You’re Either A Globalist Or A Nationalist

The charade of the left-right political spectrum is being fully revealed as American and European “conservative” politicians and media pundits continue to be outed as sellouts who serve liberal interests above conservative interests. In the political arena, left versus right is an artificial theater constructed to trick the public that opposing forces are battling it out or compromising for the good of the nation. In reality, both sides are controlled by the same group of elites.

Should you vote for this puppet or that puppet?


If you voted for a Democrat slate, thinking the Democrats were looking out for you, or if you voted a Republican slate, thinking that Republicans were looking out for you, you were tricked. You voted for the same puppet masters who stand behind both parties and ensure that their globalist and collectivist vision of the world is achieved. Their aims are to maximize their power and wealth while satisfying whatever sinister agenda they may have in the name of “world order,” which includes depopulation.

Even though my views have become more traditionally conservative over the years, I never saw Republicans as the party that represented them. How could I when they support homosexual marriage, feminism, and even open-borders immigration? On the big issues—the ones that determine the fate of a country—the Democrats and Republicans match almost exactly. This is because they are sponsored by corporations and billionaires with similar agendas and cravings for globalization, hedging their bets between the sponsored candidate in blue or the sponsored candidate in red. Every US Presidential election has had sponsored candidates on both sides, meaning that to those with real power, it barely matters who wins.

Establishment candidates believe in the globalist platform:

  • Open-borders
  • Consumerism
  • Feminism and matriarchy
  • Multiculturalism, diversity, and egalitarianism
  • Paganism or atheism
  • Global solutions for local problems
  • Empire building
  • Centralization
  • Collectivization
  • Unarmed populace

All the while, we are not allowed to select a candidate with a nationalist platform:

  • Closed borders
  • Protectionism
  • Patriarchy
  • Homogeneous population and closed borders
  • Monotheism
  • Local solutions for local problems
  • War as self-defense
  • Decentralization
  • Individual rights
  • Armed populace

Let them eat blue or red cake


It’s very possible to put a conservative and liberal in the room but have them completely agree on multiculturalism, immigration, democracy, and transgenderism, though disagree on more hot-button topics like abortion and gun rights. They can agree at least half of the time because they both share a primarily globalist belief system, even when they may see each other as enemies. On the other hand, if you get a globalist and nationalist in the same room, they will disagree on more than 80% of issues, even including the basics such as the proper system of government.

While mainstream liberals tend to lean globalist, and mainstream conservatives tend to lean nationalist, the dividing line between them is becoming more narrow as nationalist views are prevented from being properly discussed in the public sphere. Soon, it will be impossible to tell liberals and “conservatives” apart. The only true dividing line left is globalism versus nationalism, especially since nationalism has not yet been co-opted by the elite, and is seen by them as the only real threat that could sever their heads.

I’m firmly in the nationalist camp, even though I am a man of mixed race who does not have an ancestral nation he can call home (I’m half Persian and half Armenian). If you’re wondering how the product of the Immigration And Nationality Act of 1965 can become nationalist, I’ll tell you: globalism greatly harms heterosexual native-born men such as myself. Before I even knew what globalism was, I empirically identified all of its tentacles and how they greatly inhibit a man’s masculinity, life purpose, and pursuit of happiness. Therefore I firmly believe that a heterosexual man who is a minority, like myself, will fare better in a nationalist country than in a globalist one, where he will definitely be swept up by degenerate winds that either make him a social justice zombie or get him persecuted for merely behaving as a man.

My nearly three years of living in a mostly nationalist country, Poland, confirmed to me that nationalism is the most natural state for man. I saw firsthand how a country that leans towards globalism becomes a more toxic environment for men and women, encouraging them to effectively destroy themselves for short-term pleasure and material gain. Nationalism, not to be confused with ultra-nationalism, promotes a more meaningful human existence by using morality, virtue, and genetic identity as building blocks for society, and so therefore serves as a more compatible operating system for human beings.

The mainstream media never threatens the ruling agenda


The American media will go off on left versus right controversies all day long, and make a big show of various battles between them, because the open discussion of these issues do not harm globalist platforms. Once you understand that conservative outlets like Fox News and National Review are globalist, not nationalist, you can realize how an entire belief system has been concealed from you. Whenever a nationalist idea is shared in the media, there is a quick and vicious condemnation of it as “far right,” “extreme right,” or “radical right.” Anything that is not labeled these three terms is a safe idea that does not harm globalist concerns.

When I mentioned late last year that the narrative is collapsing, I was referring to the globalist narrative. The only belief system that can fill that vacuum is nationalism, and the question that remains is how fascist the new nationalism will become. Neomasculinity, a model of patriarchy that is compatible with nationalism (if not outright essential for its success), is a vehicle that can serve men of various backgrounds, as long as minority men such as myself understand that they must follow the rules of any homogeneous population they find themselves in. I did that in Poland and can continue to do that in the future, because I know that if you believe in masculinity and the traditional ideas that are compatible with a life of meaning, nationalism is a better outcome for you that the globalist nightmare that many Western men find themselves trapped in today.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read Next: Letter From A Member Of The Global Elite

329 thoughts on “You’re Either A Globalist Or A Nationalist”

  1. So do we use a point system to determine which camp we fall into? It might be interesting.
    Add 1 for Nationalist, subtract 1 for Globalist, 0 for neutral:
    My results:
    Closed Borders/limited integration (+1)
    Protectionist/limited “free trade” (+1)
    Patriarchy (meaning trad. gender roles) (+1)
    Homogenous Population (-1)
    Atheism (not promotion though, just secular) (-1)
    Local Solutions (+1)
    Wars for Self Defense (with the understanding some threats must be stopped small (+1)
    Decentralization (+1)
    Individual rights (+1)
    Armed populace (+1)
    Total: 6

    1. A great question there..i think its already blatantly obvious that everyone here is already unplugged from the matrix and our totals will all be 6.Cheers

  2. I’m French speaking. I live in Quebec. I know a lot about nationalism. What you are describing is happening all around the world.
    I jut put you 2 video from a French thinker talking about the ‘ JE SUIS CHARLIE’ action and how it was use to advance the globalist agenda :

    I also put his general idea about feminism, (very on the same page as ROK but many years ago) to help you know more about the guy:
    ( no need to tel you he is black balled in every French madia and treated as if he was Htler)

    1. Quebec is weird; almost got a job there several years ago. Loved Montreal itself, but everything and everyone surrounding MTL seem to want to have nothing to do with the English language.

      1. Yes it is a way to defend the tradition, nation and the language Please don’t take it personally 🙂

        1. I’ve always found that hard line you people take to be rather charming, actually. But you need to do something about your waitresses. They can be quite vicious, heh.

        2. Hey ghost I like reading you so much that if you eve come to Montreal i’ll find you the best waitress 🙂

    1. Trump is the nationalist candidate that we all need.The conservatives and liberals..ah what the heck the globalists and ruling elite are getting their panties tied up in a knot entertaining the notion that Trump might even win..personally its my belief that Trump has already made his point matter if he wins or loses.

  3. Yes – Closed borders
    No – Protectionism
    Yes – Patriarchy
    On the fence with homogenous – Homogeneous population and closed borders
    Yes – Monotheism
    Absolutely – Local solutions for local problems
    Yes – War as self-defense
    Yes – Decentralization
    Absolutely – Individual rights
    Mandatory – Armed populace
    Pretty darned close. I have seen protectionism and it fails in nearly every way when heavily implemented. It’s basically punishing the native population and denying them their own expressed wants in the market, which seems silly. That being said, there is something not off putting about not dealing with slave nations.
    Closed borders, yes. Homogenous population, what does that mean? Scots are not English, they even have different identifying genetic markers, but they’re both “white”. So is it skin color, or more tribal? Scotland for Scots, England for England, etc? Then what about colonies where they mix through history organically, like the U.S.?

    1. Agreed with all except number four; what is a “homogeneous population”? I’ve read your posts, you seem intelligent and hopefully, you’re better than the alt-right crowd.

      1. I don’t know how he defines it. In fact, I’m not entirely certain that it can have a hard and fast definition. I don’t mind if Japan is reserved for the Japanese, they are basically one giant in-group with a couple of very small minorities. Europeans (hell, even Chinese) are a mixed bag.
        You may have been typing when I edited my post regarding homogenous population.

        1. We can’t have a homogeneous population here, that train left the station a long time ago. Not sure it’s an ideal thing anyway.

        2. “Alt-right” in the sense that those people are against “race-mixing” and that doing so will be the downfall of the U.S. “Ethnically homogeneous” sounds a little Hitler-y. I think anybody in this country wanting to embrace the ideals of individual rights, protectionism and decentralization, while discarding that leftist nonsense, should be welcome.

        3. Yeah, I generally don’t steer people towards Heartiste when I give them pointers to Red Pill websites, heh.
          I literally had no idea how he was defining it. He stated that he’d live in a nation as a minority and respect the rules, but in a homogenous society wouldn’t that be impossible from the outset? That kind of thing. It’s confusing.

        4. Yeah, I’m basically where you’re at. I really don’t mind minorities, I’m just tired of the decades long trend now of snarling at and belittling whites. Include every race on the planet in your Coke commercial, no worries, but include them all except the White Guy, and do it all the time so that the message of “you’re not welcome” comes through loud and clear, and I have an issue.

        5. My attitude is that we should all be homogenously American. American is not a race; it is a set of beliefs and loyalties. I had a co worker from the sub-continent who was born a Sikh but converted to Methodist in the US. He told his father, “I came here to become an American.” I had neighbors in San Jose that had to tell me they were Mexican-Americans. They were totally culturally absorbed. I am sure they had some fondness for their heritage, but they were 100% American.

        6. You’re correct. The thing is however that they are not a nation settled by various peoples, they just popped up there (or settled there as one tribe) and that was it. That didn’t happen in the U.S. or Canada, so it’s hard to pin down things like “homogenous”. It’s not like we can or will export everybody who is not white, so a more expanded view of what “homogenous” is needs to be taken into account. America did this for a while with uniting around the ideology of liberty and traditions. That’s about as close as you’re going to come in our kind of nations.

        7. Just curious…what do you think it will happen to US when caucasians become a minority , or when they become only 10% or 5% of the population. Do you you think it will still be the same country that the european settlers once founded ? Can the beliefs and loyalties that “make an american” still be transmitted to the younger generations ? Will the American identity survive ? I would like to hear your opinion because you seem like a pretty intelligent man judging from your posts.

        8. On the contrary I think the sensible thing to do in the USA would be to give a state to the African Americans and allow them to make their own way, likewise give Nevada to the Native Americans.the Aztecs can conceivably be deported back to Latin America.
          This would end the racial tensions completely in a way that a million years of anti-racism won’t. It doesn’t matter what you do, blacks will still feel they are discriminated against and I don’t blame them. It’s natural for them to feel that way, but it would be relieved if they had black police, black judges, etc.

        9. Technically speaking, this was done already. We call it “Liberia”.

        10. I think that the damage that the Left has done to the culture, traditions and laws of this nation makes the only outcome available a bad one for us. Most people are *not* assimilating as mikediver notes. If they were I would really not care who or what came in, as long as they came to join the culture, language, traditions and customs. I mean hey, some man and his family want to escape poverty and oppression and dreams of coming to America to live free, I’m with him. But that’s not happening any longer.
          What I mean then is even if we stop all immigration from “brown” nations, and open the doors to any and all Europeans, EE and Russians, we’d still have the same problem. The Left has deconstructed everything that held us together with a common identity. At this point it’s become nothing more than gladiators fighting in the arena for prizes. Add to this that the Left has made class warfare and race identity (except for whites, we’re not allowed that) central to their Victim mentality, and I don’t see good things in our future.

        11. In all seriousness, they almost have that in Alabama and Georgia, especially Atlanta.

        12. No, but they are a little racist; no one except a Japanese can ever be fully Japanese, and if a white guy immigrates there, he will forever be seen as the gaijin.

        13. I’m all for restricting immigration, but telling a guy that he can’t sleep with a woman outside of his race is bullshit. Plus, the U.S. is a melting pot and has been for at least the past 140 years.

        14. It’s not that he can’t, it’s that it isn’t something that should be encouraged, and for the most part, very few people mix race anyway. The real issue is not miscegenation but birth rates.

