Nationalism & Globalism

[Biggles]

Very apt and truthfully distilled to the essence.

The ultimate horror of globalism being an entire world governed top-down by one religion, one state, one authority. Kind of like Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.

Strange: I thought "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" was what the racist, nationalist leader of Germany said while he aggressively pursued a nationalist agenda seeking the subjugation of surrounding peoples, & that international cooperation by the remaining unsubjugated nations was required in order to defeat that racist, nationalist agenda & replace it with an era of global cooperation.

 

[Imari]

Strange: I thought "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" was what the racist, nationalist leader of Germany said while he aggressively pursued a nationalist agenda seeking the subjugation of surrounding peoples, & that international cooperation by the remaining unsubjugated nations was required in order to defeat that racist, nationalist agenda & replace it with an era of global cooperation.

You either die a hero or you live long enough to become the villain, I guess.

 

[SestoScudo]

Since Judaism, Christianity & Islam established themselves as the dominant religions in much of the world, monotheism has gone "hand in hand" with practically everything. What exactly is your point?

Nothing to be honest because Islam and Christianity it does not matter what your race or ethnic group is what matters is being a believer.

Hence why the unity of worshipping 1 God.

When it comes to a state or empire this worked too if you want to unite people. Just like how Christian Roman Emperors used Christianity to unite the people.

 

[baldgye]

I think you're just perceiving a difference in how information propagates in the modern age. Islamic fundamentalism has had it's impact on international politics for much longer than 25 years, you just didn't necessarily see it unless you were looking.

I would say that modern Islamic fundamentalism while not a new 'thing' stems from Saudi Arabia aggressively exporting it's Wahhabism around the middle east. It was able to do this from the vast wealth it gained from oil and protection by western nations.

 

[Rallywagon]

Between continued expansion and technology, stoic nationalism isn't even really possible without some form of dictatorship. The former would have to control the media, social media, really the whole internet. It would also have to control commerce and likely resource management. Pretty much a communist state right?
Otherwise it's already to easy to consume lifestyles and goods and content from all over the world. Our economies already too entwined.
But I dont really think that globalism needs to be spun into some sort of conspiratorial global empire nonsense. Countries can still be allowed their sovereignty, cultures do not need to be erased, nor identities lost.
Why does it have to go sinisterly beyond mutual global cooperation?

 

[SestoScudo]

I would say that modern Islamic fundamentalism while not a new 'thing' stems from Saudi Arabia aggressively exporting it's Wahhabism around the middle east. It was able to do this from the vast wealth it gained from oil and protection by western nations.

What led to the foundation of Wahabism thats right corruption in the Islamic World when it came to religion.

A lot of people felt corruption especially among higher ups was becoming rife that somebody feels the need to start a reformation.

Hence why I see wahabism a martin luther for the Islamic World.

 

[baldgye]

What led to the foundation of Wahabism thats right corruption in the Islamic World when it came to religion.

A lot of people felt corruption especially among higher ups was becoming rife that somebody feels the need to start a reformation.

Hence why I see wahabism a martin luther for the Islamic World.

You see one of the most extreme and intolerant forms of Islam to be akin to someone advocating for equal rights for black and white people?

 

[Famine]

You see one of the most extreme and intolerant forms of Islam to be akin to someone advocating for equal rights for black and white people?

That's Martin Luther King. Martin Luther was a monk who essentially (in a grossly simplified manner) founded Protestantism.

Which doesn't really work as an analogy either, but it is at least a religious schism.

 

[baldgye]

That's Martin Luther King. Martin Luther was a monk who essentially (in a grossly simplified manner) founded Protestantism.

Which doesn't really work as an analogy either, but it is at least a religious schism.

Ah ok, I was having difficulty reading the post anyway

 

[Danoff]

I finished the video, and let Bannon and Frum's comments sink in for a bit. Something really resonated with me that Frum said, which was that populism isn't about the people, it's about redefining who gets to be "the people" and who gets to be "everyone else". It's about defining who the "real people" are. And Bannon certainly made comments to that effect during his speeches, although he tried to avoid it. He couldn't help but effectively refer to trump supporters as "the people" and people who weren't trump supporters as "everyone else" (which is especially funny given that Trump didn't even win the popular vote).

Frum's point about Trump is pretty on the mark. He has done a lot of dividing of the populous into groups of people that are somewhat anointed by the republicans, and portions of people that don't belong here and aren't the "real America". It's a "No True Scotsman" fallacy of course, but it hit me in a way differently than Frum was going for.

