Zuckerberg Tips His Hand

By declaring that he is a partisan of globalism and one-world government, while also an enemy of national identity and sovereignty. This little snot -- whose fame and fortune derive from giving narcissists a platform to admire themselves in front of others -- is punching way above his weight. Contrary to his flowery and insipid prose, there is nothing idealistic about erecting a worldwide Tower of Babel, which would destroy international competition and leave the world completely defenseless against universal totalitarian rule.

Even if we assume for a moment that Zuckerberg's vision has the best of intentions behind it, what happens when a global regime goes sour, as all human regimes eventually do? Who will come to our rescue the next time a dictator ascends to power? No one. All resistance to such people will be internal, weak, ineffective, and subject to imprisonment or death. As I've written on a prior occasion:

National sovereignty and international competition are essential to the survival of human civilization, for they limit the reach and strength of any single government, and they compel governments to face external enemies in a creative struggle whereby good ideas have a chance to outlast and defeat bad ones. If Weimar Germany of the 1920s and ’30s had been a global democracy rather than a merely national one, Hitler’s election to high office and subsequent seizure of absolute power would have spelled a worldwide Third Reich rather than a localized dictatorship that, fortunately, could be resisted with outside military force. In a uniformly governed world, any opponent of such tyranny would be merely internal; he would be labeled as an outlaw; and he would be imprisoned or executed. One can run this “thought experiment” to envision any number of nightmarish outcomes, such as a global Mao Tse-tung, a global Pol Pot, or a global Stalin.

We know for a fact that governments kill far more of their own people than each other's: during the twentieth century alone, governments murdered roughly 160 million of their own citizens in bloody orgies of “democide,” while killing only a fraction of that number through international warfare. So if the nation-state system seems lawless and vicious, it surely cannot match the potential brutality of a world under a single government. In light of this knowledge, it is folly to exchange a world of divided sovereignties, however imperfect, for a single worldwide sovereignty, however promising. One would be just as foolish to consolidate all of the world’s criminal organizations into a single unrivaled syndicate on the belief that this would reduce thievery and violence.

Zuckerberg and everyone else who hates Trump for his nationalism are dangerous idiots, but also useful ones for the plutocrats who want to transform the entire planet into a Third World oligarchy under their unrivaled control.

The battle lines are being drawn very clearly now, which may be Trump's greatest gift even if all of Trump's other efforts fail. You cannot be a patriotic American who believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you also believe in destroying American sovereignty and putting it under the control of the teeming multitudes of non-Americans everywhere else. If you want to destroy the nations in general, you want to destroy America in particular, and you are America's enemy.