Toward A New Era of Nation-States, Part VI:
The Will to Power as a Governing Principle

5,924 words

Part I here, Part II here, Part III here, Part IV here, Part V here

The average European is not yet very concerned that his country is slowly sinking in the quicksand of the globalist system. Demographic collapse and deindustrialization are truly deadly threats, but their effects manifest themselves gradually. One can make adjustments and ignore impending danger, much like the proverbial frog being slowly boiled alive. 

For now, broad segments of European societies remain satisfied with their narrow, personal spheres of comfort, security, and entertainment. Many Europeans consider themselves apolitical. Anywhere from one-third to one-half of eligible voters regularly abstain from voting in local and national elections. Most of those who do exercise this emblematic democratic right tolerate the predominant liberal democratic system that legitimizes globalization.

As the decomposing effects of globalization make themselves felt, however, middle- and working-class Europeans will become increasingly politicized. Throughout Europe, populist and nationalist movements will have greater opportunities to expand their base of supporters from the current range of 10-30 percent of eligible voters to 40-50 percent, which will put them within striking range of national power.

Ad hoc solutions versus systemic change 

Should the current crop of nationalist leaders get elected, however, they will likely confront only the isolated afflictions that attend globalization, like uncontrolled migration, eco-tyranny, the promotion of gender ambiguity, and political correctness. The Trump Presidency dampened the flow of illegal migrants, cut back on US engagement in multilateralism, and highlighted the deleterious effects of outsourcing manufacturing jobs. But President Trump did not redirect the flow of US jobs to China and Mexico back to the US. This would have produced a major dust-up with the oligarchs, who earn handsomely from their Chinese and Mexican investments. Trump, the billionaire, balked, and his rust belt constituency found it had gained few concrete benefits during the four years of his tenure. 

Similarly, there is nothing to suggest that Italy’s Salvini, France’s Le Pen, the Alternative for Germany, or the Freedom Party of Austria are planning to overhaul the internationalist economic system that massively drains wealth from Europe to developing economies around the world. This would require nationalist governments to reorient business activity away from globalization towards a new model focused on national and European regional development. The corporate and financial oligarchs would immediately condemn any such moves as statism or dirigisme. We can be certain that the corporate-controlled press would unleash a furious artillery barrage on those who would dare infringe on the sanctity of private property, the free market, and personal liberty in general.

Hence the return of Trump to power or the electoral success of the European populist forces, were these events to occur, should be regarded only as partial victories. The globalists would reluctantly make tactical retreats — as they did during the Trump Presidency — wait for their opponents to stumble, and return to the attack at a convenient moment. If the Trump experience taught us anything, it showed that winning a national election only scratches the surface of the globalist power structures.  

Decades devoted to the steady accumulation of power have given the globalists enormous influence across the board — horizontally and vertically, in government as well as the private sector, and more besides. Defeating globalism will therefore require intervention on a vast front. 

Attacking the ideological bastions of globalist power 

Only an ideology confronting the totality of the issues raised by globalization can assure success. We need a nationalist doctrine that will focus our supporters’ attention on the essential issues — demographic contraction, youth unemployment, mass immigration, outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, and the excessive economic and political power of the super-rich. A comprehensive, nationalist worldview would help patriotic forces avoid getting bogged down in faux issues, which the system is so good at generating. 

Since the upcoming clash will be a confrontation between ideologies, we must have a worldview that goes beyond merely negating globalism. If anti-globalist ideas were to triumph, the outcome could yet be similar to the outcome of the Cold War anti-Communist crusade. The Eastern European anti-Communists were indeed successful in rolling back Communism during the popular uprisings of 1989-91. But their lack of a concrete reform agenda opened the door to domination of their countries by the globalists. The ideal of freedom played a potent role in the democratic upheavals of that time, as it often does in revolutionary periods, but it failed to consolidate meaningful independence.

If nationalists want to be ahead of the curve, they must think about developing a follow-through concept, an adequately concrete vision of how the individual citizen will interact with his nation-state; how European nations will separately interact with each other; and how the Europeans will deal collectively with the rest of the world.