The Republicans didn't start doing this with Trump, they've been doing it for some time. It has been morphing for a while, but it goes back pretty far. The thing is, the Democrats do it too. And what's worse, the Republicans and the Democrats agree on who the "real America" is. Who the "backbone" and "soul" of America is. Say it with me, the "Middle Class". And they have been dividing out every portion of the country that's not the "Middle Class" for pretty much my entire life.

Every time you hear a candidate say "Middle Class", first take a shot, then add the term "Warfare" on the end. Every time they say middle class, think middle class warfare. Because middle class is not a bad word, and class warfare is, but invoking the middle class is class warfare.

So why do the republicans and democrats have such reverence for the middle class, backbone, soul, heart, real America? And why are the poor/lazy/stupid masses and the rich/elite/greedy/evil masses not part of it? Why is it that the middle class is assumed to be honest, hard-working, pure, thoughtful, and good while the outliers are evil, soulless and wrong? Is it because there's something actually great about the people who are middle class that makes them different? No. It's one word, votes.

The democrats know they have the poor vote locked up. The republicans know they have the rich vote locked up. Sure a few stragglers cross lines, but for the most part they don't worry about those groups. The middle class is the battleground. Both parties know this, it's the equivalent of campaigning in Ohio and Pennsylvania instead of Texas and California. Why waste your time catering to non-swing-votes when you could even demonize those groups and they won't abandon you. No, you spend your time trying to win over the swing voters - the middle class.

As a result, you will see no end to the middle class rear-end-kissing bonanza in the future. Both parties agree, the middle class are the working heroes of the world, and the rest of the people are to be marginalized, ignored, and denigrated.

 

[Biggles]

I finished the video, and let Bannon and Frum's comments sink in for a bit. Something really resonated with me that Frum said, which was that populism isn't about the people, it's about redefining who gets to be "the people" and who gets to be "everyone else". It's about defining who the "real people" are. And Bannon certainly made comments to that effect during his speeches, although he tried to avoid it. He couldn't help but effectively refer to trump supporters as "the people" and people who weren't trump supporters as "everyone else" (which is especially funny given that Trump didn't even win the popular vote).

Frum's point about Trump is pretty on the mark. He has done a lot of dividing of the populous into groups of people that are somewhat anointed by the republicans, and portions of people that don't belong here and aren't the "real America". It's a "No True Scotsman" fallacy of course, but it hit me in a way differently than Frum was going for.

The Republicans didn't start doing this with Trump, they've been doing it for some time. It has been morphing for a while, but it goes back pretty far. The thing is, the Democrats do it too. And what's worse, the Republicans and the Democrats agree on who the "real America" is. Who the "backbone" and "soul" of America is. Say it with me, the "Middle Class". And they have been dividing out every portion of the country that's not the "Middle Class" for pretty much my entire life.

Every time you hear a candidate say "Middle Class", first take a shot, then add the term "Warfare" on the end. Every time they say middle class, think middle class warfare. Because middle class is not a bad word, and class warfare is, but invoking the middle class is class warfare.

So why do the republicans and democrats have such reverence for the middle class, backbone, soul, heart, real America? And why are the poor/lazy/stupid masses and the rich/elite/greedy/evil masses not part of it? Why is it that the middle class is assumed to be honest, hard-working, pure, thoughtful, and good while the outliers are evil, soulless and wrong? Is it because there's something actually great about the people who are middle class that makes them different? No. It's one word, votes.

The democrats know they have the poor vote locked up. The republicans know they have the rich vote locked up. Sure a few stragglers cross lines, but for the most part they don't worry about those groups. The middle class is the battleground. Both parties know this, it's the equivalent of campaigning in Ohio and Pennsylvania instead of Texas and California. Why waste your time catering to non-swing-votes when you could even demonize those groups and they won't abandon you. No, you spend your time trying to win over the swing voters - the middle class.

As a result, you will see no end to the middle class rear-end-kissing bonanza in the future. Both parties agree, the middle class are the working heroes of the world, and the rest of the people are to be marginalized, ignored, and denigrated.

Well, I agree ... & don't agree. Yes, US politics is a lot about "identity", & both parties use identity politics to consolidate electoral support. But, "middle class" is applied in the US in a way that is different from the way it is applied in Europe. Steel workers, auto assembly-line workers, semi-skilled factory workers - they are not "middle class" - they are "working class". In the decades following WWII, working class people in the US, particularly those in skilled, or semi-skilled trades & particularly those protected by powerful unions, enjoyed a good standard of living & the expectation that they & their children would be "upwardly mobile".

