₦airaland Forum

Of Nationalism and Globalism



A new spectre looms over our world, and all the current pillars and powers of the world are being seduced by the allure of this spectre. This spectre is the spectre of globalism.


As the 21st century reels out myriads of dynamic events on the international scene, humanity continues to evolve politically as we enter into another phase of history. A world shaped by the devastating events of two World wars and a Cold War that brought one world power to it's knees and another to the leadership of the "Free World" , is now on the brink of another ideological revolution, similar to the renaissance of medieval Europe. This ideological revolution is centred on the principle of "globalism".



What is globalism?



Globalism, in its purest form, seeks to create institutions for global governance, at the expense of the sovereignty or unique requirements of individual nations. In essence, it embraces a multilateral approach to governance and discards unilateralism. While it may sound tantalizing, in effect, it cripples the authority of individual states, and their ability to make decisions that suits their sociopolitical climate. Instead, it enthrones a "one size fits all" approach where decisions are made for the benefit of countries that hold the most clout.




Thus,globalism is a pervasive, albeit, more tantalizing form of imperialism. It is therefore no surprise that imperialists like the French President, Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel and a host of others, are leading pioneer of this pernicious ideology.




What is nationalism?



People interpret nationalism in different ways. But I like to say nationalism is the manifestation of patriotism. A nationalist loves his country, and believes that the interests of his country supersedes the dictates of a world order that is skewed in favour of the powerful nations of the world. Hence, nationalism is inherently anti-imperialist and anti-globalist.




While the challenges of the 21st century like Islamic terrorism, poverty, diseases, climate change and so on, have exposed the need for cooperation between countries of the world for the betterment of humankind,the question remains, is globalism the way?. Well, my answer is a very resounding no.
Now, before you label me a conservative bigot, let us take a look at the United Nations, which is the world's foremost multilateral institution. The UN is one of the most, if not the most undemocratic institution in the world. It is governed by 5 permanent members of the security council(the big 5); the US, France, UK, Russia and China, all of who possess the powers to place sanctions, approve military interventions, and veto decisions of even the general assembly. Attempts to expand the membership of the permanent UNSC to properly capture those who are not fairly represented such as Africa and South America, has been rebutted over the years by the United States and its allies. So, we are left with an institution that is run by only the powerful nations, who make decision as they deem fit, even in cases where they are clearly ignorant of the dynamics that obtains in the region where their decision affects.
Many argue about the success the UN has made in keeping global peace for 73 years and counting, but I say, it isn't the UN keeping peace, it is nuclear weapons and the threat of mutually assured destruction.





Now, what a globalist wants is a UN that is strengthened to the level where it can make binding decisions concerning global affairs, overriding the powers or sovereignty of individual nations. Laughable, right?. Imagine such an undemocratic institution, governed by an exclusive cabal of powerful nations, dictating how much Nigeria can spend on it's military per year, how to run our economy, how to control our population, and so on. In essence, our constitution would be useless and we'd be subject to the interests of other nations. This is what the concept of a government without borders entails. That is what globalism entails.





While Macron spouts nonsense about nationalism being anti-patriotic(only God knows what brand of weed he smoked before coming up with that ridiculous speech), we need to ask ourselves, in whose interest is it if globalism prevails?. It certainly won't be in the interest of small, poor nations like Nigeria that have no power to wrangle decisions from such multilateral organisations.






Thus, Nigeria and Africa must rise and resist the vast dark shadow of globalism. Globalism as it is being canvassed by radical liberalist and neo-imperialists. Yes, we can cooperate on issues that affect all of us as nations, but we must hold on to our national interests above all. That is the only way we can negotiate at the table of world powers.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard this December.... Homosexuality can be delivered?..... Lol.... As if it is some kind of spiritual issue....all these baseless mumbo jumbo we like to believe in this part the world.

dominusgai:
Bros, that is the essence of journalism, something 90% of Nigerian Journalist don't understand.

Journalist risked their lives to bring news of world war 2, they risk their lives to snap pictures of dead people killed by biological weapons in Syria.

They risked their lives to bring the news of waterboarding in Guantanamo.

They risked their lives in Iraq and Iran and Afganistan to report soldier brutality.

Without risking their life, no journalist can bring news capable of making other world leaders pay attention to issues

True, but there are reasons for restrictions,and those restrictions are for the good of everyone involved. If any journalist want to cover anything, they should acquire the necessary permission from the Nigerian army.


In fact, I am aware that the army will be willing to provide security for such media coverage.

dominusgai:
Sir, please where is the proof of this spy training?

Or is training of journalist to penetrate where access is blocked for no potent reason now spy training?

If that is the case I thing 75% of US journalists would be spies.

Or you think say international journalist na Nigerian journalist when day report crisis from 2 streets away or no day try penetrate somewhere because government talk am?

