By Itxu Díaz
Saturday, June 15, 2024
National 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment