Global governance 7

To the conservative right (which is to say, us “knuckle-dragging Neanderthals”), the nation-state is a Very Good Thing.

To the collectivist left (if you’ll pardon the tautology) it is an abomination from which in their imaginations they have long since moved on (“Forward!” their slogan commands) to International Collectivism under all-powerful, wealth-redistributing, environment-preserving, energy-rationing, contraceptive-distributing, abortion-enforcing, euthanasia-practicing, dissident-eliminating, (Obama-headed?) global governance.

Don’t say “world government”, even though it means the same as “global governance”.

John Bolton, who should be Secretary of State, explains (in a book review* to be found here):

Global governance, the next new thing in trendy international thought, has been typically portrayed as the nearly inevitable evolution upward from the primitive nation-state and its antiquated notions of constitutionalism and popular sovereignty. Not “world government,” wildly unpopular among knuckle-draggers in America, but a rebranded alternative, more nuanced and sophisticated, would creep in on little cat feet before the Neanderthals knew what was up.

American exceptionalism was on its way to the ash heap. Terms like shared and pooled sovereignty were bandied about like new types of cell phones rather than fundamental shifts in the relationship between citizens and state. Multilateral treaties on an astounding array of issues were in prospect — not just the usual subjects of international relations, but matters heretofore quintessentially decided by nation-states: gun control, abortion, the death penalty, among others.

Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration was surely the high point of global governance’s advance. Here was a president who saw global warming as the threat it was, promising to stop the seas from rising. This self-proclaimed “citizen of the world” rejected U.S. unilateralism, took the United Nations seriously, and understood that European Union-style institutions were the real future. Not only would America have social democracy domestically, but it would join its like-minded confreres worldwide to celebrate global governance’s emerging transcendence. What could go wrong? …

The United States is the main threat to global governance, with its antiquated attachment to its Constitution rather than to multilateral human rights treaties and institutions. …

For Americans, sovereignty is not an abstract concept of international law and politics, nor was it ever rooted in an actual “sovereign” as head of state. … Americans see themselves as personally vested with sovereignty, an ineluctable attribute of citizenship, and they therefore react with appropriate concern when globalistas insist that “pooled” or “shared” sovereignty will actually benefit them. Since most Americans already believe they have too little control over government, the notion of giving up any authority to unfamiliar peoples and governments whose tangible interests likely bear little relation to our own is decidedly unappealing. …

In considering traditional foreign affairs issues, the laws of war, the ICC [International Criminal Court], and the isolation of Israel are all excellent examples of the globalist approach. They seek to exploit both international law and domestic U.S. law to limit, constrain, and intimidate the United States and its political and military leaders from robustly defending our national interests abroad.

One should begin … with skepticism for the very idea of international law ….

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the proponents of “lawfare” have used this strategy successfully against Israel, and increasingly against the United States. By threatening U.S. officials with prosecution for alleged war crimes or human rights abuses, asserting jurisdiction over them when they travel abroad, for example, the globalistas seek to impose their version of international law over our own constitutional authorities. The American response should be that we recognize no higher earthly authority than the Constitution, which no valid treaty can supersede or diminish. And we certainly do not accept that “customary international law” which we do not voluntarily follow can bind us, especially today’s variety, formed not by actual custom but by leftist academics who hardly have our best interests at heart. …

He concludes with a warning that “the struggle to preserve our constitutional system of liberty and representative government is a great unfolding political war, and the outcome is far from certain.”

First, the political battle over the future of America, by which will be decided whether it will be a thriving capitalist nation or a stagnant socialist region, has to be won by us Neanderthals this coming November. (Likely.)

Then the United States should withdraw from the UN and send it packing from Turtle Bay – to the Antarctic, for instance.  (Unlikely.)

But the UN must be destroyed.


