Future Outlook for Nation-States

 

   The future of current nation-states appears to have a very bleak outlook. But beware, because capitalism itself seemed to have a similar outlook for most of the last century. Globalism's exploitation of cultural and sexual minorities, radicalizing their rights without limits, contributes to damaging the generational renewal of Western nations, promoting mass abortion and female infertility through propaganda, and destroying the traditional family structure established in the West. This leads, in the short and medium term, to population replacement due to the much higher fertility of immigrant populations. This poses a serious problem for the preservation of the cultural identity of Western nation-states.

But the problem wouldn't be solved by drastically closing national borders to immigration in an attempt to contain the avalanche of disorderly migration that the USA and the EU are currently experiencing. Nor would it be solved by encouraging birth rates among the native population. Such measures might help to some extent. But these are measures difficult to implement efficiently without resorting to dictatorial or authoritarian methods, which could endanger liberal democracy itself, leading to the triumph of uncontrollable reactionary populism, as happened in the 1930s with the rise of Nazism.

Western nation-states need immigration, as happened in the Roman Empire when a standard of living was reached that made the hardest labor unattractive to the Roman populace. Therefore, slavery, provided by their conquests, was introduced, along with economic subsidies and the cultural entertainment of "bread and circuses." Today, the equivalent in an advanced industrial society would be so-called "migrants" (a term I dislike because it seems more appropriate for animals like birds), along with subsidized entertainment and subsistence wages paid to natives, which are demanded to be paid for life. The job destruction caused by Artificial Intelligence may even accelerate this process. Without such "migrants," the economy would collapse. But with them, serious problems of coexistence could arise, leading to struggles and confrontations, dividing their populations and resulting in civil wars or serious uprisings and riots.

Religious, racial, and cultural differences could have a significant influence on this. France was the first country where the conflictive nature of mass Muslim immigration from its former colonies was observed. Religious customs derived from Islamic law clash head-on with those derived from the laws of its glorious republican tradition. Entire neighborhoods on the outskirts of cities, where a majority of the Muslim immigrant population is concentrated, escape these laws and any state police control. England has been following the same path in recent years due to mass immigration of Muslims from Pakistan, in addition to those from its former African colonies. Germany, besides the massive immigration of Muslims resulting from the Syrian war, has the previous and persistent immigration from Türkiye. The Islamist attacks that began in France (Bataclan) have spread to several German cities. The consequence, given the inaction of governments that follow the EU's radically globalist policies, has been the growing electoral rise of parties like the AfD, Le Pen's party, Farage's party, and others.

The same thing is happening in Spain, but to a lesser extent because most of the massive irregular immigration comes from South America, which shares the same culture as the mother country. Muslim immigration, mainly from Morocco, is much smaller. This stems from the different approach to civilization implemented by Spain in the Americas and the Philippines, converting their populations to Catholicism, compared to what the British, Dutch, and others did in Asia, where they practiced purely mercantile colonialism, tolerating ancient, and often barbaric, religious beliefs and superstitions. Spain, through a skillful policy of racial mixing and integration of native populations, paid a very high economic price, but made a cultural investment that we can appreciate today, as it has an immigrant population that should not pose serious integration problems. The USA shares with Spain the majority of its South American immigrants, as well as those from Mexico and the Caribbean. The potential conflict may stem from their different customs of Hispanic or Anglo-Saxon origin, which, nevertheless, are products of countries as Western as Spain and England. Therefore, it should not lead to clashes that are unacceptable to the majority of the American population.

Japan and Australia are considered part of Western civilization. Australia maintains fairly strict immigration control laws, although globalist policies remain highly influential there. Japan is overpopulated and has a rapidly aging population. They are looking to robotics, rather than immigrants, as it can reduce the need for manual labor and replace domestic help.

Finally, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, due to their high economic development, also require massive immigration. However, as absolute monarchies, they are able to refuse to integrate migrant workers from countries like India, returning them to their countries of origin without granting them political rights.

Manuel F. Lorenzo

Will nation-states disappear?

