Why You Shouldn’t Be A Nationalist | Mia Mulder

Why You Shouldn’t Be A Nationalist | Mia Mulder


Donald Trump: “You know, they have a word”. “It sort of became old fashioned. It’s called: “A Nationalist”. And I say really
we’re not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, okay? I’m a nationalist” Mia Mulder: Nationalism. Nothing wrong with standing for your country,
right? Nothing wrong working to make your country
better? Great again? Not like those globalists, or imperialists. Donald Trump: “But radical democrats want
to turn back the clock and restore the power of corrupt, power-hungry globalists.You know
what a globalist is, right? You know what a globalist is. A globalist is a person that wants the globe
to do well; Frankly, not caring about our country so much. And you know, we can’t have that.” Mia Mulder: Being a nationalist just means
focusing on your own country, right? Focusing on making your own country better. Minding your own business. So what’s the deal with the title then? What does Donald Trump have to do with anything? Sure, Donald Trump calls himself a nationalist
but there’s nothing wrong with that. right?! Isn’t that what people want? For him to mind his own business and and make
america great again? Plant: “Eh-hrm, but Mia. Isn’t the term “Nationalist” far too vague
and outdated as a political label to accurately derive significant political meaning? Especially in the current political climate,
which has been built on the evolution of political discourse over the last 200 years? *cough-noises* That’s technically true. You can derive meaning from a word using two
different ways. Either by it’s “original” meaning or by the
meaning that most people usually associate with the word. That’s what words mean. If everyone believes a word to mean something
then that is what the word means. That’s what language is. When it comes to political labels, and nationalism
specifically, these definitions tend to be muddled. But you’ve read the title. You know what my opinion on nationalism is
before you even clicked on it. But before I go into why you should agree
with me or not, and you should because I’m always correct, I wanna give a short history
lesson, kind of; to show that the issue is not as black and white as you think it might
be. Maybe Donald Trump is actually doing a good
thing by calling himself a nationalist. You know, maybe? Although, like, let’s be… To understand modern political labels we need
to understand the thematic and literal origin of the term. The term nationalism gained popularity during
the world wars, but it’s ideological predecessor can be seen since long before that. Arguably, the first nationalist movement was
the American independence movement, leading to the independence of the United States as
a country. Not just because it established itself as
an independent colony but because it created a national identity. You weren’t a “british subject” or necessary
even British anymore. You were “American” which meant something. It meant something more than just being a
white guy with a heritage from England although to be fair that is what it meant practically
for a long while. But supposedly it *could* mean more thing
than that. Like eatin’ steak and lovin’ freedom! The creation of a national identity is key
to the understanding of nationalism. No-matter where the term is used, national
identity is still around. I mean, most of us still identify with a political
ideology trying to further the goals of a “nation” even if we might not agree about
what those goals are. A “nation” doesn’t have to be a state or a
country. I can often just refer to a group of people
who are united by the things that they share in common. And, again, it doesn’t have to have a state
associated with it. But historically and over the last 200 years,
nations with states have either assimilated or suppressed nations that don’t. And that “nation” can be many different american
colonies fighting to unify themselves as an independent state. Or, of course it can be any group of people
united by the shared oppression of an outside threat. And usually in these cases they form a national
identify that is in opposition to “Empire”. And it’s usually, one empire. And that’s important. Because nationalism doesn’t necessary base
itself on heritage or shared background, it can be created from scratch. Also, there’s “pan-nationalism” working to
unify a nation of people who aren’t united into a nation or a state. For example, Irish nationalism usually being
described as working toward unifying Ireland, containing then the northern part. In the modern day, Nationalism is a term usually
associated with the right wing. But historically this has not been the case. Many nationalists were in fact left-wing,
trying to create a unified workers state, for example. Usually something that can withstand the forces
of outside agression that is driven by the Bourgeoisie or some other thing. And these types of nationalism are also driven
in opposition to Empire. And again it’s usually *that* empire. Although, let’s be fair, the French had one
too. [as well as like, most european nations] So is Donald Trump doing a good thing here? Is he trying to unify a very devided America
on Ideology? Is he putting America first and Making America
Great Again? It’s back. What is that? It’s back… Why does that keep coming up? While you could drive a nationalist argument
on the basis of trying to create a unified socialist stat, the reality is more complicated;
and there’s a very specific type of nationalism called racial nationalism. In the west this is the type of nationalism
we refer to as “white” nationalism because that is the “race” of the people driving the
racial nationalist argument. This is the type of nationalism that can be
ascribed to people who want to create “ethnostates”, because they want to create a state, a nation,
for a very specific kind of people; That is, white people. But it’s important to note that this can be
applied to any people. It’s just that from our perspective and in
the western world it’s mostly been white people who do this. In these cases the “national idea” is not
necessary built on class or history or culture or language. It is based on ethnicity. Which, as the name implies, ties a persons
nationality directly to their ethnicity. This expresses itself in many different ways. The most extreme example of this that most
people have heard of is the Nüremberg Laws which directly stripped Jewish Germans from
being German. But it can also express itself in less direct
ways. Tying a persons right to vote to their ethnicity
for example. Because if you can’t partake in the nation
that you exist within then you’re not really belonging to national identity anymore. And if you have been excluded from “the nation”
in any way because of your ethnicity that means that the nation has to be, at least
in part, ethnically based. But what is Donald Trump then? Is he a racial nationalist? I mean he hasn’t gone out and said that Black
people can’t vote. In fact he says he *loves* Black people. Trump: Oh, look at my african american over
here. Look at him! Are you the greatest? Do you know what I’m talking about? Mia: All he did was call himself “nationalist”
which in itself can mean anything, right? I’ve already mentioned a couple of examples
of what nationalism can mean; everything from leftist nationalism, to pan-nationalism to
racial nationalism. But there are even more types of nationalism
than I can even mention here!. There is no way I’m going through all of that. So what’s wrong with just generic nationalism? Keeping the nations interests first. Isn’t that what all political ideologies these
days kind of want? I’m not seeing a lot of ideologies saying
that we should prioritize the interests of other people before ourselves. America First doesn’t seem to be that bad
of a political ideology for an *American* political party. And he didn’t say that non-white people aren’t
allowed to vote. so I don’t think he can be described as a
racial nationalist. Right? Maybe he’s even a left wing nationalist, I
