World War Two and the Transnational Order

In a way the period of US superpower hegemony was never about US power at all, but it’s immediate replacement

In the last 80 years it can be truthfully asserted that all of the major features of the western political settlement exist in the shadow of World War Two. In 1945 the institutions and attitudes that shaped respectable opinion and political reality for 8 decades subsequently were born from the ruins and rubble of World War Two.

The great transnational bodies like the UN were born there. The whole movement towards lessening the nation state and wrapping the entire world in a series of binding agreements and a shared alignment of values was born there. The US came of age as a super-power as a consequence of World War Two, and so of course did the Soviet Union. The Cold War was one infant born from the war, and the entire ‘rules based international order’ was another.

The whole system of international law was shaped and determined by World War Two, even though international treaty obligations are of course far older than modern nation states are. World War Two moved the perception of international law from a thing between one, two or three nations (bilateral agreements) even beyond 19th century Grand Alliances and Congress of Vienna type agreements into being a thing which existed in and of itself above and beyond the power of any large nation flexing its muscles or any small set of nations acting cooperatively.

Note the key difference between a treaty agreement that merely obligates two parties towards interests they separately hold, and treaties which establish permanent other organisations with their own staff, their own ethos, their own headquarters and, before long, their own agendas. Note the difference between a temporary coming together of interests (a Conference that occurs once, lasts a week or a month, divvying up the spoils of a war), and an organisation that is permanent and will hold ongoing meetings and build its own infrastructure that extends through time with no end in sight.

The shift is one from an internationalism in which transnational bodies were less powerful than the strongest nation states and could not effectively restrain national agendas (the situation with the UN’s predecessor League of Nations), to a globalist one in which the transnational bodies acted on the assumption that they had moral primacy over nation states (even those that paid for their existence) and increasingly had too the practical power given that the ruling class as a whole all agreed to this moral primacy.

Just as within Christendom the Pope’s power to affect France or Germany or England did not rest on Papal armies or the relatively weak forces a Pope could command as the head of the Papal States in Italy, but on the moral primacy that made Kings in all these nations fear excommunication and its consequences, so too the modern rules based order established at the end of World War Two rested on the willingness of the ruling class in western nations to consider the UN an ultimate moral authority. Being considered outside the rules based order became, for modern elites, the contemporary version of excommunication, and a thing applicable even above the Cold War at its height given that both the US and the Soviet Union were permanent members of the Security Council of the UN.

The Soviets were both outside the seemingly western dominated and imposed world order, and deeply within it. As adversaries facing the western ‘free world’ they sponsored rival regimes and internal dissension in the western world, and the West did the opposite in response (or sometimes before). On a surface level of understanding the world was divided between a Free West and a Communist East, and in many ways this division did refer to real things (the West was, plainly, more free). But with a deeper understanding we see that these opposing forces were in some ways part of the same game, like the black and white kings on a chessboard, or like two players engaged in a chess game.

To be in that game, even to cheat in that game, you had to have first agreed to the game and its rules. You had to first accept that there was a thing called chess, and that the pawn moves this way, and the Queen moves differently to the King and the Knight, etc. So the clashes between the Free World and the Communist World, the proxy wars across the entire board (the globe) were still moving in the shadow of the rules established by World War Two, and still occurring between players equally familiar with the international rules based system established at the end of World War Two.

The Soviets never walked away from the UN. The Soviets helped shape the UN and things such as the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Soviet lawyers were just as engaged in developing the post-war settlement as British or American ones were, and Soviet negotiators were just as cunning at weaving their values into the actions and principles of transnational bodies as western negotiators were. If anything, Soviets understood the power of unaccountable bureaucracy a lot better than their western counterparts did, used their security council veto more cunningly than the West used its funding of the whole thing, and were smarter and more ruthless in building shared interests with small nations within the UN (especially small and dictatorial ones from the Third World).