        15. We agree on one BIG thing… assimilation is the key. But I think the immigrants from “brown countries” are being assimilated or should have been assimilated into something which is the euro-americans’ culture and traditions. What would the these immigrants assimilate into if the core of the american society (the whites) , which still makes up for 70 % of the population, would drastically drop in numbers ?
          And no you wouldn’t have the same problems. I don’t think you’re having problems with the europeans or russians “not fitting in ” there in US. I honestly believe you would have fewer problems with the assimilition if you took all of Europe in now (I mean the native europeans) than if you took a couple of more millions of middle easteners for example.
          Please prove my reasoning wrong.

        16. The reason is, except perhaps the EE’s and Russians (maybe), Europe is enveloped in this exact same mindset of SJW self hate. We could import the entire city of Hamburg and find maybe ten dudes in that group who were not self loathing and afraid of liberty. Proof: Reactions after Paris, and Brussels.
          Russia, EE we might be ok, or not. I’m not entirely convinced that they’re over the whole socialism thing. But I don’t have much first hand experience with many of them any longer, so maybe that’s changed.

        17. Europe is fucked up right now. But still the common european SJW warrior is a primarily a victim not an enemy. If you are born in modern Germany you have no choice but to become a SJW with all this propaganda and brainwashing. I was lucky to somehow discover ROK, or I would be part of the Social Justice Crowd right now….Having sad that I think you should be a little more nationalistic/patriotic when it comes to Western Civilisation in general. I care about what is going on in USA , you americans should care about Europe and europeans too not just say “fuck Europe and those SJWs we better take some tough brown guys in” .

        18. “American is not a race; it is a set of beliefs and loyalties.”
          That is exactly it! Unfortunately most people do not seem to grasp that.

        19. I’m totally pro West. Europe concerns me greatly, my family having come from there decades ago. My nationalism for the founding tenants of the U.S. is beyond compare. I am no tax, no gun control, no socialism shoot those bastards where they stand type of man. And the same for the U.K. from whence my family emigrated. I mourn Europe and what’s going on there now. We are a strong people, we need to rediscover that.

        20. Everyone could grab themselves a mate of a different race. We’d be pretty homogenous in about three generations, although i don’t think that is what anyone is talking about

        21. very reasonable and logical view point i have to say and i agree,not that i love white people (the pigment of my skin is white but im not american,its not a feature) but equality means equality for everyone

        22. 100% thats how i feel about it and just said it above,its inclusive yet maintaining a strong social foundation that is essential for any country to exist,its common sense that if you have too many interests some are going to suffer and maybe none will thrive

        23. “Mexican-Americans”
          They’re either American only or they’re not.
          “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.” – Teddy Roosevelt

        24. May god bless you Jefferson ! I would be honored to fight next to you against the West’s enemies. If you are planning on visiting Germany anytime soon please let me know.

        25. No, it wouldn’t still be America if the US was 90% Mexican or 90% Muslim…or any other different culture. Although this country isn’t as white as it once was, whites should remain as the majority with a traditional white culture as it has been for over 200 years now.
          Changing that demographic too much as these Globalist have already done will make it another country and another culture. Just look at how black thug culture and gangsta rap has changed what was once a civil, virtuous society. This all changed in the 90s when that stuff went mainstream.

    2. Pretty much exactly where I fall.
      I have a problem with defining this as Nationalist vs. Globalist. It’s more Nationalist (Patriotic) vs. Socialist (and socialism falls into two categories Global Socialism and National Socialism which shouldn’t be confused with Nationalism).
      As far as Homogenous population is concerned I see it as: If you are a hyphenated person isolating/self-segregating based on culture/ethnicity then get bent. You’re either American (or British or Chinese or Japanese or Indian) or you aren’t. I may have been born in the United States by chance, but I am American by choice.

      1. My general view has been the scale of Tyranny — Liberty — License, where I fall into the Liberty camp. I also don’t think it’s linear, despite how I just posted it, rather I think that License leads to and enables Tyranny and that proponents of Tyranny plant the seeds of, and encourage License in order to topple Liberty. If that makes sense?
        Agree on homogenous.

        1. Actually I learned that in church during the 1970’s when I was around 10. We used to have serious discussions in church, way far back in the Golden Age.

        2. I’ve been going to a SSPX mass lately… women wearing skirts and dresses. Men looking manly and well dressed, masculine priest… thought I was back 50 years ago.
          Loads of people too. I feel that the “church are emptying” thing is leftist propaganda.

        3. I’d love to find a pre-Vatican II church. Lucky you.
          As the Left loves lying, I take anything they say as the exact opposite when I read it on the news.

        4. Ive said this before, you can’t be a conservative if you are for LGBT agenda, feminism, etc..
          If youre ok with the above then what exactly are you conserving? A corporation’s bottom line? And that’s what modern Conservative Inc. is all about. Conservatives abandoned social issues and are now even more marginalised.

        5. Women wearing dresses is one of the big attractions about going to church. Some of them still have tats but most don’t, thank God. They remind me of the type of girls I used to date in the 80s…sweet, kind and very feminine.

        6. The irony about what you say is that most LGBT people are the most racist and conservative people around. They hate everyone, while running to the Liberals to get them what they want. It’s pretty revealing that the most conservative regimes, like the Nazi Party and the Facist Party of Italy were known for being filled with gays. But the hard-line Communist Parties ran them out. The Communists saw the problems that fags cause in so-called “free societies.” It’s also known that spy agencies around the world actively recruit fags because they’re known to not have loyalty or morals about anything.

      1. As somebody noted below, there’s no putting the toothpaste back in that tube.

      2. not necessarily why not make it a cultural definition rahter than color,color is a poor indicator anyway,you have anglos,irish,italians and polish though recently the line has been blurred the fact that it was there for centuries speaks volumes

    3. No – Protectionism

      And idiocy confirmed.
      The moment the US dropped protectionism the middle class began dying and the nation began crumbling.
      At the same time, every one of the BRICS nations ADOPTED protectionism and began surging at 7%-15% growth per year, at our expense.
      To this day BRICS nations still charge a 30% tariff and it prevents us from doing business with them, meaning they develop that industry on their own shores.

      1. Yes, because to hold a point you may not agree with means that I’m the village idiot.
        Do try and do better in the future.

        1. Yes, because to hold a point you may not agree with means that I’m the village idiot.

          Yes, let’s straw-man as “you just disagree with me”.
          the EVIDENCE spanning the whole of modern history disagrees with you

        2. Right, you come in, throw out ad hominem in your first sentence, then get snarky when I don’t bother dealing with you.
          You’re dismissed.

        3. It’s not an Ad-hominem, it’s an insult.
          I didn’t say you’re wrong because you’re an idiot.
          I said you’re an idiot because you’re wrong, ignoring publicly available evidence going back 300 years which says you are wrong.
          EDIT: Oh look another reply. I thought you said we were “through”!

        4. I’ve already said we’re through. If you can’t comment to somebody you don’t even know without constant insults, you’re simply not worth my time.

        5. Mate, I agree with your position on protectionism, but no need to go around calling other people idiots – at least not as the very first thing you say about the matter.

        6. I call it like it is. After watching the US economy collapse in slow motion, her cities rot, her poverty soar, with obvious implications, the only people left who are proponents of “free trade” are those in the elite circles who face no risk of off-shoring, the people directly making trillions off of it, and useful idiots.
          This guy strikes me as the “useful idiot”. The US is on the brink. The time for mincing words is over.

        7. OK so maybe he is a useful idiot – you can believe that if you want. But rather than inflame the matter, why don’t you show him why he’s wrong through rational argument, with a view to correcting his opinion rather than putting him down?

        8. I presented that as well, but he ought to be put down.
          Traitors and useful idiots who actually believe this hogwash are why I have talented, diligent friends who are underemployed or out of work entirely for years.
          You’re damned right i’ll be pissed listening to these apologists while the nation that saved us from global genocide and serves as a bulwark against global islamic oppression decays beneath our feet.

        9. What we are sold as free trade is actually trade managed by and for the so-called elites. Real free trade means you can make something in your garage and sell it in another country without bureaucrats and taxation standing in your way. These free trade agreements set it up so global corporations can seek the lowest labor rates and then import the products to where the buyers are easily and cheaply. It does not really open up trade because that would be a threat to the elites. They would face competition from millions of people trying to go out on their own.

        10. The only “useful idiots”, are those who, despite millennia of evidence that none of them have ever done a lick of good, still keep clamoring for “leaders” strong enough to command who others should buy and sell from.
          It’s like seeing another Tinpot Dictator being cheered on in Latin America. Because “this one” is going to be different than all those others….

        11. Do you have anything of substance to say besides implying Trump is a “tinpot dictator”?

          millennia of evidence that none of them have ever done a lick of good

          Counter-cases in the USA:

        12. @Plasmacutter-“I call it like it is”. OK, then you might appreciate this”This is a forum of ideas, not personalities. You owe Ghost an apology. You’re behavior is out of line, and you do not have to insult people to make a point.

        13. If this were a quibble over marginal tax rates or who was the best sports team that would be the case, but the “free trade” policy advocated by Ghost has been manifestly collapsing the entire western world, and with it eroding its capacity to resist truly horrific forces such as global islam and an expansionist eastern bloc. Had Hitler’s Germany arisen today, we would have LOST to them because globalism has so weakened our manufacturing sector.
          I will offer zero apology to someone who wishes to undermine the anglosphere and the western principles of freedom the nations thereof uphold. A healthy manufacturing sector is just as required for effective defense as a properly equipped standing army, and anyone who would advocate we not protect the former is just as dangerous as the lunatics who would disband the military.

        14. Its not that easy for millions of people to just go out and set up shop and compete though. Depending on the industry the barriers to entry can be huge regardless of industry protection. In fact industry protection would help more people compete in their own country as they are insulated from foreign competitors because their business can be subsidized by the govt. At the same time though in a world with non free trade, the product you make in your garage and then try to sell to say Asia you might get nowhere due to their high tariffs to protect their local industry.
          Unfortunately with globalization companies can set up overseas and source the cheapest labour and slackest industry/environmental restrictions. I would say that is a slightly different from free trade economics. Even if there was say no free trade between Thailand and the US, a US company could still set up a factory there and import the goods around the world and import them back domestically and pay tarriff + customs duties etc still. It would just mean less profit from their domestic import sales than if the trade was unrestricted.
          Globalization does benefit more than the shareholders of the big multi-nationals, it also benefits consumers An iPhone made in the US would cost way more than the Chinese made version. Of course there is a hidden cost – the loss of lots of skilled local jobs. The economists logic is that if you can get something made overseas from $2/hr instead of $20/hr then the country will be better off exploiting that comparative advantage and importing and the saving money and the local worker can be more gainfully employed doing something else than trying to compete with $2/hr worker. Nice in theory, when it comes to the local worker being gainfully employed + the loss of local skills. The carrot also is that when say India/china rise up in GDP, there is a new market of 2.5billion people for US companies to sell to.
          Some countries can distort free trade by distorting the exchange rate (china) or having loads of import specifications & redtape (japan). The US still has some tariff protection in some industries and there huge subsidies paid to US farmers. While the auto industry in my country has been decimated over the last 20 yrs with reduced protection, Germany (a country that embraces free trade + good pay/unions) has not just one successful brand but multiple. BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Volkswagon, Opel and Audi. Some countries can manage it but some don’t fair so well when it comes to their manufacturing industries.

        15. The barriers to entry in the USA have everything to do with domestic law and monetary policy. Those aren’t going away. Those are left in place when they allow in foreign goods under ‘free trade’ while US made goods cannot be sold there without heavy tariffs, red-tape, etc. That’s why free trade agreements are just managed trade that destroys US jobs and companies. The foreign companies can come here and compete but they do not have these barriers to entry.
          Funny you mention cell phones. I used to be in the cell phone business. When US manufacturing was being shut down to make them in China. You know what the savings per unit was? From what I learned it was $5 a unit. That’s big money over millions of units but as to you or me affording it? zero impact. That’s 1% of MSRP. A little price increase a little margin hit, no problem. But, that’s before all the development hassles and quality issues. Then the lost opportunity cost from those. On the net, for what was sold in the USA it was negative. I’m sure at the end of the day with shipping the cost for US sold phones increased. The real savings was not paying tariffs in China for the product sold there and not having two factories.
          If China had to agree to drop its domestic content laws to be allowed to sell in the USA much of the benefit to relocate manufacturing there would go poof. It would be a much more difficult business case. But if you want a piece of the Chinese market as things are today, you have to put your factory there.