mean who knows, really? He does like jobs! so- and that’s- The left
loves jobs, right? they love… jobs! Well, at least we know this. He’s not an imperialist right? I mean PragerU has told us that. The opposite of nationalism is imperialism. And he has described himself as a nationalist
which means that, at least you know, he’s not an imperialist, is he? Augh! There is an understanding among right wing
thought leaders that nationalism is something else than imperialism. And you can see why; if you focus on your
own country then you’re not as interested in trying to fuck with other countries. at least that’s the theory. By using some definitions of nationalism this
is technically true, it can even seem isolationsit to some. but once you look at what history is you realize
quickly that this makes absolutely no god damn sense what so ever. The problem arises when you excamine what
demands are made from the national identity. What is the nation according to the nationalist? Those are the specifics that we need to understand
and define. Once we know that, then we can start to get
into the business of other things but I’m gonna go into that in a couple of minutes. Which means that I have, eventually when we
talk about nationalism, I have to talk about the Germans. Oh this isn’t about the Nazis. Yet! The German Empire is a stellar example of
nationalism. The idea of a unified German state was popularized
in large part of an existing outside threat. The French in this case. In some way creating the German Empire was
a way to protect yourself from the concept of “Empire”. however once the unification was done central
Europe suddenly had a unified ball of angry industry. The national idea of unifying to survive
against outside aggression quickly faded and the new national identity emerged of a great
German Empire. But then the first world war ended and suddenly
there was many people who spoke German, who maybe identified as German who did not live
within the German nation. And then, in come the Nazis. Building their ideology on the nationalist
ideals of the past. Unifying all german nations under one, starting
with annexing austria, and then more german-speaking land. And then land for the Germans to settle. The national idea of “Germany” no longer alligned
with the actual De-Facto borders of the world. It didn’t align with reality. But that doesn’t matter to a nationalist. what matters to a nationalist “the ideal”. The theortetical nation that you *could* have. PragerU: Nationalism holds that borders are
crucial. The border is where each nations ambitions
should stop. Mia: What pragerU says here is technically
correct. It just happens that the “German nations”
didn’t fit within the borders of what the world considered to be the German Nation. The same argument still remained. A pan-german argument. Unifying all Germans under one nation. But this time it was used as a pre-lude to
war. To expansion. The trouble then becomes: Is Germany acting
on nationalist interests here, or are they imperialist? The modern right wing would say that they
are clearly imperialist, they are messing with the affairs of other nations. End of discussion. But I would say, in this example, there is
no real difference. The national idea can only be furthered by
imperialism. In the ideal world and in theory Nationalism
is perfect. every nationalist ideal would already align
with the world as it is. All peoples would be contented to belong to
the nation that they belong to and furthering the goals of that nation. There would be no need for imperialism. There would be no need to further nationalist
ideas using imperialism as the tool. But Praaaag fails to realize that history
exists! I mean I don’t have to talk about the nazis
to talk about why nationalist ideas are imperialist, you have that in America! Manifest Destiny, anyone? How about you manifest some f*cking literature
John O’Sullivan before I drag your corpse to Sant- Manifest destiny is a peak example of when
nationalist ideas are inherently imperialist. Manifest destiny is also specifically National
Mysticism. Manifest Destiny is the idea that America,
as a nation, was destined by god to strech from coast to coast. This was a nationalist ideal. This was the idea that America as a nation
personified belonged as a certain shape. It was an idea specifically in the interests
of the American nation and this was an idea that was shared by many people, not just some
specific big-wig in Washington or something. This was an idea that was shared by millions
of people. And it was seen as part of being American. It is also a narrative which has sustained
itself within the national consciousness. The entire idea of the frontline (Frontier)
settler, taming the American west is a result of manifest destiny. Yee-Haw It would be possible without the idea of Manifest
Destiny. Even the most American thing of all, the Cowboy,
wouldn’t really be as possible without as it is with out the nationalist ideal of manifest
destiny. Even the song “Sea to shining sea” is just
a song about how America could and should be. But if you consider just one other perspective
it’s clearly imperialist. The land that was used to sustain Manifest
Destiny didn’t just come out of nowhere. For the Mexicans living in the territory that
was claimed by the United States it was clearly an outside foreign force invading. For the native americans whose land would
be taken from them and given to white settlers it was clearly an imperialist move, by many
seen as a justification of genocide. So “nationalism” can have the term of being
a progressive unifying protective force. But, from another perspective, that protective
force can also be devastatingly imperialist. Without any context and from one perspective
alone the analogy holds up; Nationalism and imperialism are different things. But if you consider just, like, the perspective
of another person at all that falls apart. Theoretically different but when it comes down to brass tax, there’s no difference really. That’s partly because almost all modern political
ideologies are in some form based in nationalism. It’s hard for us to even grasp what a world
would look like without nationalism. Imagine geopolitical diplomacy without the
concept of a nation or a state. It’s mind-boggling because that is what the
world has been for a very long perod of time. Nationalism is in theory perfect. If you have one nation you want to focus on
making that nation better, right? Staying within your own borders, sure, I think
most people can agree to that. But what happens when the national ideal goes
beyond the de-facto borders that nations currently abide by. This is the case with both Manifest Destiny
in America and Lebensraum in Nazi Germany. And when it comes down to it there’s really
no way of knowing where Trump lies in all of this. So the term is even more complicated. It’s not even dedicatedly left wing/right
wing, we can’t even really distinguish it from imperialism, but sometimes we can. But we go back to the question, what does
this mean then? Is Donald Trump calling himself a nationalist
as opposing to imperialism? Is he saying it to say something about unfiying
as a nation? Is he saying it as a dog-whistle about racial
nationalism? We can’t identify the original meaning behind
the term simply because there are too many of them. The term “nationalist” is really too vague. And that’s really the issue isn’t it? But I know how we can solve it. Donald Trump go- Augh! From all of this chaos, where is the meaning? Where is the meaning in all of these terms,
behind all these different meanings behind words? These terms are hell! But if the term is so vague is nationalism
even an ideology at this point? Is anyone a nationalist? Am I a nationalist? Nationalism as an ideology isn’t really an
ideology, at least not in the way we view political ideologies today. Instead it’s more like a genre of ideology. A type. A format of ideology. “Nationalism” in its most basic form is about
identifying with other people with a shared history, language, culture, whatever. Whatever your nation is, your tribe. But what nationalism means in politics is
