National Globalism

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

National Globalism is a political ideology that fuses radical nationalism with the anti-Judeo-Christian global revolution espoused by the Soviet Union, and the regional imperialism espoused by globalists. In essence, National Globalism is the "national" equivalent of globalism, much like Nazism was the "national" equivalent of Communism.



Perhaps the most popular form of National Globalism is Eurasianism, the ideology of Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin. The basic premise of Eurasianism 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.


Although it's possible to argue that neoconservatism is a form of National Globalism due to its historic use of globalist means for imperialist ends, those who do make that argument likely will find it difficult, if not impossible to reconcile this historical behavior with the fact that most neoconservatives place emphasis on global ideological warfare as opposed to the relative supremacy of different nations and/or cultures.

Syncretizing nationalism and globalism

Although conventional wisdom states that nationalism and globalism are incompatible, National Globalists reject that assertion. 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 about how the traditional definition of globalism is a lie and that the true definition of globalism is the alleged global geopolitical hegemony of a single country or group of countries (usually the United States, the United Kingdom, and/or Israel).[1] By this logic, any country that opposes said hegemony is anti-globalist by default. This assertion is easily debunked by the facts that:

  1. The term "geopolitics" is not, nor has it ever been associated with the desire to create a one-world government;
  2. Anglo-American global geopolitical hegemony predates contemporary globalism by several decades;
  3. Anglo-American global geopolitical hegemony was a result of the United States and the United Kingdom winning a war against a country that actually did want to create a one-world government (Nazi Germany);
  4. Many countries that claim to be opposed to Anglo-American global geopolitical hegemony also pursue projects that are premised around the concept of globalism (examples: China's One Belt One Road project; the French-German-dominated European Union).

Furthermore, National Globalists often like to excuse globalist behavior by smaller countries, claiming that they were ordered to do so by the "big bad hegemon" that had turned them into "vassals."[2] In other words, according to those who see the United States as being the "big bad hegemon," literally everything that has gone wrong as a result of globalism is the fault of the United States, and countries such as Germany and France are blameless for their globalist policies. This assertion is easily debunked by the facts that:

  1. Many American "vassals" (Germany and France included) continue to pursue globalist policies even in the era of Donald Trump;
  2. There are examples of American "vassals" (such as Hungary and Japan) resisting globalism while still remaining in American-dominated institutions (such as NATO) and remaining friendly to the United States, even during the presidency of Barack Obama.

These facts demonstrate that these countries imposed their policies largely out of their own volition, and the extent to which the United States interferes in the policies of its allies are often grossly exaggerated.

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."[3]

See also