However, gradually, over the last 30 0r 40 years, technological advances in automation, in communications & in transportation have facilitated the move of more & more of the world's manufacturing base away from the US to "Third World" countries. US Industrial workers have been increasingly forced to compete in a global economy where there are people prepared to work harder, for a lot less pay. For the very rich - the "Capitalist class" this has been an opportunity to make MORE money. At the same time as this has happened globally, within the US "trickle down" economics & the reversal of a strongly progressive tax system has further shifted the balance of wealth away from the US working & middle classes to the rich.

The new digital economy has offered new possibilities for those with the education, initiative & luck to continue to prosper, but for those from traditional rural or industrial backgrounds it's been a struggle to keep up. It's those people, predominantly white, male, who form the backbone of Trump's base. A significant number of them, from states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania & Ohio, would have voted Democratic in the past. By switching their vote to Trump, they are the ones who effectively swung the 2016 election for Trump.

In the past, the Republican party has stood for a sense of optimism & confident self-belief: those who are self-reliant & work hard will get ahead. In the debate Frum represents this traditional Republican viewpoint. Trump turned this viewpoint on its head: he presented a bleak, almost dystopian view of America ... & presented HIMSELF as the only one with the vision to turn it around. The "identity" part of his message was using "free-loading" blacks, Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, the Chinese, Hollywood liberals, LGBT activists etc. as "the other" - people who were not "real Americans". Combined with an unappealing Democratic candidate who campaigned ineptly ... bingo ... Trump eked out a slim win.

From your perspective, Danoff, this looks like an unmitigated disaster to me. Trump has swallowed up & digested the libertarian impulses of the GOP & replaced it with a nationalist, protectionist, racist, traditionalist, religious, "anti-liberty" agenda (you'll definitely get to keep your guns though - if that's any consolation). Ultimately, I just don't believe most Americans ARE inclined that way & that the pendulum will swing back - that is, assuming that the Democrats come up with a strong candidate & that the inherently anti-democratic structure of the US electoral system doesn't carry too much weight.

 

[Imari]

I would say that modern Islamic fundamentalism while not a new 'thing' stems from Saudi Arabia aggressively exporting it's Wahhabism around the middle east. It was able to do this from the vast wealth it gained from oil and protection by western nations.

That's a decent size part of it yes, it's just that it's been going on since before 1993.

 

[Danoff]

Well, I agree ... & don't agree. Yes, US politics is a lot about "identity", & both parties use identity politics to consolidate electoral support. But, "middle class" is applied in the US in a way that is different from the way it is applied in Europe. Steel workers, auto assembly-line workers, semi-skilled factory workers - they are not "middle class" - they are "working class". In the decades following WWII, working class people in the US, particularly those in skilled, or semi-skilled trades & particularly those protected by powerful unions, enjoyed a good standard of living & the expectation that they & their children would be "upwardly mobile".

Those people are "middle class (warfare)" these days. Naturally the concept has been expanded, but nobody lumps "working class" in with "poor" anymore. The lowest class in the US is unskilled people and unemployed people these days. If you have a trade job, you're solidly middle class. Part of the political game of appealing to the middle class is to make it a pretty broad swath of the population. You really only want to marginalize the uh.. margins. So promoting the "working class" to the "middle class" and demoting doctors and engineers to the "middle class" helps make sure that when you're kissing the rear end of the anointed class, that you're kissing as many rear ends as possible.

However, gradually, over the last 30 0r 40 years, technological advances in automation, in communications & in transportation have facilitated the move of more & more of the world's manufacturing base away from the US to "Third World" countries. US Industrial workers have been increasingly forced to compete in a global economy where there are people prepared to work harder, for a lot less pay.

I have a hard time feeling bad for them, because if someone can compete with them in India or China, it seems arbitrary for me to want the American to get the job instead of the Chinese or Indian person. It is a good and natural progression for standard of living to increase across the globe. That can't happen without jobs being created in other nations. I'm happy that India and China and many other nations are doing well. The more our economies are entangled, the further we are from war.

To that end, it disturbs me when Trump tries or threatens to sever trade. Because when two countries exchange nothing in terms of goods and services, it's far more likely that they'll start exchanging bombs and bullets.

From your perspective, Danoff, this looks like an unmitigated disaster to me.