about aligning the resources and powers of a country or a state with the interests of
the nation, the interests of the people so to say. Today this is fairly obvious. This is how most modern countries operate
even if they define “working for the people” a bit differently. Nationalism grew in popularity in response
to monarchism which isn’t about aligning the resources of the country with the nation but
rather with the monarch. The “nation” isn’t what creates the state. The monarch is the state. Monarchism also says that the monarch knows
best. They are ordained by god after all. What this usually means is aligning the interests
and the goals of a nation with the interests of the specific monarch. And that usually means cake for the king and
nothing for the peasants. The Monarch knows best after all. Nationalism then says that we should be loyal
to the nation rather of the monarch. The nation itself becomes a sort of leader
to follow. You don’t fight for “the king”, you fight
for America! And what is a nation if not the people, rather
than the crown? This makes nationalism sound pretty democratic
actually. But remember: fighting for “the people” means
different things to different people. Hitler did fight for “the German People” after
all. Instead nationalism works for the sovereignty
of the people. And this is pretty much the case for every
single country on the globe today. Either because they themselves decided to
be a nation, a state or because they were forced into nationalism in response to colonialism
and imperialism. And this is pretty much the case for every
country around the world. Most people identify with the nation that
they currently exist within. But there are peoples who aren’t sovereign. There are still nations who fight for independence
or sovereignty whatever that means. But nations is the default way that people
align themselves in international politics these days. The idea of nationalism is so mainstream that
it’s hard to imagine a world without it. Nationalism then becomes a very vague and
complicated ideology to describe because almost all modern political ideologies kind of stem
from a specific offshoot of nationalism. Nationalism doesn’t fit in to the spectrum
of left-right politics, instead it *is* the spectrum. Even the most staunch royalist that wants
to f*ck the queen probably don’t actually want the queen to have absolute political
power. Although, maybe that is what it takes to fix
Brexit. [God Save The Queen starts playing] So Nationalism is still an ideology. It’s just that it hasn’t been very relevant
because it has been around, it has been the default state of politics for over a century. but people do describe themselves as nationalists
after all. But why? If nationalism is the default state of politics
and almost all political ideologies are nationalist to some degree why does Donald Trump, and
other right-wingers, call themselves nationalist? Why do many people defend Nationalism? Why is there a reason to do that? Well as I mentioned there are many types of
nationalism. But there’s this specific type of nationalism
that stands above the others where nationalism itself, the idea of the nation, is the ideology. Nationalism 2. Nationalism plus? Nationalism XL. Augh! The only practical reason that I can think
of, of why someone would describe themselves as a nationalist in the current political
climate where everything is nationalist to some degree is Ultra-nationalism. Ultra-nationalism describes an ideology that
is so nationalist that even within the generic state of nationalism everywhere, where we
all kind of accept that we should all have countries and nations and borders and stuff
like that , not everone agrees with that but that is how the world operates currently,
even then it stands out as being nationalist. This isn’t just putting America first or siding
with your nation, that’s just normal nationalism. Ultra-nationalism however promises absolute
loyalty to the nation at any cost. even at the expense of other nations, other
peoples or even it’s own people. It places “the Nation” as inherently superior
to all others. The nation is the best thing in the world. Ultra-nationalism also comes often with auhtoritatianism,
racism and xenophobia. “Those damn illegals, they aren’t American!” Since nationalism is pretty much fulfilled
in most places of the world, unless you’re fighting to rid yourself of imperial rule
– [Bagpipes blaring] – stating that you are a nationalist just adds to the normal nationalism
of the default which naturally places you within the realm of ultra-nationalism. And it’s not like you have to look very far
to see signs of ultra-nationalism within the right wing that I have just described. The reason they think they can get away with
it is because of what I spoke of in the beginning. Nationalism is a very vague term. Nationalism doesn’t actually mean that much
in itself in the current political climate unless you know the history of the term and
how it has been used. The right wing currently call themselves nationalist
to pre-emptivly undermine the description of them as Ultra-nationalist. “I’m just a nationalist, like we all are right? We’re all nationalists, it’s normal to be
a nationalist. You should be a nationalist! everyone should
be a nationalist. How do you do, fellow ideologies?” So it’s deliberate and they are aware of the
term. They know everything I’ve said in this video. People who describe themselves as nationalist,
they know what ultra-nationalism means. And they know they don’t want to be associated
with it. Trump: You know, they have a word. It sort of became old fashioned. It’s called a nationalist. And I say, really, we’re not supposed to use
that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist okay? I’m a nationalist. Mia: And I don’t think I can convince people
who are that far down the ultra-nationalist arguement. But if you’re on the fence on nationalism,
perhaps within American discourse; know what they mean by that. Make sure you know what they mean when they
say nationalism. Candace Owens: I agree, I actually have no
problems at all with the word “nationalism, I think that it gets- uh- the definition gets
poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don’t want. So when you think about whenever you say nationalism,
the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler, right, he was a national-socialist? But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany
great and have things run well, okay fine. The problem is that he had ambitions outside
of Germany. He wanted to globalize, he wanted everybody
to be German, everybody to be speaking German, everybody look a different way, that’s not
to me, that’s not nationalism. So I’m thinking about how we could go bad
down the line I don’t really have an issue with nationalism, I really don’t, I think
that it’s okay, it’s important to retain your country’s identity and to make sure that what’s
happening here which I think is incredibly worrisome in terms of the just, the decrease
in the birth rate that we’re seeing in the UK is what you kind of want to avoid. So I’m not, I don’t have anything problem,
I have no problems with nationalism. It’s globalism that I try to avoid. Mia: Technically it’s true that Hitler wasn’t
a nationalist in the sense that most nations and most politicans are nationalist. Hitler wasn’t a nationalist like any other. He was an ultra-nationalist. Which means that Hitler was a nationalist,
just he wasn’t like other nationalists. I think most people are nationalists, even
leftists. As I said before it’s basically the ideological
foundation of modern ideologies, at least from the 1800s and forward. It’s just that Hitler’s nationalism wasn’t
the defauly zeitgeisty nationalism that we see in other political ideologies. They went above and beyond that. Hence the word ultra, meaning more. More nationalism! Ultra-nationalism. Oh, and I wanna make clear here that I’m not
calling Donald Trump a nazi by saying this. I am saying that in a certain field of political