The nationalist opposition will need a consolidating idea not only to wrest power out of the hands of the internationalists. When and if the new patriotic forces triumph in national elections, they should already have in their possession credible plans to remake the dilapidated landscape of Europe. And, last but not least, the new nationalists will have to produce a concept of political life that will withstand future ideological challenges from the internationalists, who will certainly not surrender. 

An alternative governing principle tied to observed natural phenomena

Now that the Middle Ages are well behind us, it is finally time to organize our societies in conformity with natural laws, and not theology. The alternative ideal we are looking for must therefore be firmly centered on the logic of life and the nature of man.

The first thing we need to realize is that there are no universal, God-given human rights. The belief that a supreme being cares about us and looks after our welfare is a dangerous delusion. It breeds the longing for a benevolent protector, a powerful force for good who will redress our grievances. History shows that all too often power-hungry leaders and regimes have posed as protectors of the downtrodden, when in reality their main concern was to lure distressed people into their spheres of control.

The cultivation of faith in divinely-ordained rights in Western civilization has only served to make trusting people vulnerable to the enticements of false saviors and universal doctrines. Tens of thousands of young Lithuanians waged a costly guerilla war against Soviet domination that dragged on for over five years after the Russian occupation in 1944-45. Through clandestine means, Western governments provided a modicum of aid and encouraged the fighters to keep up their armed struggle. The Western clandestine services held forth the prospect of an imminent military showdown between the democracies and the USSR. The Lithuanian insurgents believed in the Western governments’ promises to defend freedom, and continued their hopeless war in the vain hope of Western military intervention.

About 30,000 young men sacrificed their lives for the cause. In the course of the fighting, the Soviet forces rounded up approximately 100,000 civilian inhabitants residing in contested rural areas and deported them to Siberia. No apocalyptic showdown between democracy and totalitarianism was ever in the cards; the cold warriors of the West were only seeking tactical advantages vis-à-vis Moscow.

The only right we truly have is the one and only right that all living beings possess, which is to struggle as best we can against the inevitable obstacles to our will. This inborn propensity to oppose or change external phenomena is the natural consequence of the supreme instinct governing all life — the will to power. All living beings seek power, for the attainment of strength overcomes resistance to what is desired. 

In contrast to the lofty principle of freedom, whose implementation is held up by Hegelians as the culmination of history, the concept of the will to power, developed by Friedrich Nietzsche, contains within itself an objective characterization of man as a continually intervening agent. If there is something that best describes what man in essence seeks, it would be power. The triumph of freedom results in disengagement from that which opposes, or inertia, while the will to power leads to continuous intervention, the achievement of a dynamic state that only ends with the death of the subject.

Whenever we initiate contact with someone, we necessarily impose on his freedom. Even a casual greeting to a friend, who may be immersed in his thoughts, will interrupt the exercise of his will. It is fairly obvious that virtually any move we make will affect, deflect or oppose that which is outside of our self. 

Opposition, or the contrariness of life, is not something that we should decry. Opposition is an inevitable consequence of the life force; the tendency to confront the external world defines life to a great extent. In fact, were it not for the presence of opposing forces, such as gravity on earth, man could do very little. Even going for a walk would be impossible without the contrary force of gravity. Freedom from atmospheric pressure would result in a condition in which the body would run out of oxygen to continue breathing. Liberation from hard, physical exertions might easily transform the human body into a flabby mass of infirmities. And the absence of obligations to family and friends could ultimately mean a life of loneliness and depression.

It is therefore posited that the will to power, unlike the thirst for freedom, can stand alone as an absolute, permanent goal. The quest for power most fully delineates the scope of man’s true aspirations. If we keep our eyes open to the overall direction of life, if we accept life as an objective reality and as the starting point of our present inquiry, then we cannot fail to see that life and the will to power are inseparable, indeed, nearly identical in many respects.

