Last modified on July 12, 2022, at 19:38

Essay: National Globalism

National Globalism is a set of political ideologies which seek to syncretize nationalism and globalism, usually with the intent of using globalist means for nationalist (or imperialist) ends.

Some variants of national globalism are rooted in liberalism, others are rooted in communism, and still others are rooted in fascism. And even then, there are still others which are rooted in a combination of two or even all three of the aforementioned ideologies.


Fourth Political Theory

Perhaps the most popular form of National Globalism today is "The Fourth Political Theory", the ideology of Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin. The basic premise of "The Fourth Political Theory" is the creation of a totalitarian regime that would impose Nazi-esque policies on the domestic population, regime change or destabilization of countries that do not have National Globalist regimes in power, and use a combination of "free" trade and militarism to create separate "unions" of countries that are deemed to part of the same civilization.


Another form of National Globalism is Identitarianism, an ideology that pretends to be nationalist and anti-European Union but in fact implicitly calls for the creation of a new, even more centralized version of the EU, where the member states have their borders redrawn (mostly) on ethnic lines and have virtually no sovereignty.[1][2] Although this ideology is mostly confined to Western Europe and often has strains of anti-Americanism (many European Identitarians see the United States as being just as big, if not an even bigger threat to Europe than Islam, and during the Cold War advocated alliances with the Soviet Union and especially Communist China to contain the United States), it also has gained some currency among American white supremacists.[3][4][5]

There is also good reason to believe that it could be accepted – in modified form – by the more radical factions of the minority identity politics movement that is becoming increasingly popular on the left.


It's possible to argue that neoconservatism is a form of National Globalism due to its historic use of globalist means for imperialist ends, while most neoconservatives place emphasis on global ideological warfare as opposed to the relative supremacy of different nations and/or cultures, some neoconservatives, such as John Bolton, do the opposite.

Syncretizing nationalism and globalism

National Globalists reject the assertion that nationalism and globalism are incompatible. They consider both pure nationalism and pure globalism to be failed ideologies, and seek to syncretize them to bring about a so-called utopia.

Winning over nationalists

When National Globalists attempt to win over nationalists, they tend to do so by spreading around propaganda defining globalism in terms of geopolitics as opposed to pure ideology.[6] By this logic, one can use the term globalist to describe any country he dislikes, and nationalist to describe his own country and other countries he likes. Objectively, such a premise is highly flawed, as it leads to one excusing globalist behavior on the grounds that "the real enemy is a certain country."[7]

Winning over globalists

When National Globalists attempt to win over globalists, they tend to do so by placing emphasis on regional integration, international cooperation, and expanded international trade (all ideas that are considered gold standard by globalists). For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin, a man who may not be a National Globalist in principle but has on numerous occasions promoted National Globalism as a possible means of making Russia great again, when promoting the Eurasian Economic Union, stated the following:

"We are suggesting a model of a powerful supranational union that can become one of the poles of today’s world while being an efficient connecting link between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific Region. This also means that, on the base of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space, we need to achieve closer coordination of currency and economic policies and establish a full-fledged economic union ... [A]long with other key players and regional institutions such as the EU, the USA, China, and APEC, it will ensure the sustainability of global development ... the Eurasian Union will serve as a sort of center for further integration processes. That is, it will be formed through gradual blending of existing structures: the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space ... [W]e have great prospects in humanitarian cooperation, in science, culture, and education, and in joint work on employment market regulation and the creation of a civilized environment for labor migration ... [F]urthermore, I am convinced that the economic foundation of the Commonwealth should rely on trade that is as liberalized as possible. As per Russia’s initiative during its chairmanship of the CIS in 2011, a new Free Trade Treaty was drafted. It is based, by the way, on the principles of the World Trade Organization and is aimed at the large-scale removal of various barriers ... the Eurasian Union is an open project. We welcome other partners – CIS countries first of all – to join it ... solutions should be found at the regional level within organizations like the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), APEC, ASEAN, etc. ... it’s only together that our countries can become leaders of global growth, enhance our civilization and achieve the ultimate goals of success and prosperity."[8]

See also