ideology Donald Trump and Hitler share a very wide ideological base. I do believe that they are both ultra-nationalists
and that they have that in common. But ultra-nationalism, like normal nationalism,
doesn’t fit neatly into the spectrum of left-right politics. It all depends on the national ideas and ideals
that the nation itself has. I’m still saying the nazis were right wing
extremists though, they were. They did a lot more than just be ultra-nationalists
after all. But it is technically possible for leftists
to be ultra-nationalists too. It all has to do with the national ideas that
you base the nationalism on, and what you base the inherent superiority of *your* nation
on. And that can be race, as with the nazis, but
it can techically also be class belonging, lack of class. Anything that you think makes a nation inherently
superior to other nations is something that can fall within the ultra-nationalist field
of ideology. God damn, I’ve talked so much about the nazis
now. I wanna talk about Donald Trump! I don’t wanna talk about the nazis all day,
this video was about Donald Trump. Isn’t he gonna Make America Great Ag- Listen, I know the term isn’t perfect. There is contradiction in how words and terms
are used within nationalism and that’s fine. Nationalism has been around for over 200 years,
weird things happen. That’s sort of the consequence of these terms
existing in the real world and not just in an academic, theoretical setting. We need to look at how the terms are actually
applied in real life. And we have seen historically how nationalism
has been used to fight imperialism, to fight oppression. But also we’ve seen how nationalism can be
used as an excuse for genocide and imperialist expansion. It’s a term that has been used by all sorts
of people for their own ends and it’s hard to describe the term as belonging to a specific
field of ideology. It’s a very generic term. Nationalism on it’s own can mean anything. But if you only identify as a nationalist
alone, without context you leave the viewer to connect the dots themselves. And that only leads one way. It leads to ultra-nationalism. You describe yourself as a nationalist, we
live in a world of nationalism, I can only assume to mean nationalism plus nationalism
then, which just means more nationalism hence ultra-nationalism. Or you can do what the American right wing
has done and ignore any contradiction or ignore the history of the word or ignore anything
it and just decide a new meaning of the word nationalism. If they could preface of contexualize their
own identification as nationalist to something that isn’t ultra-nationalist they would have
done that. But they can’t. They lie about history of the ideology and
how the ideology of nationalism has been applied in real life. It’s telling that they often refer to Hitler,
right? Saying he wasn’t a nationalist. And that’s an easy answer. It’s more easy to digest than the complicated
answer of: Hitler was a nationalist. But so are most people, most political parties. Almost all political parties around the world
are in some capacity nationalist. And most of us exist on the spectrum that
nationalism has provided. Which means that we need to know about the
spectrum. And also that there are alternatives beyond
it. We don’t have to be nationalist and the alternative
isn’t necesserly monarchism, or feudalism. It can be something else, it can be something
beyond that. Modern politics focuses a lot on economy and
social issues within the nation. But politics can be so much more than that,
ideology can be so much more than that. We can form our own desires beyond just economic
and social. If we want we can picture a world that is
fundamentally different from the one we have right now. In every single way down to how we have borders,
if we should have borders. And we can use political ideology and philosophy
to imagine a world that isn’t necessarily based on nations at all. And maybe that’s a better world. Maybe it’s a worse one. but we can’t have the discussion without knowing
that the possibility exists. Radical progressive change is possible but
only if we are aware of its possibility. After the world wars, nationalism took a step
back. We understood the horrors that nationalism
can bring and we realized that maybe focusing on the supermacy of a nation or even the existence
of the nation at all maybe isn’t the best way to focus our political energy. We had a massive change in how the world operates. The United Nations was founded and has lasted
far longer than any predecessor. The European Union and other economic unions
throughout the world have also been founded and have seen great success. These institutions aren’t perfect, obviously. There can even be an argument that they are
also in some way nationalist, but for a new age. European nationalism, for example. But at least they aren’t built on the inherent
superiority of individual nations. And I think that’s a good thing. In fact, it is a good thing! We have fewer wars now between states than
we have ever had in human history. And that’s a really, really good thing. It’s easy to be pessimistic when we see armed
conflicts or bad military interventions but at least we’re not mass producting invasions
every couple of years. And I think that’s a good thing. Donald Trump and other nationalist groups
seem to be wanting to take a step back from this. To retreat into borders and nations instead
of seeing that across the border there are people who look and sound just like us. They might not speak the same language, they
might not have the same skin color. But we’re all human. The result of this is usually negative, even
for the people who belong to the nation they are fighting to protect. Because they’re not really fighting for the
people. They’re fighting for the nation. Working to help ourselves not by co-operating
with other people but helping ourselves at the cost of others. But we can help each other! We don’t need borders, we don’t need isolation,
we don’t need these things. Working to help each other is a very good
thing. We can be more than a nationality, and I think
we should be. The alternative, I think, is worse. Putting the genie back into the bottle. It won’t work. The globe is becoming more interconnected
each and every day and it’s not really gonna slow down. At worst we are doomed to repeat the mistakes
of the past and that is a very bad thing. And that’s why I think we shouldn’t be nationalists. Not specifically ultra-nationalists, but nationalists
in general. We are more than belonging to a group of people,
we are all different kinds of people. And if we all leave nationalism behind us
and instead try to embrace that we all live together on this globe I think we can do good
things. Trump: But radical democrats want to turn
back the clock and restore the rule of corrupt, power-hungry globalists. You know what a globalist is right? You know what a globalist is. A globalist is a person who want the globe
to do well … [voice trails off] Thank you for watching that video. I want to give thanks to literally everyone
who has been watching this video and I would only ask that you can maybe leave a like,
a comment. If you like what I do I suggest that you subscribe
because I like to think I do good videos but that has still to be determined. I also want to thank Baphometrix for allowing
me to use some really, really great tracks as music for this video. You can find a link to their website in the
description. I also to thank Harry Bomberguy, more known
as Hbomb, hBomberguy for providing the voice of my plant for that very specific joke. Thank you so much Harry, it really means a
lot. I want to give a special thanks to all my
patrons especially Alice. Amelia Fletcher. Christopher Steinmuller. Dan Sinfield. Dirty computer. Eggs_box. Emil Rutowski. Emma (not) Goldman. Foxx Cant. Ibrahim Aldrige. Jørgen Danielsen. Katarzyna JJ. Linus2Punk0. Rosie. Ryan Kolak. Sinzdri. Wario van Pebbles. William Pietri. and Wrex. Thank you. Honestly, to everyone who supports my content
as a patron or subscriber or anything: I love you so much. Thank you so so so very much.