It is true that freedom is a desirable state, but mainly as the gateway to the exercise of power. And even the achievement of freedom from an unwelcome restraining influence is impossible without some effort or struggle. If life is action, will, power, then the conscious individual should not embrace the principle of individual freedom as the highest political ideal.

Life aims at gain 

As a peculiar fusion of matter, charged with penetrating energy, life thrusts against external objects, capturing, transforming, and absorbing resources from the environment. As life interacts with the environment, it extracts from it the means for growth. This is the fundamental difference between living and non-living things. The chief purpose of every living being is gain, or an increase of its power relative to the outside world.

As a living organism, the individual human being is essentially in the same position as all the other life forms. Man is driven by instinct to constantly increase his power from his interactions with physical phenomena, other people, and the world of knowledge, i.e., the representation of physical reality. 

If we remain true to our basic nature as living beings and acquire power in a focused, sustained manner, we can aspire to happiness in our lives. If we violate biological laws and dissipate our strength, we will wind up profoundly dissatisfied. The Greek philosopher Aristotle, writing in his “Nicomachean Ethics,” identified happiness as the overriding purpose of an individual’s life. Friedrich Nietzsche in his “Will to Power” enhanced our understanding of man’s nature by demonstrating that only a strong person can truly be happy. 

Instinct is more compelling than rational consciousness 

At a basic level, we must accept the primacy of this basic life instinct over our intellectual capacity, as amazing as the latter may be. As Nietzsche pointed out, the great mass of biological processes which occur in human beings can be traced to unconscious instinct and not the conscious will. Our body’s metabolism and blood circulation are as unconscious as the life processes of plants or bacteria. In man, consciousness appropriates only 20 percent of the organism’s overall calorie intake. At the same time, the conscious sphere of a human being’s existence is decisively influenced by subconscious drives. 

Every day our consciousness is pervaded by feelings that clearly originate from the primal instincts and appear to have little in common with rational thought. The mind is urged to seek out distractions, amusements, sex, games, and a great variety of intoxications. 

The purpose of life 

Despite its astounding variety, life is at the bottom a simple proposition. There is one supreme commandment, which reads as follows: do your best to become stronger. If you fail to do this, you will lose the competition and drop out of the game. If you succeed, you as a conscious person will be rewarded with a feeling of satisfaction, pleasure, or intense joy. The feeling of reasoned contentment that comes with the knowledge that we have fulfilled our potential is the reward for a lifetime of striving.

We can count on the external world to offer resistance to our aims, but we must regard this as a part of nature. The more formidable the obstacles to success, the greater the victory, the deeper will be the personal satisfaction. There is no other reason for living. Here the conscious mind can end its probing; it must acknowledge the dominance of nature and instinct. 

The will to power transcends the instinct of self-preservation

Yet we often hear that the strongest force in our lives is the instinct of self-preservation. If we carefully consider what is implied in the term preservation, however, we will realize that we are dealing with a concept that leads us to a defensive attitude. Preservation aims at the protection of the status quo against outside interventions. 

A person preoccupied with self-preservation will avoid risk and consequently restrain his own initiative and spirit of attack. Dwelling on the status quo encourages passivity. This attachment to stability is more appropriate to inert objects that merely endure outside pressures, but cannot initiate change.  

Nietzsche was perhaps the first thinker to assert that the dominant life instinct is not self-preservation, but rather the drive for power, the constant urge to increase strength. The German philosopher was right, because he realized that a single, living being confronts an environment whose potential power to wear it down, or even absorb it, is infinitely greater than what the individual could muster against the outside world. Thus, the survival of a living being or species is only a by-product of the will to increase power; living things survive only to the extent that they are successful in pursuing power. 

Following this logic, if the living organism would be concerned only with the preservation of its existing strength, it would inevitably succumb to the steadily intruding and eroding forces of the outside world. For example, if Western countries were to accept the continuation of the free trade regime with China — which allows Chinese strength to surge at the expense of European economies — the West one fine day will find itself at the mercy of Chinese hegemony. What is imperative now is a clear-headed determination to begin reversing the flow of economic power from the West to the East. 