 

The crisis of the 1930s, which led to World War II and culminated in the Cold War, ended with the economic collapse of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Capitalism endured and could not be overcome as the Marxist socialist project intended. Some, like Fukuyama, believed that history would end with the definitive triumph of liberal democracies based on this economic system. But it only took a few decades to witness the emergence of a new development of capitalism, driven by a new industrial revolution supported by the internet, powerful new computers and smartphones, artificial intelligence, and so on, which generated the new ideology of globalization. Just as socialist ideology saw capitalism as an obstacle to progress that had to be destroyed and overcome, the new progressive ideology of globalization sees the nation-state as a brake and an obstacle to its development, which must be eliminated and replaced by other forms of political administration.

The destruction or overcoming of nation-states is sought through the creation of supranational groupings, as is the case with the European Union. But in the case of the USA or China, which are large continental nation-states, they could only be overcome by creating a Global State, as some propose, with a global government, police force, and courts. The problem is that a Global State would cease to be a state in the strict sense, if we consider that a state is not a separate entity that can exist without confronting an external environment of other states or pre-state societies that threaten its borders. A Global State could only exist if extraterrestrial beings appeared on our earthly horizon, threatening our existence, and against whom we Earthlings united in a single state. But such a hypothesis belongs to the realm of historical fiction. Therefore, such a Global State is utopian and, strictly speaking, impossible.

What would happen if the current nation-states were destroyed is that their inhabitants would remain organized into regional power blocs, due to the natural persistence of tribal ties observed, for example, in the so-called ethnic nationalities resurging in Europe as a result of the weakening of national sovereignties transferred to Brussels. But such “micro-nations” or “fractional states,” which would spring up like mushrooms in the so-called “Europe of the peoples” through secessionist processes, like those of the Corsicans, Basques, Catalans, Bretons, etc., are not truly states in the sense of the political nationalism that emerged from the French Revolution, but rather a kind of return to pre-state racial and cultural tribal structures. Therefore, rather than progress, what would occur here would be a historical regression.

The philosopher Herbert Spencer prophesied, back in the 19th century, that the triumph of socialism would be unstoppable, but that wherever it occurred, instead of creating a more advanced industrial society, it would lead to a resurgence of the militaristic societies that existed before the industrial age. This happened with the growing Soviet militarism of the Cold War. We could say today that the triumph of globalist ideologies, which seek to overcome the political structures of modern nation-states, where it is already taking place, will, rather than lead to a more progressive and advanced society, unleash a return to earlier tribal societies, or even to the city-states of ancient times, before the emergence of modern nation-states.

This is the direction taken by the massive irregular immigration promoted in recent decades by supranational governments, such as those of the European Union or the USA, based on the idea that all cultures are equal and can be tolerated and coexist in harmony. The traditional tolerance of Western democracy is invoked to justify this, forgetting that its very proponents, such as Spinoza (“These men usurp all authority, declare themselves immediately chosen by God, proclaim their decrees divine and those emanating from the government merely human, in order to subject them to divine decrees, that is, to their own decrees. Who is unaware of how contrary this excess is to the good of the State?”, Theological-Political Treatise, end of Chapter XX), or John Locke, already placed limits, for example, on religious tolerance when it could endanger the very laws of the democratic state. Religions like Islam, which does not accept the Western separation of Church and State, seem difficult to reconcile with modern Western states, generating veritable medieval ghettos, with neighborhoods where Sharia law prevails over Western laws and customs. Will the nation-state withstand such changes?

Manuel F. Lorenzo

The Crisis of the 1930s and the Current Crisis

 

To understand what is happening to us, it is advisable to look to history for similar situations that can help us orient ourselves toward what may come by comparing them with what occurred then. It is therefore not only a matter of seeing the similarities, but also of grasping the differences, because history, as Hegel maintained, advances in a spiral, and the functional parallels that can be observed must be adjusted to new parameters that mark the difference in historical level. The currently dominant trend in the media is the danger of a return, in Western countries, to an extreme right-wing totalitarianism similar to the fascist and Nazi totalitarianism of the 1930s. In this way, the left presents itself as the true defender of democracy against this perceived threat in new anti-system parties, such as Vox in Spain, which it demonizes as fascist.