100 Comments on "Why You Shouldn’t Be A Nationalist | Mia Mulder"


  1. Hopefully this pro wrestling banter won't lead us all directly into the backwards realpolitik wrestling mania, that place where strongman fight over straw man arguments while we take part in a staged fight for entertainment.

    Coming next: the misuniverse bikini atoll pageant contest.

    Reply

  2. I'm a bit surprised you didn't mention the term at the root of it all – Tribalism. You described it fully, but didn't name it.

    Reply

  3. Loved the video and Harry is probably why I found it, but I would love if the comments were more discussion about the content and less Hbomb stanning.

    Reply

  4. fantastic video. politics is a lot of things and partly it's also the battle for the meaning of words, so this loose definition of nationalism is absolutely not by chance, but by design. also, loved your conclusion. perhaps starting to spread the idea of nations as administrative units (states) for the time being, insuring the free circulation of people and the promotion of culture, could be a good step forward towards an ideal state of internationalism. thanks for this video! brilliant, as usual!

    Reply

  5. Fantastic video, great examination of this topic! Transnational solidarity is more important than ever right now!

    Have you read Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities? Im guessing you may have from this video, certainly has some points in common but if not i think you'd really enjoy it, its a history of nationalism.

    Reply

  6. This is my favorite video of yours so far. Amazing! Great writing you're getting so much better each video

    Reply

  7. I'm so glad that you said that we shouldn't be nationalists at all. I kind of feel like there are elements in regular nationalism that make the jump to ultra-nationalism easy. The nation-based idea of democracy, human rights, etc. is centered around prioritizing the interests of certain people over others, and since nations don't exist in a vacuum, that is necessarily at the expense of the people of other nations. It's at best a competition with arbitrary rules about what's "fair game" in it, and all competitions are zero-sum games. A lot of the political decisions made by one nations have effects that go outside their borders, and if the rights and well-being of ALL people being affected isn't considered, it can be argued that it even defeats the spirit of democracy itself. Wasn't self-determination the whole point? having control over your political future? Did Iraqis get to vote on the US's decision to "intervene"? Do people in Iraq/Syria get a vote when Turkey decides to keep river waters from flowing into their land for political reasons? If not, even if we pretend that all these countries are democracies in the most perfect sense (whatever that is), democracy itself isn't being practiced, because not everyone is included.

    I think nations don't have rights because they aren't people. The only entities that have rights are people (and animals, maybe?). I mean this whole idea of imaginary rights for imaginary entities is very central to right wing bullshitting, "state rights" when it came to gay marriage, "nation rights", they even get angry when someone suggests that some ideas should be eradicated as if ideas have families and friends. Nations are just another one of those things that we pretend have rights but shouldn't. On the left especially, you see people siding with clearly dictatorial regimes like the ones in Iran, Syria, NK, etc. simply because they're the "underdog nations". They even ignore these countries' attempt at their own pocket imperialism. All nationalism is trash.

    Reply

  8. I really appreciated the framing of the perspective in reality, that nationalism is the default around the world even though it's not recognized as such.

    Reply

  9. I really love to learn about historic political conditions, so thank you for your content, really happy about every upload 🙂

    Reply

  10. Great video! Although I was a bit disappointed you didn't mention Russia as the most recent example of expansion motivated by "national" concerns.

    Reply

  11. I coined the term Global Nationalism (probably not the first one to do so) the sense of belonging not to a nation but to the planet, not a sense of duty to the nation but humanity as a whole, etc. you get the point. Would be nice if war between countries ended and all of humanity united for equity and all that.

    Reply

  12. i mean, even in trumps rhetoric nationalism means "getting better deals for america", taking jobs from china into the us, bassically making sure that as much of the planets resources as posible go to america at the cost of other nations, which i clearly imperialist

    Reply

  13. Youtube randomly recommended this to me and I could not be more pleased. Let's hope this means thousands more views for this video and more new subscribers (like me!) to this channel!

    Reply

  14. That was amazing with an inspiring ending! keep up your good work, it's truly appreciated 🙂

    Reply

  15. Wonderful Video! I do love seeing your take on the issue of nationalism as an idea. I however feel you don't really dive into the actual meat and bones of the ideology: Nations are really hard to figure out what they are, as no two examples have the same defining characteristics. At the basic concept, there's assumptions about a universality that doesn't really exist, that every citizen of a 'nation' because of sharing a similar culture/language/etc. needs the same thing. Whereas some of the things leftists seek (ie material needs being met) are universal as they are literally needs that all humans require for existence. One can survive being around people dissimilar from them by some metric, but there's only so long one can go without water or shelter. And though nations do exist, using them as the basis for a state excludes people living within those borders who may not be part of the 'nation' but have every right to be there as any other inhabitant, and serves to marginalize outliers within the state.

    Reply

  16. Amazing job, thank you! I don't know if you've seen it, but there is a small book by british historian Eli Kedourie called simply "Nationalism" (it's either a classic text that everyone has read or an obscure book no one has ever heard about, I'm from Russia and have no way to know) that, along with talking about philosophical history of nationalism, says a lot about its inherent contradiction with reality (that ethnic/linguistic and state borders don't match and, when they can be aligned at all, are aligned only by force) outside of Western Europe. It's written before (most of?) postolonial mayhem, before Yugoslavian Wars and easily predicts both in subtext, if not in text. I think it can deepen some of your arguments.

    There's also a much shorter and well read text by Yuval Noah Harari (https://worldin2019.economist.com/yuvalnoahhararionnationalism) that lays out nationalism's inability to work with global problems and is notable for the "friendly fortresses" meme that has a lot of potential in easily communicating the nonsensity of modern "global nationalism" that all those lovely identitarians claim to belong to:

    "Some nationalists hope the world will become a network of walled-but-friendly fortresses. Each national fortress will protect its unique identity and interests, but all the fortresses could nevertheless co-operate and trade peacefully. There will be no immigration, no multiculturalism, no global elites—but also no global war. The problem with this vision is that walled fortresses are seldom friendly. In the past, all attempts to divide the world into clear-cut nations have resulted in war. Without some universal values and global organisations, rival nations cannot agree on any common rules."

    "There are no friendly fortresses" is putting it a bit simply but very succinct.

    Once again, thanks for the video!

    Reply

  17. I think nationalism tends to present as left-leaning when the ethnic group in question is a minority or has rulers of a different ethnicity, but then the moment it holds a position of power, it needs to be strongly reined in or else a tool of liberation can become a tool of oppression.

    I think an example of what I'd say is an arguably leftist nationalist movement (that was, for bonus points, neither against the French or the British Empire) could be Slovene nationalism inside the Austro-Hungarian Empire (and Italy).

    Since Slovenes didn't really have a proper upper class, and at best had petite bourgeoisie, with the majority of Slovenes being lower or lower middle class (servants, farmers, or craftsmen) whose religious and linguistic freedom was repressed, the idea of a Slovene land was arguably an anti-imperialist and egalitarian one, seeking a state where Slovenes would not answer to an upper class at all. In addition, Slovene nationalism was also tied in with the rest of the South Slavic nationalist movements, which included several different ethnicities, which weren't united in religion, culture, or even used the same writing system. Which is pretty progressive even for today's standards.

    But then we went and got our own country, and suddenly skinheads started popping up. Like, wtf guys, it hasn't even been 10 minutes. Slovene nationalism is no longer about egalitarian values and freedom and drinking wine with friends (a surprisingly big part of early Slovene nationalism, resulting in our national anthem literally being a toast), nowadays it's mostly pointed against muslims, the Romani, and other local minorities. Funny how one day someone gets their own country in order to make sure no one will take away their rights or attempt to ethnically oppress them, and the next day they go "hey, why don't we erase all these Romani?"

    (Also – as a fun bonus, the lyrics to what would become our anthem were written in 1844, and started with the line (translated) "May all peoples thrive", but the official English translation from 1954 is "God's blessing on all nations", despite there being no mention of god in the original poem. HMMMM)

    Reply

  18. (OK sorry to spam so much but I've just had another thought and someone in the comments said they'd like to see more discussion and less Hbomb stanning) – I agree with your final statement. I think nationalism is soooo two thousand and late, and the future could be borderless or even stateless. BUT – is our no-nationalism attitude coming from a position of privilege?

    It's easy for me to say "um yeah I think nations shouldn't exist, they're reductive" – I'm a Slovene person in Slovenia. The land of the Slovenes. We've already "manifested our destiny". I'm not Scottish or Catalan, I don't have to fight for my own rights today (at least on the basis of my ethnicity).

    And I'm reminded of people who say black rights movements are racist because they fight for the advancement of black people, and thus further the divide between black people & white people, or people who say LGBTQ or feminist movements divide society rather than bring it together. "Why do we need all these labels???" "I don't care if you're gay or straight, I just see people." UGH. They're so annoying, and ultimately their stance supports those in power.

    Basically, what I'm asking is – are we basically the equivalent of white people who say "There's only one race. The human race."?

    How do we balance discouraging nationalism in those who live in countries where they are the majority, while supporting the fight against imperialism of those who do not?

    Reply

  19. Hey you stopped filming underwater and using a microphone covered in a sock! And the results are great, keep at it I'm loving your videos so far. 🙂 I'm always so happy to see someone else with a history degree succeeding. (Actually I'm always happy to see someone else with a history degree under any circumstances!)