What this all meant was that thanks to the inherent nature of bureaucracy and thanks to Soviet cunning the UN became at one and the same time BOTH the high moral authority of naive western idealists and internationalists, AND a thing that operated with the same capacity for corruption, hypocrisy, authoritarianism and departure from reality on ideological grounds one might find in any Stalinist or Maoist department or agency. It became BOTH the voice of international judgement and respectability and high ideals on human rights, war crimes, cooperative effort between nations, peace, war, and modern values AND a place of unaccountable, anti-democratic, remote, authoritarian, ideologically driven conformity where supremely corrupt and backwards nations (in the Islamic world particularly, but also in the Communist world) were as likely to head a Committee or chair a meeting or propose a policy or win others around to their viewpoint as anyone else.

Transnational bodies were not just shaped by the West, they were not and are not merely tools of western power, even though they were primarily funded by the West, endorsed wars in which the US and it’s major allies acted as the fist of the international order, and on the surface expressed liberal values. Instead they were and are self serving bureaucracies who operate the way Soviet organisations operated, within the context of a political settlement with zero concern for whether ordinary people supported and endorsed it. They were in fact formed of anti-democratic instincts shared by the western elite and the Soviet Party leaders, both of whom did not trust a voting populace to make the ‘right’ choices.

The western elite wanted to remove power from the ordinary people who with their outmoded nationalism and their archaic loyalties to particular places were all potential recruits for the next Nazi Germany. Their patrician disdain was aimed at the nationalism they blamed for World War Two and the local loyalties they had come to see as inimical to peace, security and good governance, and they rushed to use western resources to create a set of institutions that would first override and then entirely replace the nation states that funded them.

They increasingly took sophistication to mean loyalty to these bodies instead of loyalty to voting majorities in the West, and applied grand positive labels like Democracy to a system of rules which increasingly were not shaped by or for the democratic majority of any particular place. Instead of representatives meeting within one nation to reflect the views of the people who elected them, unelected representatives of multiple nations would meet with each other to set the rules for multiple nations with no moment in which the ordinary voter could intrude on these great works.

This is the model of governance by transnational bodies, and it’s the same model that a technocracy works by (the only difference there is a greater preponderance of credentialed scientists, academics and experts as your anointed masters). And in its functional disdain for real accountability and real democracy, in its love of unaccountable bureaucracy and self-elected institutionalism governing every aspect of lives when these governed individuals have no say in the system at all, it is of course also the way Soviet or Chinese Communist organisation and governance works.

So this is then the key secret of our times. Everything established with large noble proclamations at the end of World War Two and with a tendency to back US wars that looked like the assertion of US global hegemony as a super-power, was really part of a process of the diminishment of what made the US and western nations like the UK valuable and individually powerful in the first place.

It’s true these nations rose to prominence by being more free than other places, and by a heritage of western innovation, individualism and economic, scientific and military competence. But that was in each case as individual nations pursuing their own best interests. It’s true the 19th century saw British dominance and global action, and the 20th century became an American century where it might seem that US interests predominated.

But from 1945 on western elites were loyal not to their own nations, but to transnational bodies, to the moral primacy of the UN, to the ‘rules based system’ and to a faith based worship of Globalism and to the ideal of ever-growing international cooperation ultimately leading towards a World Government. That is what elites were really pressing, even those that seemed most hawkishly parochial and most tied to US symbology and US hegemony. From this point on US and UK elites saw their role, in the main, as helping to birth and raise the transnational bodies that would entirely replace the nation state. That’s what the Rockefeller Foundation was working towards, and what the Soros Foundation and the Gates Foundation support too, in their slightly differing ways.

It’s what is still the operating core of elite morality, which supposes that everything nationalist is bad, and everything internationalist or transnational is good. Wokeness merely codified this belief system at its most patently ridiculous, and can be described as the sum of the idiocies it creates. But the heart of it all is found in the lawyers and bureaucrats and politicians of 1945 deciding that they would never again allow the general public to vote a Nazi into office, and that in the name of Democracy they would reduce Democracy as the most efficient means of preventing such an event. This was the key error from which contemporary evils now derive.