      2. BRICS may have protectionism, but they know where their bread is buttered. They keep the international trade that brings in the cash and the capital goods, and they deliberately raise consumer prices to encourage saving at the expense of quality of life. If you want their kind of growth by protectionism, the only way to do that would be to massively degrade our own quality of life, likely for the benefit of our own elites.
        Just keep this in mind, whether or not BRICS are implementing protectionism, they are just as much a part of the globalist system as any american or European elite.
        Also, remember that BRICS are getting rich by selling to us. If we implemented protectionism, who would we sell to? And even if we found someone, would we really want to get rich this way?

        1. and they deliberately raise consumer prices to encourage saving at the expense of quality of life

          You mean they encourage people to live within their means? I don’t see a downside to that.

          If we implemented protectionism, who would we sell to?

          We already don’t sell to anyone, that’s why we have a massive trade deficit. Tariffs would end that trade deficit by prompting people to hire Americans to manufacture what Americans buy, thus we would be selling to ourselves.

          would we really want to get rich this way?

          That’s how we became a world power, how we grew industry capable of drowning NAZI Germany in tanks and building the entire world’s navy during WWII. Damn right we want to get rich this way!

          they are just as much a part of the globalist system as any american or European elite.

          Nope. They protect, nurture, grow their domestic industry and wages. Their governments serve their nations and citizens first.

        2. Mercantilism is essentially giving away your goods at the expense of the american consumer/producer. While doing so may work for the Chinese, it would not work for us because we can’t sell to other countries. The Chinese essentially outcompete americans because our politicians made it insanely expensive to produce in america; if we want to bring industry back, we need to get rid of these expensive regulations, including things like tariffs.
          Now, consider the Chinese elite who are behind rapid Chinese growth. What they have done with their protectionism is made life significantly harder for the average Chinese citizen, forcing them to produce more in order to consume, or even just own, the same amount of wealth. These Chinese elites don’t care about the average citizen, and they certainly aren’t ‘nurturing’ local industry, they are politically backing it so they can exploit it later. Chinese politicians are a major part of the modern globalist system, they are just the mirror image of the american politicians.
          So if we want a productive economic system, we cannot use mercantilism. We need to remove the perverse incentives to consume, but it is not enough to simply cut off trade with the rest of the world. We do need a productive local industry, but that can only happen when we trade on equal terms with the rest of the world.

        3. If you had studied the ricardian model, you would know that it is impossible to enrich one’s country by restricting trade. It keeps countries from specializing in what they do best, so they are less productive. And artificially encouraging exports is tantamount to giving away stuff for free.

        4. The Ricardian model is bunk, requires distinct nation-states and cultural barriers to not exist, because:
          A – Any nation that doesn’t “specialize” in enough industries to build their own war material will not be able to defend themselves in a protracted war and be conquered.
          B – there’s a good chance a given nation will get zero “specialty” at all and be stripped of all industry, or be left with only one or two, in which case the rest of the people who don’t want to do whatever the “specialty” is have to emigrate if they don’t want to starve.
          Expecting cultural barriers to vanish is as starry-eyed of Free Traders as expecting government to vanish following redistribution is to Marxists, or are you going to emigrate to the islamic state and try to sing Kumbayah with them because you “specialize” in oil?

          It is impossible to enrich one’s country by restricting trade

          Empirical observation proves this assertion as laughable as pointing to the sky and declaring it pink.
          Moderate protectionism is practiced today by Japan and the BRICS countries. The BRICS countries have a minimum growth rate of 7%. Japan is stagnating, but economic theory dictates Japan SHOULD be COLLAPSING due to negative population growth, so stagnation is actually a miracle.
          This minimum of 7%, btw, is what the USA and European nations used to have before we adopted “free trade”

        5. So long as we have a trade deficit, we can dictate the terms because we’re “the customer”: the other nation has more to lose by walking away or engaging in a trade war, regardless of class structure.
          For example, if we were to impose a 30% tariff on China, and they elected to wage a trade war which escalated to mutual embargo, our economy would still gain, in net, a positive amount equal to (what used to be) our trade deficit with them (~0.5 trillion).
          This works until trade balance approaches parity. Once your trade balance crosses 0 into positive territory, any further tariffs or protectionist measures will be counter-productive, as they now have equal power.
          NOTE: We have a multi-trillion dollar trade deficit with our various partners. We can definitely gain a LOT by imposing tariffs on the worst offenders.

        6. In terms of trade balance, you might be right. But you cannot improve the economy by restricting what trades, intra- or inter-national, people can make.

        7. Japan and China are ‘wealthy’ because people there are worked to death. Besides, the lesser nations still benefit from trade even if they don’t specialize because their lower productivity takes pressure off of the more productive economy, which can then focus on producing higher value goods to trade with the less productive country. On the cultural and military points, trade has the effect of allowing people who don’t like each other very much to tolerate each other for economic benefit, the only reason it’s gotten so bad today is because the elites forcefully imported immigrant populations and gave them money for political instead of economic support. If our politicians stopped bribing immigrants with welfare, we would only get people who are here for some economic reason, and the cultural and military implications wouldn’t matter. That’s why the government limits trade while allowing attacks on culture, because there is no point for a government if people have no reason to fight each other.

        8. Japan and China are ‘wealthy’ because people there are worked to death.

          And yet the statistics show Americans work harder. Oops!

          the lesser nations still benefit from trade even if they don’t specialize because their lower productivity takes pressure off of the more productive economy, which can then focus on producing higher value goods to trade with the less productive country.

          Or we could look at the real world, where the losers in the specialization game end up losing every last job like the USA has, and the nations with the specialties leverage their growth to corner every other market too!

          On the cultural and military points, trade has the effect of allowing people who don’t like each other very much to tolerate each other for economic benefit,

          That’s an interesting way to term the situation where victim nations become the economic colonies of aggressors so cannot protect their self interests for fear of economic collapse.

          the only reason it’s gotten so bad today is because the elites forcefully imported immigrant populations and gave them money for political instead of economic support. If our politicians stopped bribing immigrants with welfare, we would only get people who are here for some economic reason…

          The “elites” are importing them for cheap labor, they ARE here for economic reasons, which is also a consequence of “free trade”.

          That’s why the government limits trade while allowing attacks on culture, because there is no point for a government if people have no reason to fight each other.

          You mean there’s no point when the treasonous elites want to crush their host nations’ cultures and borders for the sake of economic gain and screw the rest of the populace who actually LIKE the fact they and their trading partners have separate and storied cultures.

        9. You acknowledged we can, then you say we can’t. The baseless dogma is loosening, but has yet to be fully dislodged it seems.

        10. No. The economy consists of a lot more than the trade balance, and positive trade balances are not a good thing if obtained by devaluing your own currency or other protectionist tactics. It’s akin to enslaving yourself, or to gaining a larger market share but decreasing the profit you make.

        11. The economy consists of a lot more than the trade balance, and positive trade balances are not a good thing if obtained by devaluing your own currency or other protectionist tactics.

          That’s why the BRICS countries grew a MASSIVE middle-class as the US and EU were diminished, because protectionism “doesn’t work”.

          It’s akin to enslaving yourself,

          “Freedom Is Slavery”

        12. I will agree with you on one thing, modern ‘free trade’ policies are not actual free trade. The are geopolitical tools used by the elite so they can control the world economy by pacing themselves at the political apex, and using borders as a tool for economic regulation. But if you want to have an economic discussion, please leave politics as a separate issue for now.
          Now, all trade benefits all parties directly involved, and at worst deprives other parties of benefits indirectly. A third party only benefits from protectionism at the expense of the first two, so protecting him at the expense of limiting trade is net harmful. So when you protect local industries (admitting that you can deliberately harm them, and leaving that as a separate issue on regulation), you harm local consumers.
          What I find interesting is that you consider America to be a ‘loser’ at specialization, but you want us to engage in protectionism. Protection conserves inefficient industries and defeats specialization because people who specialize in particular fields have a more limited market to sell to.
          So you really need to decide whether you want protectionism, with all of its bureaucratic inefficiency and backroom deals, or if you want trade liberalization, understanding that many of the political effects of ‘free trade’ are simply the machinations of economic control by the elites.

        13. Actually no, you’re absolutely wrong. As the customer, we give people our dollars, which are backed only by the threat of violence against anyone who refuses to use them. And our negative trade balance with China means they give us 500 billion in real goods while we give them 500 billion in promises. If we cut off trade like that, our economy would lose 500 billion in real terms, not gain it.
          So as the customer, we lack the power to tell the Chinese to go fuck themselves because we’re forcing them to sell to us anyway. The Chinese are backing their currency with gold, and getting rid of their dollars as quickly as possible. Tariffs would only give the Chinese a pretense to not deal with us, which works for them because the only benefit they get from us is the technology they steal.

        14. Brazil: currently in the middle of upheaval over their socialism and corrupt oil politics.
          Russia: massive gains due to economic liberalization of eastern Europe (free trade), political stagnation since as oligarchs control everything.
          India: a shithole that finally started pulling itself together and gaining industry
          China: combination of Russia and India
          South Africa: they have mines, what do you think makes them so rich, their advanced economies?
          In short, do you really think that the middle class life in any of these countries compares to what you get in america? No, it’s just another case of us trying to catch up to people that are way behind us. They have no protectionism because they can’t afford it, and people live within their means because they can’t afford not to.
          The reason countries grow like this is because they are behind in development, not protectionism. As they catch up, they grow exponentially until they hit our level and stop growing because there are fewer obvious opportunities. They do not “nurture” their own industries, they subject them to the cruelest level of competition, and they specialize rapidly–the opposite of what occurs in a protectionist system.

        15. When the facts disagree with you full-force, just resort to revisionism and out-right fabrication!
          BRICS countries now have a middle class with the same standard of living as 1950’s working class america while the Americans who used to have those jobs are now unemployed: 93 million of them.

        16. Actually no, you’re absolutely wrong.

          Yes, “the customer is always wrong”!

          we give people our dollars, which are backed only by the threat of violence against anyone who refuses to use them

          China is more than a match for us with conventional military, let alone nukes. Attempting armed conflict with them, assuming they’re restrained enough not to give way to insanity that ridiculous and render the planet uninhabitable, would have the same result as the Korean war.
          For instance, they have 10-15 drones for every one of our fighter jets, are stocked to the gills with hypersonic anti-ship missiles, and surfaced a fast-attack sub within firing range of one of our carriers just a few years ago. They’ve tuned their military specifically to defend against US invasion.
          Yeah, i’m done talking to you.

      3. Complete and utter rubbish.
        The middle class died because the middle class became lazy, unproductive and complacent. Since the 70’s the western middle class has become concerned with everything and anything other than being economically productive.. The vast majority want a free lunch, they have spent the past 4 decades trying to get someone else to pay for it.
        On the flip, the BRICs have pulled their heads in and put in the hard work. You don’t see the Chinese, Indians or Russians concerning themselves with social justice and wealth redistribution, no they are simply working hard to be economically productive as possible.
        You need to understand that the tariffs make little difference when the economy is so structurally uncompetitive that it is truly a joke. High taxes, high regulation, high labor costs and low productivity.. These all add up to many more times than even the highest of tariffs. Do you know how I know this? Because I complete business between BRICs and Western Nations on a daily basis.
        Competition amongst nations for trade is a positive, just as competition between nations for tax revenues is a positive. The only people who don’t see the positives in competition are always the ones who are below average, i.e. the ones who stand to lose.. Are you a loser or are you someone who will work hard to win?
        Note that the left leaning in society also seem to be those who would lose if they ever had to compete..

        1. The middle class died because the middle class became lazy, unproductive and complacent.

          Except that part where the US has the highest per-capita productivity
          in the world, it’s been skyrocketing since the 1960’s, and every measure shows US workers work the hardest, from the lowest vacation time taken to the longest hours to the epidemic of “latchkey kids”.

          You need to understand that the tariffs make little difference when the economy is so structurally uncompetitive that it is truly a joke

          You think it’s “competition” to force Americans to race a bunch of chinese peasant-slaves to the bottom?
          Maybe we should also stop enforcing shoplifting laws. After all, it’s “competition” when people take your merchandise for free, right?
          Club For Growth, is that you?

          Competition amongst nations for trade is a positive

          The utter destruction of our country’s economy and infrastructure beg to differ.

          Are you a loser or are you someone who will work hard to win?

          Are you a lobbyist for Club For Growth, a Chinese Factory Owner, or an Indian Tech Outsourcer?

