George Rebane
[This is the transcript of my regularly scheduled KVMR commentary broadcast on 26 December 2018.]
Dr Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, asks that question in the latest (Dec 2018) issue of the Imprimis. The answer that our public schools have been teaching for the last half century is NO. As Arnn points out, “World leaders are now accustomed to call for the subordination of the nation for the good of the globe.” All in preparation for “the peoples of the world (to) enter a new age of global peace, prosperity, and cooperation.”
The latest to call for the abandonment of sovereign nation-states was French president Macron on the 100th anniversary of the WW1 armistice. The embrace of nationalism, he argued, is the cause of wars. And the solution is to rid ourselves of nationalism, which he defines as a people’s desire to put the interests of their nation first and foremost to a degree that ignores all transnational cooperation with other nations. On a roll, the French leader went on to claim that “patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism.” In other words, if you’re a patriot, you will work to subsume your country into a larger world order, or in essence, to make it disappear.
Macron called for world leaders to “take the UN’s oath to place peace higher than anything.” To which Dr Arnn then asks, “Higher than freedom? Higher than justice? Higher than the lives of our children?”
Churchill maintained that, since time immemorial, “the central principle of civilization is the subordination of the ruling authority to the settled customs of the people, and to their will as expressed through (a) constitution.” That says civilization is constituted by populations of people with shared customs under a constitutional umbrella that explicitly spells out the communal processes and procedures they agree practice in order to form a mutually sustained society.
And for any population this can only take place under a government that has “received the broad assent of large majorities” of its citizens. Such broad assent can only occur among a population with broadly shared values, mores, and customs. Then other people, whose values etc differ, will also want to join with their like-minded brethren; and when they do, another political unit is born, identifying itself as a kingdom or nation distinct from all the others.
A civilized people united under a foundational document or constitution enjoys a government that settles affairs by talking things out. The alternative is a government by force, one which rules over a fragmented and fearful population not permitted or able to talk things out. A government that uses force to keep the peace in such a population is known as a tyranny.
There is zero chance that all the world’s peoples under a global government will be of a sufficiently like-mind on any given social issue. Under such a behemoth government, one that preserves itself through the most sophisticated and efficacious technologies, where then can smaller groups of the like-minded go, save to the re-education camps or worse that Leviathan has prepared for such anti-social miscreants?
The clear alternative to such a future is the maintenance of a world order of sovereign nation-states comprised of peoples capable of giving broad assent for common solutions to shared problems. With this understanding, today’s real question becomes, ‘Is America any longer such a country?’
My name is Rebane, and I also expand on this and related themes on Rebane’s Ruminations where the transcript of this commentary is posted with relevant links, and where such issues are debated extensively. However, my views are not necessarily shared by KVMR. And in this holiday season Jo Ann and I wish you and our entire KVMR family a healthy and productive new year. Thank you for listening.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment