A clear advantage that you’ll have if you’ve been raised internationally is that it gives you the ability to compare different population groups and Nation State Systems.
If there is one thing that is clear to me whenever I look at old entries that I’ve written it is that the challenges faced all over the Western world are largely the same.
When a music publication criticises the current U.S. President in the U.S.A. the Italian counterpart uses the same tone and style towards the current Italian leadership.
When there is a movement to remove statues of historical characters in the U.S.A. you see the same unfolding in the U.K.
When a Norwegian ad is deemed racist in Norway since it features Norwegians and a Norwegian flag you see the same type of activism other places in Europe.
What is interesting though is that the backlash to globalism is localised Nationalism from groups who don’t necessarily seem to realise that we all find ourselves in the same boat…
Nationalism is bad when it is expansionist, when a sense of superiority dictates to such an extent that it justifies waging war and invading everybody else. Take this attitude and couple it with redistribution of wealth and you have a true horror-show next door since said group will have to expand in order to find more loot to “redistribute.“
Nationalism that is non-expansionist though ensures the survival of your Nation, especially if you are non-isolationist and keep your “friends“ close.
France for the French, Italy for the Italians, Norway for the Norwegians and England for the English has become the slogan that a lot of people hold on to these days ignorant of the fact that “the elite“ always intermarried and travelled around Europe as they wished…
Rules do not apply to the super rich. One of their privileges is freedom of movement. This is a privilege extended to those who work for them or those fortunate enough to work for corporations with an international reach.
The major bulk of whatever population group though remains stuck. No movement for them!
If the E.U. did something positive it was to enable liberty of movement to everyone, this was probably done to benefit businesses but what it meant in practise was that more people had the liberty to pack their bags and simply exit.
This resulted in retired Norwegians moving to Spain where they could get more for their money, lots of Italians moving North to get access to jobs and people from Poland going Westwards all in the name of “pursuit of happiness.“
Of course this started to bother the managers of Nation State systems at a certain point, resulting in legal changes intended towards those who dared to leave.
Benefit recipients in Norway realised that they could have a pool, great food and cheap liquor if they went South!
Norwegians with substantial salaries in Norway realised that they could rent or buy villas if they took their Norwegian oil money with them anywhere else in Europe.
If you are well-off or rich up North there is no end to how you can live down South and as more and more people realised this I imagine that more and more bureaucrats were having nightmares and premature seizures.
All of this liberty resulted in non-elites owning properties all over Europe, moving around the continent on a whim while poor people could actually enjoy themselves and not just struggle.
So far so good? Well, apparently not. Because even though the scenario above might seem like a dream come true to anyone who actually believes in liberty the EU (and the UN) decided for some strange reason to invite everyone else into the European Utopia…
Freedom of movement also meant that if you could get across any border into Europe it would give you access to the entire continent. All of a sudden there were hordes of people doing anything and everything to get to Elysium; the source of all of their aid money, the Utopia in the distance.
Which of course can make one wonder if it was the majority who wanted colonialists out of their territories or whether or not this was the wish of specific elites eager to dominate their own territory?
How do you explain fighting for your independence when the result is mass flight Northwards only some years later?
It goes without saying that Europe cannot hold all of the world since Europe is a relatively small continent compared to other territories and when all of a sudden you end up having security threats all around your territory then how can anyone expect civilians to be quiet?
I think the reason for the current rise in Nationalism in Europe can be blamed on this.
For some weird reason though it is a Nationalism that is localised rather than a continental one, which means ignoring the fact that no European Nation stands alone in the challenges that they are facing and that the E.U. does not equal Europe.
This type of Nationalism rejects everything and anything reverting back to how things used to be when only the elite and the ridiculously wealthy could enjoy certain privileges.
It sounds like a political movement that is simply fed up. It also means that it doesn’t seem capable of actually dealing with the root of the problem which seems to be international non-State organisations….
What you end up having are atomised Nations convinced that their situation is a uniquely unfortunate one, completely convinced that their situation is particularly bad and than the solution to their problems is: them alone, first, in front of everyone else, rather than a network of Nations facing challenges together.
Because this is the reaction observed all over the Western world I’m not quite sure how things will play out. The challenges are not unique, they are largely the same and if you were raised in an international fashion there is no way that you cannot see that.
What will the future bring? I have no idea but it will probably be bumpy for everyone.