* Sovereignty or Submission:Will Americans Rule Themselves or Be Ruled by Others? by John Fonte, Encounter Books, New York, 2011

  • rogerinflorida

    Ms Becker,
    I think your outrage at the decision of the EU court is misplaced. it appears that Lindt, the company bringing the case had sought to trademark their chocolate bunny, thereby reducing competition, restricting consumer choice and establishing a monopoly position, something that most businesses aspire to. The Court supported the decision of the trademark registry and refused their request. This seems to me to a very appropriate use of bureaucratic power, preserving choice for consumers and freedom in the marketplace, perhaps you disagree?
    MEPs may have very little actual power, have you examined the pathetic position of John Boehner and the Republican majority in the House of Represenatives?

    You might find me irritating but I guarantee we agree on a lot more than we disagree.

    The long standing German ambition to colonise European Russia was at the heart of German war aims in both WW1 and WW2, in August 1914 they saw their chance and took it. Germany overtook Britain as the World’s  second largest economy in about 1905, so the  canard about Britain wanting to suppress Germany just won’t fly, as they say around here; “that dog ain’t gonna hunt”.
    Ho Chi Minh had entrusted the future of Vietnam to World governance by agreeing in 1954 to UN monitored elections to be held in South Vietnam within 18 months. It quickly became apparent to the CIA and the Diem regime that any elections held would result in victory for the nationalists and defeat for Diem and his rump colonial, catholic, land owning oligarchy, so the elections were canceled, with the blame for this placed on a violent atmosphere which precluded elections being held. The violence of course was entirely the result of actions by Diem’s secret police aided and abetted by the CIA, who had to suppress the political activities of the nationalist vietnamese. The US conflict (and susequent defeat) in Vietnam was the direct result of the contempt that the US Govt. had for decisions made by World governance, the truth being that the hubristic US political establishment believes that it, and it alone, make the decisions in this World.

  • roger in florida

    It is difficult to know where to begin on this post: to start with; Internationalism, or more accurately some sort supranational governing order,   is not new, it gained it’s huge impetus from the Great Catastrophe (and if you don’t know what the Great Catastophe was, please shut up). It found it’s first form in the unfortunately ill fated League of Nations, although there were many international standards organisations already in existence. To some extent WW2 was a clash of philosophies, although all the participants were careful to guard their narrow and parochial interests. WW1 was without doubt a clash of petty minded, ambitous, back stabbing and manipulative national politicians who, in their ignorance, unleashed a torrent of destruction unmatched in human history, it was entirely the result of a narrow interpretation of national aims. Would it have happened had the EU been instituted in 1910? No it certainly would not have, and that may be the greatest argument in favor of the EU.
    It is obvious to me but apparently not to John Bolton, that just as municipal governments are unable to tackle State problems, and State govts. are unable to tackle Federal problems, so national govts. are clearly unable to tackle Global problems, of which there are many. We absolutely need a robust World Govt. with taxing authority and backed with real economic and military force, to address Global issues. If such a body had existed in the 1950s, would the disastrous (and illegal, and immoral) American intervention in Vietnam have occurred? The answer is no, and 53,000 US lives would have been saved along with millions of Vietnamese.
    Anyway dream on knuckledraggers, the NWO is largely in place, for which this conservative at least, is profoundly grateful.

    • Jillian Becker

      Please tell us: 

      What are these “global problems” exactly?

      How will your World Government be constituted, and by what means will your World Governors be chosen?  

      How do you visualize their edicts being enforced? 

      To what principles will they adhere? Or, to put it another way, according to what values will they govern? What will hold them to those principles, those values? 

      Do you perhaps want the United States Constitution to apply to your World Government? Even though the majority of the world’s nations do not like or respect it, and in many cases have systems of law, and cultures and values in direct contradiction to the law, the culture and values that inform that document? 

      To where, I wonder, may those of us escape who value individual liberty when the entire world is a statist hell!

