In my last writing, I reflected on the topic of nativism and justified it as both natural and reasonable, as it differs from racism. In exposing the contradictions and absurdity of universalism, a set of principles invented and espoused by monotheism and atheism, and in supporting the native distinctions of all ethnic cultures, I hinted at the necessity of curtailing the ambition and uniformity of modern thinking and transforming those into the self-sufficiency and plurality that our ancestors enjoyed and rose by. There are many means by which such thinking can be described and justified, but none is so succinct and comprehensive as the examination of all things in relation to geographical place and political systems that arise in them. After all, it is the nature and extent of the land which determines the habits and needs of a people to survive hardships and advance; all mythologies concur that the Earth, with all her natural endowments, was among the first creations, and the first, in her various habitations, to host man.
Localism, Regionalism, Nationalism and Globalism are not merely theoretical notions or modes of communication that differ in scope; they are rather complete systems that determine, in a thousand ways, the nature and extent of politics, economy, culture, learning, warfare, living, and all things related to human society. It is obvious that the tendency of the world has been towards what is large, ambitious and profitable. Although one might think that nationalism and globalism are new systems, an examination of history will prove otherwise. The first nation was founded in Egypt in the year 3100 BCE, and globalism is very often synonymous with the universalism I have exposed before, which monotheism has long supported. Furthermore, the first empire, that is, the first political entity formed by conquering foreign peoples, was established by Sargon of Akkad in Mesopotamia about the year 2400 BCE, and empires have existed, either by name or in effect, with hardly any intermission, ever since (we can, in effect, see the empire of America nowadays). Many scholars have taken notice of the concurrence between larger political entities and larger (or universal) systems of belief that grow within them; as with Abraham appearing sometime after Sargon, the Greek philosophers appearing after Cyrus of Persia and later Alexander of Macedon, and Jesus (among others) appearing after the Roman Empire. But if the history of universalism and empire are so ancient and well-established, how can any sensible person think of curtailing them? This is certainly not so difficult to answer, as to put into practice.
It has been said that invention is the child of necessity. The present state of the world is such that there is excessive plenty without necessity, which leads to various sorts of moral corruption, represented under the universal forces of monotheism and atheism. The empty ambition, embellished as human progress (whether through religion or irreligion), has driven ethnic cultures to extinction and the world to horrible wars. The two destructive forces of monotheism and atheism, always from a common source of universalism, have now declared themselves as open enemies to each other to gain the supremacy of the world. Meantime, the peoples of the world shake and reel amid the daily contest, and daily flock to join sides, because of conversions and fears of being crashed between the two powers. Add to this struggle, the internal wars within the differing species of monotheism that are also ruining the world’s nature, peoples and cultures. As members of mankind, we often reflect “When will this end and how will it end? Will we witness a complete destruction, or some sort of new beginning?”. As polytheists, on the other hand, we can’t help but wonder at our direction and purpose in a world so entangled in its competitions rather than connected by its humanity.
The truth is, universalism has failed mankind once again. The dreams of universalists (whether religious or irreligious) to rectify the world, perpetuate peace, and advance man to a heavenly position as one race on earth have all proven too fanciful in theory and baneful in practice. Because they deny history by “looking forward”, and dismiss the experience of their ancestors as inferior, they are bound to stray from reality and common sense. Have these universalists truly accomplished something great that can be sustained in the world, by inventing technology, multiplying nations, increasing populations and promoting universal commerce? A modest share of historical knowledge and honest foresight will find greater danger than good in these so-called accomplishments. What has become of the distinction of cultures, the freedom of religions, the modesty of people, the strength of families, the purity of nature, the quality of social dealings, and many other blessings that raised our ancestors to greatness and earned them esteem? What does it matter if a new planet was discovered distant from the Earth, or a new machine was invented to quicken production, when people cannot take care of their own Earth, and preserve such worthy things that truly make them people? The more excess we acquire nowadays in material possessions and easy comforts, the more excess we will incur in material troubles and difficult complications for nature, people and culture.
Since globalism, in both theory and practice, is total madness, it won’t be difficult to object to nationalism, as a lesser form of the same notion. People don’t exist naturally within nations, and hence such political entities are usually established by an ambitious ruler who conquers neighboring tribes and cities that share a common ethnic lineage. The consequence of such conquest is the supremacy of a few over millions, and the promotion of one local culture (the capital city) over all the rest, a situation that breeds conflict, injustice and a decay of original cultures and dialects. And because of these internal troubles, the only means by which a ruler can quiet the people and unite them quickly, is by finding an outer enemy to fight against. We see this trick over and over throughout history, from Alexander’s conquest of the city-states of Greece to invade Persia, to Hitler’s policies in Germany to wage war on his neighbors. Now, it is this very trick, as history shows, which leads subsequently to empire; and then when several empires exist in competition, the natural consequence is some sort of globalism. The conflict we witness today between nationalists and globalists is thus superficial and rather ridiculous, since they are both advocating different degrees of the same thing.
Localism and regionalism, on the other hand, reduce political entities to a natural and reasonable scope that gives dignity and opportunity to its inhabitants. It is by this means that people can truly live well, enjoying freedoms with their distinct practices and preserving their original culture without wild competition. It is a model of society that is binds man to his land, encouraging agriculture and civilized pursuits rather than conquest and empire; it allows man to evolve his thinking and living at a safe and reasonable pace, rather than revolt against reality to advance his condition quickly. As example is better than precept, we need look no further than a comparison between city-states and the empires that ended them, after which modern examples will be given. Which deserves more praise for its accomplishment and worth, the city-states of Sumeria, or the empire of Sargon; the city-state of Athens, or the empire of Alexander; the distinct cultures of Europe, or the Roman hegemony? Which modern states are more prosperous and satisfied in their independence and freedoms, the smaller ones, like Switzerland, Monaco, Malaysia, and Taiwan, or the bigger ones, like America, China, Russia, and India? Since polytheism developed within distinct tribes and city-states, the answer should be both easy and significant.