In fact telling an international journalist that a place is off limit is encouraging him to look into it the more

Training journalists to go into restricted zones in order to sate vain curiosity is dangerous.



I don't understand what you mean by "for no potent reason", if the fact that those restricted areas are terrorist hotbeds and classified as Theatre of War(TOW) isn't potent reason enough to warrant military restrictions, then perhaps we need to reinvent the meaning of potency.


If those same journalist get kidnapped and hacked to death in front of the camera, everyone begins to blame the Nigerian army for not securing the lives of journalists in the area. It also has the added effect of strengthening the terrorists' media and propaganda initiative.

JuanDeDios:
What is more important or " national security" than speaking up for vulnerable people and victims who have no one else to speak up for them?

The concept of national security is often for the greater good of the majority.



I am not condemning AI for speaking up for people, but we have to make AI understands that speaking up for people is the only business they have in Nigeria. Going to the extremes of training spies, sponsoring dissidents, and carrying out activities that could exacerbate the conflict cannot be tolerated.

Truly, these foreign NGOs sponsoring monitors and "spies" on ground is tantamount to espionage. While we agree that the objectives of AI in keeping the authorities on their toes is very admirable, it is also important for them to realise that where national security is involved they should thread with care.

Good for the universal church.

sconp:
This us very disturbing, and amnesty international would probably latch onto this too. War is bad it damages the psych.

I also noticed that despite being at close range, targets were not hit immediately, almost like the person couldn't aim.

I believe Nigerian army must have seen this and should discipline the erring soldiers. Nigerian army might also need to incorporate a counselling/therapeutic section for those in this war, and those returning home.

In a volatile place like the north, where you have seen lots and lots of your brothers die, it's easy to mistake everyone as the enemy.

If those guys are Nigerian soldiers, then it is the DHQ's fault that these things are happening in the first place. The army is not consistent with routine rotation of it's men at the TOW, how can you expect human beings to be fighting continuously in the wilderness for as long as 2 years without them getting messed up in the head?, if the army has shortage of men, then they should recruit more men, there are hundreds of thousands of young Nigerians willing to serve the fatherland, even to the extent of paying the supreme sacrifice.


These things will continue to happen until the DHQ does something about the welfare of it's kinetic manpower. Routine training, retraining, counselling and periodic rotation of men should do the trick of reducing such disasters.

jteku:
Please watch this video

https://www.facebook.com/513141502358014/posts/822862244719270/

Thing is, we don't know which army these men belong to, Nigerian or Cameroonian or Nigerien.
Or it could be that it's a BH propaganda video to incite the public against the military. We have seen cases of terrorists dressed in uniform, carrying out extrajudicial killings before.

If indeed this is the Nigerian army, then the DHQ needs to investigate it.

This war is becoming too complicated, even the soldiers don't trust their superiors(or the government) anymore, they go through hell to arrest terrorists and the next thing they hear, the people they arrested have been released by "order from above", why won't they go rogue and start meting out instant justice?.

Just2endowed2:
They are not asking them what plan they are taking or strategy put in place to win the way. Serap is asking them how much was implemented during those period.

Then they should channel their enquiries to the MoD, which is in charge of implementing the defence budget.

They should petition the Ministry of defense, they are in charge of arms procurement.

The FOI is not applicable in matters affecting national security.

Shookonekilla:
APC and more propaganda

Lies lies and lies ..you used online Twitter generators to generate tweets

Even a highschool student can do that

The energy you online APC touts use in spreading lies and propaganda can be best served in creating a realistic economic plan for buhari since he isn't intelligent enough to create one himself or man up

And enlist into the military and come join us at the FLOT

You guys use too much energy to creating fake propaganda just to discredit the opposition all because you aren't intelligent enough to tackle Nigeria's real economic issues

Interesting, I wonder how a serving military officer will make such derogatory remarks about his commander in chief.

Sir, I am sure you are aware that the military code of conduct is very strict about making such press statements and granting interviews both online or offline.

Assuming you are not impersonating, which is also actionable by both civil and martial law.

Olabestonic001:
I've followed Adolf's rise, ideals, visions, lunaticism and fall. Hess' was his engine room. They were both in the same cell and Hess encouraged, edited and makes him gives his voice to that book.

Well, however you want to put it, Mein Kampf was written by Adolf Hitler. If it wasn't, then he would have pulled the book out of the public after his release from prison or after his rise to power.

Olabestonic001:
No, Rudolf Hess wrote that book. It was one of the greatest lies to make Hitler a 'body.

While you can not falter the ideal Hitler as making Germany like himself ("Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler), you'll observe that he was a Grim Reaper. By requesting that Speer burns down the Industrialization strides of Germany under him, shows the unstatemanness of Hitler.

