By: Brent Parrish
We hear a lot of talk these days about “open borders.” I happen to be one of those who believes, if you have “open borders,” then you no longer have a nation. Of course, there are those who wholeheartedly support wiping out the very concept of the “nation state.”
For example, it has always been the goal of communists and socialists to create a “borderless, classless world.” But they are not the only ones. The votaries of Islam also desire to wipe out the nation state, in the hope of bringing the world under the supreme dominance of Islam.
It goes without saying history is replete with examples of those who aspire to become the ultimate ruler over all the earth and its inhabitants. The zealous desire of some to rule over all people can only be described as monomaniacal, believing they have been granted some divine right to do so. Certainly, history has shown that many fanatical rulers do, indeed, believe they are veritable gods, and should be worshiped accordingly.
The famous British historian and philosopher Arnold J. Toynbee (1889 – 1975) gave an address at the 1931 Copenhagen conference. His speech was subsequently published in International Affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in November 1931.
Toynbee reportedly stated the following (emphasis added):
The local national state, invested with the attributes of sovereignty — is an abomination of desolation standing in the place where it ought not. It has stood in that place now — demanding and receiving human sacrifices from its poor deluded votaries — for four or five centuries. Our political task in our generation is to cast the abomination out, to cleanse the temple and to restore the worship of the divinity to whom the temple rightfully belongs. In plain terms, we have to re-transfer the prestige and the prerogatives of sovereignty from the fifty or sixty fragments of contemporary society to the whole of contemporary society — from the local national states by which sovereignty has been usurped, with disastrous consequences, for half a millennium, to some institution embodying our society as a whole. In the world as it is today, this institution can hardly be a universal Church. It is more likely to be something like a League of Nations. I will not prophesy. I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands….
Toynbee’s wish “to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world” is a sentiment often heard on the world stage today from a number of so-called “globalists.” For example, internationalist cabals like the United Nations, European Parliament, Chatham House (formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs), and its sister organization the Council on Foreign Relations are prominent organizations that regularly downplay and minimize the notion of national sovereignty, insisting “nationalism” is a relic of a foregone era—a major obstacle in creating the Huxley-esque “Brave New World” of the Twenty-First Century they so fervently desire.
Well-known internationalists like Henry Kissinger, for example, are fond of referring to the modern nation-state as the “Westphalian System.” Wikipedia describes Westphalian sovereignty as follows:
Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country’s domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, in which the major continental European states – the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one another’s territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.
In the same Wikipedia entry, under the section “Globalization and Westphalian sovereignty,” the “imperative of globalization” finds itself in conflict with the traditional notion of Westphalian sovereignty:
During the 1980s and early 1990s, the imperative of globalization and interdependence led to international integration, and the erosion of Westphalian sovereignty. Much of the literature was primarily concerned with criticizing realist models of international politics in which the Westphalian notion of the state as a unitary agent is taken as axiomatic (Camilleri and Falk 1992).
The European Union’s concept of shared sovereignty is also somewhat contrary to historical views of Westphalian sovereignty, as it provides for external agents to influence and interfere in the internal affairs of its member countries.
The European Union is a good example of the overall globalist game plan. Through innocuous sounding “free trade” treaties—such as the European Common Market, which eventually led to the formation of the European Union—political and economic integration with other sovereign states is achieved under the guise of “peace and prosperity.” As it stands now, the member of states of the EU have effectively signed away their sovereignty; and their respective governments and legislatures have become little more than rubber stamps for the European Parliament in Brussels.
The European Union has, at times, been referred to as the “United States of Europe.” This isn’t even like comparing apples and oranges, in my mind. It’s more like comparing apples to ball bearings. Yes, they’re both round. But that’s about it. The member states of the EU are nations with their own language, culture, traditions, customs, laws, histories, etc. The United States, on the other hand, has roughly the same culture and government, despite which American state one might visit.
Disturbingly, the language contained in the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “free trade” deal is eerily reminiscent of that contained in the Common Market agreements which led to the creation of the European Union.
There is now a push in Britain to exit the EU (see Brexit). But it will prove quite a contentious challenge for Britain to do so, since they have become politically and economically entangled within the EU system. And this becomes the danger for any sovereign nation that enters into such unions with other nations: it can be very messy, if not impossible, to extricate themselves from such alliances should they prove deleterious in the future. And that is the goal of such treaties: to make it practically impossible for any nation to back out.
For many years, there has been a major push in the United States toward regional government, effectively circumventing local government. There has also been efforts (see Council on Foreign Relations) to create a “North American Union” similar to the European Union between Mexico, Canada and the United States. One can imagine several of these large continental unions eventually being hooked up to form one global union (i.e. global government).
“Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regions can be brought all the way into a single world dictatorship.”
While some claim the modern nation-state is a result of the Peace of Westphalia signed in 1648, the concept of nations is certainly nothing new.
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
—Genesis 10:5 (KJV)
A while back I had a discussion with a woman who was strongly in favor of “open borders” and the elimination of the modern nation-state. She believed ending “nationalism” would end all wars. My response was that I failed to see how erasing some lines on a map would change human nature. People have been in conflict with one another for God knows how long. There will still be many different languages and cultures, even if we wiped out nations (i.e. groups of people united by language and culture). Furthermore, the creation of a global government is essentially placing all power into the same hands—the very definition of tyranny.
For me, the question becomes: Do people have a right to freely assemble? Do people not have a right to their own culture and traditions? Or is this right only extended to some cultures at the exclusion of others? If so, why?
I, for one, do not want to live in a world where we all become the same—meaning, we will all think, talk, dress, eat and live alike … no flavor for our fare, only sameness. An Indian writer expressed my sentiments well on the subject in an article concerning the European migrant crisis that appeared at the Gates of Vienna blog:
I am an Indian and I would like to believe I am as liberal and rational as the other person. What is my interest in Sweden’s refugee/immigration debate? Simple: I want every nation to maintain its unique cultural heritage proudly. That’s what makes the Earth interesting and livable. I have never visited Sweden, but those Scandinavian and some European nations are among the best nations to live in. While it may be futile to replicate their economic standard of living, perhaps every country could imbibe some of their values of social welfare, the rule of law, health care, education and a measure of broad-mindedness. If such open societies were to absorb sizeable populations from a society that is closed, regressive and sometimes incompatible with modernity, these accommodating cultures will experience a threat to their existence. Sweden has to only look at India to understand the influence Islam has had on its history.
It is more than a bit ironic to me that the people who so zealously push for “open borders” and “global governance” are often times the same ones who shill for ever more “diversity.” But what “diversity” means to a Marxist is far different than what “diversity” may mean to a non-Marxist. In the Marxist paradigm, diversity is required for conflict. It is all part of the dialectical process of bringing about “radical social change” via “struggle.” The irony lies in the fact that the Marxian concept of “diversity” is really just a tactic to bring about sameness. If I were to wrap up Marxism in one word, it would be sameness—lovingly referred to by Marxists as “universal equality.”
According to the “internationalists” (cf. socialists, communists) of the world, such “outmoded” and “dated” concepts like patriotism and national sovereignty—often times disparagingly referred to as “nativism” and “ultra-nationalism” by the “one-world” crowd—must be eliminated worldwide. Which begs the question: Just how far are the globalists and international cartels willing to go to fulfill their ultimate dream of a creating a “global village” devoid of any allegiance by the masses to their country of origin?