Amphiist 13: Nationalism and globalism

· Culture, Philosophy, Politics

Everyone acknowledges good and evil

But which is which?

Amphiist is a Greek word meaning both sides

Let’s explore the world of contemporary life

Through the lens of non-judgmental analyses of good and evil

*The newsletter for the average non-extremist*

Contact info: @JaclynHStrauss on Twitter

Jaclyn Holland-Strauss on Facebook

Amphiist 13: Nationalism and globalism

One of the battles between good and evil going on today is that raging between nationalists and globalists. Which is good, and which is evil, or is a combination of both great? Let’s discuss what white nationalists in the United States want, then globalists, and see if we can come up with a solution.

First, let’s dissect the concept of white nationalism. What do white nationalists believe (keeping in mind that it’s a loaded term and people differ as to who is actually a member of this group)? They think that a border wall should be built for many reasons. They feel that an insecure border between Mexico and the United States means an influx of opioids and other drugs. They feel, like in the case of Kate Steinle, that Americans are at risk from Mexicans who rape and murder from illegal immigrants. They believe that a nation stops being a nation if anyone can enter it.

White nationalists believe in strict gender roles, with men lifting weights and otherwise being as masculine as possible, and women being submissive and shy, willing to stay home and raise the children, not competing with men in the workplace or in any sphere. They say they respect women’s calling as mothers and as the gentler sex.

On the specific subject of gender roles, another argument is that not all women (or men) have the same capabilities. People with the Nazi mindset think that women should just be in the kitchen and men out working to support the family, which is fine as far as it goes, but does it go far enough? Not all women can have kids. Should they be denied the right to take advantage of their inherent skills? Not all men are physically strong enough to lift weights in the first place because of some physical disability. If we take white nationalism too far, then there is an in-group of the ideal men and women, and the out-group of those not so fortunate, such as the differently abled. Taken to an extreme, this is indeed Nazism, because Hitler believed that the differently abled should be killed since they were not worthy members of the Aryan race. It’s what I call the Nazi mindset.

I think that God gave each of us different characteristics, and that’s where the strength of diversity comes. As people who follow me on Twitter know, I’m a shemale. I would love to have been born a ‘normal’ woman, but that is not the plan that God had for me. White nationalists believe that ‘normal’, healthy women should wait to have sex until they are married to optimize their health. It’s possible that a compromise could be that if you’re a normal woman, you ideally remain a virgin before marriage, and if you’re a shemale, have as much fun as you want, because the consequences are far less. If men want to have fun, they can do it with women who can’t have children. One of the problems with such high standards on the part of white nationalist men is that if women can’t have sex before marriage, then neither can men. This would be a good compromise. Older married women could be another way for virile white nationalist men to satisfy their urges. It should always be recognized that men have far higher sex drives than women. White nationalists believe in race realism, acknowledging differences between the races, but I think they also need to examine sexual realism, which says that since men value sex far more than the average woman, white nationalist men need to come up with a way to be sexually fulfilled, while not tainting the pool of women from which they plan to select brides. All of our circumstances are different. And this diversity needs to be recognized when we examine different political philosophies.

White nationalists also believe there should be no race mixing because that dilutes the white race. If enough white women marry black men, then their babies will be brown and accordingly the white race will eventually die out. This is the crux of white nationalism. They don’t hate black people, for example, they just don’t want whites to be a minority in America, since it was founded by white Founding Fathers. They don’t mind black people having traditional families of their own; they just feel that each demographic set is better off in their own country or region, taking care of their own business. Ironically, they see value in segregation, just like Saudi Arabia does. They point to the immigration acts throughout the 1790s, where these men limited immigrants to being white, and of good character. They want back the traditional America, the one depicted in TV shows like The Waltons, where the men worked in the professional sphere (in that case, agricultural), and the women worked in the domestic. This takes advantage of everyone’s unique abilities and strengths, with everyone working together to achieve a common goal, a strong family. Obviously, if someone does not believe in race mixing, then they have the Nazi mindset. It’s absolutely ridiculous to not want the races to mix. Love is love, whether that love is expressed interracially, homosexually, heterosexually, etc.

On the subject of the Wall, my best friend is Mexican, and would be of invaluable aid to the American economy. He is brilliant, and hard-working. He would be an asset to any country. We have to analyze people based on their individual merits, rather than collectively viewing them as Mexicans or Canadians or Jews, etc. The illegal immigrant who killed Kate Steinle did not kill her because he was an illegal immigrant. He killed her because he is a broken man. And Americans citizens kill innocent young girls as well.

I personally can see the value of both nationalism and globalism, although globalism ultimately seems far more attractive. There are many advantages to globalism. There would be far less war in a world where people were not divided by nationality. Land is one of the major reasons for war. Religion is another. In everyday life, the more we get to know someone, the less we stereotype them and the more we become acquainted with their immense value as human beings. In the same way, if we stop viewing people as citizens of a given country, or as members of a distinct religion, the more we can open our eyes to their uniqueness as individuals. The combination of all world religions into one harmonious group could reap wonderful dividends for all global citizens.

Economically speaking, if we had a guaranteed basic wage of a couple of thousand dollars a month, imagine the risks that people could take that could help improve the global economy. Yes, it’s possible that we would pay higher taxes, but wouldn’t it be worth it? There would be no such thing as ‘foreign imports,’ because we’d be thinking on a global scale. We’d all be one, from many. Transnational companies would be meaningless, as there would be no nations. If we all worked together, perhaps violence would end, at least on a large scale. Critics say that this would essentially be a dictatorship. However, some dictatorships are benevolent. An ideal governor for this world government would be Justin Trudeau, because of his immense emotional intelligence. He is the natural aristocrat envisioned by Thomas Carlyle, someone who was not born of royal blood, but who is royal in terms of character and integrity. Recently, Trudeau was accused of behaving unethically because of his family vacation trip to the Aga Khan’s island. Aga Khan is a close family friend of the Trudeau’s, and has been for half a century. Trudeau didn’t think to check with the Ethics Commissioner before his trip, and there was a small scandal recently about it. It has come out since that the Aga Khan does not get paid by the foundation which bears his name, and so it turns out there was a big brouhaha over nothing. But Trudeau, in a press conference, apologized and said he’d made a mistake. This is what a real leader does, and shows Trudeau’s greatness as a man and as a leader. He would be an ideal choice to lead a global government.



Leave a Comment