If ever you glorify Hitler, it shows that you're megalomaniac and apparently suicidal.

Sir, Adolf Hitler wrote the book, Rudolf Hess(One of his deputies) edited it.

Blue3k:
I used basic relaxers. Leave in 10 minutes depending on hair texture. Ask ur female friends or stylist if u can find one.

Thanks. What type of curl activator do you use?

Recently, the president of France, Emmanuel Macron, has been on the frontline of campaigning for a total shift to globalism and multilateralism. An idea which seem to be gaining ground as the years go by. So let's discuss, between nationalism and globalism, which is better?, especially in the Nigerian context.

LeOstrich:
\


Hitler is vilified by the Jewish academia. Jewish media, Jewish hollywood.

The real revisionists are the Jews who have continued to reinforce their lies on Hitler and NAZI Germany.

History is written by the victorious.

BTW,I think you give the Jews too much credit.

LeOstrich:
That's the cycle of things.

Ultraconservatism rears its head at the height of decadence.

Hard times make strong men who take hard decisions that will bring about good times.

Good times lead to complacency and debunchry and from there society crumbles.

The rise and fail of empires is tired to this cycle.

Hitler did nothing wrong!

To say Hitler did nothing wrong is pure historical revisionism. Hitler made very bad decisions, for what he thought was the good of his country. I don't blame him for the decisions, I blame the outcome of his decisions; which was millions of both Germans and non-germans dead, economic depression across Europe and ultimately the nuclear arms race.

LeOstrich:
While the Jews were wrecking havoc in Russia through their policy of institutionalized starvation in the form of land and food confiscation from farmers - a deliberate policy that led to the starving to death of an estimated 25million Russians, Germany was feeling the pains of economic subjugation from the hands of Jewish globalist bankers who had instigated the worst financial and economic crisis ever recorded even till this day. The Jews not only moved in to buy up all German owned businesses and real estates they also subjugated the once quaint and stoic christian Germans to the most pervasive and degenerate form of modernity. Weimar Germany has been described as probably the most decadent society ever in modern times and the Jews were actively behind promoting debauchery and sexual perversion. It is from this point that men like Hitler rose up and said they had had enough with the Jew rats meddling in their nation's affairs.

You see, at the end of the day, Hitler's greatest sin was his love for his nation and race - he was an ultranationalist protecting Germany and Germans from the Jewish plague. I believe Nationalism is now synonymous with Racism as outlined by the French puppet Macron.

Going through your articles, I simply deduced that we are saying the same thing, albeit from differing standpoints.

I am a nationalist (Macron's so called "globalism" is merely arrogant rhetoric), and I can say I have deep understanding of most of Hitler's worldview, especially as it concerns the Jewish problem. However, the point of contention is whether the end justified the means for Hitlerite Germany.

The need to neutralize Jewish influence in the 3rd Reich and across Europe was understandable, but the pogroms that resulted from that decision marked one of the bloodiest period in modern times. This is the basis of my tagging Hitler a terrible leader. While he meant well for Germany, his ultra-militaristic approach and aggressive social policies marred his intentions.

Attempting to liberate Europe by force and make Germany a hegemony through sheer military power was a grossly miscalculated notion. Inflexibility was also an issue, a more flexible leader would have allied with the soviets despite his hate for communism , for the sake of his goal. But he broke the neutrality agreement.


So, it's a matter of perspective.

NoChill:
A good man you say, what is the definition of a good man?.
Can a good man be defined as the man who was victorious in a war thereby making the defeated a bad man? Or can a good man be defined as a man who was no different from his enemy but had to join forces with men just like him to defeat the common enemy of whom they were not any different from?

What is the difference between Hitler, Alexander the Great, King Richard the lion heart, Napoleon Bonaparte and even Joseph Stalin?

But while the laters were victorious in their campaign Hitler was to be earmarked in history as the evil one just because he lost.

Let me tell you a brief history about these me I mentioned.

Alexander the great was a young and ambitious king of Macedonia who first of all conquered and subdued his fellow Greek Nations (more like what Hitler did to Czech and Poland and Austria). Alexander went further to March his army east into Asia conquering and subduing kingdoms and nations killing anyone that stood in his way.

King Richard led the crusades (a "holy war" against the Muslim Arabs where countless numbers of Muslims were slaughtered in Jerusalem and Middle East, these included women and children)

Stalin was no exception though he was part of the allies, he was a brutal and bloodthirsty tyrant and dictator and just like Hitler he killed a lot of innocent people who stood in his way.

So you see the only difference between Hitler and these men was that He was on the wrong side of history because he was subdued and lost.

What am trying to say here is that in war history is written by the victors and it should not be the premise to judge the losers, if we are calling the victors good then the vanquished should also be called good and vice versa because they are all the same.

