Since the end of World War II, globalists have defined the world order and its alternative. The Allied winners were able to make the case that strong national identity and rigid boundaries lead to chauvinistic forms of nationalism, epitomized by imperialist regimes like Nazi Germany. To prevent another major conflict, they proposed an antidote: weaving the interests of France and Germany so tightly together through free trade that both would have too much to lose by going to war. This was the start of globalism.
What followed was a prolonged peace, and the Allies made a case for trans-national integration. The original free trade agreement of the European Economic Community (EEC) grew into what is now one of the most substantial centralized globalist powers in the world: the European Union.[perfectpullquote align=”right” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=”24″]What if people make bad live-in partners?[/perfectpullquote]
As the success accumulated, advocates of the new globalist world order became bolder in their dreams of dismantling the nation-state, which they believed caused the great wars. It’s a good story and there is much truth to it, but it is based on some flawed assumptions. No-one truly understands why the first major war of the twentieth century, World War I, became so devastating, but it could equally well be described as a major quarrel between royal families in Europe as anything else. Furthermore, integration is not always a good thing. What if people make bad live-in partners?
The Global Village
Imagine that we reframed the narrative as another vision, not of one world state with open borders, but a global village consisting of family households living side by side as good neighbors. In this analogy, the open borders vision is like a giant house that everyone lives together in with no walls, no private rooms, no safe spaces. Everyone is forced to endure the habits and noises of everyone else with no place to hide. In short, the open borders world is like hippie hell: Woodstock meets Groundhog Day.
The global village model, by contrast, treats each nation as a family residence with its own house rules, and members who share the same values and habits. It is not hard to imagine how this could be a harmonic solution, as a village is almost the stereotypical example of peace.
Every village has a shared space where people can trade and socialize. Here they meet and learn to know each other. The norm is to treat your neighbor with respect. The shared space creates a fertile ground for friendships and business. However, crucial to the peace is the knowledge that the home is sacred. People may have neighbors over for dinner but only with the mutual understanding that the visitors must respect the house rules and the host, then leave after the party is over.
Living together is hard, especially if you don’t share the same values. Being good neighbors is much easier.
Translated to the real world, this amounts to what could be called global nationalism. Each nation would have its own rules and borders, which are respected by the global community. At the same time a country is not an isolated island, but one of many good neighbors who trade with and visit each other. Such a solution would alleviate the problems of migration in the West while providing economic opportunities for hardworking talents from the third world.
Global nationalism provides the best of both sides. It grants the interconnectedness and mutual self-interest that the globalists desire, but it also gives ordinary people a cultural safe space. Doesn’t it seem likely that such a solution would reduce the tension and fear that multiculturalism has generated in the West? Maybe it’s time to change the narrative.