THE AMERICA ONE NEWS
Dec 10, 2024  |  
0
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM 
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM 
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM Sports News Monitor and AI Chat.
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM Sports News Monitor and AI Chat.
back  
topic
National Review
National Review
15 Jun 2024
Itxu Díaz


NextImg:Global Elites Think You Are an Idiot. Don’t Let Them Control Your Life

N ational leaders need 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 globalist pretensions from a world government presuppose the idea that they would do it better. Governing is like driving. We always think we drive better than the guy next to us. And they think that, being rich or powerful, they know better how to decide — from Washington, from Geneva, or from Brussels — what a farmer from Illinois, a car mechanic from Berlin, or a cattle farmer from Almeria needs and wants for his life. Why? For the same reason you think you drive better than everyone else — because everyone else is an idiot.

What unites Biden, Soros, von der Leyen, Guterres, Gates, and Schwab is not a global plan for world domination. Even they know that they would be incapable of agreeing long enough to steer us anywhere. What really unites them is something much more human — they think we are idiots. They think they are not, because they have achieved fame, political power in their fields, or wealth in a globalized world.

In every social-democratic, communist, or socialist initiative, there exists the same underlying issue: They believe that they can decide better than we can about our children, our money, or our health. Why? Because we are idiots. They think they can best decide how to take care of our closest ecosystems.

Why? Because we are idiots.

They think they can take better care of our animals. Why? Because we are idiots.

They think they can take better care of our lungs, our heart, and our sex life.

Why? Because we are idiots.

They think they can handle dealing with our wives, girlfriends, and mothers better. Why? Because we are idiots.

They think they can manage our properties much better than we can manage our own. Why? Because we are idiots.

Mao was not thinking of making a better place for the Chinese. He was thinking of making something better for himself, but above all he thought he would decide better than his millions of subjects and hostages. Why? Because they were idiots. Stalin also did not want to make the Soviet Union great for the prosperity of the underprivileged and all that. He simply wanted to snatch the control of their own destinies out of the hands of his fellow Russians. Why? Because they were idiots.

Even Obama, 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, and inequalities, could not help but think exactly the same thing. And what was it? That we are idiots.

They’re not all wrong. I am quite an idiot. I mean, I would be incapable of directing the destiny of my nation when I can barely manage my own life. If I were lucky enough to become president of the United States, I would make beer free, dissolve all government agencies, ban broccoli from supermarkets, replace bike lanes with racetracks for motorcycles, and overhaul the White House to make it a kitsch palace, something like Caesar’s residence with all the modern technology of a contemporary Saudi prince. But I at least confess it, I admit it and I know it. I could never be a politician — or rather, I could never risk winning an election. It’s true, because I am good at politics: I am a columnist, which is to say, I am an expert at insulting. What is terrible for me is getting off my ass and acting.

For all these reasons, the conservative solution entails understanding that politics must be vocational and that it must carry with it a vocation for public service. Leaders should be close to the people they govern. United and strong nations must decide, democratically, their own destinies, and states and regions, at another scale, must also have their share of autonomy. No one at the United Nations or the World Health Organization should have the power to reach down to national levels and impose green policies, or health measures, or push for — as has already been proposed so many times — a world government of the internet.

The further away political decisions are taken from the place where they are implemented, the closer we come to the totalitarian abyss.

National sovereignty gives people their freedom to decide who they want to represent them, and what kind of policies they want to govern their lives. National sovereignty respects the total freedom of the individual, met only with one essential rule: Bear the consequences of your actions. National sovereignty is therefore a symptom of the maturity of a country — of a democracy.

But respecting national sovereignty is much more than assuming that it is the people 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, a feeling, a belonging, and a tradition forged through generations and generations. That is why a nation is a flag and what it represents. It is its economy and the feeling of gratitude to those who preceded us on the road to prosperity. And it is its history, with its lights and shadows, from which we will always learn.

(At this point it is worth noting that we must fight to the death against the crude attempts of the Left to rewrite history, to judge and look at the past through the eyes of the arrogant observer of the 21st century, and to tear down statues and cancel books where things appear that someone or other does not find pleasant. History should not be erased but, above all — history cannot be erased.)

To fight globalism, therefore, we need more sovereignty — strong nations. Nations that are great again. Nations that, precisely because they respect themselves, are the best suited to respect others, to reach bilateral agreements based on common interests, and to create associations that are founded on shared objectives, not on the lunatic daydreams of a few enlightened messiahs barking from U.N. headquarters, Davos, or Brussels.

Indeed, strengthening national sovereignty in the face of attempts at world government is the best way to strengthen democracy. Policies affecting our lives come increasingly from agencies and individuals we have not directly voted for. When governments began to implement restrictive measures because of the pandemic, they did so following WHO mandates. As we later learned, most of them were stupid, bogus, or counterproductive. Governments embraced them, severely curtailing the freedom of their citizens, and all we could do was ask, “When the hell did I vote for Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Dr. Fauci to have so much power over my own life, over what I do in my neighborhood, over what my children do in school, or whether they go to school!” (And over what I do with my wife in my goddamn bedroom; let’s not forget that one of the WHO’s funniest pieces of advice was “limit your sexual partners and relationships,” to which one of my friends responded with the “Hide the pain, Harold” meme smile, “even more?”)

The people at Harvard did their bit too. To carry out their crazed plans against the virus, the presidents of governments all over justified their regulations by calling in a mysterious and unknown group called “the experts.” In some countries this led to some very surreal situations. In my country, after a year of abiding by stupid social-distancing laws, curfews, and total confinements of several weeks “by decision of the committee of experts,” the press revealed that there was no such committee of experts, that there was no one like an expert making the decisions, unless we considered President Sánchez’s big balls as “experts.”

“The experts say so” is the worst justification in the history of politics. In America and Europe, we started seeing supposed reports by experts from different prestigious universities, among which Harvard is usually mentioned (prestigious, I suppose, for being an endless factory of idiots with pretensions of dignity). Harvard had a moment of true greatness in the middle of the pandemic, when it published a report in the Annals of Internal Medicine, in which it advised citizens to have sex with condoms, masks, and in positions that do not involve the proximity of faces. As a consequence of these recommendations, around the month of June, I tried to reproduce with my partner, each in a different corner of the house, by means of spores, and now we have a beautiful, flourishing camellia. We named it Harvard.

The pandemic left us a good number of reasons that hit close to home, and that we can all call to mind, to understand why the best response to the totalitarianism of world government is national sovereignty. It’s a way of saying “This is mine and don’t you dare touch it.”

If, to do this, you have to say goodbye to international organizations that are not willing to respect sovereign states, you say goodbye. Donald Trump did not tremble at the U.N., the WHO, or any of the organizations that not only absorb your money but tell you from thousands of miles away what you should eat, what you should wear, how you should cultivate your field, how you should educate your children, when and before what you should kneel, or what damn car you should drive.

The article is excerpted and slightly adapted from I Will Not Eat Crickets: An Angry Satirist Declares War on the Globalist Elite.