Even the state of rest involves energy expenditure to maintain life functions, and this net reduction of energy cannot continue indefinitely. Life is therefore obliged to turn the tables on the environment and intervene against the external world, continuously appropriating energy and resources.

History provides us with convincing proof of how decisively the instinct to augment power has influenced human behavior. In our time, the internationalists who are intent on fusing European national identities into a unity of all mankind are simply acting at the prompting of this most basic of drives. The only thing that distinguishes the globalists’ bid for power from those of all previous tribal chiefs, warlords, dukes, kings, emperors, and conquerors is the breathtaking scale of their enterprise.

What is history if not a chronicle of conflict, intrigue, and war that is an inescapable consequence of ambition — the desire of strong leaders to consolidate and augment their power? It is always the same story. Modest-sized political units subjugate weaker neighbors and then use the conquered human and material resources for yet further conquests. Principalities and duchies grow into kingdoms; kingdoms are consolidated into empires; the empires eventually collapse — and the game starts over again. 

The rational mind may counsel moderation in the pursuit of power and glory, but quite often instinct prevails. Open-ended ambition apparently characterized the policies of Alexander the Great, Charles V of Spain, Napoleon Bonaparte, and the British imperialists. But these conquerors did not possess godlike powers; they eventually exhausted themselves and their subjects. The outside world with its limitless resources eventually brought them down to earth. 

Similarly, in the world of business, we note the predominance of the acquisitive instinct, the desire for more. The 19th and 20th centuries featured company amalgamations, corporations, cartels, and the ascendancy of financial oligarchies. A person in possession of one billion dollars might very well be content to enjoy a secure and stable existence. Nevertheless, the 2,200 billionaires of the world continue to increase their holdings at a relentless pace. Some US wealth management companies have now extended their control over the stupendous sum of trillions of USD in assets, and there is nothing to indicate that their owners are retrenching.

The same principle of growth applies to bureaucratic entities. Prior to World War II, the US officials who ran American security and foreign policy could nearly fit into the White House and the Old Executive Office Building. At present, the US State Department alone has thousands of employees working in 48 separate buildings in the Greater Washington Area. The EU (previously known as the EEC, or the European Economic Community), was originally created to coordinate economic and trade relations between European nation-states. It now has a gigantic apparatus of 40,000 bureaucrats who meddle daily in the economic, political, social, educational, and cultural spheres of the member states. 

The art of acquiring power 

Thus, if we are in accord with the proposition that happiness cannot be attained without striving for growth, our next task would be to identify more precisely the characteristics of the power that we should be seeking. We might just as well investigate how to become stronger, for the means and the end with respect to power appear strangely intertwined. The same principles seem to govern both the acquisition and use of power. This circumstance further demonstrates the centrality of the role of power in life.

We need to make the right choices in the course of our relatively short lives. Our choices must be based on an adequate assessment of our capabilities on the one hand, and the kinds of external challenges awaiting us, on the other. 

Three vital aspects of power 

An individual pursuing power and influence must do the following: (1) focus intense efforts on only one or a few objectives; (2) ensure that focused and intense efforts are sustained over the long term, and (3) aim at objects that can reciprocate, compensate, or bring a net return on expended energy. 

Regarding the aspects of focus and continuity, it is self-evident that any notable achievement will require carefully aimed and sustained efforts. One resigns oneself to years of professional training or extended education in pursuit of only one or a few goals. We must learn to set aside a mass of frivolous yearnings and passions that intrude into our thoughts. The basic problem is that we are not god-like, in possession of limitless quantities of vital energy. The achievement of serious goals requires an enormous expenditure of the limited strength that we possess. 

The perversity of unbounded altruism 

As regards the concept of compensation, reciprocity, or net gain, nature will simply not allow selfless, open-ended expenditure of energy on objects that cannot, or will not, make a return for the investment of our energy. An otherworldly sense of altruism will probably lead to penury, exhaustion, or simply disillusionment. 