Take the Nigerian civil war as case study, who was the good guy and who was the bad guy, mind you Gowon killed millions of civilians, women and children in what some called genocide while Ojukwu led these people to their deaths. But who was celebrated at last.

N. B am not a Nazist or a fan of Hitler am just calling a spade what it is.

Indeed I agree that history belongs to the victorious , and in the case of WW2, both allies and axis operated using the same "evil" methods, but the argument here is whether Adolf Hitler was a good man, he clearly wasn't.

LeOstrich:
There was no holocaust.

America, UK and other warring elements did operate concentration camps during the war. In the US, Japanese and German Americans were interned in similar concentration camps.

Typhus and heavy bombardment of Germany which led to the camps suffering shortages is what led to mas deaths in the same camp.

Hitler's wanted to deport Jews to palestine but that was blocked by the British after which Hitler called for the final solution over the Jewish problem by deporting them to Madagascar.

The Holocaust is fake.

Anne Frank's diary of a young Jewish girl's experiencing in said concentration camp is all fake. The Jew rat who wrote that fraud has come out to state that it was a work of fiction which he believed was true so that makes it true.

As per communism and communists, there is no way to separate zionism with communism as communism was and still is a Jewish invention.

You are merely repeating well known facts, except the part where you claimed there was no holocaust.

Yes, the events of the holocaust have been greatly exaggerated by Jewish interest groups over the years, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Thousands of Jews and slavs were brutalized and killed in German concentration camps, it's a fact.


BTW, How is communism a Jewish invention?.

LeOstrich:
Hitler was against Jewish communism that was created by Jews towards Jewish global dominance.

Have you wondered why after 73years. the Jews keep preaching to every successive generaton that Hitler and the NAZIs were evil all becuase Hitler wanted a Germany free from Jewish banksters?

True, and that is why I said that I understand most of Hitler's worldview, but that doesn't mean his policy of systematically decimating Jews and communists was a good thing.

Columbian:
That's mixing up the definition of exile, but how does this support your claim that Jewish media does not lie about Hitler? So he wanted a return of the German colonies which existed just a decade before, that makes him worse than the other European leaders even when he scraps this goal? And yes, he hated Jews. If you've read it then you'll know that he didn't hate them because of their race, but because of what they did. Have you honestly thought about why that was?

I am not saying the other European powers were better than him, but that doesn't make him right eitherway.

He hated Jews yes, for many reasons, according to his book, ranging from the incursion of Jewish political interest into Hapsburg Austria, to infiltration of German media and propagation of both communism and zionism by Jewish interest groups. None of these explains why he needed to initiate such a massive massacre.

I am no fan of Jews myself, but such level of antisemitism is extreme.

It isn't even about Jews, what of communists, slavs(who admittedly were responsible for a lot of issues) and physically/mentally challenged people?.

This new trend where people are rebranding Hitlerism as a virtue is truly disturbing and misguided. While I may personally understand many of Hitler's worldview, I however believe it is wrong to say the man was a good man in the traditional sense.

Columbian:
Hitler was imprisoned, not exiled. Africans are hardly mentioned in it, but time and again he makes clear that it's miscegenation he's opposed to, and rightully so. Who hates a race more, the man who wants to see them protected in their own regions, or the man who wants them mixed and their states destroyed?

I call his brief hibernation in Landsberg an exile because he was a political prisoner.

As for the issue of racism, after reading Mein Kampf, I can verify that the man was racist; it was very clear from his disparaging remarks about Africans in the book and his plans to appropriate the entire African continent under the axis power of the German republic.

SlaveryWorks:
If you’re talking about the holocaust, you need to start doing some digging. You’ll find that there’s no supporting evidence to cooborate the claims that 6 gorrillion Jews were killed. Stop listening to the media, they’re lying to you. They’ve been doing it since you were born. Get educated, take the red pill. Be warned though, you’re here in Nairaland forever.

Have you read Mein Kampf?, it's a book detailing Hitler's biography and political views (weltanschauung), he wrote it himself while in exile. I recently read the book, if you read it, you'd comprehend the level of hatred and disgust he had for Jews, Africans, Slavs, Communists and physically challenged people.

It isn't about what the media said, it's about who Hitler truly was. A great but terrible man.

Adolf Hitler was a great man, yes. But he was a very terrible man. His mass annihilation of millions of Jews, slavs and physically or mentally challenged people bordered on psychosis. I agree that he made Germany great, for a brief while, but his social policies were simply not right.

playboy19:
Well, to answer your question, I took a course in cybersecurity over a decade ago. If you know what that is, then you'd know the relation.

Good to know.

playboy19:
Thats if he/she knows what the DeepWeb is without reading about it on google.

Where did you read about it?, or did you know what DeepWeb is through divine inspiration?.