        2. Care to share which source and figures you have used to come to that conclusion on US productivity?

          Chinese peasant slaves? Well these “peasant slaves” are winning, you are losing.. You may not like the idea of having to compete against them, but economic globalisation has happened and trade is only going to open up further into the future. This is a reality you need to stop denying and actually grasp.
          I believe you will do very well with Trump at the helm and i’l really like to see him win. Like i’ve said before, the trade protectionism is irrelevant, but what he will do is correct the structural flaws that are stopping you from being able to compete.
          FYI I also trade BRIC to BRIC and the protectionism in Brazil does nothing to slow imports from China. Net imports have increased at an exponential rate.. The US could impose a 100% import tariff, it would still be on average 6 times cheaper to import than manufacture domestically.. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but if you are red pill then you are already half way there.

        3. Care to share which source and figures you have used to come to that conclusion on US productivity?

          Care to tell us what cave in Afghanistan you’ve been living in not to see this? I spend my off-clock time buried in MMO’s and am still clobbered over the head by this information through sources like business insider, forbes, the economist, etc…

          The US could impose a 100% import tariff, it would still be on average 6 times cheaper to import than manufacture domestically

          Then we keep raising it until our trade deficit is zeroed out and Americans are back at work. Don’t like it? TOUGH! A nation’s government should serve her people, not internationalist investment cartels. Economics is a tool to be used to better living conditions, even if that means introducing the heresy of “inefficiency”.

          Well these “peasant slaves” are winning, you are losing.. You may not like the idea of having to compete against them, but economic globalisation has happened….red pill

          The assertions you’re making are the opposite of “red pill”. YES WE CAN end “globalism”, with the stroke of a few pens and a single bill through congress we can raise our middle fingers to the internationalist fat-cats destroying our nation’s prosperity, sovereignty, and security.
          “Globalization” my ass. It’s a sell-out of the American people.
          It’s in Trump’s enlightened self-interest to end it and bring up median wages, or his real estate fortune will evaporate in a massive RE collapse due to lacking wage support.

        4. The middle class in the USA creates the wealth from which the ruling so-called elite live upon, the government employees live on, the poor live upon, and the military industrial complex runs on. Lazy? The middle class should go on strike and let all the parasites that live upon it starve.

        5. I’m still waiting for those sources..
          You will find that Americans will start finding work again as the BRIC middle classes start consuming in larger numbers and the unit cost of productivity balances. The market is rather good at correcting structural problems without government engineering, the tariffs you call for a totally unnecessary and would do far more damage than good.
          As for opting out of globalisation, it is simply not an option on the table. The internet and cheap travel has changed the reality of how we live and trade forever.
          I believe in global trade, because I don’t believe that any person or business should be held to ransom by a single government for their ability to generate economic activity. In light of the nanny state that now is western nations, the freedom to leverage other governments for better terms is one of the last measures you have to stop leftist authoritarian rule. If you can’t beat them, then bankrupt them..

        6. on point- high school and university economics is so geared towards the free market with domestic production that it makes one question the motive. yet every other social construct is heavily marxist. “free trade” is another Orwellian misnomer like the ‘patriot act’ etc. In a perfect world an economy wouldn’t need to adopt such measures however china and india don’t turn the numbers in their favour.

        7. The biggest issue with Economics courses, especially intro level, is they tend to present economics as if it has a “goal” of “efficiency”. “Efficiency” becomes a kind of holy writ that must be pursued at all costs, when the reality is Economics is a tool, and “efficiency” is only as useful as its service to increased standard of living for the population you’re trying to serve.
          Every time someone talks about labor costs, I try to suppress the urge to state the obvious: The most efficient cost of labor is zero, and if labor is not protected that’s exactly where it will go.

        8. Communism and Libertarianism have the same end goal. End of human capital. While we reach towards point singularity in the labour market we will inevitably destroy the standard of living.

        9. I absolutely agree, except that I would say that america’s problem is not that it is lazy, but that it has perverse incentives to consume more than it produces due to fiscal policy, mostly low interest rates.

        10. You clearly want what is best for the average american, but I think you’re missing a few points.
          1. What is good for the american producer, is not necessarily good for the american consumer. Think about high consumer prices, for example.
          2. Trade is mutually beneficial. If an american didn’t benefit from trading with the chinese, they would not trade with the chinese.
          3. Any benefit from trade protection comes at a cost to another american. If you force an american to spend more on american goods, the benefit that one american experiences is less than the cost that the other american experiences. It’s a negative-sum game, pitting producers against consumers when the two should normally cooperate.

      4. Ever hear the one about correlation and causation?
        The middle class began dying when the US severed the last ties to gold. Enabling unchecked financialization. Which transfers purchasing power from those who do, to those who originally had.
        Protectionism does nothing but provide another avenue for those who already have, to entrench their own interests, by eliminating other sources of competition.

        1. The US economy didn’t “financialize”, it de-industrialized, leaving the financial sector disproportionately behind. We don’t look at someone who is a bag of bones due to starvation and say “their bones grew too much”, we rightly say “wtf happened to their flesh?”
          The most efficient global cost of labor is zero, and so long as we don’t engage in protectionism, it will march inexorably in that direction until the “already have” have 100% of the profit-margins.

        2. Well I can’t see $0/hr labor (even with synthetic replacements). In time, cheap cost Chinese labor will fade as their GDP rises as it did with Japan & Korea & Taiwan before. The theory is some pain now and local manufacturing jobs re-allocated, and a free trade cashed up consumer market of 2.5billion (china + india) in the future. It will be hard for some local industries that fell by the wayside in the meantime to recover for that future though especially where there are economies of scale involved. By the time Chinese workers make good pay rate though, robotics & AI will be the local workers greater threat. At least with a droid the industry can still stay local with reduced costs. The shareholders will benefit (as they do now when US firms set up shop overseas), but the average joe worker well, maybe he can become a franchise owner and compete for consumer spending.
          Even though they have a billion plus labor pool the Chinese are throwing big money at developing robotics, so when it happens the droids in future US/EU factories & offices they hope will have made in china stamped on them.

        3. protectionism can’t raise wages, just look at your beloved chinese export economy. Protectionism allows prices to be high because of the lack of competition, which encourages production and artificially discourages consumption. It’s great for the businessmen who are trying to sell their products in america, but it isn’t so great for americans trying to buy cheap products. It’s kind of like forcing a poor person to shop only at whole foods, they will probably be less likely to binge-shop, but they aren’t being any more responsible.

      5. Jobs evolve, work evolves, you can’t protect every industry over the years. Manufacturing is dying. Look into protectionism pre Great Depression, see how that worked out for us

        1. It worked out very well for us.
          Tell me what part of wages dropping to chinese levels, or sector after sector leaving the country with no new ones taking their place is “evolving”.

        2. So you want to emulate the chinese system of mercantilist export, but you have a problem with chinese level wages? You need to make up your mind. You can’t outsell the chinese unless you can produce more cheaply than they can.

    4. Unlike Plasmacutter below, I don’t rhetoric when dialectic debate is offered.
      I would say that protectionism can be instituted two ways:
      1. To protect a favored industry that lobbies .Gov and who will then not be required to make productivity improvements that market forces might demand.
      2. To protect a nation’s (and it’s people’s interests) resources, capital, and workforce.
      It comes down to humans. I would rather have American humans prosper over other nations humans. I would rather have manufacturing, production, and other value add activities happen to American humans.
      It is up to each nation to protect and grow its own people, and watch out for their interests.

      1. 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive.
        In the late 1800’s and turn of the 20th century it’s obvious type 1 was going on, but it still resulted in the same outcome as type 2.
        Honestly, the motivation doesn’t matter, the results do.

      2. Fair points, thank you.
        I wonder how much I am protected when I have to pay a lot more for something than I would if party A could trade with party B. This is assuming that I have my own trade base AND that slave nations were exempt from the protectionist laws (I’m not against it entirely, just against slave/communist states).

        1. The carte-blanche tariff “solution” is retarded any way their advocates want to slice it and the worst thing is excuses like “but what if trade with kebab helps him build nukes?” which misses that a specific and discrete sanction or trade embargo is not the same as tariffs for everything.

        2. Spot on, we start punishing foreign markets and guess what? They jack our shit up with tariffs. We were protectionist before and during the great depression. Where’d that get us. do you by any chance listen to Mark Levin?

    5. Protectionism is things like being against free trade, and in a politics course in university was referred to as ‘realism’.
      The professor said that although Great Britain (the first) got a head through liberal, free-trade policies, pretty much every other country that got ahead later got ahead by protectionist policies post-British Industrial Revolution (ex. limiting foreign industrial products in favour of own industrialization + industrial products so i.e. producing over consuming):
      – France
      – Germany in late 19th century
      – America post-Civil War
      – Japan in the same period

      1. I think the overlooked problem with free trade is that many industries where America would dominate are simply stifled because of government red tape.
        Stem cell research, rare earth thorium energy, industrial hemp are but a few examples that come to mind. Meanwhile, businesses and innovation are moving to Asia because they don’t have these restrictions.
        Our populace is not allowed to specialize in industries that make billions of dollars for other countries. That, in my mind, is the far greater crime than tariffs.

        1. As a Catholic I have a problem with Fetal Stem Cell research. I feel it is anti-pro-life.

    6. The way I view a ‘homogenous population’ is basically a genetical-cultural identity that constitutes a nation, like the Poles in Poland: similar culture and genes.
      That being said your Scottish/English argument is a great point; I would say their genetic-cultural differences are similar enough.
      The US as well – first it was primarily British, then that expanded to European in the 19th/20th century, and now there is little hope for a homogenous population. It’s an example of a place where there is no homogenous population and thus creating one is not possible. So multiculturalism. I believe Roosh means homogeneity as opposed to multiculturalism I suppose.

        1. Your Jonathan Goldsmith, the Dos Equis actor, the Most interesting Man in the World. It is a pleasure to be in your presence.

    7. Scots are not English similar to how Americans are not English. You have to study history and trace back the common ancestors of the Caucasian people: Anglo Saxons, Celts, Germanic, Scythian, Scandinavian, etc. When you trace these people back you find mostly all Caucasian people are branches of the same tree. A homogeneous Caucasian population can consist of any branches of that tree. An American who has German and English ancestors is a Caucasian just as an American who has French and English ancestors is.

      1. The Indo-Europeans, yes. I know Scots and English are separate. I’ve studied history.

    8. WRT protectionism the problem is that the globalists have redefined words. They have taken managed trade, trade managed to benefit of the so-called elites who create and push various trade agreements and labeled it “free trade”. This managed trade hurts people who aren’t aligned with the desires of the elites and thus they see protectionism as the answer. The answer is real free trade. Real free trade takes an agreement shorter than this comment. Goods may cross our borders without taxation. There, free trade in one sentence. When something is thousands of pages long, it’s managed trade that benefits some at the expense of others.
      (I accept that a real trade agreement may need to come after agreements of basic environmental protection and such to keep the nation which allows its commons to be most exploited to have an upper leg in trade, but that’s just how we progress towards real free trade)

    9. to me homogenous would and should mean culture,i wouldnt like to get into color let alone genetic makeup,i think its the simplest and truest and most open form while retaining a solid foundation,i dont mind immigrants in my own country in fact i love a mix of people but i want my own native culture to remain dominant and not be swallowed up as a result,its all about balance

    10. My thoughts on homogeneous population:
      I’ve been reading these white nationalist sites lately, particularly Amren. I guess you could call me a glutton for punishment, considering that I’m only half-white, and if the WNs take over I’m pretty much fucked. They say the US was built by white men, but that is only partly true. This country was built by White Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. Mostly the English, but also the Germans, French and other Western Europeans. The Slavs did not help form this country, nor the Irish or the Italians. Catholics were considered second-class citizens for many years. The homogeneity of the country began breaking down as soon as they started importing Europeans of non-western European, non-Protestant heritage. I’d say it can be argued that blacks have more of a right to be in this country than Eastern Europeans, since historically they’ve been here longer (and had citizenship longer) than Eastern Europeans (or even the Chinese, for that matter). An ethnically homogeneous American society would be a dominantly WASP society, but I think that ship has long since sailed. I am also in the camp that says culture should be more important than race or ethnicity. And America at one time had a damn good culture.

      1. Liked the way you carried your points but I disagree with you on the matter of Culture in America. We (Americans) single handedly have ‘fads’ and they are created by Capitalist. It starts at an early age and by the time you’re a young adult you will have exacerbated your life savings for college.