Unfortunately, far too many educated Europeans lavish their efforts on objects that cannot adequately requite their love. All European nations are experiencing a slowly-unfolding demographic catastrophe in which young people are increasingly reluctant to bring children into the world. Instead of raising children, many young European professionals have been lavishing attention on their cats and dogs.

More recently, Europeans have begun worrying about climate change. Some climate idealists have even expressed their determination not to have children because the latter will simply increase demand for consumer products, whose production, transportation, and use will inevitably result in more atmospheric pollution. Obviously, the rejoinder to this argument is that we should all exit life, and the sooner, the better. Our non-existence will surely be much appreciated by Mother Earth.

There is nothing wrong with having pets, but the problem is that the lifespan of domestic animals generally is one-fifth of human life expectancy. In a relatively short time, our cats and dogs will leave us. It is much the same with a person’s dedication to protecting the earth’s climate. The planet is an inanimate object that is unable to appreciate our help. It is true that we must protect the climate, on which all life depends.

But this goal must remain secondary in relation to our existence. The financial magnates who call on Europeans to lower their CO2 emissions should stop trying to industrialize the entire world. The trillions that these hypocritical oligarchs have invested in Third World enterprises are the chief cause of skyrocketing greenhouse gas emissions. Their megalomania is draining the wealth of Europe, impoverishing former production workers, and heavily contributing to European demographic collapse. The globalized economic model imposed on European nation-states has robbed far too many young Europeans of the chance to raise families. 

Raising a family empowers the individual 

Our children are a fundamental aspect of our power as individuals. Unlike pets, they most likely will outlive us. Our progeny are an excellent (though not guaranteed) insurance policy against loneliness in old age. On a social level, our offspring will grow up, learn a profession, and join the workforce, which is very good for those who will eventually retire from work. Ultimately, none of our life-long goals and achievements will make any sense without children to ensure the continuity of our values.

A family is one of the most important human associations that nourish the individual. But we depend on a host of other associations as well. In truth, our personal power depends most of all on our close interactions with or investments in our children, our neighbors, colleagues, or fellow citizens. For man is a social being that is utterly helpless if cut off from family interactions and his innumerable human associations. The individual cannot even acquire an identity without profound and long-lasting bonds with his more intimate human environment. 

The individual in interdependence with his associations 

The great paradox of our lives is that significant individual power can be achieved only by surrendering much of our conscious individuality to our associations. We are strong through our associations. Man creates and maintains associations by alienating some of his essence, i.e., by sharing his time, energy, creativity, knowledge, and intellect with others. We as nationalists must therefore engage thinking individuals to help them perceive on a deeper level the social nature of their personal power. The will to power instinctively prods the individual to join or form groups, because it senses where the sources of the greatest potential power are located: the intellectual and moral resources of other human beings. The pooling of resources and potential greatly augments the strength for pursuing common aims that in turn benefit the individual. Cohesive, intimate, and long-term human associations contain tremendous potential for mutual benefits.

The reciprocal surrender of will gradually creates a new phenomenon, a mental construction, in short, an association, which grows stronger as its members continually add new contributions on its behalf. The same principle of accumulation of power which underpins the life instinct of individual beings also governs the corporate life of associations. 

Whether the individual will be successful in life will depend to a considerable extent on the strength of his attachments to the institutions which shaped him. Even a revolutionary anarchist will rely on the discipline, application, and knowledge instilled in him by family life and formal education if he wishes to be an effective agent of political change.

The cohesion and strength of associations exercise an enormous influence on the individual’s fate. Compare the chances to advance in life that children have who are born into a European middle-class existence or someone else growing up in the dirt-poor conditions of African village life. The well-being of our closest associations should therefore be of vital importance to all of us. Our investments in our families, local communities, political parties, or the nation are in a real sense the most important investments we could make in our own well-being. 

