A couple of days ago, there was an excellent op-ed in the New York Times by Marine Le Pen about the Brexit. She notes, quite rightly, that the European Union is nothing more than Berlin’s latest empire,
“British voters understood that behind prognostications about the pound’s exchange rate and behind the debates of financial experts, only one question, at once simple and fundamental, was being asked: Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny? Brexit is, above all, a political issue. It’s about the free choice of a people deciding to govern itself. Even when it is touted by all the propaganda in the world, a cage remains a cage, and a cage is unbearable to a human being in love with freedom.
“The European Union has become a prison of peoples. Each of the 28 countries that constitute it has slowly lost its democratic prerogatives to commissions and councils with no popular mandate. Every nation in the union has had to apply laws it did not want for itself. Member nations no longer determine their own budgets. They are called upon to open their borders against their will.
“Countries in the eurozone face an even less enviable situation. In the name of ideology, different economies are forced to adopt the same currency, even if doing so bleeds them dry. It’s a modern version of the Procrustean bed, and the people no longer have a say.”
For most of human history, the imposition of power by one nation or political entity over another has been considered slavery. When the Greeks, Romans, and other ancient talked about “freedom” in an international context, they meant the ability of one nation to exist without domination by another. Likewise, when speaking of nations, “slavery” was a state of being in another’s power. For instance, we see the exchange between the Persian Cyrus and the Armenian Tigranes,
“‘Why, then, have you now failed to pay the tribute and to send the troops, and why have you been building forts?’
“’I longed for liberty; for it seemed to me to be a glorious thing both to be free myself and to bequeath liberty to my children.’
“’You are right,’ said Cyrus; ‘it is a noble thing to fight that one may never be in danger of becoming a slave…'” (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, Bk. 3, Ch. 1)
“And when the Thracians led her, with hands bound, to Alexander, she showed by her mien and gait that she was a person of great dignity and lofty spirit, so calmly and fearlessly did she follow her conductors; and when the king asked her who she was, she replied that she was a sister of Theagenes, who drew up the forces which fought Philip in behalf of the liberty of the Greeks, and fell in command at Chaeroneia. Amazed, therefore, at her reply and at what she had done, Alexander bade her depart in freedom with her children.” (Plutarch, Life of Alexander, Ch. 12, Sect. 3)
“The Numantines, being oppressed by hunger, sent five men to Scipio to ask whether he would treat them with moderation if they would surrender. Their leader, Avarus, discoursed much about the prestige and bravery of the Numantines, and said that even now they had done no wrong, but had fallen into their present misery for the sake of their wives and children, and for the freedom of their country.” (Appian, Wars in Spain, Ch. 15)
It is commonplace to read the classical authors and see references, for example, to the liberty of nations which had not been subdued by Rome, and the slavery of those which had.
While the idea was present in ancient times, it is really only in modern times, especially beginning with the Endarkenment of the 18th century, that it became commonplace to speak of “freedom” in a purely individualistic or libertarian fashion. Most often in western history, “freedom” has meant that your nation was not dominated, either directly or indirectly, by another.
It is this definition of “freedom” which Madame Le Pen was essentially employing in her editorial – the freedom of each nation, each people, to govern itself and to be free from the interference of others. It is the freedom of Spaniards to not have rules and regulations imposed upon them by Poles, Greeks, and Germans. It is the liberty of Britons to not be dictated to and hobbled both culturally and economically by transnational bureaucrats in Brussels. In short, it is the right of national self-determination.
In his comments in response to the Brexit vote, Donald Trump said something very interesting and important,
“The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union, and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy…”
The sacred right of all free peoples. That is exactly right. That’s exactly what is at stake, not just for Britain versus the EU, but for every nation against every transnational organisation that seeks to impose its will upon that nation. It’s what is at stake whenever there are rumblings about United Nations imposition of gun control onto the United States. It’s the freedom of a nation to control its own destiny apart from the machinations of the transnational “elite.”
Invariably, supranational and globalist entities will act tyrannically. It’s within their very nature to do so. Having no loyalty to the ethnos, transnational “elites” invariably seek their own aggrandisement, which must come at the expense of the liberties of free peoples to govern themselves. Just as tyrannical government within a nation (e.g. the Uniparty controlling Washington DC) must expand its own power and authority at the expense of the people themselves and their local political and social subdivisions, so must supranational quasi-sovereignties seem to legitimise themselves by usurping the autonomy of national groups. Cultural differences must be subordinated, cosmopolitanism must be imposed. In effect, these supranational bodies are no different from the forcibly assembled multi-ethnic empires of days gone by.
This is why the only real alternative to supranational, globalistic tyranny is genuine nationalism, as manifested in strong and robust nations able to exercise that sacred right of all free peoples – national determination. The more world power is divided among the several nations, the less opportunity for the imposition of a heavy-handed global government.
Its detractors often paint nationalism as a force for imperialism, but this is not the case. Nationalism is simply the idea that nations of people – sharing the same language, culture, mores, and so forth – ought to be free to determine their own courses without domination by others. Indeed, the sort of imperialism which globalists accuse nationalism of generating is actually the antithesis of genuine nationalism. Rather than national self-determination, it involves national imposition over other nations.
It is exactly this sort of imperialism that we’re seeing all over the world today at the behest of the transnational “elite” in their efforts to undermine the western nations. Supranationalism like the EU and the proposed North American Union is a form of imperialism. So is the importation of millions of Latin Americans into the United States in an effort to displace the American population. So also is the introduction of millions of Muslim invaders into Europe, bringing with them their shari’a law and other barbaric trappings which are being forced onto the peoples of Europe.
Whenever you scratch an anti-nationalist of whatever sort, you will surely find someone who despises freedom and who seeks to impose his or her will upon others. This is just as true of the cuckservatives as it is of the communists. Nationalism is not the enemy of liberty. Nationalism IS liberty.