    11. Protectionism is a good short-term solution but not a long-term one. We shouldn’t disavow it entirely because of that. Tariffs, mercantilism, etc are very good for solving some issues in the short-term (the current major trade deficits, for example) and should definitely be utilized for that purpose, but there are plenty of historical examples showing that in the long-term it causes more harm than good.
      “Homogeneous population” means different things to different people, even Nazi Germany was composed of many different genetic groups of “Germans” but they formed their nation fine. Same with China today, over that huge land mass there’s a ton of different genetics involved but everyone is “Chinese enough”. The US has historically been a white mongrel ethnic group, which proved to be plenty good enough for building a nation. You can interpret “homogeneous” many different ways but I think we can agree on limits, obviously importing Somalians into Minnesota is going too far.

    12. Why are you against protectionism? Do you really think cheap goods and services is worth undercutting your fellow countryman’s employment prospects? One day it could be your job that gets outsourced.

    13. We’re on the same page, with 2 exceptions:
      “individual rights” – necessarily complemented with individual duties (and that includes family, nation, god(s) and yourself) – I am fed up with SJW rights demanding crusades which are never questioned in substance and consequence;
      “monotheism” – I would say individual faith and collective religion… but without specifying.

  4. Nationalism is not local enough.
    While nationalism may diminish the growth of the global elite’s wealth accumulation, it will fail to topple them. The oligarchy will remain intact. The social justice warriors who act on its behalf will simply be redirected.
    The restoration of the town and small communities where everyone is known by face and name and family lineage is the bedrock of a true political alternative.

    1. The restoration of the town and small communities where everyone is
      known by face and name and family lineage is the bedrock of a true
      political alternative.

      That would put half the readership here into a coma, heh. Lots of big city boys on this site.

      1. I also think that rural communities are our most natural environment. Most morbid ideologies if not all of them come from minds that have been stuck too long into urban environments and know nothing of physical labor.

        1. I agree completely. Was just thinking about how lolknee would fall into cardiac arrest if such a thing were to happen.

        2. I’d build a resort cottage just for him , granted we’d have to teach him how to hunt . I think he’d adjust well

        3. Garlic, bitches. Plant in November and watch it sprout up in early spring (sometimes even late winter), harvest before July, usually June. Loves me the garlic.

        4. Dude you’re gonna ride out here, fall in love with the midwest and then return to NYC and dream of someday moving here, like most people do when they go on vacation in the Bahamas.
          I might even have access to Michigan-OSU tickets this year. Go to one of those games and you’ll be surrounded by 50,000 chicks, 90% of them thin and attractive and super pleasant and happy. There’s no leaving after that.

        5. I actually have access to the full season of tickets. Buying them all, then selling most of the ones I have no interest in attending. My favorite games are early season, when it’s still warm. Michigan generally falls on or near Thanksgiving, which can be sucky cold and miserable in Ohio.

        6. He could become the village cheese maker. We’ll call it “cottage cheese”. I hope that name hasn’t been taken yet….

        7. True,being able to not have to go out in society much for items is why i like the country area,got my own garden in the summer, some fruit bushes a cow and some chickens and i have like 80% of my food needs right there, and all my neighbors know me by name,gives u a real safe feeling at night

        8. I have been thinking of getting this thing called a topsey turvery. It is basically a tomato plant in a sling device so you can hang it out your window and it will grow upside down. That would be a good way for me to get nice ripe tomatoes I think. I could probably just rig it myself but it isn’t particularly expensive.

        9. sounds quite excellent. I do like the ocean though. If I run away it will more likely be to a Caribbean island. IT would be fun to see the Michigan girls before they graduate, buy big girl clothes, move to new York and suck all the cock.
          I always smile when I see a pretty young thing who isn’t used to her heels yet and still has a look of wonder in her eyes. I imagine they are even prettier before their first week here when they have to fuck at least 2 guys from every single race. It is the hypergamy act of 1972 which makes it illegal for a woman to live in NYC and not have sampled at least 100 cocks.

        10. I tried one of those things one year and it didn’t really work well for me. Not sure if I did something wrong or what, but the crop of regular tomatoes in the garden did fine so I assume either the theory is wacked and I handed them some cash for free, or I fucked up something.

        11. fair assumption. I am of the belief that good tomatoes cannot be purchased at a store. You need to grow them or get them from some guy who grows them. Something about getting a tomato from one place to another ruins it.
          I don’t have a field to plant in and I don’t have the space for a hot house, so the upside down thing is really my only option.

        12. I only like Latina milfs. The ones who are under 25.
          Seriously though, whole foots is straight up dangerous. Those rich bitches walk around eyeing guys like they are produce.
          One woman looked at me, seriously, as if I were for sale. She wasn’t even thinking about fucking me. I think she was thinking about purchasing. And I am no young buck anymore.
          They do have a juice bar in the whole foods that I get a good green juice from in the mornings on the weekends. That is always packed with young and attractive girls who when you look at them you can see that which juice she will pick out is the hardest decision she will make that day.

        13. They do have a juice bar in the whole foods that I get a good green juice from in the mornings on the weekends. That is always packed with young and attractive girls
          So it’s…Soylent green juice?

        14. Get a 25 gallon ceramic pot and that works good too, if you can keep it in sunlight.

        15. I live in a 5th floor apartment. I have a fire escape but I will get a fine if I put a pot on it that is big and heavy enough not to get blown off with the first hard wind.

        16. yeah, I tried that. Didn’t work out so well. Small apartment. I am going to give the upside down thing a shot

        17. I will. Maybe I will write an article called A Tomato Grows in Manhattan about the difficulty of being masculine in an urban settings because we aren’t connected to the soil and how I learned all about it through growing upsidedown tomatoes.

        18. Heh. Half the dudes in that movie reminded me of my uncles and how we’d all look after a long day deer hunting.

        19. Well yeah, winter sucks. But if you can over-winter with a hot young girl who is nice and likes to cook, what’s the downside?

        20. ha. no I am uptown. I am not so young any more. I do have an elevator too. I did my time in the east village before the hipsters showed up in force and I have lived in my share of walk ups.

    2. So you topple one oligarchy and it gets replaced by a different oligarchy. That rhetoric is meaningless. There’s always going to be an oligarchy. Put the masses in charge you get mob rule.

  5. Some say Trump is on track to get 1237 delegates. I certainly hope he wins and that their dirty tricks, rule changes and trojan horse delegates don’t succeed in stealing the nomination from him. If he loses, we’re truly screwed. If he wins, then there is still some hope left for this country.
    What I keep forgetting, however, is that the guy with the closest amount of delegates is Canadian-born and thus cannot be elected president, according to the Constitution.
    Since he is still running, does Ted Cruz know something we don’t?
    Would Mr. I-Quote-and-Protect-the-Constitution want to change it for the sake of his own political ambitions?
    Give me a break.

    1. The american political elite pretty much made the entire idea of ‘natural born citizen’ irrelevant when they refused to do any forensic studies on obama’s birth certificate which is blotched with typewriter correction fluid, because that would look raaaaaaacist. Cruz is probably the least bad establishment candidate but can’t defeat hillary. Trump is the only option by default.

    2. Considering the current POTUS and his dubious background and the amount of foreign money influencing US elections, does that really matter?

  6. To meet this globalist challenge we need to reach across the aisle and combine the best of both worlds. This will draw in supporters from both ends of the political spectrum as each can find something to identify with.
    I give you SJW Hitler, AKA “National Social Justice Hitler”. He’s a kinder, gentler, more inclusive Hitler :

    1. It’s just like regular Nazism, except you can select a Venti Chai Tea Latte on your way into the gas chambers, where you sit and surf on your Macbook until the gas is turned on. And it won’t just be Zyklon B, it will be hand crafted small shop made Zyklon B.

        1. Thanks, that’s funny because I was going to make an icon with just the glasses, mustache, and hair but this guy has already done it. Great minds think alike. I will forward my SJW Hitler and let him run with it.

      1. When I was teaching there was one classroom that had super loud forced air. Whenever the compressor would kick on the AC was absurdly loud. ONe day I said “probably pumping the room full of zyklon b”
        One kid laughed. I told him “you are either my new favorite student or my least favorite student depending on why you are laughing, but at least you got the reference.”

        1. You live a very, very limited and tunnel visioned life, but I envy you your experiences and basically everything else too. Heh.

        2. We all have our own specific field of vision i suppose.
          I have some good stories, it is true. im not sure if it’s enviable though. Some maybe.

  7. The free trade vs protectionism debate is outdated. There is a whole spectrum in-between, japan is mercantilist. Free trade results in hollowing out of industry, protectionism results in trade wars. There needs to be balance on that. Why should every backwards ass country have their own auto industry?

      1. What if higher paying jobs become replaced with lower paying jobs due to hollowing out? Countries should specialize in sectors where they have competitive advantage. But what if the only competitive advantage a country has is cheap labor? Then the higher wage nation exports jobs instead of products.

        1. Not necessarily. Sometimes a country has a competitive advantage over another country not because it produces better goods but because of transportation costs. The average cost of production of a barrel of Saudi crude is lower than one of North Dakota, yet for political reasons, i.e the US wanting to reduce its trade deficit, we go here.
          If you look at it from a realpolitik perspective, I’d want to spite another country by blocking it economically, even if it has better goods.

        2. That is a fundamental aspect of competition..
          Countries that experience labour offshoring are forced to adapt because of that competition, this is beneficial to everyone as it drives innovation.
          The real issue here is that most western nations are now lazy and complacent. Most don’t want to be competitive, you would much rather have your monopolies back, because ultimately competition is difficult.. Just look at how entrepreneurial and hard working those in the western nations were during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Now everyone simply wants a handout and protectionism rather than getting out there and creating competitive industries through hard work and innovation.

        3. I think the overlooked problem with free trade is that many industries where America would dominate are simply stifled because of government red tape.
          Stem cell research, rare earth thorium energy, industrial hemp are but a few examples that come to mind. Meanwhile, businesses and innovation are moving to Asia because they don’t have these restrictions.

        4. “The real issue here is that most western nations are now lazy and complacent.”
          Disagree. The cost of compliance, taxes, unionized labor and the amount of bureacratic BS tends to drive relocation abroad. Spent time doing cost impact studies and despite what public sector morons believe— corporations will pack it in once a certain threshhold is reached. US industry currently has over 2 trillion dollars offshore– wonder why? Also having Americans compete with H1Bs or people who are not subject to the same tax and cost of living issues they are in their own county, simply puts them at a disadvantage they will not be able to overcome and compete.

    1. Japan’s economy is on the rocks and has been for a long while.

  8. Closed Borders – Partially. A hard-working Indian engineer is not the same thing as a Somalian bootlicker.
    Protectionism – Depending on how its formulated. Tariffs protect business but increase prices. Think of it this way. If foreign goods are tariffed and prices go up, this does not mean domestic prices won’t go up (in fact, it’s more likely the opposite, cause prices).
    Patriarchy – Depends. Certain matrilineal societies have a very red pill outlook on life. Best example: certain groups of cossacks have families run by women, but essentially tend to say the same things we do.
    Homogeneous population and closed borders – Unless white women start putting out more babies, I’m going to go for it rather than have to pay colossal taxes.
    Monotheism – Why? I can see it with the strict gender roles in Christianity and Islam, but Hinduism has that too.
    Local solutions for local problems – Absolutely. Banks should not be corporate entities designed to maximize their own profit but rather to maximize the profit of the nation. Reward banks based on the quality of the loans they give out, not the quantity. That last thing is what caused 08.
    Decentralization – If it benefits the community. Sometimes a common army is better than small feudal cadres of soldiers.
    Individual rights – Right to one’s earnings, yes. Right to one’s firearms, yes. Right for women to whore out and about, hell no.
    Armed Populace – Provided they aren’t insane.

    1. Tariffs produce a net positive to the local economy until you no longer have a trade deficit. Anything beyond that and they incentivize inefficiency and any retaliatory tariffs would cause your nation more damage than your trade rivals.
      Thankfully, we have a MASSIVE trade deficit, so the on-shore growth would offset the price increases (which don’t actually stick around since companies prefer to source domestically rather than suffer a competitive disadvantage due to tariffs… I’ve been in the sales pipelines for tariff nations and have seen this in action)

      Homogeneous population and closed borders – Unless white women start putting out more babies, I’m going to go for it rather than have to pay colossal taxes.

      Closing the borders causes reductions in birth-rate to self-correct by producing a lagging spike in the value of labor. If one generation has fewer offspring, those offspring will be able to command higher wages due to lower labor competition. In addition, that less numerous generation will face lower prices for housing and goods associated with family formation.
      This naturally leads to higher birthrates as those market forces make childbearing less expensive. Mass immigration suppresses these corrective forces and depresses native birthrates (as long as the immigration is allowed).

      1. “I’ve been in the sales pipelines for tariff nations and have seen this in action.”
        Tell me more.
        “Closing the borders causes reductions in birth-rate to self-correct by
        producing a lagging spike in the value of labor. If one generation has
        fewer offspring, those offspring will be able to command higher wages
        due to lower labor competition. In addition, that less numerous
        generation will face lower prices for housing and goods associated with
        family formation.”
        The lack of labor will mean a lack of new business formation as well, as well as a lack of consumers. We could argue this all day, but until we have statistics that aren’t based off of one colossal “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, we can’t really say we’re right.

        1. “I’ve been in the sales pipelines for tariff nations and have seen this in action.”
          Tell me more.

          Over the past 8 years my firm has been expanding presence in Latin America and the pacific rim. In early cases we had hundreds of millions in contract negotiations fall through because of 30% tariffs. As this became quantified, the execs made the decision to open production on their shores to gain traction in their markets.
          Tariffs B*tches: They work.

          The lack of labor will mean a lack of new business formation as well, as well as a lack of consumers

          You forget about the older generations. They’re not buying goods for family formation (in fact, they’re down-sizing their housing) but their consumption is just as high in other, non-competing areas, such as medical and assistive technology. This means that, even if the net economic growth is zero or even slightly negative, you are continually alleviating stress upon potential parents until such time as the birthrate corrects.

    2. “Closed Borders – Partially. A hard-working Indian engineer is not the same thing as a Somalian bootlicker.”
      Depending: was he hired because an equally competent American was fired a la Disney?

      1. That’s not really how HR works. You don’t fire someone that already works for you and go through the trouble of paying overtime to people creating the job applications.

        1. That happens all the effing time. Its HR’s job to put a smiley face on Corp America’s hiring/firing abuse.

  9. I am very impressed by this article Roosh. A real tour de force. However, thedism is a more accurate term to describe what we should aim for. ‘Nationalism’ carries baggage that would have us supporting every secessionist movement on the planet and smuggle in ideas of equality within nations. This was essentially what early nationalists demanded (most of them were proto-socialists. I believe in the ethnic integrity of the Welsh and that the Welsh have a right to exist, but that doesnt necessarily mean they need the kind of political independence nationalism often implies.
    I have an article upcoming on individualism vs. collectivism. We have a real problem in the West that all forms of identity have been broken. There is nothing to rally around. The Left first relished in the destruction of sacred Christianity, and then in the destruction of sacred national collectives. We have become totally atomized.
    I describe this as “ants trying to be spiders”. Whether we like it or not, we are designed to be somewhat collectivist. Alone, we cannot do much, unlike spiders
    who are designed to live in solitude. We are really much more like ants, we set up organic hierarchies of dominance, authority structures, functions of specialization. It is just what civilization is. The issue at hand is that Europe is a society of spiders, being invaded by a highly motivated colony of ants.
    Go ahead, perform the experiment. Put a spider in a jar with ants. Despite the spider’s size (our technology and wealth), it does not take long for it to be torn
    to shreds by the collective power of the ants.
    This isn’t a call for totalitarianism or communism (as some errant libertarians categorize it), but merely a call for the recognition of our human condition, which our ancestors were so very aware of.
    Only collective identity, that which you lay out as the anti-globalist position, will bring about the attitudes necessary for survival. If anyone is for global liberal hegemony, they are more of an enemy than any terrorist ever could be.

    1. I get your main argument and I agree with the mechanics of it but maybe not with the comparison with Europe. The difference is not nearly as extreme, everything would have to continue the same way as it is going right now for a long time before the balance would really begin to tilt.
      That said I don’t quite get what you intend as collective identity as I’m not aware that it exists. I don’t agree with your view of nationalism, Japan is very nationalistic but they so not support secession of Okinawa or Hokkaido from the main part of Japan, quite the extreme opposite of that is what’s going on.
      I think maybe we should reframe it more as a cultural territory being a national entity, which is the case with most of Europe right now.

      1. Look at the child demographics. The current makeup does not tell the true story. This could happen incredibly quickly as the generation transfers, but it will be regional.
        As far as I know, those places do not contain distinct ethnic groups, so secession would be rather strange. I’m talking about things like Kosovo, Catalonia, Scotland, etc. Go back and read the founding documents of nationalism, the Italian author Mazzini in particular. Nationalism was founded as a kind of left wing egalitarian movement. Today it carries the right connotations, those that I agree with, of the importance of ethnic integrity, but the core doctrines of ‘nationalism’ have problems.

        1. “But the core doctrines of ‘nationalism’ have problems”
          I agree, what we should really be aiming for is traditional sovereignism.

  10. In Germany you will find “No to Nationalism” stamps everywhere in trains , schools , supermarkets. Nationalism bashing is the norm nowadays.

    1. There is no nationalism in Germany. It’s like declaring war on poverty— there is actually no physical thing or person to assault. They media likes to chirp about “rechst-extream” but it’s a strawman they drag out to smear the public with.

      1. I don’t think the average german does even know what nationalism is about. When somebody mentions nationalism they probably start imagining gas camps , Hitler having orgasms and god knows what.

        1. Es ist eine Beleidigung. Nichts mehr oder weniger. Hast du das Wort “Patriotismus” in deutschen Gesellshaft gehört? Ich auch nicht.

        2. That’s pretty much how nationalism was presented throughout my stint in the ‘education’ system growing up.

    1. It’s like nationalism, except it requires a Beta Capsule to use it, and it can only stay on earth 7 minutes before it has to return to the sun.

        1. nice self high 5.
          Ultra-Nationalism, however, is just nationalism mixed with Kratom. UltraViolence on the other hand is something best when listening to the 9th

        2. I was afraid that it was so obscure that people wouldn’t realize that it’s an obscure reference.

        3. Off topic, but is anyone up for some April 1st Disqus fun? I was thinking we all switch names and pics and mess with people. I got dibs on lolknee. I WOULD take GoJ, but I’m afraid I couldn’t live up to the hype….plus, I’d like to see how it is to live as a nihilistic twat for a day, heh.

        4. Everyone wants to be a nihilistic twat for a day but my level of cuntiness takes years of being a miserable prick. It ain’t easy boyo

        5. That could be fun. Maybe I’ll backtrack to that white witch’s account and adopt it. Then, I promise you, we will be watching you and casting spells on your dreams.

        6. Maybe I’ll set mine to private and make friends on Jezebel under your name. SJW Unabashed here to fight the good fight.

    2. Cue the stromfront troll in 3…2…1…
      White knight and pedestalize white poosy to save civilization. If you had to settle for eva braun you’d be pissed too.

  11. I’m pretty sur there can be a leftist nationalism, so the left and right division is still relevant.

      1. Soviet Russia, North Corea…
        I’m also pretty sure a dystopia with closed borders and sodomic marriage and feminism inside is possible.

        1. In America you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia the party can always find you.
          Not sure why Yakov Smirnoff came to mind here, but he did.

  12. Globalization is inevitable due to technology in the long run. And we won’t survive as a species without it (again, in the long run). Each point in either globalist or nationalist platforms are means to slow or accelerate this process, but you won’t stop it. Not that I like it.

  13. I am a non-believer and nationalist by heart. I really don`t see the connection between globalism and paganism/atheism.

      1. I`d argue the case that having no religion in fact gives you a stronger connection to your nation and its culture, as it is not clouded by religious jibberish. I could be a special case maybe.

        1. This is simply untrue for most Europeans (where atheist reigns). Religion is not ‘clouding’ anything. Common beliefs about the metaphysical world have underlined civilization for all of history. Having no common beliefs about the most important questions of life is fundamentally atomizing

        2. Luckily the most important questions of life is in the eye of the beholder. There are no proof that atheism and paganism is connected to globalism, and quite frankly I have never heard of such a theory before. If you need religion to stand up to protect your home, and what is yours…then I`d question your character.

        3. “Luckily the most important questions of life is in the eye of the beholder.”
          Not really. On atheism, there are no important questions. We are just accidental bystanders to a cosmic car crash.
          “There are no proof that atheism and paganism is connected to globalism”
          Like I said, not paganism, but atheism has a track record of globalism. Both with Soviet communism and Left Liberalism.
          “If you need religion to stand up to protect your home, and what is yours…then I`d question your character.”
          That’s not what I said, but question away, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. It’s a fact that the crusader knights were better at defending themselves and their homeland than nice secular Belgium.

        4. Even Stalin had to bring back the Orthodox Faith to motivate the Russian against the German. A country without religion has no fighting spirit.

        5. Globalism is multi-culturalism. Multiculti holds that all cultures are equally valid, or therefore equally invalid. What if small nation treats all religions equally with regard to immigration and within one generation is dominated by immigrants who don’t believe in that same kind of tolerance? Your darwin in a fish icon isn’t going to save you, and you’ll be begging for christians to fight and die for your freedom to mock their beliefs.

        6. Point is there is no oxymoron in being a nationalist and a non-believer (and by that I mean not connected to a religion) I do accept that religion shapes us all in different ways no matter. But in regard to Christianity for instance, you will see that all the cucking,WelcomeRefugees and naive “well-doings” stem from the words of Jesus and The New Testament.

        7. Most political systems and constitutions in the west are based on Christian-Humanistic principles inspired by the New Testament. I think you would have a hard time to argue around that.

        8. Not at all. After the French Revolution, Christianity was dethroned in favor of vacuous tripe like Humanism Let’s do a thought experiment.
          Let us suppose the Enlightenment never happened, so atheists never took over the government of France, and Christian monarchs still ruled Europe (and I mean more or less absolute monarchs) Would we be seeing what we see today with regards to acceptance of Muslims in Europe? No. Why? Because they were heretics who denied the divinity of Christ and so would have been viewed intrinsically as evil.

        9. So you see no trace of what the New Testament preach and the constitutional founding in the west? I would say that the migrant crisis is great example of Christianity in full practice.
          Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
          Luke 12:33-34 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
          Romans 15:1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
          And many more…
          Some high-level cucking there…

        10. Nowhere in those quotes does it say to allow non-christians to take over a christian culture. One could read those exact same quotes and respond to current syrian refugee crises differently by building refugee camps on the turkish border.

        11. cherry picking sections of scripture can be done with Islam to prove it is a religion of peace. Try harder. Again, you cannot refute the fact that this all started when people like you overthrew the French government.

        12. We are not accepting migrants into Europe to take over, we are accepting them under the slavery of being good human beings (according to religious morals aka New Testament)
          That is absolutely not cherry-picking and you know exactly what The New Testament says about helping the poor, the weak, the sick, give up on your wealth etc. It is pretty much a recipe perfectly suited for the invasion we now see.

        13. I base my nationalism on how my ancestors fought and built the country, and most of all the love/connection to our nature/the land etc. I don`t need religion to feel connected to my country, and if needed fight for it in a war.

        14. Then New Testament tells us that Christ is Lord. Muslims deny this. They are not oft he Kingdom of God. He will say to them “I never knew you”.
          You keep dodging the fact that Europe is now mostly atheist, and mostly cucked.

        15. No I am talking about what shaped Europe into being cucked like we see now. It is the tyranny of Christian morality (found in most constitutions) with a good dose of globalism/multiculturalism that has oppressed and vilified nationalists.

        16. There are MANY Christian parties and organisations that support the invasion. And the left side willingness to help migrants is a result of the Christian Humanistic moral heritage.

        17. This is what atheists love to do. Confront them with the crimes of communism they say
          “those people did what they did because of something else”. Confront them with crimes of the atheist liberal, they say “those people did what they did because of something else”

        18. If you could zoom out from faggots and asses for a while. So you disagree that Christianity is a huge part of the Wests` constitutional system and morality?

        19. Not anymore. You are ignoring that the people
          who laid the groundwork for western institutions
          were quite literaly the French Revolutionaries, who were like you
          and took great pleasure in slaughtering Catholics

        20. I think you got emotional now and lost your rational thinking… You have failed to meet my arguments. If I am quoting I am cherry-picking and if I talk about Christian morality I am a leftist. I assume I attacked your religion and you fail to see its responsibility to where we are now.
          For the record I vote as far right and conservative I can in our elections. And if I could vote in the US, I would vote for Trump and I spend a lot of time defending him to my brain-washed friends and fellow citizens. So that was very “weak” as Trump would have said.