Significant groups such as families, religious communities, classes, and nations are characterized by years of intense interaction. At some point, the accumulating mass of interactions produces familiarity that flows into intimacy, which at length can be transformed into sentimental attachments, patriotism, or love. This is the true source of the strength of national communities. Their members can fall back on centuries or even millennia of close association. 

The virtue of exclusivity 

The building of bonds of love between people requires a great deal of time and effort, i.e., personal interaction that is focused and of long duration. Since time and energy are in limited supply, there will only be enough time and energy to forge selected bonds. Again, discrimination is inescapable.

Thus, the globalists’ sustained efforts to undermine the bonds between an individual and his nation will not produce a universal brotherhood in which the individual will feel secure. In fact, the leveling process initiated by globalization, its accompanying neoliberal economic model, and open-ended migration have eroded the high levels of education, social security, personal freedom, and safety to which Europeans had become accustomed. 

We nationalists should therefore stress that it was the 19th-century nation-states that gave Europeans their social security, universal literacy, access to affordable higher education, and their dignity as educated and free individuals, not the European Union. Germany under Chancellor Bismarck was the first country in the world to introduce a broad package of social welfare measures, including old-age pensions and disability payments. Why? Bismarck needed the support of the working masses in his struggle for German unity.

Here we see a good example of the functioning of the reciprocity principle in the life of a nation-state. The individual citizen loyally works for and supports the state, and the state reciprocates by creating decent living standards for him and his family.  

The virtue of competition between nations 

Universal literacy, individual freedom, economic welfare — all impact the loyalty a people will feel towards their country and the relative power of each nation. In the period of nation-state competition of the 19th century, each state sought to surpass its competitors in these fields. Competition forces one to perform better; monopolization breeds stagnation.

Nation-states do not have a monopoly on waging war. There were devastating wars before nation-states appeared; the Thirty Years’ War, fought on religious and dynastic grounds, wiped out about a third of 17th-century Europe’s populations. And multi-national empires throughout history have been keen on military conquest. Competition between nations can have a peaceful and constructive character, which was evident to a large extent in the century that followed the end of Napoleon’s imperialistic dreams in 1815, and ended with the outbreak of World War I. 

The 19th century’s rapid advances in mass education and the growth of the news media, transportation, and information technologies opened the way to integrating the masses into the life of the growing national states. This was the social, political, and cultural upheaval that the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset deplored in his The Revolt of the Masses. This Spanish thinker regretted that the standards of European high culture were being debased by mass culture in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But his was a reactionary view. Taken to its logical outcome, this line of thinking would accept that the European masses should remain illiterate and exploited by feudal lords. 

The newly-created national education systems of 19th century Europe instilled pride in national achievements and the desire to attain new triumphs for future generations. State support for national culture, generous financing of public buildings, monuments, parks, and urban renewal in general raised the stature of the nation-states in the eyes of their citizens. During the second half of the 19th century, the European capitals and major cities became visibly more attractive. Paris acquired its magnificent boulevards, Vienna was made grander with its Ringstrasse, and Rome built its Altar of the Nation. For many Europeans, the ideas of national pride and solidarity brought meaning and stability into their lives, which had been disrupted in the beginning phases of the industrial revolution.

Of all political formations recorded since the fall of the Roman Empire, it would be difficult to find political entities whose achievements exceeded those of the 19th- and early 20th-century European nation-states. The latter clearly outperformed the archaic political units which were founded on the principles of feudalism or monarchism. Within their defined borders, national states accumulated and organized an optimal level of resources and power. The elites of these states realized that the greatest possible sources of power available to them were their people, and especially the broad masses which were motivated to actively participate in national life.

By contrast, only a tiny minority of the inhabitants of feudal or monarchical political units was politically conscious and active. The word of the king or duke often was interpreted as the law. The written word and education were relegated to the sphere of influence of the clergy. The majority of the illiterate subjects of these traditional states remained passive objects of exploitation, bound to the land, and poorly informed about the political and economic issues of their polities. 

The nation-states regarded each of their citizens as a valuable element of power. The European states, organized on the principle of nationalism, surpassed all other political associations that appeared after the Roman Empire in their solidarity, vitality, productiveness, and creativity.