I'm used to it. If anything, it's making it more clear to folks that share some libertarian leanings that they can't hold their nose and vote republican. It has been strange to watch though. There are people who I thought were strong democrats or republican party line types who are throwing their hands up and embracing libertarianism, people I thought for sure would follow their party wherever it went. And then there are folks who I thought were die-hard libertarians who will apparently follow and defend someone like Trump. In terms of people I know, my track record for predicting their political affiliations is not that great.

 

[Biggles]

Those people are "middle class (warfare)" these days. Naturally the concept has been expanded, but nobody lumps "working class" in with "poor" anymore. The lowest class in the US is unskilled people and unemployed people these days. If you have a trade job, you're solidly middle class. Part of the political game of appealing to the middle class is to make it a pretty broad swath of the population. You really only want to marginalize the uh.. margins. So promoting the "working class" to the "middle class" and demoting doctors and engineers to the "middle class" helps make sure that when you're kissing the rear end of the anointed class, that you're kissing as many rear ends as possible.

I think you're wrong about this. I think the impetus to call practically everyone "middle class" originates in the sense of egalitarianism in US society. Class structure in the UK for instance, where I grew up, was infinitely more nuanced (although since Thatcher & "New Labour" the UK has become much less class-bound). Skilled workers in the US used to earn enough to enjoy a standard of living not far off that of some professionals, but those high paying blue collar jobs have definitely been eroded in the last few decades. You can see the consequences of that erosion in many cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Gary, Toledo as well as many smaller towns that used to have viable manufacturing industries & now don't.

The idea that politicians are kissing the rear end if the middle class is eroneous: they are kissing the asses of their rich donors ... what they do with the middle classes is called "lip service" - not the same thing.

I have a hard time feeling bad for them, because if someone can compete with them in India or China, it seems arbitrary for me to want the American to get the job instead of the Chinese or Indian person. It is a good and natural progression for standard of living to increase across the globe. That can't happen without jobs being created in other nations. I'm happy that India and China and many other nations are doing well. The more our economies are entangled, the further we are from war

You are unpatriotic Danoff:

synonyms
disruptive · troublemaking · inflammatory · insurgent · insurrectionary · insurrectionist · agitational · rabble-rousing · seditious · revolutionary · treasonous · treacherous · mutinous

I appreciate your lack of patriotism. Perhaps there should be a word to express indifference to patriotism, like the difference between "disinterested" and "uninterested."

On the subject of populism, I continue to believe that Trump really isn't that popular & that Americans collectively will kick him out. The undemocratic tendencies of the American political system make that more of an uphill battle than it really should be. I hope Trump gets turned out by the vote of the people rather than political/legal maneuvering.

 

[Danoff]

I think you're wrong about this. I think the impetus to call practically everyone "middle class" originates in the sense of egalitarianism in US society. Class structure in the UK for instance, where I grew up, was infinitely more nuanced (although since Thatcher & "New Labour" the UK has become much less class-bound). Skilled workers in the US used to earn enough to enjoy a standard of living not far off that of some professionals, but those high paying blue collar jobs have definitely been eroded in the last few decades. You can see the consequences of that erosion in many cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Gary, Toledo as well as many smaller towns that used to have viable manufacturing industries & now don't.

The idea that politicians are kissing the rear end if the middle class is eroneous: they are kissing the asses of their rich donors ... what they do with the middle classes is called "lip service" - not the same thing.

I'm not sure I see the difference between ass kissing and lip service. I think it's true that some blue collar jobs have been eroded. But some of them have not. In my area in particular construction is off the charts (and not just my area). You can't get people to come give you an estimate on a small remodel because they're too inundated with work. Landscaping is that heavily in demand in my area as well (although I'd put that below blue collar). Oil and Gas is enormous around here, the shale oil boom is legit. So yea, some American car companies (not named Tesla) have been crap in recent years, but that's not to say that blue collar jobs are gone or moved over seas. We still need plumbers, badly. When I needed a plumber to do an inspection it was pulling teeth to get one to come out. The answer I kept getting was that if it's not a big job they're too busy. Welding is also in massive demand.

Everything is aimed at the middle class warfare. Just about every tax carve-out, deduction, benefit, etc. phases out as soon as you start to exit the middle class warfare (in terms of income, which is a horrible measure). Going in to anything the government does is something along the lines of "this will strengthen the middle class" warfare, and after it's done the question is always "did it help the middle class" warfare. If bailouts go to wall street instead of main street, it's a loser politically.

