The Myth of Global Citizenship

Approx. 3800 words = Approx. 15 minutes reading time

Written by Diarmaid Ó Conaráin

An issue we will begin to hear more and more about in the near future will be global citizenship. It may not be delivered in such a direct manner, but we’re already seeing it creeping in with our political parties holding talks regarding police brutality in Nigeria. So what is a Global Citizen? It is a concept so ambiguous that it will necessitate subjective interpretations, which in turn allow it’s undefined meaning to grow and encompass ever more implications. Global Citizenship, or Cosmopolitanism, is an idea that’s been around for a very long time. Immanuel Kant among others espoused variants of this concept which are likely the modern foundation for this resurgence of an idea dating back to the Greeks before Christ. The complication with endorsing or denouncing the idea is again found in it’s ambiguity. It is further complicated by a disingenuous interpretation meant to serve the aims of others, and targeted only for the benefit of those seen fit to benefit by the advocates of global citizenship.

In truth the motive behind the modern intelligentsias adoption, remoulding and interpretation of this concept is insidious beyond a doubt. And unfortunately this issue cannot be addressed in its entirety without simply speaking the truth of the matter, which many may find hard to believe. The very nature of a subversive is to be vague. To leave their statements open to interpretation, and to let you find some way that you agree, and then to say “yes, that’s what I meant, and more”. The greatest lies have always contained fragments of truth or wisdom being wielded as sophistry. Yet still having the ability to sway the masses, both through passionate emotive delivery, and the masses recognition of the grain of truth being held within the lie. The question of motive for advocating for global citizenship is borderline impossible to determine. It can be either innocent or insidious, genuine or subversive. Such is the ambiguity of the concept that it facilitates all of the above in its potential applications.

Given that this is the case, and wishing to address as much of the argument as possible, I intend to simply begin with the factual, proceed through the hypothetical, and finish with the entirely abstract. I will address arguments I have personally encountered, the potential future implications I believe those behind its advocacy are manufacturing consent for, and lastly the non legal “responsibilities” of the global citizen.

To begin with the factual and the obvious, is global citizenship a real thing? No it isn’t, and its advocates know it isn’t. The whole idea is being brought to light to manufacture obedience and consent. If it were a reality in the slightest then there would be no need for any individual to hold dual citizenships. The very existence of such a legal state is to acknowledge that unlike the vast majority of people on earth, who are merely citizens in their home country, these individuals do indeed hold citizenship in more than one nation, giving them full entitlements in those nations. It highlights that global citizenship is nothing more than a concept, or there would be no need for such legalities. It is also unlikely that any of us would imagine that we could book a flight to Turkey and apply for welfare and social housing. A nations primary responsibility is to its citizens. And with this in mind it is obliged to limit citizenship for foreign nationals to levels that are of no detriment to the current population. No nation can offer entitlements to the world, it is simply impossible from a literal perspective of finite resources. I believe this initial stage of the conversation is overly rhetorical and warrants no further examples or explanation. Although its advocates have not expressed a desire for a literal interpretation just yet, as mentioned ambiguity warrants that we examine potential implications of such a concept. Though clearly Global Citizenship is not a legal or physical reality in the slightest.

For the sake of those on the political left who will use the natural right to freedom of movement as their justification for mass migration, I will address this argument briefly. The social contract is, and should remain, a national contract, not an international one. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that the contract varies from country to country, highlighting that the social contract is not universal. The mistake many people make stems from the blurring of the lines. Organisations such as the UN have stated their Declaration of Human Rights, and the majority of countries accept the majority of these human rights. But the very fact that it is not all countries accepting all rights unanimously should further highlight that the social contract is a nation states agreement between its people. It is not an international charter of rights. The UN has no such authority to issue or withdraw human rights, though many will appreciate the recognition nonetheless. In fact many nations can barely be described as having a social contract, and linger still in the days of absolutism. If even human rights were universally accepted then there wouldn’t be countries where women are unable to pursue education. There wouldn’t be countries still run by unelected dictators. Though as long as there are such disparities exists between cultures such as child labour, public stoning, genital mutilation etc, the charters of human rights will remain simply an idea that has yet to be adopted by multiple nations.

