A Kinder, Gentler Nationalism

Are we the baddies? NO! So let's stop branding ourselves as such.

Gather close, friends. I have a secret to share with you.

I like the people and the culture I grew up with. I want to grow old and die in the country I was raised in. I want to pass on football, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet to my descendants. I want to enforce a national picket line so my less talented fellow citizens can get a decent wage. I'd rather buy overpriced American than pay taxes to fund warrens of resentful welfare recipients and an American Gulag Archipelago to house those who misbehave in frustration. I love my country. I resent those who would give it away cheaply. They are traitors, pure and simple.

Yes, dear friends, I am a nationalist.

But don't tell anyone! Nationalist sounds too much like National Socialist. Call yourself a nationalist and brainwashed atrazine boys will shriek FASCIST! and cold cock you when you least expect it. We have a serious branding problem, and it doesn't help when Alt Retards don Nazi regalia and add to the confusion.

Technically speaking, a true nationalist respects the rights of all nations to be self governed and choose who enters their borders. We are the true peaceniks. We are the ones who respect the right of foreigners to defend their own ways of life in their own lands. We're the ones who call for bringing troops home. We are the ones who say that spreading Democracy through Shock and Awe makes more enemies than friends. Adolf Hitler was not a true nationalist; Adolf Hitler was a genocidal imperialist with bad hair.

Good luck explaining that. You're going to need it -- along with the latest in CIA mind control technology. Like it or not, Hitler rebranded the word Nationalist, and Hitler was a true master at branding. If Hitler had migrated to the U.S. after the failed Munich Putsch, we'd all be drinking Pepsi.

Rebranding is hard. I know this from on the ground experience from my Libertarian days. Back then we kept getting confused with Lyndon LaRouche -- despite the fact that LaRouche was a former Trotskyite who hated libertarians and called himself a New Deal Democrat. LaRouche even ran in Democrat primaries when he could get on the ballot. They only similarities between LaRouche and the Libertarian Party was running hopeless presidential campaigns and the letter L.

The Nazi brand is stronger than the LaRouche brand by a wide margin. And Hitler used more than just the letter N. In order to get past the initial gut reaction and get normies to think, we need a different brand.

How about America First? The answer is No! Technically speaking, a program of of conquest and pillage when profitable would be putting America first.

How about Isolationist? This is better, but there are inherent problems with Isolationism. Weapons can go to the other side of the planet in less than an hour these days. The oceans aren't the shield they once were. And rational self-interest says that it is better to fight three unnecessary wars abroad than one necessary war at home. Some alliances and interventions are likely necessary to maintain our independence, alas.

How about Anti Globalist? This is better yet, but not optimal. While sovereignty is great -- and a true requirement for even approximating democracy -- some cooperation between nations is useful, or even necessary. The term Globalism conjures up images of world peace, international cooperation, and that Big Blue Marble in Space. Globalism has quite a bit of positive branding -- more than it deserves.

How about Anti Imperialist?

BINGO!

Anti Imperialist is the brand we are looking for! Anyone who isn't an Anti Imperialist is an Imperialist. It's the same dirty rhetorical trick that our enemies use, only they are being dishonest. Antifa uses fascist tactics. Anti Racism is extreme racism against whites.

Anti Imperialism, on the other hand, is being against huge multinational empires -- and world government would be the biggest, most bureaucratic, empire in world history.

Now that we have the correct knee jerk response, let's flesh out the brand with some logic and data. For starters, U.S. foreign policy is Imperialistic as all get-out. We meddle in foreign elections frequently. Our spy agencies overthrow governments. We impose Democracy with thousands of Love Bombs.

And now we meddle in other countries' while flying the Rainbow of Abominations. We are becoming an Evil Empire. It is easy to be against all that violence without sounding fascist -- if you use the brand Anti Imperialist.

