Nationalism in the 21st Century

Because you can discuss such things on Veeky Forums, we just have to weed out the /pol/ from the mix. Don't let those faggots win and pervert history for their own means.
I believe it is something new that borrows from the old, but it is ultimately going to adhere to the current international order of globalism so that they are not out-competed by nations that do, assuming that they gain any ground in any country. This new nationalism is mainly populist in nature, but in my personal opinion, not beneficial to the long-term growth of the nation.

There is a degree of culture v culture, but it is mainly based around political ideology in one's own country. It isn't a larger international movement like globalism was, but separate groups that rose due to a reactionary stance to globalism.

Not that I know of.

Brexit will likely not have too much of an impact, because the UK would still want to do business with the EU countries, which means they still have to abide by EU Laws and Regulations on such things.

It specifically says not to make threads comparing current events to the past, that's exactly what this is.

Literally a rule that is never enforced, especially for historical comparisons. Stop trying to derail a thread you /pol/tard

Also it does not say that at all. Learn to read, you can't discuss a current event stand alone, but you can make comparisons ever read a history journal?

But what would you say Brexit and the conditions surrounding it is most like from the past?

I don't know about Europe, but at least from America, it doesn't really apply. Leftists and rightists have both been pretty patriotic for a while, although they may often have major misgivings about any given administration. There a major constituency of big business owners on the right that are pro-open borders. Most Democratic opposition to securing borders is mostly based on cost and tying immigration reform to it, not advocating open borders.

Honestly, nationalism is what happens when people think in terms of "muh jobs" and "job creators" rather than "capital" and "capitalists". It's servile thinking when people want to cling to something to secure their livelihoods instead of looking at what their livelihoods actually rely on. Americans really can't seem to grasp that what makes "job creators" is mostly capital. Americans have this odd doublethink relationship with capitalism, where they praise the free market, sometimes hate the free market, and mostly ignore the issue of capital, which capitalism is named after.

I don't think you can credibly join nationalism and liberal democracy as anything beyond a marriage of convenience in the post revolution world, given that none of the naturally evolved liberal democracies really were nationalist states

I'd say the sentimentality of the past is influencing a new situation. A lot of this "nationalist" movement seems to be reactionary.

What makes you think it's reactionary exactly?

Why don't you think it's just a natural return to culture against culture, and globalization has only intensified the cultural consciousness?

How do you have liberal democracy without the nation-state?

You don't think Brexit draws any historical paralles to some historical event in the past?

hello, the entirety of the 19th century called

Because there is no EU culture, the main reason people were sold on Brexit were economic reasons. Just look at the messages that spearheaded the movement. Hell, they even had a bus painted with a statement about economics.
The closest I could think of is a country leaving the
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
, but even then they were usually over religious tensions or the Emperor exerting too much power over the princes.

People do not want globalism. Globalism is unnatural.

take it from someone who has lived a while, things that appear new are often just so old you cant recognise them immediately, take the war in ukraina for example, its a fucking rerun of the nineties, things happen and happen again, in 25 years youll see things more crearly, maybe

thats pretty much fascism tho

>its ok for me to break that rule because no one enforces it
>I'm not breaking any rules
which one is it

It's the reactionary right doing what they always do. Seeing that there is a problem but failing to understand what the problem is.
>somethings wrong
>somethings changed
>the problem must be the change
>the solution must be to go back to doing what we did before
>things were prefect back then
>that's why it was changed
>god damn globalist sissies
>Dr. ExxonMcdonalds MBA. From the competitive enterprise institute really opened my eyes with that chain email, now it's up to me to redpill my friends.

I don't know man, i'm not really a political person but seeing that the message that was almost exculsively peddled by Farage, anti terrorist posters that look really, reallly cloes to anti jewish propoganda and public spying initiatives covered without a peep from a majority right wing press it worries me.

LOVE GEOPOLITICAL FUTURES. Do you have a subscription or is that just a free article. The guy that runs that place really knows his shit.

nationalism very often occured where people thought of capital and capitalism, most revolutionary, insurectional or resistance movements ever had some national or ethnic basis, and these often occur when people think about who owns and controls what, in their country specificaly

/his is a good board until meta threads happen.

What do you guys think about Huntington's thesis and how it applies to Brexit and the greater nationalist movement at hand now?