In a state of nature one could argue that individuals held the right to freedom of movement, and that this right should remain inalienable. But it is simply immoral to retain a right from which the potential recourse has been removed. Yes, you had the right to travel anywhere you like in a state of nature. But in that same state of nature, with no legitimate authority, the people in the area you travel to can decide to see you as an invader, and decide to kill you. Total freedom will come with its own price. The freedom we have agreed upon currently removes the consequence of free travel, but it does so by contracting that travel, essentially as a statement of genuine intention. This is why illegal migration should be met with zero tolerance. If an individual wishes to come to another peoples nation, the least they can do to signal they have no ill intention is to abide by that nation and peoples laws. If your first act in a foreign country is to disregard their rules then you should be deported immediately. It is not your right to simply arrive in foreign nations undeclared, imagining you’re now entitled to every benefit the law abiding citizens receive.

This is where I will begin to transition from factual to hypothetical, through a point that is relevant to both scenarios. When Immanuel Kant spoke of cosmopolitanism he did so from an idealistic perspective, one which we are still very, very far from achieving. Kant envisaged a cosmopolitanism based on undeniable human rights, regulated under nation states, who had seen fit to enter into a union. A worldwide EU of sorts. But he also believed that cosmopolitanism would necessitate universalism, as is largely proposed in his thoughts on categorical imperatives. Kants categorical imperatives never had a small print that read, but its ok to ignore this if you’re from a different culture. That wasn’t to insist different cultures couldn’t co-exist. But more to state that through reason we should arrive at universal maxims that all cultures would adopt. Again, we are nowhere near that as a global population. This presents not only the most prominent problem with globalism today, but the most prominent problem that globalism, global citizenship, cosmopolitanism, or any other name for the same idea will face as long as the ideas have advocates. Universalism will leave no room whatsoever for moral relativism. This may prove a problem with Islam in particular, as many may resist straying from their religious doctrine to adopt universal human rights based on rationalism and reason. This will create undying friction between groups as we argue over whose subjective culture deserves to be deemed objective. One would imagine that human rights would be a relatively easy concept to find international acceptance for, yet much of the muslim world cannot fathom women having the same rights as men. China cannot fathom allowing people to honour their religion of choice. The list could go on and on. Globalism as anything more than a trade network, facilitation of tourism, and the hope for universal acceptance of human rights is doomed to fail. Unless humanity is to be forced to fall under a single culture then no worldwide legal system applying to everyone can ever be achieved. A universal social contract could not co-exist with multiculturalism. Even if it did this would not afford individuals the right to move anywhere they desired without first receiving approval from the desired nation. To allow such a thing would create a one way flow to the most developed nations in the world. Why would a people spend their lives building up their own area, when they may not even see the end product, when they can simply catch a flight to the most developed countries in the world? I would hope the problems with this are self evident in overpopulation, lack of housing, employment, infrastructure, etc.

What is most perplexing about the modern lefts adoption of ideas is that they conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit them. Not only will they resist universalism in favour of moral relativism, while pushing for globalism. They will insist that the same moral relativism should not be applied to our own nations. Apparently in their virtue they have decided that all other cultures are exempt from adopting our culture, but we should strive to integrate other cultures into our own until it disintegrates completely. Clear examples of this can be seen by allowing halal slaughter and separate entrance Islamic buildings, yet not enforcing Equality or LGBT ideologies on the same entities. Or the deliberate attempt to undermine foundational principles of our society through identity politics. This is not virtue. It is not tolerance or acceptance. This is submission, and a slow erosion of our own culture to facilitate those who should have stayed at home if they sought to live differently to how we do in our nation. These points do not specifically address what the left advocate for, but more so they’re made to highlight that even though they use men like Immanuel Kant as confirmation bias for their ideas, they refuse to adhere to even his principles on the matter. Kant and others believed cosmopolitanism would rely heavily on mutual respect and acceptance. I do not believe a religion whose stated purpose is to convert the whole population of earth can be considered respectful of others beliefs. With that being a fact we have at the very least over a billion people likely incapable of achieving such a mindset in their current generations.

