Monday, June 26, 2017

Trump's Presidency Reaffirms Nationalism over the Globalist Ideal - E. Jeffrey Ludwig

by E. Jeffrey Ludwig

To this eminent group of visionaries (totalitarians hiding behind “vision”), deplorables do not understand that ideas like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have to be differently conceived to apply to all the nations of the world.

Decades ago, while walking across the campus of one of our elite institutions to receive an award, I was accompanied by Professor Charles Price, a brilliant chemist with degrees from Swarthmore and Harvard. Professor Price informed me that he was president of the World Federalists. I had never heard of that organization, and asked him what the group stood for. He told me that they were working towards one-world government. I was not consciously shocked by his statement, but at some level must have been stunned and confused since I never forgot it.

Like many of my naïve peers, I assumed that the United Nations had been created at the end of World War II as a forum to bring the nations of the world together, to enter into constructive, problem-solving dialogue, and to “put some teeth” into the world’s aspiration for peace. Vicious aggressions could be stopped. War could not be banished, but the most egregious invasions and acts of hatred could be mitigated and often prevented entirely.

However, over time, with serious study and intense observation, it became apparent that the United Nations was intended as a different type of power grab. For many of those who participated in its founding, it was conceived as an alternative to national sovereignty. This push by Democrats for a United Nations was a continuation of the work of Woodrow Wilson. In his push for a League of Nations at the end of World War I, he was defeated in the Senate by Henry Cabot Lodge and the Republicans who clearly saw the League as a threat to U.S. sovereignty. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt picked up the cudgel and, with the help of Winston Churchill, pushed the supranational UN onto center stage. 

Who in their right mind would be willing to sacrifice the beautiful mores and legal/cultural independence of the U.S. on the altar of a remote and bureaucratic “globalism?” At best, the United Nations could be conceived as “loosely united,” and not binding its members into a tight confederation with taxing and police powers, or infringing upon our free speech, free religion, or freedom of assembly. This writer considers himself first, foremost, and always as a citizen of the United States of America whatever threats or problems might arise, and my original embrace of the UN was, to my simplistic thinking, another step in adding to my happiness as a citizen of this great land. Yet, at a fundamental level, the UN’s goals are incompatible with the founding goals of the U.S. In the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, that document does not affirm “the pursuit of happiness,” but “life, liberty, and security of person” as our basic “rights.”

How could the freedoms won by a Revolutionary War against Great Britain become gradually subsumed under the guidance, supervision, or actual governance of another supra-national state or body? Perhaps there are many today, 72 years later, who are still connected to that la-la fantasy, who are unaware that post-World War II multilateralism is a conscious and insidious attempt to co-opt our national sovereignty and values. The elitist left is globalist. Whether they want a New World Order (Republicans) or a Global Village (Democrats) they imagine themselves as being in charge of the U.S. which in turn will captain the ship of this "global paradise." Of course this will necessitate changes. We will export some of our better ideas, but we shall also have to "import" cultural norms of other countries. Thus, what was considered "uniquely American" up to 82 years ago will have to be "modified." The deplorables do not understand that all progress involves change.

To this eminent group of visionaries (totalitarians hiding behind “vision”), deplorables do not understand that ideas like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have to be differently conceived to apply to all the nations of the world. Likewise, faith, freedom, and family. Likewise "private property." To promote peace and security for all, under our wise guidance of course, we have to evolve. We evolve to place greater and greater trust in those who have evolved most in terms of consciousness. The evolved consciousness of our elite global leaders has been learned largely at the uniquely evolved institutions of higher learning. It is no accident that so many presidential candidates and aspirants have graduated from Ivy League institutions.

The fight against nationalism or patriotic nationalism or exceptional national identity is not to be confused with chauvinism or hypernationalism. So often, even in high school textbooks, nationalism is portrayed as a cause of World War I, when actually, as the war guilt clause of the Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to admit, it was German hypernationalism and aggressive intentions that caused WWI, not nationalism in a general sense implicating Great Britain, France, or the U.S. 

Defense of borders is not an updated form of seeking demographic lebensraum (living space), which was Adolf Hitler’s excuse for expansionism and conquest. Nationalism in a general sense was not the cause of World War II. Rather it was Japanese militarism and seeking to control extraterritorial petroleum supplies that drove their vicious militancy. Nazism had its own dynamic, combining Hitlerian megalomania and ignorant race theory (Aryans are superior racially to its neighbors and thus should rule over those neighbors) with a tremendous resentment about the German loss of WWI. Jews and the Allied Powers became objects of incredible malice as “defeat” in WWI was rationalized as unnecessary and unacceptable. The Nazis picked up the gun again to “right the wrong” of defeat.

Further, since the end of WWII, the malevolent left has depicted America not as a “city on a hill” as the Puritan forefathers envisioned our civilization, but as a malevolent bastion of racism, sexual oppression, economic exploitation, and, despite the rhetoric of equality, a country that has despotically oppressed the poorer non-white non-male members of our society. With this background in mind, one can see how the America First nationalism – the patriotic nationalism – of President Trump is anathema to the left. Since the U.S. is a rotten racist country, then Trump’s nationalism makes him a racist to their benighted understanding. His desire to reduce the debt is not a prudent philosophy of governance, but an attempt to serve the interests of an exploitative capitalist class, the top 1%. His desire to protect our borders is part and parcel of the so-called imperialist impulse of Manifest Destiny that led us, illegitimately, to take control of the Southwest and crush Mexico in the Mexican War of 1848. In short, his patriotic nationalism connotes for these uninformed and brainwashed illiterates everything the left finds wrong with the U.S.

By rejecting the U.S, what is the alternative those violent leftists seek? They seek a global alternative where left-wing leaders, bureaucrats in Brussels and Geneva, and Islamists bring the out-of-control exploitative U.S. to heel. The global control will put some brakes on the U.S. imperialism, racism, and exploitation. To them, the idea of the U.S. as the land of opportunity, of freedom and of hope is hogwash, and must be suppressed. 

The U.S. has moved further and further away from a beautiful patriotic nationalism to a globalism and world government trajectory that is a threat to our national identity as well as our national interests. President Trump, elected against phenomenal odds, is trying to correct this anti-nationalistic concept which has gained too much ground over the decades. He is making some headway. His election is itself headway. And the animals in the cage -- imprisoned by their own false values -- are becoming enraged. Trump, when he announced we were pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords, revealed in no uncertain terms that U.S. sovereignty is still a valid principle. Despite the rabid critics of the left, we are still a precious land, and our interests should and do come first. In his speech from the Rose Garden, he said, “…our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of American sovereignty.” I give thanks that there are still so many deplorables in our country, and that the legacy of Professor Price, announced to me decades ago, is being resisted.

E. Jeffrey Ludwig


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

No comments:

Post a Comment