        21. The west is almost completely securlarized at this point. The secular do love to quote christianity when it advances their agenda, and disregard it or mock it when it doesn’t.

        22. You dodge the FACT that Europe is atheistic andhas no respect for Christianity. Christianity is roundly derided and legislated against. That is a FACT. And I couldn’t care
          less who you vote for. It’s the same old story with liberals like you.Even when you are in power, you blame another ideology. There are only
          a few countries left in Europe where Christianity has a large influence: Poland, which rejected refugees immediately, and Russia, which is thankfully
          coming to its sense and rejecting your ideology.
          In short. Roosh is dead on, and you are basically Sargon of Akkad in terms of cuckoldry.

        23. I am talking about the constitutions and what inspired them… I have no agenda, but to try and portray Christianity as innocent to where we are now is delusional.

        24. You actually believe separation of church and state is christian? That’s too stupid for a response.

        25. Well, you blame atheism and paganism so I just wanted to add some perspective into the mix. The term “common sense conservative” appealed to me when I first heard it, and yes I am a nationalist. And I bring it up since you label me with political standpoints very far away from me.
          Caps lock does not make your statements a fact, and labeling me a catholic killer without no reason makes you look very defensive and lost for arguments. Some would even say extreme. I feel good about this discussion.

        26. Being a faggot does not say anything about if you are a good or a bad person. So that was a miss I think. Messed up, yes maybe. But not good or bad.

        27. So just to wrap up
          1) you deny that Christianity is derided and attacked in Western Europe
          2) You deny the French Revolutionaries killed Catholics
          Excellent. I also feel very good about this discussion

        28. 1. I have not discussed that matter with you.
          2. No but you put me in that category. Keep an eye on details.

        29. Wrong. You’re looking at churchianity, not true biblical Christianity, which is not a religion, but a relationship (idc if you roll your eyes when reading that, doesn’t change the fact). And no, this isn’t a no true Scotsman fallacy.

        30. well using the church to house refugees is a pretty strong indicator this is in Sweden

          For the other stuff you can look up the Christian party website of any European country and find purely pro refugee status stuff, locally they are gathering food and clothes and arranging living quarters, social activities and loaning them the churches to use as mosques.
          Not sure which languages you are able to read, as most of this stuff is in local news not national level outlets.
          There is not even a hairs room of doubt on this for me for one, do you have proof contrary of some Christian group being against the refugees? I have yet to see or hear of any.

        31. Strange, I replied but it disappeared. Anyway, in most of Europe most of the detailed information that you might consider as proof is in local news and in non English languages.
          All the European Christian parties are extremely pro refugee/immigration and are working on local level also with churches in support of refugees, in terms of resources and housing and any way they can.
          This is a church used to house refugees in Sweden, first example I found but nothing almost in English.

    1. I’m with you. Religion isn’t necessary to national pride or to an us vs them narrative. For what it’s worth Protestantism is what Nietzsche would call slave morality where the weak are exalted and the powerful sent to Hell. That is opposed to Greek and Norse myths where the strong are idealized

      1. why don`t you educate me one-liner-Wikipedia? Tell me how the words of Jesus and the New Testament is not found in most western constitutions.

  14. Most modern Americans, even if they consider themselves Republicans or Democrats, are actually moderates. Or, as I like to say, pussies with zero backbone who try to compromise, but wind up being eaten alive. And they’ll still propose peace while the wolves feast upon them. They are so easy to manipulate that the globalists aren’t even trying to hide their agendas anymore. It’s in plain view, but even when you point it out, people still label you a conspiracy theorist. That’s why I’ve quit talking politics with most people. I can’t have an intelligent conversation. It’s a waste of precious energy and time.

  15. Paganism can be used by the globalist against Christianity but I think it would backfire as every tribe and culture has different gods and that in itself nurtures group adhesion. The Norse have Odin, Slavs have Porun, the Romans had Jupiter and the Mexicans have the Sombrero.

      1. It’s the same point with security and terrorism. No matter how much security you have in open societies you cannot remove the threat of terrorism. It’s not possible.
        To only way to escape globalization, terrorism, immigration and multiculturalism is to live in perhaps, one of the thousand of uninhabited and bleak islands off the coast of southern Chile for example, but, this is taking these threats to an extreme point I’d imagine.
        There is no way, despite Trump’s (absurd) Wall that you can reverse the globalization trend which the US has spearheaded for decades around the world, and, Businessmen like Trump have done very well through various international global trade agreements. One way to slow down the decline would be for complete disengagement for both the US and her allies in its foreign policy interventions (disasters) like Iraq, Libya et al.
        Nationalism in America will only gain traction if the States returns to the values of self-reliance and a strongly anti-interventionist approach to the rest of the world and of course a willingness to pay american workers decent salaries for quality manufacturing work that cannot be outsourced.

  16. It needs to be said that a lot of Libertarians are globalists on some very important issues like open borders and protectionism. They assume immigrants will respect civil liberties and that industries will survive against 3rd world labor for pennies on the dollar.
    Most Libertarians have scant, if any national identity and lack the burning desire to see their nations survive. They have no practical way to maintain their ideological purity and at the same time provide real world protections to their rights.

    1. Nice smear. 5/10. I give you a 5 because you’re right on borders. I’m a closed border libertarian. Weird, I know, right?

      1. Wasn’t trying to smear you. But too many libertarians fit the descriptions I gave. It’s a big reason why I don’t identify as one anymore. As a group, they always seem more dedicated to the philosophy than to its implementation and preservation.

  17. I used to think Nationalism was the root of all evil. I don’t feel that way anymore. My self-preservation instincts are smarter than me.

  18. As usual another great article from Roosh.As usual Roosh has displayed his talent and aptitude for being able to weed out the truth from the bucketfuls of lies spewed out by the media.Cheers to you my friend.

  19. The global feminism, the ‘pan-fem-gyno-phooey’ is for herding humans whilst the aliens do a clean de-pop scrub down of the Earth. War is a messy way to depopulate and engineered plagues leave rotting bodies and buzzards everywhere. The plan is to get the peasants and excess humans to dig their own holes, jump in and suffocate while the remaining humans have their sexuality boogered with. The sex mutants can’t reproduce and neither can the feminized women. This is an alien hostile takeover of the planet. No human would do this to his own blood.

  20. Trump seems to be onto most of those Nationalist platform identifiers, but this may just be a populist strategy to get more white middle class and fence-sitting votes. Right now after what happened in Brussels, his street cred with these folk is through the roof…

  21. Non too fucked about the “homogenous” thing. All that matters is you speak good english and have manners.

  22. You’re either running to the government for protection, or you’re not. I don’t need government to solve my problems. One of the joys of taking the red pill!

  23. Great article and dead on observations.
    “I’m firmly in the nationalist camp, even though I am a man of mixed race who does not have an ancestral nation he can call home. . . “
    You do more for the cause of nationalism than most with ancestral nations. When Western Civilization is done right:
    “Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to Yahweh say, “Yahweh will surely separate me from His people.”. . . “Also the foreigners who join themselves to Yahweh, To minister to Him, and to love the name of Yahweh, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath and holds fast My covenant; Even those I will bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.” -Isaiah 56
    Understanding “nation” in the true sense is to understand a nation is an “ethnos”. That’s where we get our word “ethnicity”, for example. A nation is not a land mass with physical borders. Wordsmiths have done a job with the word “nation” like so many other words. Most people think the USA is one nation, when in reality it is several nations under the thumb of the same government, or kingdom. There are several African, Asian, European, etc. nations all within the geographical dominion of the “US Government”. It’s time people started thinking in terms of kingdoms, because that’s what we’ve always had on planet earth, and that’s what we have today.
    I’m a firm believer the Kingdom of God was established with Yeshua’s first coming. It’s here now instead of off somewhere in the distant future. The Kingdom is just in horrible shape because of delinquent Christians and deceivers who want to steal it. Once people catch up to the idea there is only one King and one law system, synonymous with nationalism, that will achieve the most perfect society imperfect man can hope for, things will improve drastically. I’m a hopeful believer in a national great awakening but not holding my breath for it anytime soon. Realizing that Kingdom in this day and age is up to the individual, native or foreigner, and God is true to His promises. Biblically, native Israelites who do not “hold fast His covenant [law]” have no place in His Kingdom; while the foreigner who does has a place.
    “. . . as long as minority men such as myself understand that they must follow
    the rules of any homogeneous population they find themselves in.

    True statement. I’m compelled to point out man’s “laws” are not laws at all. There’s only One Lawgiver. Any of man’s “laws” (and there are some yet in Western Civilization) that are in harmony with His are redundant. Any that contradict His law is lawlessness, or sin, and the ultimate disease destroying the West. If it’s European and nationalist there’s a good chance it is from Him.
    “Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am Yahweh your God.” -Leviticus 24
    Every man, regardless of nationality, stands on equal ground at the foot of the cross. Every man also has his own idols to cast down before finding himself there. I encourage every man to seek out that place.
    Give thanks to Yahweh, for He is good;
    For His lovingkindness is everlasting.
    Oh let Israel say,
    “His lovingkindness is everlasting.”
    Oh let the house of Aaron say,
    “His lovingkindness is everlasting.”
    Oh let those who fear Yahweh say,
    “His lovingkindness is everlasting.”

  24. These crazy assholes promoting this globalist nonsense are in for a real shock when the rank and file masses start supporting local governments and regional sovereignty. The cracks have already formed in their ruinous plans. The baby boomers will begin to die off in the not so distant future. The people in gen X and beyond have exactly zero to be proud of during their lifetimes in terms of large nationalist goals.
    Instead we have been treated to decadence and cultural marxism. A PC culture of bums and faggots simply will not defend their master’s keep. So we see “self” inflicted wounds like open borders and curious discriminatory practices throughout every system. Its a limbo game of achievement and standards.
    The America I see needs a lot more internal thought and nationalistic ideas and a whole hell of a lot less poverty breeding and multiculturalism. There needs to be reforms at the top of the economic spectrum as well. Interest needs to be taxed as do capital gains for real non corporation individuals. Welfare needs to have a time limit as do food stamps. White collar crimes over x amount of dollars (millions or billions) get a seat in old sparky at the state level. Dual citizens are banned from anything and everything pertaining to elections.
    America first.

  25. I used to be anti-protectionism and pro “free trade” until Trump started talking about it and I agree with him that it should be fair trade. Our trade isn’t fair or pro-American now. It’s only for increasing corporate profits but it’s not good for the country.
    Sound currency should also be part of sovereign nations.

  26. You’re either a statist or an individualist.
    If you believe in the state you could be nationalist or a globalist but both are believing in a state, only how large that state is to be. The state always seeks to grow in size and power. It aims to centralize more and more under it’s power. Globalism is the ultimate expression of this growth. A nationalist believes in many states rather than one overseeing governance, the single state that the globalist strives for.
    The smaller and more numerous, thus the more accountable the states are the better the individual would be able to live, the freer he could be, the most choice he could have to move away from a government that is harmful to him. But the principle that some men rule over others remains. Individualism rejects the concept that some men may rule over others. It is the ultimate expression of decentralization.
    Now that doesn’t mean do what you want regardless of what it is or what it does to others, because others also rule themselves. It doesn’t mean we don’t have roads or anything else, it just means we achieve those things differently. Until humans become more evolved (which may be never) there would likely need to be some sort of body to deal with disputes and be a mechanism so people can be held accountable for when their actions cross the line, so ideal statelessness isn’t achievable in an instance, but we certainly don’t need societal management either. We should be working towards the individual ruling himself rather than moving in the other direction where a tiny elite manages all of human society by the barrel of the gun. That is we move to ever greater decentralization until we achieve the ultimate decentralization, the individual.
    There’s an order of progression that must be respected in reducing rule to the smallest possible unit. Some of the aspects of the globalist state are goals of the individualist. There’s nothing wrong with open borders, but it’s not something that happens first for individualism. It’s something that happens towards the end when it doesn’t matter where an individual lives because he is responsible for himself.
    In any case my argument is that we proceed in a rational way to dismantle state power, move away from globalism and away from nationalism, away from collectivism and recognize that no man should be the involuntary servant of another.

  27. I’m partial on protectionism, yes for major national industries, no for your everyday consumer crap.
    A clear no from me to Monotheism – as an Atheist. I’d argue for freedom for benign religions.