    Reply

  20. I find the thought of a post-nationalism, if you will, to be very interesting especially given that we are currently struggling with issues that are larger than nations in their scope. In Finland parlamentary elections are approching and all the major political parties have agreed on the goal to restrict climate change. Despite this many commentators, often from the right-wing, reply to any suggested change in policy that any national measures are insufficient and in a way they are correct. The problem in its full extent cannot be solved by any single state, though I believe it has to tackled on all levels. These sort of solutions require some kind of larger ideological framework than nations competing with each other.

    Also, Skratta åt räkor is one of my favourite books, and I got a huge kick of noticing it in your bookcase.

    Reply

  21. Maybe you could try to treat your room a bit. Your speech is fairly hard to understand with all the reverberation and boominess going on.

    Reply

  22. Haven't watched the entire video, and am a right wing nationalist, but wow you're really pretty

    Reply

  23. N. Ireland guy here. My politics would be much inspired by John Hume Nationalism, but I haven't called myself that in years. On the occasions I am asked, I now would rather call myself a "Small "r" republican", that full phrase, exactly because of all the connotations you mention. A Republican in Ireland implies you are a supporter of Physical Force Republicanism, which I never have been – they killed people because of their religion and put bombs in pubs. During the Troubles I would never have used Republican to self-describe – I was a proud Irish Nationalist back then who wanted peace most of all. But I just can't say I am any more, because of the wider ideology.

    Reply

  24. I love my country, i would die for it, because it represents my people and all its sufering for its freedom . Loving your nations doesnt mean hate others. Those who dont respect their nation are spitting on their ancestors history. I love my nation, and i love when my nation goes and helps the rest of the world. It makes me proud of my nationality. There is nothing wrong with patriotism. I love my home why would i hate my neighboors home?

    Reply

  25. So, if there’s something I think makes a nation inherently superior, and I want that to expand, could I then be said to be a New Zealand ultra nationalist? (Even though I’m not a kiwi, I’m an Aussie).

    What makes NZ great- uh, jut check out how they responded as a country to the Christchurch terror attack. That’s pretty damn superior, imo. Inclusion, unity, coming together and supporting a minority community in their time of need.

    I’m being mostly facetious, but also- I really wish the world (my country particularly) were more like New Zealand. There’s an ongoing joke in Australia that we should declare war on NZ, then immediately surrender and just start calling ourselves the West Island (that joke started when Jacinda became PM). So I’m not the only one. We want a good leader who is also kind. And a country that can react like NZ. You don’t want to see Aussie comment threads (though to be fair, mostly in Murdoch media). They’re atrocious, full of racism and hate. It makes me ashamed of my country.

    Guess I’m no nationalist. Not an Aussie nationalist, at any rate.

    Reply

  26. This is pretty much the reason why “patriotism” replaced “nationalism” in the common discourse.
    Also because of the rise in “white nationalism” in the modern era… so the term became loaded.
    And rightly so.

    Reply

  27. Ok. I’m gonna say it.
    The opposite of nationalism is true anarchism. (And I mean that as a social structure, not in the common meaning of “chaos”.)

    Reply

  28. Holy shit. You're right. The only reason to deliberately say you're a "nationalist" in an already nationalistic world is to signal that you're an ultra-nationalist to each other, but to deny that they're ultra-nationalists to everyone else. Even if it's not a racial dogwhistle (it is, though), it's still an extremist dogwhistle which in our current structure will automatically lend itself to white nationalism.

    Reply

  29. It's very nice of you to share your platform to lesser known youtubers!
    I see very good things in the future for this Herman BomberPerson!

    (hail sobek)

    Reply

  30. Modern nationalism is a backlash to globalism. People, except the useful idiots, don't want to be ruled by centralised unelected bureaucrats who are in bed with corporations.

    Let's not forget collective ideologies in the USSR, N.Korea and China – i.e.communism are what caused huge suffering in the last century. A state creates a civic demos which binds the people together, the borderless world you dream off would require a large unaccountable centralised government. The larger the state the less say and influence the individual has – the EU is the perfect example of this.

    Reply

  31. Loving this video, as I'm strongly opposed to any nationalism.
    It's seem contradictory to my humanism (secular). You can't put some people more important than other; even tiny advantage becomes an issue if you multiply by number of people experiencing unfair treatment (seeing that done to your people makes microagressions constant to every person)

    I've seen somewhere good test for determining. Something like – you can save 40 people out of a larger group, and it's either all kids of different ethnicities or all (different ages) of your own ethnicity.
    Most* humanity first would decide for children.

    *I actually have a problem with ageism of this test, but that's a different can of ethic worms.

    Reply

  32. As a Patriot, i dont think im better than you. I dont think my nation is better than your. But i think my nations and its people deserves to be free and independent as well as you and your people deserv it. Can our nations trade and cooperate? Sure! And we should! But both nations should be free!

    Reply

  33. The incomplete captions are an issue here, because Deaf/HOH and other disabled folks need accurate captions to understand media. It seems like only every other sentence is fully captioned which is really confusing to me being HOH.

    Reply

  34. Oh man great use of historical context for explaining the roots of nationalism. I always use the Hapsburg Empire to show how it took root in modern political thinking, but your example is more straightforward! Love it!

    Reply

  35. The plant started talking and suddenly I realized just how tired I was XD Fuck nationalism

    Reply

  36. Ahem, it's Emil Rutkowski with a K! =P Pronounce it with Swedish pronounciation rules, that's what I do!

    Reply

  37. Thank you for adding some more depth to the term. Before this I was translating "nationalist" only to a white supremacist dog-whistle. I think you made some excellent points here about the call to ultra-nationalism as well.

    And can we get a better term than "western capitalism"? I agree that not wanting to be a part of it is perfectly reasonable, but I think if we had something more clinically descriptive like Free Market or neo liberal capitalism it would be more useful and less likely to intrinsically support "western civilization" trope.

    That said, this was the first of your vids I've seen and I'm looking forward to seeing more!