The entire issue has become so deliberately convoluted that it is difficult to argue. We’re faced with two ideas. One being that of genuine philosophers, and the other being those of the current sophists seeking to abuse our good nature. The philosophers had a view of humanity in the future, when we might all have finally come to the same conclusions in our own time, and arrived at a voluntary union. The modern left have decided that they know what’s best, and seek to impose a globalist society on us all, to prove that they aren’t racist. Multiculturalism makes global self determination impossible, it will inevitably descend into identity politics rather than objectivity. This is why Nationalism is still the most moral, productive, and organic system for humans to live under, until someday we’re ready for something beyond that.

Why is it then that I would describe cosmopolitanism as idealistic? Firstly because it would require a universalism that humanity is in no way ready for. Secondly because Kant had tried to imagine a harmonious state for humanity, a perpetual peace. Although this is an admirable outlook, as admirable as Christianity saying we’re all Gods family, it is simply too good to be true, and we remain a long way away from the required dispositions to realize such a vision. The truth is that today perhaps more so than ever there are many groups who have been agitated into hatred by the mainstream media and sophists, that they carry an unshakeable resentment and hatred for our people. So evident is the notion of collective guilt that those who advocate for the last model of global citizenship do so from the stance that not only is it our collective responsibility to tackle world problems, but they were likely our fault due to colonialism to begin with. This allegation never has and never will stand up to scrutiny or examination, though that won’t stop them from continually making it. This should highlight that the majority of activism in the final iteration will be expected from and performed by westerners. As penance for our sins, of course.

The last interpretation or promotion of the concept of being a global citizen is also arguably founded on Kants work on categorical imperatives, somehow fused together with a moral relativism. I describe it that way because it first states that as a global citizen it is our responsibility to pressure our government to act, and take part in activism to combat injustice around the globe. Yet on the other hand I have rarely seen a feminist attack any nation but a western nation. Those who are more savvy in negotiating and convincing people will say that, of course cultural differences exist, and are healthy, but this shouldn’t stop us coming together on wider global issues such as climate change. Yet those same people can be found spending their time hounding westerners about climate change, and never once approaching China, India, or Saudi Arabia to talk about shifting their infrastructure to sustainable energy.

In truth it is the same kind of safe attitude that will non stop abuse the Catholic church while never uttering a word about Islam. The same attitude that would deem western white men to be sexist and misogynistic, while never speaking a bad word about other men who are often far worse. The kind of outlook that can see the same problem in two countries and decide that police brutality in Nigeria is just police brutality, but police brutality in the U.S simply must be systemic racism. The kind of outlook that would insist on the history of slavery being talked about over and over, while never wanting Nigeria or other African nations part in slavery brought to light. Outlooks that lack exactly the kind of objectivity that is required before one could even begin to lecture others. In truth if we are looking for a pattern there is one to be found. That pattern is an anti-white sentiment.

This new iteration of global citizenship is a feel good manipulation for a form of reparations for things that aren’t true, and we were never a part of if they had been. It is largely aimed at wealth redistribution, through ceaseless activism. It will begin with undeniable causes likes police brutality, but it will not be long before the call to end world poverty and hunger is heard. At that point the “activism” will be almost exclusively concerning foreign aid to combat problems in developing nations. Yet it wouldn’t be the modern left if there was a lack of outrageous hypocrisy. And so as is their tradition they have highlighted their own hypocrisy by stepping over the homeless in Ireland to pander to those in direct provision. Looking passed the looming recession, suicide rates, general housing crisis, etc, and decided that ending police brutality in Nigeria would be the best use of their time. Our politicians see fit to criticise Poland for their LGBT stance, yet the same politicians cannot muster the courage to criticise China with regards to their deliberate lies early on this year. They will berate the entire population for nameless, faceless sexism in the workplace, apparently proven via disparities in outcome. And yet they have nothing to say about Islamic nations. There is far too much hypocrisy for them to ever attempt a stance of categorical or moral imperatives, and yet they will try nonetheless. The truth is that these are not the ideas of coherent or consistent people. They aren’t really sure what they believe, but they are certain about how they feel. The problem is how they feel is generated by what they’re shown, and they’re not shown the dozens of Irish people who died homeless. Instead the media, NGOs, and journalists insist on showing the general public emotively manipulative images, as Trocaire have used for years, specifically to take advantage of the good nature of people. This is not to state that charity is not a respectable idea. It is to say that like many things today, it has been weaponized by those who would use us for their aims, while disregarding and showing no concern for our own aims.

I have not seen or heard of one movement, protest, or piece of activism in another nation dedicated to Irelands homeless people. So why is it we should hold meetings, protests, or anything else regarding Nigerian police brutality? This comes across as spiteful. The whole conversation has been rigged to do exactly that. To make simple self preservation and the desire for equality seem selfish and begrudging. The left will answer saying we don’t have to pit the poor of one country against the poor of another. They will say that it’s possible to tackle multiple issues simultaneously, and we don’t have to ignore one to tackle another. But unfortunately that’s exactly what has to be done when finite resources are being handed out. And the truth is they have failed for years to solve the housing crisis, so they are incapable of tackling one issue successfully, much less multiple ones simultaneously. The Irish government cannot tackle poverty in Africa when it has not solved the problem at home, and it is morally wrong to even try. Citizens, or participants in social contracts, pay tax into the system for the benefits it provides. If the system ceases to provide those benefits then there is no longer any justifiable reason to allow it to collect tax. If that nation or system tries to extend generosity beyond its borders too frequently it risks not being able to provide the benefits for its citizens it is required to provide, and risks compromising the entire system. Global citizenship from a perspective of activism will inevitably undermine nationalism, facilitate extreme moral relativism and subjective crusade selection, and facilitate the greatest swindle of wealth in history by means of the newest form of extortion, shaming and alleged collective guilt.

Regardless of what the left will say, there is something inherently sickening about looking passed the issues of your own people to virtue signal to others. They do this under a supposed sense of responsibility to each other as global citizens. Yet in truth these are the same individuals who fail miserably to be citizens of their own nation, by refusing to exhibit the same sense of responsibility toward their own peoples struggles. This is selective virtue, mostly aimed at proving how anti-racist and accepting they are. The racist preference is further demonstrated with issues like black lives matter, while more white men are killed than black men proportionally by police. Police brutality is apparently not a thing in America, merely racist persecution, according to the left. This is genuinely an unsustainable fixation breeding massive hypocrisy, racial division, and social unrest. It would appear those who are the loudest in society have the very least idea of how to build it successfully. It is a fool that would allow themselves to feel a sense of responsibility for strangers from other cultures who have genuine hatred for them. The idealistic terms for global citizenship are far from being met, and the current left have absolutely no chance of shaping or achieving them. In truth they are simply wreaking havoc with their inability to process reality isolated from their emotions, and the lies they have been sold about the past.

A final concept we will witness more of, as apparently it is being taught to children now, is the birth lottery, or Ovarian lottery as I believe Warren Buffet termed it. Aside from this being a moulding together of John Rawls Original Position and Intersectionality, it is once again a subversive international application of a national principle of the social contract. It is not Irelands responsibility to ensure all humans have a fair shot. It is merely its responsibility to ensure all Irish citizens have a fair shot. Original position is a valid concept with regards to Equality of Opportunity. But it being mixed with Intersectionality discredits its motives in my opinion. It is further discredited by any notion that the principle should apply internationally. It is not, nor will it ever be, Irelands responsibility to solve other nations problems. That does not mean that we won’t try to help, out of the goodness of our hearts, but nobody is owed this from us. Just as we are not owed it from them. A responsibility to every human on the planet is far too great a weight to place on any individual struggling to make ends meet, or buy a home. In truth, and under scrutiny, these are ridiculous concepts. Perhaps merely way ahead of their time. But never to be realized in our time certainly.

As mentioned the concept or issue itself is so loose and lacking of specificity that we could talk for hours regarding the possible implications, and the plausibility of those implications. Discerning between the original idea and the modern lefts usage of it is also a key factor in determining the true motive behind the current movement. Like equality of outcome, I feel certain this is a concept they will push forward subtly, while rarely mentioning their true intention. We will simply have moral wrongs from foreign nations placed in front of us over and over, while being told that it is our responsibility as members of the human species to take action. But as long as they desire my time and effort for foreign lands while neglecting my own I will have no part in such subjective “responsibilities”. As long as our government practices moral relativism it has no business lecturing anyone in ethics or moral standards. As long as the left turn a blind eye to issues in foreign nations that they wish to crucify their own people for, I will never be led or dictated to by such hypocrites.