I will post images of argument now

The Thesis

The Why

The Map

I take nationalism to mean a bit more of a national identity based system, like ethno-nationalism, not just because national problems tend to lead to revolutions that happen on a nationwide scale. You will notice that in a lot of these nationalistic regimes, anti-capitalists will be part of the initial insurrection, but the movement often redefines itself, eliminates them and is taken over by kleptocrats.

>mongolia
>buddhist
rip tengri

It's correct in a broad political sense, but it doesn't account for politics that go down on a much more local scale, for example the interactions between Poland and Russia, which had been amicable for a time. While this can apply sometimes, I wouldn't use it as an end-all-be-all for the political world.

I can't and don't take seriously anyone who is not at least somewhat nationalist. If you don't believe in defending your borders from alien races and cultures, you are a cuck who deserves to die.

I'd rather ignore borders and exploit the working classes and consumer markets of various races and cultures for my own profit :^)

Ubermensch are anti-nationalists, because it makes it easier for them to exert their will. Spooks like nationality, culture and religion are for untermensch.

Because the historic people of Europe and America are finally starting to react to the soft genocide perpetrated against them. The response is anarchic and all over the place but there is a central theme and direction to all of it.

The demographics change that has taken place over the past 4 decades is unprecedented in history a reaction was bound to happen

Apparently after the Mongols conquered tibet, they went from a Tengrist/Islamist mish mash to Buddhism

Ive read the book and while Its not perfect he was right for the most part, as the signs of the new world were already popping up in places like Nagorno-Karaba for example.

I want to write my research paper on nationalism Veeky Forums

What do you think is a provocative argument to make?

>It's a "chart with no source or other validating evidence" episode

census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/48

>Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (b)
38.8%

It's right there wtf? You wasted your time to find the link and didn't even check the data? Thanks anyway for doing my work I am going to add the source to the graph now

I am thinking of comparing modern nationalist movements to 1930s ones, and noting how they are NOT like those fascist ones, but are more resembling to the liberal ones in 19th century?

What do you think??

Globalization is an issue that I don't have a firm belief in either way. There are benefits to it, including raising living standards in third world countries and enabling information and goods to flow freely. However when globalization is mostly controlled by Western powers and culture, it's easy to equate its effects to colonialism because we're subjugating people to Western ideals which they in turn yearn for and conform to. The guise of cultural exchange can melt away to expose a world that's marching towards uniformity. Idk, it's difficult for me to agree completely with either position.

Hispanic isn't a race. You can be Hispanic and white.

It's a reaction to how retarded, arrogant and alienated from the will of the common man the modern social left (as opposed to economic left) has become around the western world (in a broader sense encompassing Eastern European cultures as the most similar to western).

The ruling parties have taken the stance that they are right, and everyone that disagrees with them is dangerous.
Poor on that the enforcement of political correctness, and on top of that barbecue fire throw in a can of fuel in the form of the migrant crisis.
And it goes beyond a simple migration flow. These people have nothing left in their own country, and you can be sure that almost none of them will return to Syria after the war is over. However a much bigger problem is that there are not just Syrians, there are people from sub Saharan Africa and Afghanistan who took the opportunity and followed the Syrians.
While governments try everything to assure their populace that everything's fine.

Did you even passed the high school?

>number of Latinos exceeding whites
>at all
Come now, you don't need to make a graph to see that 39% is less than 79%
And before you say it, the reason why it is over 100% is mixed race.

This is not too far from historical trends.

White people (aka people of European descent) are categorised by the US census as non Hispanic Whites.

Wtf why are you unable to grasp something so simple?

>White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) >43.0%

Liberal democracy and nationalism came hand in hand.
See Europe 1848

Lul
>Dr. Exxonmcdonalds to lead president trumps science denial transition team

I'm not even him, but please learn to use Census statistics, because even rightwingers like to use "white alone" statistics to show how oppressed white people are even though it includes hispanics.

White alone means single race white
Hispanic means any race hispanic
Non-Hispanic White alone is wannabe aryans

>Hispanic isn't a race.

That's where you are wrong.

The biggest difference from 'normal' people and 'other' people is skin color.

The other biggest difference is language. Americans spoke English and the Spaniards spoke Spanish, so in America, Spaniards became a race. In the USA, no 'white' people exist south of Texas. They are all mestizo, indians or africans.

You got to understand the memes that make race up in the minds of people, divisions exist outside of what continent your ancestors hailed from.

The fact that you obsess over race alone is telling. And Texas was an area where many Hispanics lived, it is no wonder that there would be a large population of Hispanics or mixed White-Hispanics there.

Like I said, this is similar to historic trends.