But this can be done from a biased and false interpretation of history, which can be exposed with a deeper analysis of what happened in the 1930s. The contradiction that ignited political polarization was that of capitalism/socialism, whose political and ideological origins lie in the 19th century. The victorious Russian Revolution of 1917 provoked a confrontation between capitalism and communism that culminated in World War II and the division of the world into the so-called Cold War. Likewise, within the Western world, a division arose between liberalism and fascism in an attempt to halt the seemingly unstoppable advance of communism. In Italy and Germany, faced with the middle classes' panic over worker-led communism, the extreme reaction of the fascist and Nazi parties emerged, destroying their fragile liberal democracies and establishing right-wing totalitarian regimes as a reaction to the perceived threat of a dictatorship of the proletariat like the one established in Russia.

However, in England, then the world's leading power, and in the USA, both established liberal democracies, neither communism nor fascism gained much traction. Nevertheless, both countries were forced to abandon the dogmas of classical liberalism, which prohibited state intervention in the economy, by promoting Roosevelt's New Deal and Keynesian economics to win the war and overcome the Great Depression of 1929. Ultimately, after the defeat of Nazi Germany, the economic rivalry between the USA and the USSR was resolved with the collapse of the Soviet model of economic interventionism. The USA, with its state intervention, did not eliminate the market or private investment, which allowed it to create a welfare state, especially in Europe after the Marshall Plan, which integrated the working class into the system and prevented its predicted impoverishment.

The current crisis is very different in its origin, stemming from the technological globalization that has occurred in recent decades following the Cold War, and from the emergence of new globalist ideologies that aim not merely to destroy capitalism, but to make it completely global, for which the existence of borders established by nation-states is an obstacle. The contradiction now lies between Globalism and Nationalism. However, certain functional similarities are reappearing with this different parameter. The main one is the political polarization we are witnessing with the rise of new radical political forces with opposing views. The emergence of the movement to globally save the planet, along with the woke movement that advocates for the promotion of multicultural societies that allow for the equal coexistence of all cultures, is disrupting the traditional, standardized liberal democracies of the West. The introduction of “political correctness” stemming from such dogmas increasingly resembles a “dictatorship of minorities,” formerly persecuted or stigmatized, equivalent to what the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was during the Great Depression. This woke movement, which began in American universities, derived from Foucault’s post-structuralist French philosophy—just as Marxism derived from the so-called “Young Hegelians” of the University of Berlin—has taken hold in the USA through the Democratic Party led by Obama, and has spread throughout Europe, seriously transforming the original project of the European Union into one subordinated to globalist policies. The Republican Party under Trump has emerged as a counter-reaction.

In Spain, the traditional Socialist Party has mutated, starting with former President Zapatero and continuing with the current President Sánchez, becoming a globalist party and a proponent of woke ideology. The fundamental problem, we believe, lies in whether the destruction of nation-states is possible or desirable, just as communism believed it could destroy capitalism and replace it with a better system.

Manuel F. Lorenzo

Panorama futuro de los Estados nación

 

     El futuro de los actuales Estados nacionales parece tener un horizonte muy negro. Pero, cuidado, porque también parecía tenerlo el propio capitalismo durante la mayor parte del pasado siglo. La utilización del Globalismo de las minorías culturales y sexuales, radicalizando sin limites sus derechos, contribuye a dañar el reemplazo biológico generacional de las naciones occidentales, fomentando de forma propagandística el aborto masivo o la infecundidad de la mujer, destruyendo la estructura familiar tradicionalmente asentada en Occidente. Lo cual lleva a medio y corto plazo a un recambio de población por la fertilidad mucho mayor de las poblaciones emigrantes. Un serio problema para la conservación de la identidad cultural de los Estados nacionales occidentales.

 Pero el problema no se solucionaría cerrando drásticamente las fronteras nacionales a la emigración, para tratar de contener la avalancha de emigración desordenada que hoy están padeciendo USA y la EU. Tampoco fomentando la natalidad de la población nativa. Dichas medidas podrían ayudar en parte. Pero son medidas difíciles de aplicar de forma eficiente sin incurrir en formas dictatoriales o autoritarias, las cuales podrían poner en peligro la propia democracia liberal, llevándola al triunfo de incontrolables populismos reaccionarios, como ocurrió en los años 30 con el auge del nazismo.