Although many contemporary historians condemn the Great Power rivalry of the 19th century, one must nevertheless admit that it was this very competitive environment that stimulated European economic development, investment in infrastructure, technological advances, social welfare, popular education, and national culture. The 19th century was the century that saw Europe at the pinnacle of its power in the world. 

A durable national identity fosters unity and strength 

If an individual’s intellectual contribution to the community is to endure, then the community must maintain a relatively stable composition. Only an association steadfast in its constitution will ensure discrimination and continuity in the pursuit of its goals, which is essential for sustained accumulation of strength. By contrast, a society comprised of heterogeneous elements will find long-term planning and joint action more challenging. This kind of community will prefer individual freedom over national consolidation.

The ambitious individual may reason that if the mind can conjure up infinite possibilities, then they must be attainable. This imagined, infinite creative power may explain why many people living in heterogeneous societies are so attracted to abstract freedom — freedom seemingly offers infinite creative possibilities. 

But assembling a mass of information or dabbling in many fields will only dissipate force. A person cannot simultaneously become a nuclear physicist, a psychologist, and a concert pianist. A vital factor, the will, is needed to compress the mass of impressions crowding the mind into a defined pathway that leads to strength. 

Mass immigration undermines the basis for European welfare systems

The active individual is obliged to channel available time and energy into building up only selected unions and avoiding the dispersal of force. Indiscriminate aims, unbounded ambition and misplaced affection dissipate force.

These are among the worst errors that human beings can commit. German Chancellor Merkel is certainly guilty of having made these grave mistakes by inviting millions of impoverished Third World inhabitants to come and enjoy her country’s social security largesse. One of the worst consequences of this open door approach is that it undermines the principle of reciprocity found in the nation-states. 

The universal right to immigrate, recently contrived by the UN, threatens the reciprocity principle of European nation-states. It implies that European citizens who for decades regularly pay into their national welfare systems should not expect to receive their fair share of pension payments when they retire. Even now tens of billions of euros, if not hundreds of billions of state aid, are being appropriated to new arrivals who have contributed nothing to the functioning of social welfare systems in European countries.

Chancellor Merkel worked assiduously for 15 years to undermine the national idea in her country and in Europe in general. She was raised as a Christian by her devout parents and simultaneously as a good Marxist by her East German Communist educators. Now she serves global oligarchic interests. Is there a contradiction here? Not really, if one considers that all three doctrines aim at one fundamental goal — the unification and control of all mankind.

The futility of the New World Order 

Hopefully, the reader will agree that the dream of global unity is unrealistic, given what has been written above about the nature of man as a perpetually intervening force. The fusing of national identities into a universal mass consciousness would only result in the forfeiture of cultural values and experience accumulated over centuries — an unpardonable loss. This amalgamation would not produce harmony, for the denationalized elements would continue to act in accordance with their natures and form new associations for the pursuit of power and resume competition. 

History shows that individuals have always banded together into an astounding variety of groups, which as associations of dynamic people, inevitably came into conflict with other associations pursuing limited resources. Man achieves his potential by associating with other individuals. But man’s greatest threats also originate from other people, as unpleasant as this insight may be for sincere internationalists.

Our greatest opportunities and simultaneously our biggest threats come not from the natural world — the earthquakes, tropical storms, and tornadoes — but people and groups of people. What did President Trump worry about the most when he was sitting in the White House? Was it the cold winters in Minnesota or the hot summers of Washington, DC? 

Primarily, a US President, or any other political leader, must deal with people exercising their will to power. Trump had to placate his campaign funders and blue-collar supporters while simultaneously confronting the ambitions of the Democrats, the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, and the Iranians. Even if we agree with Biden, Merkel, and Ursula von der Leyen that climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity, we must admit that this problem is a man-made phenomenon. Moreover, it is a consequence of the globalists’ will to power — their determination to integrate the Third World into Western industrial civilization.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

• First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
• Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here: