortunately at VNN, you get refreshingly candid views presented across the board "from ivory tower to privy wall," an approach the late George Lincoln Rockwell favored. If our enemies don't want us addressing issues surrounding globalization, the obvious answer is to step up our efforts in that area. Alliance and coalition building with the Left makes sense, provided we do not abandon our central message of racial nationalism.