ProbitPub

In response to Elon Musk’s criticism regarding the handling of grooming gangs in the UK, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivered a speech that seemed to attack every aspect of a make believe “far right” while shockingly ignoring the veracity of the actual claims. Instead of vociferously arguing that either the story was made up, or that it is being handled by his administration, Starmer instead decided to bizarrely attack Elon personally, while taking a page out of the Stalin’s and other communist leader’s playbooks, called “convenient nationalism.”

For decades, communists and far leftists around the world have preached the supposed values of both multiculturalism and globalism. Yet, when their power bases within those countries are threatened in any way, suddenly they revert to what we typically would classify as historically right wing nationalism. In his speech, and in the most recent days since, Starmer and his surrogates suddenly have a new-found appreciation for nationalism. When someone abroad says something they do not like or that threatens their power, suddenly global interconnectivity and trade becomes a bad thing. They have now erected strict informational and digital boundaries around their beloved Britain, while going so far as to advocate for physical boundaries and even abandoning their security partnership with the United States! Funny, isn’t it? The same people who claim to be “proponents” of globalism suddenly retreat to nationalistic talking points with strict boundaries around their respective countries when their power within those countries is threatened. So much for global interconnectivity. This can be called “convenient nationalism” — a nationalism that can only be invoked by globalists to guard their power bases within their countries when globalism no longer serves their interests.

This, of course, is not the first time leftists retreat to nationalism when it is convenient for them to do so. History is littered with such examples. Stalin’s policy of “socialism in one country” led directly to the murder and death of millions of Ukrainians and fellow Eastern Europeans, and was “justified” so long as the confiscation of resources benefited the Russian citizens, and by extension his standing as their leader. Mao Zedong, while advocating for global proletarian revolution, also used Chinese nationalism extensively, especially during the Sino-Japanese War and the Korean War. He promoted the idea of “New Democracy” which combined Marxist-Leninist ideology with Chinese cultural and national identity. Fidel Castro and his surrogates, both in Cuba and abroad, often spoke of Cuba’s desire for nationalistic pride, blending his supposed Marxist-Leninist rhetoric with Cuban nationalism. The nationalistic pride was okay to use here if it meant resisting “imperial America,” which really meant the Cuban opposition at home that he did not like, and which was ironically advocating for global free trade and not nationalization of industry.

Convenient nationalism is a tactic that has been used for decades by leftists when their power bases in their respective countries are threatened. They advocate for globalism and multiculturalism *but only if it suits their power interests.* And, when their socialist policies inevitably fail and cause widespread scarcity, or if their power is directly threatened, they immediately fall back to “nationalistic pride” and assuring that others outside of their little bubble don’t “meddle in their affairs.” Of course, Mr. Starmer was fine with sending his surrogates to the United States to actively campaign for Kamala Harris, in a blatant state-sponsored election interference attempt. But remember, it’s (D)ifferent if it’s a leftist. Suddenly, Labour and the far left are nationalistic when it comes to gatekeeping their power base, but want to actively export their inferior-in-every-way economic and social models to the rest of the world. And you should be ok with that if you know what’s good for you!