Swing votes are all that matters, and they primarily exist in the middle class warfare.


(Income bias in voting: 1, 2. Blue collar jobs: 1)

 

[Biggles]

I'm not sure I see the difference between ass kissing and lip service. I think it's true that some blue collar jobs have been eroded. But some of them have not. In my area in particular construction is off the charts (and not just my area). You can't get people to come give you an estimate on a small remodel because they're too inundated with work. Landscaping is that heavily in demand in my area as well (although I'd put that below blue collar). Oil and Gas is enormous around here, the shale oil boom is legit. So yea, some American car companies (not named Tesla) have been crap in recent years, but that's not to say that blue collar jobs are gone or moved over seas. We still need plumbers, badly. When I needed a plumber to do an inspection it was pulling teeth to get one to come out. The answer I kept getting was that if it's not a big job they're too busy. Welding is also in massive demand.

Everything is aimed at the middle class warfare. Just about every tax carve-out, deduction, benefit, etc. phases out as soon as you start to exit the middle class warfare (in terms of income, which is a horrible measure). Going in to anything the government does is something along the lines of "this will strengthen the middle class" warfare, and after it's done the question is always "did it help the middle class" warfare. If bailouts go to wall street instead of main street, it's a loser politically.

Swing votes are all that matters, and they primarily exist in the middle class warfare.


(Income bias in voting: 1, 2. Blue collar jobs: 1)

Skilled "service trades", like plumbing - any construction job - are a good place to be. This is because they cannot be "outsourced". Also, any area that is seeing strong growth due to tech or service sector jobs being created (like parts of Colorado) are doing well. If you live in an area that is economically depressed because of the collapse of manufacturing jobs in, like Detroit, it's presumably hard to do well in the construction trades because the population is contracting rather than expanding. The classic example in my area is the opposite fortunes of Buffalo & Toronto. In the late 1920's Buffalo had 573,000 inhabitants. The population is now 258,000. The population of Toronto in the 1920s was about the same as Buffalo's , it is now 2,730,000.

Ultimately, I agree, more or less, with your view: trying to keep manufacturing jobs in the US by applying protectionist measures is a lost cause. High tariffs have a knock-on effect for everybody, reducing global productivity & increasing prices. The jobs created will be fundamentally insecure & it's unlikely that the workers employed will receive high wages, as they did in the '50's & 60's when the US led the world in industrial productivity & innovation. Protectionism will allow some US business to make higher profits, but at the cost of jobs in other sectors of the economy & higher prices for the general consumer ... not to mention the negative effects outside the US.

Where I don't agree is in the difference between "lip service" & "ass kissing" The US electorate, like most electorates, can be fairly easily led to vote against their own economic self-interests. Look at who benefited most from the recent tax cuts in the US. What Trump is doing is classic deflection: stoking fears about the "caravan", "Mexican rapists", "evil Iran" & "radical Islamic terrorism". The GOP are going along with it because he is delivering big tax cuts for the very wealthy & big corporations. Those are the asses being pampered.

BTW: just looking at those Pew statistics. There's a lot to take in, but what is immediately striking is the VERY heavily weighted figures based on religious affiliation.

 

[Danoff]

Where I don't agree is in the difference between "lip service" & "ass kissing" The US electorate, like most electorates, can be fairly easily led to vote against their own economic self-interests. Look at who benefited most from the recent tax cuts in the US. What Trump is doing is classic deflection: stoking fears about the "caravan", "Mexican rapists", "evil Iran" & "radical Islamic terrorism". The GOP are going along with it because he is delivering big tax cuts for the very wealthy & big corporations. Those are the asses being pampered.

Uh... not so fast on that one. The last round of tax cuts, when it came to individual income taxes, was pretty well focused on the middle. The people who got hit hardest by those tax cuts were rich people in blue states. In particular, SALT deductions going away was a big deal for people with big mortgages and property tax. Folks that owned 7-figure properties in places like CA and NY got hammered by that one. At the bottom end, the standard deduction went way up, catching a ton more people than it used to. That not only reduced their tax burden, it reduced their tax preparation costs. That's without even really looking at the tax brackets.

For corporate income taxes, the idea was to encourage companies to keep money within the US instead of moving overseas in search of lower corporate tax rates. I don't know how well that has panned out to be honest, but unemployment is not the hot topic of the day.

The only reason corporations get lower taxes is to provide jobs to the middle class. The way tax cuts get passed is if they at least benefit the middle class. The only way tax hikes get passed is if they don't hit the middle class and focus on soaking the rich.