It was an error because of course it was not rightwing nationalism that allowed the National Socialists the total power to do unimaginably evil things-it was the support of the German Big Business world first, followed by the leftwing accumulation of all power to the State and the fascistic alliance of these two seemingly contradictory things which gave Nazism the practical tools to commit unimaginable evil. And it was not internationalist bodies that defeated Nazism (not the UN’s League of Nations precursor) nor prior agreed general moral declarations pored over by lawyers and bureaucrats and produced by committee that gave moral answer to Nazi crimes, but rather the nationalism of other nations and an ancient, traditional bedrock of Judeo-Christian faith that defined the things done by Nazism as evil beyond full description.

In other words, the entire moral authority of the new transnational bodies AND their future efficacy in terms of preventing tyranny was built on false premises about what the moral lesson of World War Two should be. The real moral lesson was that the diversity of nations, their separateness, inoculates one nation from a moral horror occurring in a different one, just as a virus that rages through one body does not necessarily rage through another one. The strongest defence of an evil spreading from one tyranny to multiple nations is the fact that these ARE multiple nations, and the second strongest defence is the degree to which the leaders of those nations are accountable to the People of that specific place (rather than to some other loyalty that isn’t democratic).

But the moral lesson that was taken was the exact opposite of these truths. It was that the diversity of nations is a threat, that nations should cohere and merge together and accept all the same rules whilst suppressing their uniqueness, and that the best governance of this process would be through unaccountable, inherently undemocratic transnational institutions.

All this was disguised by American power being the main way this movement was enforced, and by western leaders still mouthing the necessary platitudes and wrapping themselves in their national flags as if they had the same real loyalties as the average voter. But really the transfer of power from nation state to transnational body was active continuously, and a kind of worshipped parasitism saw the transnational bodies attached to and feeding from the nation states they were replacing. Nothing symbolises this more than the fact that the US pays the majority of the budget of the UN, the UN HQ squats magnificently in New York, and all the time it does so the UN claims higher moral authority than the US and claims more loyalty from US politicians than the American voter can claim from them.

When these things are widely recognised, it will add an element of irony to the American Century, because at its most obviously powerful the US was already serving foreign interests perhaps more fully than it had before its independent birth, or at least its leaders generally were. The citizens of the 13 colonies were in many ways less imposed upon by George III than they are today by the federal government of the USA which has far more tyrannical resources at its disposal and which taxes them far more highly than the British once did. But more than that, is Washington DC any less distant and contemptuous in its attitudes towards Middle America than London would be, and are many US politicians not more loyal to the UN or to NATO or to Globalist ideology and Globalist transnational bodies than they are US citizens?

In 1945 America became a superpower (possibly in 1942-3 when it surpassed the British Empire in economic and military power). But in 1945 the newborn superpower was immediately parasitised by the UN and the other transnational bodies. The new giant national power was immediately the servant of an international order it only partly designed, and would become the steroid pumped military servant of this order too (pursuing wars for the military industrial complex and international rules based system, not necessarily wars that benefited any ordinary American).

America might not really have had a century or even half a century as a superpower at all. It might have had a matter of months or at most two years between finally overtaking the British Empire and then busily setting to work building its new Master. This is no doubt a deeply uncomfortable thing for any American patriot to hear, but from the moment America started to fund the UN it was in one way paying a tithe to a foreign power.

From 2016 the Presidency of a man who does care about American greatness and does put specifically American success as the purpose of American leadership showed us, by the vitriolic response of the American political elite, just how much the federal government, the Deep State, the administrative and ruling class, serve masters other then the American people, and do so with a specific horror of American nationalism. That too, was born of the moral misreading of World War Two.

It’s said that a dog cannot have two masters. So long as the transnational bodies created at the end of World War Two continue to exist and continue to be funded by western nations, it is their rule that western leaders really enact and care about, it is this transnational order moving towards a single world government that embodies their hopes, dreams and faith for the future, not the nation states they nominally lead or the populace of those nation states.

To put it crudely but hopefully with some effect, while these political dogs lick the hand of the UN or wag their tails for every transnational master there is, they must necessarily also piss on us, or snarl and snap at anyone who serves and loves the nation instead of transnational institutions.