(But do note that it is possible to be Anti Imperialist while still being somewhat active abroad. Thwarting other empires is an Anti Imperialist thing to do, and it's an American tradition going back to the Monroe Doctrine. Whether we should take action against a growing empire is a matter for case-by-case contemplation. As a rule, our forward presence has been far more welcome where we help defend sovereign countries than when we attempt to nation build. The big exception was Desert Shield, which helped inspire the 9/11 attacks. But that was because we insisted on deploying female soldiers with naked faces in the Islamic Holy Land. Very disrespectful! Imagine the offense if European tourists insisted on going topless at South Carolina beaches. Now multiply by ten -- or a thousand.)

Open Borders Kill

So, as Anti Imperialists, we can rightfully claim to be more Hippy-Dippy and Lovey Dovey than today’s Democrats, while still being selfish in choosing who comes across our borders. On the net, we who turn away "refugees" are more humanitarian than those who make refugees.

Alas, while this is technically correct, it is not as rhetorically effective as I would like. The Imperialists can roll out one sad story after another. And normies who want to give themselves a hug can ask: "Why not do both? Why don't we stop bombing and open our borders to refugees?"

Indeed, why not?

The answer is: with open borders, other countries' problems become our problems. Deadly Imperialist action eventually follows. Responsibility without authority does not work.

This is no empty theory. A leaky border means that cocaine farms in Columbia and poppy farms in Afghanistan become our problem, and the U.S. has intervened accordingly. And without our intervention, drug lords can arm themselves sufficiently to hold territory and/or buy off the official government -- as long as the U.S. border leaks. Our leaky border is killing Mexicans.

It is far more humanitarian to inconvenience people at border checkpoints to stop the drug flow at the border than it is to fight a drug war in the jungles of South America or the inner cities of the United States.¹

Open borders kill Moslems as well. For anyone who has eyes to see, it is clear that the U.S. has angered millions of Moslems due to our support for Israel. (And given the size and influence of our Jewish population, the odds of our ending that support are on par with the odds of our failing to support Britain in a time of crisis.) It isn't Hate or irrational Islamophobia to recognize that we have made many enemies in certain parts of the world, and it takes an idiot to not notice the use of irregular warfare from said elements. Had we acted on the obvious, the resulting profiling would have annoyed and inconvenienced many innocent Moslem travelers. But it would have also thwarted the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent bombings and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Political correctness killed hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of innocent Moslems.

But at least we made even more enemies in those regions...

The Libertarian Objections

For idealistic Real Libertarians, governments are rogue entities that force people to buy their services whether they want them or not. (This includes democracies, by the way.) Ideally, people should be able to buy government services a la carte, with a variety of providers to choose from -- with Do-It-Yourself as an option. For some government services such as education, this is quite practical. For others, such as courts of law and national defense, the arrangement is problematic, and thus a very hard sell.

On the other hand, nations broken up into city states are a proven arrangement, and have been known to produce golden ages. Note ancient Greece, for example.

So, why not break up countries into smaller sovereign city states and have open borders so people shop for the government they want? Let the Bernie Bros live in a land of “free” healthcare, education, and back rubs. Let the Objectivists live in a land of low taxes and no welfare. Let recovering alcoholics live in a land where beer is illegal, and let hippies live where the pot flows freely. And so many libertarians -- including libertarian adjacent Republicans -- call for open borders as a right.

Which is about as practical as wide open Walmarts as a right. You would soon end up with empty shelves or closed Walmarts. You need to pay for groceries and dry goods.

And you need to pay for government services as well -- including defense from other governments which would impose their "services." And this does not work with wide open borders.

For example, let's place a near libertarian utopia next to a cuddly welfare state. The rich move to Libertopia in order to avoid taxes. The not so rich Libertopians move to the cuddly welfare state when they need expensive healthcare or college. The cuddly welfare state quickly goes broke -- or decides to raid Libertopia to get their money back.

OK, this sounds like a free as in beer market for government leads to everyone going libertopian, but not so fast. Let's place a socialist hellhole next to Libertopia. Refugees flood across the Libertarian border. Labor costs plummet. Land prices skyrocket. Beggars line the streets. The wealth gap widens. The lower classes grow restive. If there is democracy, then liberty will be voted out of the constitution. If not, the duke or dictator will need to raise protection fees bigly, and maybe even build a prison industrial complex.