Also adding to this, there's a good chance the child of non-hispanic-white and hispanic-white parents will identify as hispanic-white and not show up as mixed race, because they're white, and there's no option to identify as half-hispanic half non-hispanic and one-droppism tends to apply in America.

STOP. DERAILING. THE. FUCKING. THREAD!!!!

t. dutch speaking amish

>The fact that you obsess over race alone is telling

Here he comes didn't expect you to bring that up...

>this is similar to historic trends

Not really it is the result of political decisions to abolish immigration quotas and allow immigration from the global south. This is a man made disaster and an intentional policy not a natural flow of things a mere coincedence.

The rise of populism and the new nationalism that terrifies you people so much is the backlash to that.

>open borders
>patriotic
the left wants an open door on their nations, but when they're asked to remove the locks and doors on their apartment, they don't want it for much longer

nationalism is about culture, demographics and independence, not "muh economy"

Open borders are a EU leftist thing because they've fought a shit ton of shitty wars over nationalism. Even if you want to meme about walls, it's really not an American left position.

Its true though.

If you are an Argentinian who is also lily-white who is fully descended from Spaniards and Italians and considered white in your country, As soon as you set foot north of Mexico, your a mestizo.

If your Brazilian, in the USA you are at least a fourth black or full native. No exceptions.

It's an reactionary movement against the tide of globalization and automation which has misplaced and unemployed millions of people, combined with an anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner reaction to the mass migrations to Western countries that has been spurred by the aforementioned things combined with climate change, instability, and conflict.

Basically the economy in the west can't directly provide for everyone right now, but unlike in the past, it's not because of a momentary interruption in growth like a depression, it's just a long, slow decay due to increased efficiency and globalization. Certain countries are experiencing huge growth, but the countries that aren't (primarily developed countries) are seeing a rise in reactionary sentiment because people aren't happy with the way things are going.

Nationalism is also on the rise as a response to the breakdown of the post-WWII order and an increasingly multipolar geopolitical sphere.

It's a very complex subject because it dips into basically every facet of current events and goes back decades into history. But overall, the world is not the same as it has ever been in the past, and I don't think Europe is just "1930s Europe again", it's a different situation. There may be parallels in certain places but this situation, I think, may be unique because of the forces of globalization and climate change.

Get off my internets, English

/THREAD

cannot wait for national syndicalism

You shouldnt go arround with the old and new dichotomy

Push people buttons enough and we go back to being caveman i asure you.

My dude.

explain?

That doesn't really work like that though. Most right-wing movements in Europe are actually more pro-Russia and distinctively anti-west (in the sense of the liberal, globalist, western world). In fact, the modern right - including Trump in the US - is a revolt against "western" values, feminism, political correctness, free-trade, global capitalism, ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism

meme ideology

how so??

It's more similar to 1920s Europe imo. We have nationalists and a bunch of closet fascists but no real fascists.

It's one of those ideologies that's fun to think about and might be interesting in fiction but has no use in reality. Kind of like communism or anarcho-capitalism.

This is mostly about demographic warfare.
The people of the west are overaged and now others with foreign ways of thinking fill the gaps.
This creates friction.

>against automatisation
How so?
Isolationists like Japan automatisize in order to not have to accept as many foreigners.
I see automatisation as a saviour of nationalism in infertile places as it allows to reduce the number of actual people you have to relie on again.

I didn't say against autonomy, I said against automation, as in against the replacement of human labor with machine labor and the falling demand for unskilled workers in developed economies.

Well I meant automatisation.
Many oldworld countries suffer a demographic fallout. Replacing people with machienes would allow them to kick the can down the road.

Never mind, I was the one who misunderstood you.

>Isolationists like Japan automatisize in order to not have to accept as many foreigners.
Even still, in a capitalistic economy, either you have a job or you're poor. If automation reduces the number of jobs required to output the same products, there are fewer job openings in that country, which means more people that are unemployed and have lost their livelihood.

Recent political movements took advantage of this. Trump's campaign for POTUS is a perfect example, he pandered to the people who felt left behind by globalization - people in the Rust Belt which used to be a major world manufacturing center, or in West Virginia where coal mining once thrived.

>Replacing people with machienes would allow them to kick the can down the road.
You would be right, if it weren't for the fact that there are still people left without jobs and industries left devoid of opportunity, which inevitably inflicts hardship on some people. These people become reactionaries and vote against globalism and automation.