  28. Everybody is discussing bullshit. Liberals this, Republicans that. Can we have a normal conversation without sounding like ,,conspirateurs” and develop a close study on how did the elites strategically infiltrate every level of decision ( National Security included ) and allow those type of decisions to be taken in the first place? I’ll give a local example myself. Romania’s Senate, Deputee Chamber, Parlament, even President – get this – for two mandates, were undercover j3wish -sovi3t agents. Nowadays, scandal has finally errupted ( Thank God ! ) and everyone is looking for the guilty. But we already know who the guilty party is – M0sc0w. Until all of the dirt will be made public and until everyone will know and understand the truth, people will still be at each-other’s throats – pensioners voting against blue-collar workers, women vs men, etc. We are being duked. The war has already started since before we were even born. But not with guns, but by institutional infiltration,detraction and NGO-ingly turning masses of people against each-other ( I repeat – pensioners vs working class, women vs men, gays vs straight etc ) . Fuck it, Romania has been ruled by detractors for 26 years and it’s still kicking, that’s a miracle if I ever saw one. Coming back to my insane affirmation, we need to point fingers and come up with solid ,,theoretical” evidence because the decision makers are making laws against every single one of us. Fucked times we live in.

  29. You don’t think this problem will become Poland’s problem as well? If these oppressive tyrants want to globalize the world, they will eventually cause Poland’s socioeconomic structure to collapse by introducing their ultimate weapon…. “Miley Cyrus”.

    1. lol, I can’t stop laughing because I just spend the last 45 seconds trying to figure out if that was really a Miley Cyrus quote. Brain is not working yet apparently.

      1. Don’t sweat it! I quoted her name because I think it’s absurd that her name is more popular than our immediate societal circumstance(s), but the question is still begging me, is she Hannah or Miley?! The world may never know… it gradually becomes a communist-dictatorship.

  30. I would say this: moving forward, immigrants should not have the right to vote, period. I am not prejudiced against immigrants. One of my closest friends is one. My own mother is one. But if you were not born in a country, you should have no say in its future. Immigrants should not be denied the right to own property, make a decent living (so long as they do not take jobs from any natural-born citizens) or start a business. They should also be accorded due process under the law so long as they obey the law. But they should not be able to vote (or run) for public office. Similarly, we might want to restrict the vote of children of two immigrant parents as well. If they have one natural-born parent the children should be eligible to vote. But we might want to wait until the family is totally grounded in the country (about three generations) before giving that family the vote.

    1. Excellent thought. I’ve considered the exact same line of thinking if a person moves to another state. Deny them the vote for 10 years after they move. It sucks hind tit that Leftists move from Cali to places like Colorado and then destroy it.

    2. Very good idea! This makes total sense, although it could be tweaked to some degree. Like say an immigrant who is well grounded (owns property or has a business, no criminal history in family and passes a test) might be afforded the right in some elections like say mayor as it has a big impact on business. Obviously they would have to legally become a citizen first and renounce any prior citizenship.
      By the way I am not a citizen of the country where I live, and neither is my wife, and I don’t think we should have the right to vote.
      That said I would also not let unproductive members of society vote. No income other than government support in election year? No right to vote. Period.

  31. The concept of globalisation (cooperation between nations, and the ultimate aim of world peace and coordination by a common government) has nothing to do with feminism, degeneracy, or neomasculinity. How do you make that link? What the hell?
    Globalisation is, first of all, an economic and technological stage, and it is inescapable- we have modern transport and real-time communication and data storage (the internet), and one way or another these will tend towards a united global society.
    A one-world-government does not mean advocating open borders or forced racial mixing, but having business with other countries and easier cooperation, and working on projects that require resources of a global scale. In short, having a county government doesn’t mean people break into your house, and the same goes for countries cooperating internationally.
    It is a meangingful, right-wing, masculine goal to create world unity that puts humanity forward in the form of space colonisation and scientific projects, and ending international conflict and turning it into mutually beneficial trade instead.

    1. That’s beautiful.
      Back in the real world, our master class dream of the happy day when their new robotic slaves will finally be able to drag what remains of the human working class off to extermination chambers.
      Our masters want robots to conquer the galaxy. They have no intention of sharing it with us. Once we’ve outlived our usefulness as beasts of burden, off to the glue factory we’ll go.
      Even capitalism will be old hat. Robots don’t have wants, just fuel and maintenance requirements. Central planning will finally be practical.

      1. If AI can surprass human intelligence + creativity, I will gladly transfer my brain into an AI computer, or just outright let AI rule. Humans are weak in themselves, as both of their brains and bodies have very humble physical limits. Your poetry about “the master class” and how “we” need to fight for our right in the galaxy sounds like vague laments and hyperspace communist propaganda.

    1. The problem is there are BILLIONS of people on this planet. How many countries would be required for a plan like that?

  32. Personally, I consider myself a “traditionalist.”
    Before our values and ethics were corrupted by the liberal agenda, I feel that the majority of the public was nationalistic, loved their home country and their families and community, knew their place in this world, and were willing to fight to preserve their home. They loved freedom and believed that everyone was truly born with inalienable rights, whether they were born underneath the Declaration of Independence or not.
    I see nothing wrong with interpreting the Constitution and Declaration of Independence more literally than figuratively; does that mean that everyone should be able to own an AK-47? Hell no! Giving everyone an AK-47 without proper vetting is like letting in to one’s country millions of Muslim immigrants without thoroughly approving their information… wait a minute… isn’t that going on somewhere? Nah, nevermind.
    The left and the right are corrupt in that it would seem that, of both of the major parties representing at least the United States, it would seem that neither one truly stands for freedom anymore, sadly.
    Thankfully, there seems to be a global surge of a third party, an alternative-right-esque sort of thinking, where many of the members of this unofficial tribe stand for TRADITIONAL values, such as nationalism barring the fear of being called a racist or a xenophobe, freedom from their own REPRESENTATIVES (because a government does not LEAD, a government REPRESENTS), and so on.
    Let Europe be a lesson to the others (and unfortunately I’m sure America will soon be facing many more problems like the European terror attacks on their own) that just as the laws of physics dictate that what goes up must come down, the way of nature as proven by history illustrates that when there is a threat in man’s home, it is only so long before he becomes aware and takes it upon himself to dispose of this threat any way he can.

  33. For more than a decade, I have stridently believed that open, and sometimes hostile, political debate is healthy for a democratic republic. It clarifies those points which the ruling elite, and their blind supporters, hold deeply and brings it into the light of day. It sharpens the dialogue of those who are more principled, and forces them to make their arguments appeal to the common sense masses. It seems that we have finally reached the tipping point this year, and will find out what version of truth truly holds this nation together. Let the chips fall where they may.
    Spot on Roosh.

  34. Unfortunately, that is yet another false debate. I come from a country right here in North America, Quebec, where nationalism as you name it and qualify it has been the refuge of the very same scoundrels manipulating the very same herd of useful idiots who in other countries rather push for socialism or globalism. Here in Quebec the very same political correctness you rightfully inveigh against was introduced in the name of the “distinct society” of Quebec, which was supposed to be far more tolerant of radical feminists, transgenders and homosexuals than the dominant, old-fashioned, anglo-saxon one. Of course it was pure manipulation, Quebec having been defined right from the start as a laboratory for the New World Order to come. After having felt short-changed as a half-bred, half-belonging, half-witted people by English Canada (quite in the same manner as Hispanics in southern US), they were told they deserved to open educational facilities to train a new elite of their own at last … which turned out to be a mere arch-conformist part of the Global Elite as soon as they got their first jobs.

    1. To be blunt, Cubans in Florida do not at all feel the way you describe. They are well regarded by other Floridians. thwrea really no correlation. And you do know, the Quebec folks are quite arrogant to their Anglo candian and maritime Celtic Canadian neighbors.

      1. I mean most Hispanics and Chicanos coming from Mexico or Central America, and also Porto-Ricans, not Cubans, who used to be regarded as lesser citizens by WASPs, not the Castro-fleeing Cubans, who were right from the start welcomed as hero resistants against Communism, and thus form a very special case. As for the Quebec nationalists being unduly arrogant towards their English-speaking very like, I agree with you 200%, it is actually the very point of what I say : their Quebec nationalist cause is a form a left-wing political correct snobbery, highly correlated with gay power and male-baiting feminism.

    2. You make a great point, nationalism can be itself a front for globalist agenda. The Koch Brothers love making front groups to trick nationalists and traditional conservatives into wasting their time and effort and money. NOM and FRC and Heritage and National Review all work for Kochtopus globalist agenda.

  35. “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month .,3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oi1660➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsEco/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::!oi1660….

  36. Why can’t we just give them Detroit and allow them to turn that place into an African-style Marxist paradise?

  37. Very good! The problem with the left is multiculturalism and the right promotes massive immigration to get cheap labour and lower the american worker standards. Both are equally bad.
    Roosh, you are no minority, you’re white, Armenian and Iranian are Europeans (Iranians are indoeuropean people)

  38. Many national talk shows, like NPR, will cut you off if you mention certain corporations. Like any of the ones with ties to the Bush family. They work in the background, and it doesn’t matter who gets into office. KBR raped us during the Iraq war under Bush, then when Obama became President, they started raping us in building up Eastern Bloc countries, which is also financed by the U.S. We’re talking building/maintaining roads and infrastructure for ENTIRE countries. The Neo-Cons helped to make them an international monster answerable to no one. They and the Neo-Cons run things now and there’s no way to stop it.

  39. Trump supports marriage and knows we can’t afford Transgender reproduction, so it’s a no brainer he will sign the Natural Marriage and Reproduction Act. It voids all same sex marriages, prohibits male pregnancy and female sperm, and protects the reproduction rights of marriage to have natural offspring.

  40. “Their aims are to maximize their power and wealth while satisfying whatever sinister agenda they may have in the name of “world order,” which includes depopulation..”
    Seriously Roosh, some of your stuff I agree with, but I never picked you for a wacko conspiracy nut.
    Anyone who believes there’s a small global elite all colluding to control the world are a step away from hearing voices and putting on a tin-foil hat.
    All your stuff about masculinity, our inherent competitiveness and desire for wealth and success ought to be enough to make you understand the inherent nature of the world and why a “world order” is nothing but a paranoid fantasy held by people who don’t understand human nature and secretly want to feel there is some order to this mess we call the world.
    Hint: there isn’t one, and there never will be. The global “elites” are more borderless than others, but they’re also people who’ve gotten to be “elites” generally by knowing what to exploit and not being particularly big on loyalty.

  41. Roosh, while the features of nationalism certainly add up to be better than those of globalism, it’s worth noting that there are disadvantages to closed borders and racial homogeneity. If all countries had closed borders, you would not have been able to get out of America and into Eastern Europe, and may even have had to settle for a morbidly obese American. Furthermore, you claim to support the upholding of a homogenous population, but if that were indeed the case, you wouldn’t have been able to sleep with any of the women in the majority of the countries that you visited. The advantage to closed borders is that it prevents Western “values” from infiltrating the non-Western world, though the disadvantage is that it would force men with tradition values to stay in western, feminist/homosexual nations, where they will never be able to live a fulfilling, traditional life, with a traditional woman. As for the other nationalist values, I also fully support the notion.
    “I’m firmly in the nationalist camp, even though I am a man of mixed race who does not have an ancestral nation he can call home (I’m half Persian and half Armenian).” That is – you would firmly support the removal of your right to live in a country with tradition values (other than Iran or Armenia), as well as the ability to have sex with any woman in the world other than those of Persian/Armenian origin (more than 90% of all women)?

  42. What is a Nationalist folk(s)? For most of us “On Nation under .. with Liberty & Justice for all.” that passage fits every single ethnicity in America! Identitarinism would say, “I identify as an American”. I suppose you guys (alt) have simply come up with a new way to package an invite to an awesome ‘Jerk Off’ party and you neglected to tell everybody what type of party it is. I completely get what you are saying about Hollywood Nazi’s, 14/88, White Power, etc. but to hoodwink us is pretty low. There’s still hope for you brother!

  43. Strangely, nationalism which is the boogeyman of the left and blamed for things like the second world war actually encourages countries to respect each other more. I think Donald Trump and Putin would get along well. I spite of the Cold War I suspect American Nationalists and Russian Nationalists would agree on a lot and might readily ally against Islamists and Globalist that want to deny (see: white) people their lands and language and culture

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *