You could only have a problem with Donald Trump’s speech at UN headquarters in New York if you were part of the problem.
Oh, there’s people!
Every year after their summer holidays, a speech marathon awaits UN representatives when their colleagues from all over the globe take to the lectern to reflect on the current state of worldly affairs, and particularly their own contributions to them. If this spectacle looks rather stuffy and redundant, it may be in the eye of the beholder.
At EU headquarters in Brussels on the other hand, the third reading of the Light-bulb Act may certainly make hearts beat faster, and the frantic news about over-fulfilled quotas of tractor production will be the stuff of legend for years to come. This may be why outside the Brussels Bubble, nobody likes to laugh about this kind of collective insanity anymore because they find this Continental behemoth just a tad scary, now that President Juncker has let that cat out of the bag.
In a marked contrast with “Europe under German leadership“, Mr Trump’s appearance in New York was marked by something that hasn’t been done for a long time: Mr Trump actually took the UN seriously, frequently reminding them of their vision and mission. This might have appeared necessary not only from his perspective.
His perspective can be summarised in a few words: the most dignified form of government is by the people, for the people, through the people – as a populace democratically responsible to and for itself.
And this not because of idealistic visions and theories which may or may not be fashionable in “Europe”, but because of sound empirical evidence. Because one look at historical facts should always prove that the democratically sovereign nation state is the best guarantor of the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
No dictatorship of the proletariat worked better, dear Lefties, and the eco-friendly junta of a self-proclaimed pseudo elite fails just as miserably, dear Greenies. Not even socialcleptocracy has proved itself to be as successful in wealth creation as nation state democracy, dear Labour.
Getting laws rubber-stamped in a one-party “parliament”, or the EU’s for that matter, doesn’t count as “by the people, for the people” by the way. That’s why it’s not surprising that the statist block of right-on published opinion is so enraged by Donald Trump: there could be hard times ahead for someone having to work for their living for the first time in their lives after all.
But let’s not jest. The better part of Mr Trump’s 40-minute speech covered the right to popular self-determination. This is also known as freedom, and is apparently something the Left does not like. Maybe because they assume that everybody is just as hypocritical as they are, or maybe they are supposing that all the other 200 nation states of the world are just about as rogue as their poster boys – what with everybody being equal and all that.
There’s scarce historical evidence for such an assumption, but it has a basis in facts nevertheless: German unification in the 19th century was marred by an aggressive interior imperialism by one German state, Prussia, against national minorities and smaller states at the periphery of their Reich in the making. Prussia went on the war path in the 1850s and 1860s, against Hanover, Denmark and Austria. These regional conflicts foreshadowed the victory over France in 1870/71, the crowning achievement of German Reich building, and in many ways resemble the process of EU unification today.
Violent oppression remained a German specialty thereafter: England, France and the US did not cause two world wars and a Holocaust – and neither did the almost 200 other nations of this world. But just because Germany couldn’t come up with a positive, but only an entirely negative manifestation of the nation state, certainly doesn’t prove the concept wrong.
Especially, when there’s nothing particularly hideous to blame the rest of the world for. On the other hand, and on historical evidence, it could be argued that the world would have been a better place without at least two German Reichs (the second and the third one) – and maybe the world could do without a fourth Reich, too.
“Europe under German leadership” does, after all, not appear to be a very big socio-economic success. And unsurprisingly, the political project of “European Union” has not been copied even once in all the 60 years of its existance. Honi soit!
But of course, euro-nationalism becomes a much nobler sentiment when it is preached by the likes of A.C. Grayling, Owen Jones and Alistair Campbell. But why would the German left-of-centre mainstream blame nations for their patriotism – particularly nations who (though maybe unintendedly) once liberated their country from fascism?
Someone remind them of their “Hitler Diaries”, please?
The Allied Victory appears to be a bone of some contention still, in Germany. More than 70 years after the war, and on the political windfall profits of another German unification, German published opinion still reacts with un-thankfulness and insults to the erstwhile liberators of their country. My case in point is the cover of a German magazine portraying Donald Trump as literally Hitler – the US-Nazi of their imagination, a true masterstroke of fake news. To side with the only morally justified side during German fascism is of course something the “stern” will never forgive America.
German fascism proves nothing about nation state democracy. If the concept succeeded all over the world and only went a bit wonky in Germany, you can’t blame the nation state for it. One look at the state of his country would prove the American President to be right about this point.
But before the US became the greatest military power on earth, they became its greatest power of industry and commerce. And before they became this, they were a nation guaranteeing peace and self-determination to all citizens by protecting them from state interference and oppression. Something similar cannot, in fairness, be said of “Europe under German leadership”.
Accordingly, President Trump seems to separate the world into two categories: states which serve their citizens, and states which don’t quite do so. The latter category consists of the People’s Prison of North-Korea, the Iranian Mullahship, Socialist Cuba and Venezuela – who, by the way, all happen to be poster boys of the Left, aka countries where one couldn’t even wipe one’s arse with toilet paper.
Dear Lefties: rocket man is banging on about his nuclear capabilities and Donald Trump is your problem – really?
On the other hand, we see countries who would like to be measured by the contributions they are making to their inhabitants’ peace, security and prosperity, e.g. the US and Israel, but also Poland, France and the UK, the latter three prior to EU integration of course.
Which leaves us with a rather large residual category. These 190 morally and historically ambiguous nation states obviously include the New Germany of Angela M., so well done, Stasi-Angie. And now, this internationally overrated chancellor would like to invite Uncle Kim for another round of talks along the lines of those which led to the Iranian nuclear treaty, which of course worked out swell, didn’t it, Mrs Merkel?
An interesting detail of Donald Trump’s speech at the UN shouldn’t go unnoticed: the same amount of money that went into one “refugee” in Germany could have saved ten in the rest of the world. The €25 billion Mrs Merkel has spent in the last fiscal year alone could have saved 15 million people, if properly allocated. Which goes to show that the recent bout of virtue signalling made in Germany was about many kinds of wants and needs – but least of them the intention to save the largest number of people.
Considering the state of „More Europe“, it would be a mistake to assume that the interests of a democratic nation were best served by dissolving it in a melting pot “under German leadership”. A mistake Poland and Hungary don’t appear too keen to make.