Freedom isn't free. If you want to shop for your favorite government, you need to shop. That includes paying a price. And that price cannot be small.

Setting up a libertopia -- or disposing of any kleptocracy or communist murder state -- is horribly expensive. And it's a public good as well. The cost is higher than the taxes saved. Followers of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Rational Self-Interest will never set up a libertopia or approximation thereof. It's too expensive.

Note what our Founders wrote when they set up our system of limited government:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

-- Declaration of Independence [bolding min]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

--Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. [extra bolding mine]

The Founders of the United States didn't risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor just for themselves. They did it for their descendants. And now the commie twinks want to make us give away our inheritance and end our experiment in limited government.

Freedom is a public good -- altruism and a multi-generational mindset are required -- unless you are an imperialist.

Self liberation is hard. But once liberated, liberation for adventure and profit might work. Liberty leads to wealth. Wealth leads to quality weapons. Instead of letting refugees swarm our borders, let liberty minded adventurers overthrow evil commie states and keep some of the government assets as a reward. Venezuela has lots of oil. Cuba has lots of beachfront property. The British did something similar when they decided to crack down on the slave trade. There is precedent.

And there was a high body count at times. Imperialism, even in the name of liberty, has casualties. Open borders kill.

Blessing the Nations

The inevitable imperialism of open borders is historical and hypothetical. The sad tales of current "refugees" are present and personal. So to win the argument, we may need to cut down on the number of "refugees." To do so we could:

• Replace the Love Bombs with Soft Power.

• Stop looting the world.

Yes, despite our foreign aid, we are collecting hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tribute every year -- at least if the trade figures are to be believed.

What is a trade deficit, but us collecting more goods and services than we produce? For most countries, doing so would also mean wracking up debt. But the U.S. can "print" more money at will as long as the dollar is the world's reserve currency. Look up Petrodollar to see how we have gotten away with it for decades.

Then again, we do pay a price for keeping the Petrodollar sound. That price shows up on your tax bill, and the brain drain from our civilian industries, and the lonely wives of servicemen stationed abroad, and the dead bodies of soldiers imposing democracy on tribal regions.

Does any of this seem familiar?

We have the economy of late Republican Rome! Our government sends out soldiers and brings back loot and pays out welfare. We have made bread, circuses, and sexual perversion great again.

So what would the world be like if we pumped our own oil and built our own toys? Well, the change would be tough on Nigeria and Venezuela. But the many developing countries which buy foreign oil would benefit, and they wouldn't need so many dollars. It's hard to say how this would affect China. They'd lose a lot of our business, but do they really need our business any more?

The environment would definitely benefit. Cheaper world oil prices mean less jungle cut down to grow biofuels. More manufacturing in finicky First World nations means the development of clean manufacturing technology -- technology which will trickle outwards over time.

More industry at home means more jobs for decivilized welfare recipients, and more middle manager jobs for midwits. And it means a bigger private/public sector ratio. These things could be politically beneficial.

We could make welfare reform stick, and recivilize places like Detroit and East St. Louis. We might even shrink our jail population to the point where we could honestly sing "Land of the Free..."

We could make republican limited government look good again. We could spread liberal democracy by setting a good example instead of dropping Love Bombs. Soft Power is nicer than Imperialism.

In the meantime we need to limit the number of visitors. We need to put a shine back on our City on a Hill. And we need to fire the socialist twinks from our universities before inviting foreigners to study here. They are killing brown people...indirectly.

Let us loudly make this known.

1. OK, we could also defund foreign drug lords by legalizing drugs. This works for marijuana. It used to work for opium and cocaine. Not sure if it would work today, but it probably would for the more dilute forms. It likely wouldn’t work for Fentanyl. Even Timothy Leary believed you should have to get a license to do the harder drugs, including his beloved LSD.