>a return to a narrative of culture against culture
>Countries have to be borderless multicultural Globalist nonstates to get on.
Embaressing.

Mh, in western europe the true shitjobs are mostly done by foreigners mixed with fewer natives. Legions are on welfare anyway.
Automatisation actually gets used as an anti-immigration argument and is said to reverse a bit of globalisation in the future.

You do realize automation only benefits the people that own the machines, the capitalists, right? Sure, it reduces the need for them to source cheap labor from immigrants, but it's just killing those low paying jobs. It's not creating many jobs for native workers.

>You do realize automation only benefits the people that own the machines
Not only. Capitalists spend their money giving profit for whole country.
>it reduces the need for them to source cheap labor from immigrants
yes
>It's not creating many jobs for native workers
It provide more state income for welfare of NATIVE workers.

>Western states see low paying jobs outsourced and automated
>Don't invest in retraining all those who are now pretty much skill less
>wonder why people are angry

>You do realize automation only benefits the people that own the machines, the capitalists

Why should they care if the national industry is foreign owned as long as it generates income and this place is attractive enough for the machine owners to consider investment.

That is how its been already and western europe still has a shrinking caste of nativebased greater companies it relies on and who need to be convinced to stay.

>Not only. Capitalists spend their money giving profit for whole country.
You actually believe this?

>It provide more state income for welfare of NATIVE workers.
They could just set up their machines in countries with less taxes, taxes that don't pay for your income. You might say, but tariffs, but that only works as long as there is demand from a market to sell to, but when the working class relies on welfare paid for by taxes to buy goods which the capitalist must pay taxes to produce, you can see why this is obviously a bad investment.

This only works if you can tie the capital to the state, and tie the state to the people. Basically socialism.

To be fair, Clinton had a better retraining program, whereas Trump just claimed he was going to bring low skill jobs back. People don't want to retrain. They want to stay in their hometowns.

That's your fault for falling for capitalist lies. The only way to create a relatively rich and prosperous country is to have an abundance of capital tied to the country such as deposits of natural resources, or industry that can't be moved away to some other cheaper country, which will only stop when all countries are equally as cheap.

Both you fuckwit, those are not mutually exclusively statements.

t. not that guy

>natural ressources
Socialist Bananarepublics were the plebs get pacified with some meager welfare and the state sustains mostly itself with the easily generated income are an exception I guess.

> The only way
Explain Denmark

>and humanities

Then what do you propose as the alternative? Without goods or services to sell why would a country produce any value anyway?

>implying the problem is never the change
Filthy whig historicist progressives please leave.

They have oil, they're taking on debt to support welfare, strong unions that maintain some control of the capitalists.

Everyone needs to control capital in one form or another, and not simply rely on being a wage-laborer, because there's a lot of people who are willing to do wage-labor for less. High wages come from the increased productivity of capital. If you have no claim to exclusive use of capital, the productivity will become profits while the wage-labor component is given to someone else who will do it for less.

Instead of a battle of culture it should be seen as a healthy encouragement of various lifestyle and adaptive successes that have resulted in the very nations and thus peoples that exist today. You yourself being a result of a few thousand years of one of those or many incorporations of those cultures.

Ignorant nationalism is still for dummies who are the equivalent of Americans with USAtoday shirts on and budweiser beer cozies, but its not wrong to stand up and say you have a right to exist as you are or people before you have in YOUR nation.

There are of course degrees of incorrectness to that, as many wars and battles have been fought through disagreement of those things...imo as they should. For victory goes to those willing, and not those who would not.

But how does one

1. Put control of capital in everyone's hands and make sure it stays there
and
2. Remain competitive with other economies that work on a wage-based system and may be more efficient

Unless everyone agreed to adopt this system all at once I can't see why it would work - unless of course there was something inherent tying that capital to those people, such as an obscure skill passed down in their culture or a natural resource they own. And obviously not everyone can have that. So why wouldn't peoples to which those criteria don't apply not adopt a wage-based system to out-compete the other economies?

>You actually believe this?
I know it. The only exception is hyper-centralised economics (top owners buy ALL goods and service from each other)
>They could just set up their machines in countries with less taxes
If conditions are better. But its rare cases (easier to have business inside home country).
>but that only works as long as there is demand
Economics works always. Unprofitable branches die - its normal.
>the working class relies on welfare paid for by taxes to buy goods which the capitalist must pay taxes to produce
Yes. This is future.
>this is obviously a bad investmen
Nobody would invested in unprofitable enterprise.