United We Stand?

The slogan “united we stand” is repeated ad nauseam in our society. We see it on bumper stickers, hear it used in political rhetoric and perhaps sometimes even use it ourselves. Perhaps it is most powerful when it is repeated as part of an emotional appeal for unity in war, following a tragedy or during a national disaster. It is certainly true that large groups of people can often achieve what smaller groups or individuals cannot. However, this phrase is also used to oppose groups of people who seek self-determination – and this is where the phrase can become controversial. Let’s examine the idea.

If we are truly “stronger together” (another popular slogan which supports the same idea of strength in unity) then the logical action would be to consolidate all human beings under a single world government. With current technology we could arrange world-wide democratic elections and choose a president and a legislative body. It is certainly possible. And, if “united we stand” is true, then we should all want to be united, right?

This idea of global unity and cooperation assuredly appeals to many people, at least rhetorically and emotionally. However, what would be the results of global human government? For starters, we in the United States would constitute a tiny minority in the global electorate. We are under 5% of the earth’s population. By contrast, China and India each have about 18% of the world’s population and thus could out-vote us on any issue. Even combining the potential voting power of the United States and the European Union into a Western bloc we would not equal that of India or China. Relatively speaking, there just aren’t that many Americans or Westerners.

What we lack in numbers though we make up for in wealth. The United States has over 40% of the world’s personal wealth. By contrast, China has only about 10% and India lags far, far behind China. In a global democratic government this would put the United States in a position similar to the Whites in South Africa. They have negligible political power, but a lot of wealth. What has been the fate of White people in South Africa since the fall of the apartheid government and institution of mass democracy? The Black majority has decided to confiscate White-owned property without compensation. In a global democratic government, the impoverished human super-majority could vote to redistribute all of the wealth of the United States and Europe to Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and Southeast Asia. Even if the global government had constitutional protections for wealthy countries, those protections could be amended by the super-majority of poor people outside of the West.

Wealth is only one possible consideration. Another is religion. Presently, Christians make up about 33% of the world’s population. However, non-religious people and Islamic people are growing quickly in number and will eventually surpass Christians, if present trends continue. Under a global government any religious minority could be persecuted. Imagine the fate of Christian communities under an Islamic or atheist regime.

Immigration is yet another major issue which could possibly ruin the US or EU under a global government. According to a Gallup poll, one in three Central Americans want to immigrate to the United States. Such a level of immigration would disrupt the economy, impose a massive strain on an already stretched social welfare system and forever change the culture and politics of the US. And, Central America is a tiny portion of the Third World. How many more tens of millions of Africans, Middle Easterners and Asians would flood the US and EU if all immigration controls were removed under a global government controlled by demographically dominant poor countries? Such a disruption would be unequaled in history and might set human civilization back centuries or even cause its destruction.

As you can see, a “united we stand” global democracy would be a disaster for the United States, the West in general and other wealthy countries. It would probably also be a disaster for many poor countries that survive on foreign aid or remittances. So, we really aren’t “stronger together.” We’re actually stronger apart.

If there must be some separation of humans under sovereign governments then where do we draw the line? This is a difficult question which has no perfect answer. The obvious starting point is the present system of 196 countries. However, many of those countries control regions in which communities have their own distinct culture or want their own independent state. Here is where we can begin to view this issue from a Southern Nationalist perspective.

Let’s close by asking a few questions to determine if we Southerners are in fact “stronger together” as part of the United States:

  • Are we stronger together when Dixie provides almost half of the US military enlistments to serve in a military, which spends its time and resources nation-building abroad? The last time the South was militarily invaded who was that invader?
  • Are we stronger together when Southerners are a permanent numerical minority in the US government?
  • Are we stronger together when not a single White Southerner sits on the US Supreme Court?
  • Are we stronger together when the media, which floods the South, is primarily produced in California and New York by people whose politics and social values are markedly different than that of the average Southerner?
  • Are we stronger together when the South serves as a retirement home for elderly Northerners who move here en masse and begin changing the culture and politics while driving up property prices?
  • Are we stronger together when the South has opposed every leftist US social movement of the previous 200 years and yet has been unable to prevent its eventual victory due to our minority demographics and lack of media and economic control?
  • Are we stronger together when the US government refuses to adequately defend the South’s international borders and then grants amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens to flood our States?

The above questions are just a starting point. They point to a very real problem. Namely, we do not control our own fate in the Union. We cannot protect our borders. Our military prowess is exploited. We do not own the media which influences our culture and the minds of our children. And, we do not have access to reasonably priced real estate.

Essentially, we are treated as an economic and military colony of the Northeast and West Coast power centers in the American Empire. United they stand as we kneel before them.

4 comments

  1. Democracy doesn’t scale up at all, it only works locally where people’s values, needs and wants are very similar. Global democracy would be a farce since the constituencies would be so large representatives couldn’t accurately represent them in any meaningful way. Just look at our presidential elections: no president represents more than 51% of voters and even then not accurately; we still complain that he’s not doing what we want.

    And globally, various cultures’ value systems are so widely varied that common ground isn’t possible. It would be, as you point out, tyranny of the most populous countries. Pretty quickly it would be WWIII.

    But, since we’re not even united in this country, the slogan is a farce to begin with. It’s just another excuse for conservatives not to fight for their values.

  2. The Washington Times has an opinion piece in favor of secession and more state sovereignty. Essentially, the author’s idea is make secession legal and the threat of secession would force the federal government to relax it’s control over states to prevent them leaving. I don’t think it would as well as hoped, but it’s interesting that the article was even written.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/6/can-red-state-and-blue-state-america-coexist/

  3. Well, I’ve already made 2 comments; third times the charm!

    I just read a translation of an essay by Brazil’s foreign minister Ernesto Henrique Fraga Araújo: Trump and the West. Wow. I wish our politicians had thoughts like these (or even just thoughts!)

    It’s pretty long, but here’s a gross summary: the West is suffering from a spiritual decline beginning no later than WW I and only nationalism can save her.

    https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/01/07/brazils-new-foreign-minister-gives-profound-philosophical-base-to-trumpian-populism/

    I hope he’s right about Trump.

    If you haven’t read it I highly recommend doing so.