I would say nationalism and globalism are almost identical
Posted: 29 Jan 2026, 04:31
I mean, all flag designs are square with simple colors. National identities rarely allow the preservation of languages, and when they do the languages are extinguished anyway because the state will mandate usage of a single language. All street names get renamed, history changed, conflicts between people become erased.
I felt when french revolution ceased, nationalism that came next was almost an ongoing project where it would create deracinated people who believe only the great nation exists. So before this revolution is all about dinasty, religion, and local people with their local customs. But it became different with big ideals and big nation and big civilization-level projects.
In a nationalist identity you get one language for administration, its going to be mandatory except in japan for some reason I cannot interpret. Theres gona be 1 legal code, not multiple law systems. And whats worse 1 only variant of history and from this stems the idea of "official history youre not allowed to question".
Prestige also looks meaningless to me. Its all about join the bureaucracy or what these people call "upward mobility". I dont care about "upward mobility".
In a nutshell a nation is a way to replace identity of people and make them easy to govern. Its an imaginary community. The SJWs who mocked conservatives were not wrong when they say borders are an illusion and its all in your head. Obviously the way they expressed this concept was suited for creating a conflict and people reacted generating one of the greatest misconceptions in contemporary times: globalism vs nationalism.
It was interpreted that globalism is bad, and nationalism is good. Globalism is leftist and nationalism is conservative. One is freedom the other is slavery. And since the discussion online is very heated, people will not be willing to consider that nationalism itself is not so different from globalism.
But my issue is that this map of reality is all wrong. Left/Right mapping is wrong, no matter how many "political science majors" you hear that use it. Just take a look at history. How many 19th century nationalists were radical anti-clerical anti imperial people. Or look more recently, the left "anti globalist" movement later was coopted by alex jones. Dont you feel something is wrong? Whats wrong is nationalism and globalism are structurally very very similar. Both of them privilege this idea of "mobility" and easy to interpret symbolism. Things have to be legible for the masses so you get large scale rootlessness and a people super easy to control. Because you can trck them into this stupid ass backwards separation of globalism vs nationalism very very super easy. None will realize is literally the same.
Trump will call them "patriot cities". And Trudeau will call them "smart cities". In a nutshell, this is the separation that is driving so much of our online discourse.
I felt when french revolution ceased, nationalism that came next was almost an ongoing project where it would create deracinated people who believe only the great nation exists. So before this revolution is all about dinasty, religion, and local people with their local customs. But it became different with big ideals and big nation and big civilization-level projects.
In a nationalist identity you get one language for administration, its going to be mandatory except in japan for some reason I cannot interpret. Theres gona be 1 legal code, not multiple law systems. And whats worse 1 only variant of history and from this stems the idea of "official history youre not allowed to question".
Prestige also looks meaningless to me. Its all about join the bureaucracy or what these people call "upward mobility". I dont care about "upward mobility".
In a nutshell a nation is a way to replace identity of people and make them easy to govern. Its an imaginary community. The SJWs who mocked conservatives were not wrong when they say borders are an illusion and its all in your head. Obviously the way they expressed this concept was suited for creating a conflict and people reacted generating one of the greatest misconceptions in contemporary times: globalism vs nationalism.
It was interpreted that globalism is bad, and nationalism is good. Globalism is leftist and nationalism is conservative. One is freedom the other is slavery. And since the discussion online is very heated, people will not be willing to consider that nationalism itself is not so different from globalism.
But my issue is that this map of reality is all wrong. Left/Right mapping is wrong, no matter how many "political science majors" you hear that use it. Just take a look at history. How many 19th century nationalists were radical anti-clerical anti imperial people. Or look more recently, the left "anti globalist" movement later was coopted by alex jones. Dont you feel something is wrong? Whats wrong is nationalism and globalism are structurally very very similar. Both of them privilege this idea of "mobility" and easy to interpret symbolism. Things have to be legible for the masses so you get large scale rootlessness and a people super easy to control. Because you can trck them into this stupid ass backwards separation of globalism vs nationalism very very super easy. None will realize is literally the same.
Trump will call them "patriot cities". And Trudeau will call them "smart cities". In a nutshell, this is the separation that is driving so much of our online discourse.