 Los Estados-nación occidentales necesitan la emigración, como ocurrió en el Imperio romano cuando se alcanzó un nivel de vida que hacía poco atractivo al pópulo romano los trabajos más duros. Por ello se introdujo la esclavitud que proporcionaban sus conquistas, junto con la subvención económica y el entretenimiento cultural del “pan y circo”. Hoy el equivalente en una sociedad industrial avanzada serían los llamados “migrantes” (término que no me gusta porque parece más propio de animales como las aves), junto con los espectáculos subvencionados y las pagas a los nativos de un salario de subsistencia que se pide sea de por vida. La destrucción de empleos que causará la Inteligencia Artificial puede incluso acelerar tal proceso. Sin tales “migrantes” la economía colapsaría; pero con ellos podrían plantearse problemas serios de convivencia, que llevarían a luchas y enfrentamientos, dividiendo a sus poblaciones y conduciendo a guerras civiles o serios levantamientos y motines.

 En ello podrían tener una gran influencia las diferencias religiosas, raciales y culturales. Francia ha sido el país donde primero se ha observado el carácter conflictivo de una inmigración masiva musulmana procedente de sus excolonias. Las costumbres religiosas derivadas de las leyes islámicas chocan frontalmente con las derivadas de las leyes de su gloriosa tradición republicana. Barrios enteros de las circunvalaciones, donde se concentra una mayoría de población emigrante musulmana, escapan a dichas leyes y a todo control policial del Estado. Inglaterra está recorriendo en los últimos años el mismo camino por una inmigración masiva de musulmanes procedentes de Pakistán, además de los procedentes de sus antiguas colonias de África. Alemania, además de la masiva inmigración de población musulmana derivada de la guerra de Siria, tiene la anterior y persistente inmigración procedente de Turquía.  Los ataques islamistas que habían empezado en Francia (Bataclan) se han extendido a varias ciudades alemanas. La consecuencia, ante la inacción de los gobiernos seguidores de las políticas radicalmente globalistas de la UE han sido el ascenso electoral creciente de partidos como AfD, el lepenismo, Farage, etc.

 En España está pasando lo mismo, pero más atenuado porque la mayoría de la inmigración masiva irregular procede de Sudamérica, que comparte la misma cultura que la Madre Patria. La inmigración musulmana, procedente principalmente de Marruecos es mucho menor. Ello deriva del diferente modo de civilización llevado a cabo por España en América o Filipinas, convirtiendo a sus poblaciones al Catolicismo, que lo hecho por los ingleses, holandeses, etc., en la Asia donde practicaron un colonialismo puramente mercantil, tolerando sus antiguas, y muchas veces bárbaras, creencias y supersticiones religiosas. España, practicando una hábil política de mestizaje e integración de las poblaciones nativas, pagó un precio económico muy caro, pero hizo una inversión cultural que hoy podemos apreciar, pues tiene disponible una  población inmigrante que no debe plantear problemas serios de integración. El caso de USA tiene en común con España la mayoría de los emigrantes sudamericanos, además de Méjico y el Caribe. El conflicto puede derivar de sus diferentes costumbres de origen hispano o anglosajón que, sin embargo, son producto de países tan occidentales como España o Inglaterra. Por ello, no debería llevar a choques inasumibles por la mayoría de la población norteamericana.

 Japón y Australia se consideran integrados en la civilización occidental. Australia está siguiendo unas leyes de control de la emigración bastante estrictas, aunque las políticas globalistas siguen siendo allí muy influyentes. Japón está superpoblado y tiene una población muy envejecida. Buscan la solución, más que en los emigrantes, en la robótica que les pueda suministrar una disminución de la mano de obra y u sustituto de la asistencia domestica.

 Por último, Arabia Saudí y los Emiratos árabes, por su alto desarrollo económico, precisan también de una masiva emigración. Pero, al ser Monarquías absolutas, se permiten no integrar a lo emigrantes trabajadores que vienen, por ejemplo, de la India, retornándolos a sus países de origen sin otorgarles derechos políticos.

Manuel F. Lorenzo