      • roger in florida

        Ms Becker,
        I certainly don’t want to engage in intelluctual swordplay with you as I would most assuredly lose. However, the US Constitution is an essentially meaningless document as of now. I have drawn your attention in the past to the disgrace at Ruby Ridge. Whether you like it or not US citizens are now serfs to the dictates of the bureaucracy, see the recent EPA rulings re wetlands and the Sacketts in Seatle. World Govt. will be established according to the UN Charter which guarantees individual rights as effectively as the US Constitution, Which is to say not at all.
        Call me cynical if you will but no politician will stand for my rights if it adversely affects his/her chances of re-election.
        what are these Global problems? Well for a start 38% of the World’s population have no access to clean water. Billions more dispose of their sewage locally without benefit of the technology that we in the west take for granted. Billions use wood or dung as their primary energy source thus causing particulate pollution and suffering lung problems as a result. Education, transport, balanced diet are denied to billions because of the insane rules about “National rights”.
        World rulers will be elected much as MEPs are, who are currently serving in Brussels.
        Enforcement is a problem but we must assume that if a sufficiently robust World Governance Assembly is elected it will be able to tax and therefore fund military units capable of enforcing it’s edicts.
        The UN Charter will prevail.
        Your concern about individual rights is overblown, face it; you don’t have any. The US govt. can lock you up and throw away the key under EXISTING LAW.
        Buy yourself a farm in rural Idaho, if you don’t fall afoul of the numerous current restrictions on gun ownership you may be able to live a peaceful life.
        Incidentally you haven’t answred a single one of my points.
        Would WW1 have taken place had the EU been in effect in 1910?
        What about the Vietnam intervention? For which incidentally about the closest historical parallel is the unprovoked attack on the Soviet Union by NAZI Germany in 1941.
        Love your site by the way.
        best regards

        • Ralph

          The EU could not have existed in 1910. Nationalism prevailed. Germany unification in 1871 was a cause of WWI. Britian, France and Russia could not tollerate a new large economic and military power in the heart of Europe.

          Would Ho Chi Minh have listened to a world government in his quest to united North and South Vietnam? Doubtful. If a world government had sent troops to stop him wouldn’t that have been a Vietnam war? All very hypothetical, but worthy of consideration.

        • Jillian Becker

          Yes, roger in florida, I could parry every thrust, and strike home over and over again. But it would be tedious. Let me just make the points I feel like making.

          The MEPs have no power in the EU. They do not legislate they merely chat. Or sometimes yell. The laws are made by unelected bureaucrats, and such laws! Here’s an example: 

          “You remember the chocolate bunny made by Lindt, the storied
          Swiss chocolatier? He may have made his last hop. The ‘great men’ of the EU  have been examining this chocolate bunny, and they don’t like the way it is wrapped in gold foil and has a red ribbon round its neck. This is ‘not sufficiently different’, so they say, from the wrappings of other chocolate products.
          Apparently Lindt has failed to establish the bunny’s ‘inherent distinctive character’. And the European Court of Justice accordingly issues a fatwa. Yes, that’s right: the continent of Europe is listing toward bankruptcy and demographic disaster and the bureaucrats running the joint are worried about the wrapping of chocolate bunnies.”

          Read the rest here: 

          As for the UN – I would have thought we’d exposed enough of its corruption, its sheer evil, in our posts to convince anybody that  it needs to be destroyed, not further empowered.  

          I’ve often thought that very badly governed countries should rent an administration. Pick the best from the Western world and pay them to do the job. Teach them how to make money (without needing natural resources – as Hong Kong does it), and so be able to afford necessities and even luxuries. They could still make their own laws, have their own flag, army, airline, tourist bric-a-brac etc., but rent Western talent, experience, and know-how. 

          I’m very glad you love our site. I’m only sorry there’s so much we say that you don’t agree with.

  • Liz

    When will people ever learn?  Just because something is new, (or dressed up to look “new”), doesn’t necessarily make it better.  At some point in history, alot of bad ideas were new.  Religion, monarchy, communism, etc.
    Very few actually turn out to be good, and the American Constitution was one of them.  One sign that it’s one of the good ideas of history is that it’s so hard to maintain it.  You have to actually think for yourself and educate yourself to govern yourself. 
    Beneficial crops must be cultivated. Weeds grow by themselves.