June 15, 2024 6:30 AM
141 CommentsListen
To fightglobalism, we need more sovereignty — strong nations. Nations that are greatagain.
All Our Opinion in Your Inbox
NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon.No charge.
SUBSCRIBE
National leadersneed to be far enough away that they can’t stick their snouts in your business,but close enough that we can give them a good ass-kicking. All the globalistpretensions from a world government presuppose the idea that they would do itbetter. Governing is like driving. We always think we drive better than the guynext to us. And they think that, being rich or powerful, they know better howto decide — from Washington, from Geneva, or from Brussels — what a farmer fromIllinois, a car mechanic from Berlin, or a cattle farmer from Almeria needs andwants for his life. Why? For the same reason you think you drive better thaneveryone else — because everyone else is an idiot.
Whatunites Biden, Soros, von der Leyen, Guterres, Gates, and Schwab is not a globalplan for world domination. Even they know that they would be incapable ofagreeing long enough to steer us anywhere. What really unites them is somethingmuch more human — they think we are idiots. They think they are not, becausethey have achieved fame, political power in their fields, or wealth in aglobalized world.
Inevery social-democratic, communist, or socialist initiative, there exists thesame underlying issue: They believe that they can decide better than we can aboutour children, our money, or our health. Why? Because we are idiots. They thinkthey can best decide how to take care of our closest ecosystems.
Why?Because we are idiots.
Theythink they can take better care of our animals. Why? Because we are idiots.
Theythink they can take better care of our lungs, our heart, and our sex life.
Why?Because we are idiots.
Theythink they can handle dealing with our wives, girlfriends, and mothers better.Why? Because we are idiots.
Theythink they can manage our properties much better than we can manage our own.Why? Because we are idiots.
Maowas not thinking of making a better place for the Chinese. He was thinking ofmaking something better for himself, but above all he thought he would decidebetter than his millions of subjects and hostages. Why? Because they wereidiots. Stalin also did not want to make the Soviet Union great for theprosperity of the underprivileged and all that. He simply wanted to snatch thecontrol of their own destinies out of the hands of his fellow Russians. Why?Because they were idiots.
EvenObama, who appeared believing he was part of some kind of democratic epiphany,as if he had become the colored messiah to end all racism, discrimination, andinequalities, could not help but think exactly the same thing. And what was it?That we are idiots.
They’renot all wrong. I am quite an idiot. I mean, I would be incapable of directingthe destiny of my nation when I can barely manage my own life. If I were luckyenough to become president of the United States, I would make beer free,dissolve all government agencies, ban broccoli from supermarkets, replace bikelanes with racetracks for motorcycles, and overhaul the White House to make ita kitsch palace, something like Caesar’s residence with all the moderntechnology of a contemporary Saudi prince. But I at least confess it, I admitit and I know it. I could never be a politician — or rather, I could never riskwinning an election. It’s true, because I am good at politics: I am acolumnist, which is to say, I am an expert at insulting. What is terrible forme is getting off my ass and acting.
Forall these reasons, the conservative solution entails understanding thatpolitics must be vocational and that it must carry with it a vocation forpublic service. Leaders should be close to the people they govern. United andstrong nations must decide, democratically, their own destinies, and states andregions, at another scale, must also have their share of autonomy. No one atthe United Nations or the World Health Organization should have the power toreach down to national levels and impose green policies, or health measures, orpush for — as has already been proposed so many times — a world government ofthe internet.
Thefurther away political decisions are taken from the place where they areimplemented, the closer we come to the totalitarian abyss.
Nationalsovereignty gives people their freedom to decide who they want to representthem, and what kind of policies they want to govern their lives. Nationalsovereignty respects the total freedom of the individual, met only with oneessential rule: Bear the consequences of your actions. National sovereignty istherefore a symptom of the maturity of a country — of a democracy.
Butrespecting national sovereignty is much more than assuming that it is thepeople who have the right to decide what they want to do. It is, above all,understanding that a nation is a unit, a struggle for a common cause, afeeling, a belonging, and a tradition forged through generations andgenerations. That is why a nation is a flag and what it represents. It is itseconomy and the feeling of gratitude to those who preceded us on the road toprosperity. And it is its history, with its lights and shadows, from which wewill always learn.
(Atthis point it is worth noting that we must fight to the death against the crudeattempts of the Left to rewrite history, to judge and look at the past throughthe eyes of the arrogant observer of the 21st century, and to tear down statuesand cancel books where things appear that someone or other does not findpleasant. History should not be erased but, above all — history cannot beerased.)
Tofight globalism, therefore, we need more sovereignty — strong nations. Nationsthat are great again. Nations that, precisely because they respect themselves,are the best suited to respect others, to reach bilateral agreements based oncommon interests, and to create associations that are founded on sharedobjectives, not on the lunatic daydreams of a few enlightened messiahs barkingfrom U.N. headquarters, Davos, or Brussels.
Indeed,strengthening national sovereignty in the face of attempts at world governmentis the best way to strengthen democracy. Policies affecting our lives comeincreasingly from agencies and individuals we have not directly voted for. Whengovernments began to implement restrictive measures because of the pandemic,they did so following WHO mandates. As we later learned, most of them werestupid, bogus, or counterproductive. Governments embraced them, severelycurtailing the freedom of their citizens, and all we could do was ask, “Whenthe hell did I vote for Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Dr. Fauci to have somuch power over my own life, over what I do in my neighborhood, over what mychildren do in school, or whether they go to school!” (And over what I do withmy wife in my goddamn bedroom; let’s not forget that one of the WHO’s funniestpieces of advice was “limit your sexual partners and relationships,” to whichone of my friends responded with the “Hide the pain, Harold” meme smile, “evenmore?”)
Thepeople at Harvard did their bit too. To carry out their crazed plans againstthe virus, the presidents of governments all over justified their regulationsby calling in a mysterious and unknown group called “the experts.” In somecountries this led to some very surreal situations. In my country, after a yearof abiding by stupid social-distancing laws, curfews, and total confinements ofseveral weeks “by decision of the committee of experts,” the press revealedthat there was no such committee of experts, that there was no one like anexpert making the decisions, unless we considered President Sánchez’s big ballsas “experts.”
“Theexperts say so” is the worst justification in the history of politics. InAmerica and Europe, we started seeing supposed reports by experts fromdifferent prestigious universities, among which Harvard is usually mentioned(prestigious, I suppose, for being an endless factory of idiots withpretensions of dignity). Harvard had a moment of true greatness in the middleof the pandemic, when it published a report in the Annals of Internal Medicine, in which it advised citizens to have sex withcondoms, masks, and in positions that do not involve the proximity of faces. Asa consequence of these recommendations, around the month of June, I tried toreproduce with my partner, each in a different corner of the house, by means ofspores, and now we have a beautiful, flourishing camellia. We named it Harvard.
Thepandemic left us a good number of reasons that hit close to home, and that wecan all call to mind, to understand why the best response to thetotalitarianism of world government is national sovereignty. It’s a way ofsaying “This is mine and don’t you dare touch it.”
If,to do this, you have to say goodbye to international organizations that are notwilling to respect sovereign states, you say goodbye. Donald Trump did nottremble at the U.N., the WHO, or any of the organizations that not only absorbyour money but tell you from thousands of miles away what you should eat, what youshould wear, how you should cultivate your field, how you should educate yourchildren, when and before what you should kneel, or what damn car you shoulddrive.
The article isexcerpted and slightly adapted from I Will Not Eat Crickets: An Angry SatiristDeclares War on the Globalist Elite.