Trump managed a crazy sly maneuver by focusing his increased tax burden on the "liberal elite" (ie: not the middle class, but also not republicans) by removing their SALT deductions and penalizing liberal states with high income and property tax rates.

 

[mustafur]

That's a decent size part of it yes, it's just that it's been going on since before 1993.

They have been spreading that to western countries as well.

Refer to my countless mentions of the Saudi Royal family being a cancer on the world.

 

[FoRiZon]

They have been spreading that to western countries as well.

Refer to my countless mentions of the Saudi Royal family being a cancer on the world.

I can confirm that.

From Khassogi to Yemen. Oh and their Wahabbism ideoligy that turned people into raging, ignorant arseholes. And they very arrogantly protects their kingdom recently.

The world would be a far better place without them.

 

[Dotini]

Yesterday Trump made a very stern and strict demand to members of the UN to turn away from globalization, and return to nationalism.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned global leaders Tuesday of the looming risk of the world splitting in two, with the United States and China creating rival internets, currency, trade, financial rules “and their own zero sum geopolitical and military strategies.”

Full Coverage: United Nations General Assembly
In his annual “state of the world address” to the General Assembly’s gathering of heads of state and government, Guterres said the risk “may not yet be large, but it is real.”

“We must do everything possible to avert the great fracture and maintain a universal system, a universal economy with universal respect for international law; a multipolar world with strong multilateral institutions,” he told presidents, prime ministers, monarchs and ministers from the U.N.’s 193 member states.

Guterres painted a grim picture of a deeply divided and anxious planet facing a climate crisis, “the alarming possibility of armed conflict in the Gulf,” spreading terrorism, rising populism and “exploding” inequality.

His speech was followed by the traditional first speaker — Brazil, represented by its new president, Jair Bolsonaro — and the United States, represented by President Donald Trump.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is scheduled to speak later, said he was returning to London immediately afterward, where he will face the fallout of a court ruling against his decision to shut down Parliament over the is debating the U.K. in the crucial countdown to the country’s withdrawal from the European Union.

The United Nations, designed to promote a multilateral world, has struggled in the face of increasing unilateralism by the U.S. and other nations that favor going it alone.

Trump stressed in his speech that “love of our nations makes the world better for all nations.”

“The future does not belong to globalists,” he said. “The future belongs to patriots.”

Not so, said France’s President Emmanuel Macron, who disagreed with the American president and said the world’s problems cannot be solved by turning inwards.

True patriotism, Macron said , “combines a love of one’s nation” with a multilateralism “based on real cooperation that strives to produce concrete results.”

Said Guterres: “We are living in a world of disquiet.”

https://apnews.com/ef7a57b2a31b42efbb81acbdbbe6910f

 

[SestoScudo]

I can confirm that.

From Khassogi to Yemen. Oh and their Wahabbism ideoligy that turned people into raging, ignorant arseholes. And they very arrogantly protects their kingdom recently.

The world would be a far better place without them.

Sorry for replying late unfortunately Wahabism grew due to oil money and the cold war.

Wahabism was mainly confined to Najd region of the Arabian Peninsula.

Unfortuntely you cant fight a ideology the Ottomans fought the Wahabis and destroyed their state. This did not make the ideology collapse itself because the Ottoman Empire was retreating which created a power vacuum. Saudis were basically bidding their time while at the same time absorbing its neighbours to become what it is today.

Arabian Peninsula was home to many kingdoms, tribes and clans like the Hashemites, Qatar, Oman and Jabal Al Shammar.

Quite an interesting piece of history of how the Saudis fought everybody to unify to become the country it is today.

In ww1, Hejaz was the ally of Britain until the Saudis tookover and kicked out Sharif Hussein. Instead of Britain backing Hejaz like in ww1 basically said screw it and open up relations with Ibn Saud the founder of Saudi Arabia.

 

[Biggles]

Yesterday Trump made a very stern and strict demand to members of the UN to turn away from globalization, and return to nationalism.

“The future does not belong to globalists,” he said. “The future belongs to patriots.”

To be honest: I don't even know what this means? Does it mean anything?

The beauty of globalism:

 

[TexRex]

Quick, everyone gasp audibly like this is a surprise.

Is it weird that nationalists, for all their talk about borders, don't recognize borders themselves? That those who advocate for nationalist policy at home just as readily advocate for nationalist policy elsewhere? It seems like it should be weird.