    Reply

  38. Måste bara säga att du så jävla inspirerande för mig som pre-transition transkvinna. Fortsätt med det du gör kamrat!

    Reply

  39. Finding your channel was a pleasant surprise! Your style is a lot more chill and relaxed compared to the other LeftTubers like Contrapoints or Hbomb, and that's kind of refreshing!

    A bit of constructive criticism though, your audio is very echo-y and hard to listen to without earphones. Maybe try getting a microphone with better quality? Or clear your room so the acoustics are better, idk.

    Keep doing your stuff! I'll love seeing you evolve and improve with time!

    Reply

  40. I am not sure wether I should dislike this video. because I disagree with it (at the end), or to like it because, I enjoyed it despite disagreeing.

    Reply

  41. I think you've now convinced me to anarchism, or at least some other ideology than nationalism. For real.

    Reply

  42. As I German I must say your description of us as an "Angry ball of Industry" is … pretty accurate actually XD

    Reply

  43. 24:34 Ollie Thorne?

    By the way, Scotland willingly joined the Union with England and Scottish soldiers were amongst the front line

    Reply

  44. Mia you fucking liberal SJW snowflake freak… there are ONLY 2 genders, and the penis goes into the vagina! – You should be beat down for being an absolute MORON!

    Reply

  45. Nationalism is not bad, ultranationalist is the way to get countries like nazi Germany, or Il Duce’s Italy. Nationalists are people that will defend their countries. Sometimes to the death. Sorts of nationalism, during wars especially become diverted into killing any people that oppressed your land once you got independence, such as the Croatian Ustashe. They killed thousands of Serbs because the Serbs controlled their territory and the wanted independence. That’s fascism. While most forms of nationalism, mean defending your country and wanting that country to own all of its rightful territories. In Northern Ireland, this happened a lot. But the USA is different, we don’t have any official claims on other countries, nor do we want to unite any Americans in territories of another nation. The nationalists in the USA, are centered around, like trump said, “Make America great again”. In conclusion, some nationalism, like fascism, can result badly, but most the time nationalism is stronger patriotism.

    Reply

  46. Anyone else actually genuinely kinda shook by the anthropomorphized German nationalism?

    Reply

  47. How come you don't have any videos on your country or Europe in general? I guess I mean less of an American focus.

    Reply

  48. What about nationalist Independence movements? In Quebec, we have some Nationalists who are social democrats or even socialists and Anti-Imperialists who want to favor immigration and helping/cooperating with first nations. How is this imperialist? It seems to me that the power structure is reversed here: The Empire is Canada (And previously the British) and the independence nationalist movement is anti-Imperialist.

    There are, of course, some more bigoted nationalists among the québécois, but to say that nationalism is always linked with Imperialism seems wrong. I would probably rephrase it as: Nationalism provides a favorable context in which imperialism can easily breed because of the emphasis on the "Nation" which will always be exclusionary to certain groups.

    Reply

  49. What is the plant meant to symbolize? I've seen it now in a couple of Mia's videos. Her holding it for example.

    Reply

  50. Nationalism doesn't erase one's Nation over others and respect each nation's right to have power over themselves.

    Reply

  51. Let me make a case for nationalism. First off – not all the world is America and you'd know that, you're Swedish right? Your country has been an ally of mine since the XVII century, and has fought against the same aggressor as we… Tried to.

    So let me introduce my case. Today is Ukraine's 28th Independence Day, and I want to explain why I think Ukraine (as well as other nations that only got to be their own country in the past several decades) needs nationalism in the sense of puttin our nation's interests first and foremost (Putin pun intended).

    As some of the Westerners may know, ever since the events of 2014 with annexation of Crimea and Russia's invasion of Donbass as well as the continued propaganda war to convert more people into thinking they should join the forces of former Soviet Union, we've been struggling to define our new identity separate from that of Russians or other ex-USSR countries. A European rebranding, if you will. The initial conflict that sparked separatism was precisely over the question of association with the EU – which is what most people wanted – and association with the Eastern block. The separatist side was not only consistently egged on in an informational war, but actively supplied with military tech by the invader and the troops they sent posing as 'rebels' (which really were Chechen soldiers, but that's for another day).

    As the conflict goes on and doesn't seem that ready to cease yet (just this morning, reports of seven new shootouts and two deaths on our side over the past 24h came in), and the tensions rise not just between ourselves and the neighbors but within the people, we're in an increasing need of something to unite around. If it's not the abstract nation state built around shared values, then it's going to leave a vacuum – and that vacuum will soon be filled with shit like ethnicity, race, religious beliefs etc. I personally wouldn't like that, however, I would also be against the continuation of a dispersed, disparate status quo. If it's going to be anything – it better be a secular, value-centered version of national identity, a healthy patriotism, rather than something that would give rise to more division. Something to combat our ever-persistent national inferiority complex, but that wouldn't at the same time alienate us from Europe and the rest of the world.

    As it stands right now, my nation is divided along the lines of language and nationality specifically in regards to our official language versus that of the aggressor, which is still widely spoken all around and nobody's ready to ditch it altogether. I wouldn't like that to continue as it only sows disparity and discord among us, when there's something else we could be centering our identity around. A shared history and culture, folklore, literature – and, first & foremost, a shared belief in freedom above all. That's what universally seems to be important to my people and it's a good basis to build national character around, besides – it's always been part of our character to strive for Independence and the right to define ourselves. After centuries, we finally achieved that and it's not been a full 30 year yet. But I believe in us and we will establish ourselves as a strong, competitive nation that one won't be ashamed of ever again. And I don't think that's a bad thing to aspire to.

    Reply

  52. My understanding of "nationalism" is when you put your nation first, by any means deemed necessary.

    Like refusing refugees because they would take American jobs and tax money. Or supporting a coup in another country because of all the cheap oil that we can get.

    Reply

  53. I most definitely do not want to be forced into staying withing the borders of some random country I happen to be born into.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *