Our ruling class want ‘global citizenship’ to replace national identity

We are witnessing something unprecedented in human history: A civilisation’s ruling class systematically undermining the very foundations that made their prosperity possible. From the streets of Paris where anti-Western protesters wave Palestinian flags while condemning their own nation, to the halls of academia where “global citizenship” has replaced national identity, Western elites have declared war on their own culture. At my former employer, Webster University, students are required to take courses in something called the “Global Citizenship Program.” The very concept assumes that traditional attachments to place, culture, and national identity are outdated impediments to human progress.

Yet this cosmopolitan ideal serves primarily those wealthy enough to live anywhere while imposing costs on everyone else. The regional farmer or factory worker cannot afford to be a “citizen of the world” when globalist policies destroy his livelihood. The suburban parent cannot embrace borderless ideology when it undermines the safety and stability of her community.

Perhaps nowhere is this elite manipulation more evident than in the systematic suppression of legitimate political discourse. In Germany, we have witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of established political parties maintaining what they euphemistically call a “firewall” against the Alternative for Germany (AfD), effectively an elite agreement to exclude millions of voters from democratic representation. This betrayal manifests in policies that prioritise ideological purity over practical reality. So called NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that depend almost entirely on the state are a simulation of civil society, presenting viewpoints that a majority of the people reject. 

Nowhere is this elite detachment more glaring than in the realm of migration policy, where open borders are pursued with a fervour that dismisses public concerns. In Germany, mainstream parties have forged a “Cologne immigration pact,” an agreement among all parties except the AfD not to speak ill of migrants and mass migration in general. The pact specifically prohibits linking migrants to “negative social developments such as unemployment or threats to domestic security.” This pact, by tampering with democratic discourse, not only alienates voters but also opens the door wider for ever more radical alternatives, as it fails to address the real strains on social services, housing, and cultural cohesion caused by unchecked inflows. Instead of addressing problems, they are being excluded from debate. When political parties coalesce around the idea of ignoring the topics that are the most important for a significant share of the electorate, we have effectively ended democracy as it was intended: To allow for the open discussion of policies, not the ignoring of failed ones. 

The weaponisation of administrative power to eliminate political opponents has reached new extremes in the city of Ludwigshafen, where AfD politician Joachim Paul was banned from running for mayor by an election committee chaired by his main rival, incumbent mayor Jutta Steinruck. The pretext for this democratic coup was a dossier compiled by Germany’s domestic intelligence service, which cited among its evidence Paul’s positive commentary on Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, specifically his observation that the protagonists “fight for a cause greater than themselves: Their homeland, the survival of their culture, a just order, the defence against a global threat.” Other “threatening” activities included organising a book fair where antiquarian books were sold, offering online seminars on the medieval Nibelungenlied, and using the term “remigration” to describe the return of non-integrated migrants. The election committee voted 6-1 to exclude Paul, with representatives from CDU, SPD, and Free Voters participating in what amounts to a pre-emptive coup against Germany’s second-largest party in the city. When Paul’s legal challenge reached the Administrative Court, judges dismissed his appeal not on legal grounds but for “electoral stability.” In other words, democracy must be suspended to protect democracy. This Kafkaesque episode represents the logical endpoint of the “firewall” strategy: When political exclusion through coalition-building fails, the state simply removes candidates from the ballot entirely.

Across the Channel in the UK, a similar pattern unfolds with the migrant hotel crisis in Epping. Local residents’ safety concerns were overridden when the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court injunction, allowing asylum seekers to remain housed at a local hotel despite protests and warnings from police about potential unrest. A Cabinet minister even declared that the rights of migrants “trump” those of the Epping community, exemplifying how elites impose burdensome policies on ordinary people while remaining distant from the consequences. Such decisions fuel resentment and anger, and it is only a matter of time before someone will put fire to the powder keg.

The solution requires fighting on two fronts. We must expose elite hypocrisy while simultaneously offering substantive alternatives to the spiritual void they’ve created. This means defending the institutions—family, nation, faith—that provide meaning beyond mere material comfort. It means pointing out the absurdity of policies that privilege abstract ideology over concrete human flourishing. Most importantly, we must stop being intimidated by accusations of extremism when defending positions that were considered common sense just decades ago. When supporting national borders, questioning gender ideology for children, or defending Western civilisation itself is labelled “far-right,” the problem lies not with these positions but with a political spectrum that has shifted so dramatically leftward that ordinary human wisdom appears radical.

The intellectual class may be bored with the civilisation that created them, but the rest of us cannot afford their luxury beliefs. Whether it’s the German political establishment’s conspiracy of silence on migration or the British government’s imposition of unwanted asylum hotels on local communities, the pattern is clear: Elites impose policies that serve their psychological needs while ordinary people pay the price.

It’s time to choose civilisation over ideology, substance over style, and the hard-won wisdom of our ancestors over the fashionable nihilism of our elites. The residents of Epping, the voters excluded by Germany’s “firewall” and countless others across the West deserve better than to be sacrificed on the altar of elite self-satisfaction.