Never has the divide between the political left and political right been so obvious, and so immediate, as we saw Americans respond to Zelenskyy’s tantrum in the Oval Office on Friday. The Ukrainian leader, who remains president well after his term expired due to the war powers he gave himself under martial law, took a terrible bet; he decided to roll the dice on bulldogging the man known best for his negotiation skills, and to do it on camera.
A breach of diplomatic standards and executive etiquette, Zelenskyy truly ‘didn’t have the cards’ to place that bet, as Trump pointed out. On one hand, Zelenskyy threatened that Ukraine wouldn’t stop fighting until he had certain guarantees from America (like membership in NATO or nuclear weapons) that Trump was not going to give. And on the other hand, Zelenskyy declared that he couldn’t keep fighting without Trump’s help. Taking both of these hands into consideration, it was clear to everyone in the room except Zelenskyy himself, that he had no cards to play at all.
Except, that is, for one; Zelensky played this card on camera intentionally, and it’s the threat of the international community siding with him for moral support, and their mutual (predictable) condemnation of Trump for not handing the warlord what he demanded. Also predictably, President Trump and Vice President Vance weren’t about to be held over the barrel of European sentiment.
In an almost laughable display of Kabuki theater, European leaders welcomed Zelenskyy in full embrace, almost coddling and cuddling the leader to comfort him after being escorted out of Washington. With straight faces, European leaders then announced that if Trump wouldn’t help Ukraine save itself, then Europe would do it themselves. Of course, this is the whole point. If Western Europe can provide the resources - which at this point not only includes money and arms, but also soldiers - without the help of a country across the Atlantic, it should have already done that, and done it years ago.
From a geopolitical perspective, Trump’s posture worked masterfully. He got Europe to pledge the money and manpower necessary to help Europe (whether or not they can make good on that promise is another story). One wonders, given their bravado the last 48 hours, why they ever needed America in the first place.
THE LEFT FREAKS OUT, THE RIGHT REJOICES
Immediately after Zelenskyy’s Oval Office meltdown, liberals took to social media to decry the audacity of Donald Trump disrespecting another foreign leader in the White House. They publicly lamented the loss of America’s influence around the world. Some cried, and others literally wailed, as though our nation’s oldest and strongest ally had been given the boot. And for some, you would think it was their own president who was told to get out. Abandoning the American flag altogether, leftists raised the Ukrainian flag that, only a few years ago, they wouldn’t have been able to pick out of a lineup.
Also immediately after Zelenskyy’s tantrum, conservatives took to social media to praise the America-first agenda of Donald Trump and decry another foreign leader disrespecting America in the White House, and disrespecting a U.S. president in the Oval Office. They heralded the way Trump and Vance stuck up for the American taxpayer, and especially their pointing out that Zelenskyy seemed ungrateful for the hundreds of billions given him from the pocketbooks of working Americans. Even the consummate war-hawk, Lindsay Graham, applauded Trump and excoriated Zelenskyy for his entitled demeanor. For once, conservatives felt as though an American president was showing concern for Americans. And it didn’t hurt that it also showed an American president showing concern for the Ukrainian people for once, as Trump prioritized an end of the bloodshed that - under no circumstances no matter the level of American support - wouldn’t lead to reclaiming Ukrainian territory anyway.
In an era where everything is politicized, ranging from climate change to fluoride in the water supply, it’s easy to assume that liberals and conservatives just took their assigned places. But this was a quicker polarization than normal. Americans didn’t even have to wait to be assigned their places by the nightly news shows they listen to, whether it be Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity. Americans knew instinctively which side they were on, once they watched the display on their screens or monitors.
Why is that? What is it about this particular issue has Americans less confused than ever about what side they’re on? The answer is, it strikes at the heart of what each citizen believes about the nature of citizenship as it relates to the world order. And each side has been indoctrinated since childhood to believe one of two things; either we are citizens of America, or citizens of the world.
A WAR OVER THE POST-WAR CONSENSUS
The lionizing myths surrounding Churchill are largely the product of the Post-War Consensus because the Post-War Consensus requires it. Only if Churchill’s repeated foreign policy missteps leading to World War II (which are many, and go back decades before the war) are characterized as a brave and wise preemption can the Post-War Consensus agenda be excused.
As I’ve explained before at Insight to Incite, the Post-War Consensus is the propaganda of the Allied powers, which it wrote into our history books. The consensus leads to several conclusions, including that wars are caused by strong nationalistic leaders (like Hitler), that wars are caused by nations that care about their own self-interests rather than the interests of the international community (like Germany), and by patriotism and national loyalty (and therefore, the PWC emphasizes open borders, mass migration, bureaucratic control of government, and international world orders).
Those who are today promoting the Post-War Consensus characterize those of us who challenge it as somehow being pro-Hitler, or pro-Nazi, or Holocaust deniers. But none of that has anything to do with the Post-War Consensus. Nonetheless, it’s on these grounds that the endless comparisons of Trump to Hitler come. To the globalists, an “America First” agenda is reminiscent of Germany’s nationalism. Trump’s border policies, tariff agenda, and pull-back from international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Climate Accords, are Hitler-esque. Trump’s exit from global governing organizations like the World Health Organization might as well be an advertisement for the Third Reich, according to them. And considering many other countries are following Trump’s populist revival, including Poland, Hungary, El Salvador, Argentina, Italy, and other movements are gaining steam in France, Great Britain, and Germany, all has the globalists terrified that they’re losing power.
They are afraid that just as the UK voted for Brexit, the European government will collapse unless a mutual enemy arises (or can be manufactured) that convinces Europeans that there’s strength in numbers. And that enemy is Russia (and if it weren’t Russia, they’d find another). The cynic in me and many others is that Europeans (and Democrats in America) hell-bent on perpetuating Post-War Consensus globalism have intentionally agitated Russia, and through promises to expand NATO, have gone out of their way to pick a senseless fight so as to maintain a bugbear who they can present to their populace as the reason to - like Churchill - continually beat the drums of war. Tyranny, after all, requires an enemy to convince the populace to submit to draconian rule, just as Zelenskyy was able to cancel elections because of the threat of war with Russia.
But the question is how you get Americans to care about Ukraine to the point they’re willing to send our dollars and soldiers to a foreign theater of war. How do you get mothers and fathers to consent to their sons and daughters strapping up their uniforms and heading overseas to shed blood for strangers? How do you get NATO countries to bankrupt themselves to stir the engines of war for a country they likely can’t find on a map? How can you get citizens of other nations to consider a nation that is of no practical financial, idealogical, or military use to them an “ally” worth dying for?
The answer is, you inundate them with the concept of Global Citizenship.
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
The term "global citizenship" wasn’t yet common, but its principles solidified after World War II with the United Nations’ founding in 1945 and UNESCO’s 1946 launch. UNESCO explicitly aimed to educate for peace and human rights, framing students as part of a global community. Its 1949 booklet Learning to Live Together urged schools to teach cross-cultural understanding and shared humanity—core elements of global citizenship. In the U.S., the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights began appearing in civics classes, while European schools, rebuilding from war, emphasized reconciliation through programs like the 1950s Franco-German textbook initiatives. This era marks the shift from ad hoc lessons to intentional global education.
The phrase "global citizenship" emerged more distinctly in the 1970s, tied to environmentalism and globalization. The 1972 UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment inspired curricula on planetary stewardship—think Earth Day lessons in U.S. schools. UNESCO’s 1974 Recommendation on Education for International Understanding formalized goals like "global awareness," urging member states to integrate these into education systems. By the 1980s, terms like "global education" appeared in teacher training, with scholars like Graham Pike and David Selby in the UK publishing works (e.g., Global Teacher, Global Learner, 1988) that framed students as global citizens. U.S. programs like the National Council for the Social Studies began pushing "world citizenship" themes, though still under broader civics umbrellas.
The end of the Cold War and rise of globalization cemented global citizenship in education. The 1992 Rio Earth Summit and 1990s UN initiatives (e.g., Education for All) spurred curricula on sustainability and human rights. In the UK, the 1998 Crick Report introduced citizenship education into the national curriculum, with global dimensions added by 2002 via the Department for Education’s Developing a Global Dimension in the School Curriculum. In the U.S., universities like Tufts and Lehigh launched "global citizenship" programs in the early 2000s, while K–12 schools adopted frameworks like the Oxfam Global Citizenship curriculum (1997 onwards), teaching skills like critical thinking about global issues. The term itself became a buzzword, with NGOs and schools branding it explicitly.
By the 2010s, global citizenship education (GCE) was a global norm, driven by UNESCO’s 2015 Global Citizenship Education: Topics and Learning Objectives, tied to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (Goal 4.7). Countries like South Korea (2010s citizenship reforms) and Canada (Ontario’s 2016 curriculum) embedded it in policy, while U.S. states like California wove it into social studies standards. Today, it’s taught from primary levels—e.g., UK kids learning about fair trade—to university courses on transnational identity.
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP LEADS TO GLOBAL WARS
A certain truism exists, which Americans should remind ourselves of when it comes to allowing our civic leaders to maintain dual citizenship with Israel (or any other nation). Citizenship, by its very nature, requires a full personal devotion to one’s nation. A dual citizenship is a schizophrenic concept, a contradiction of abstract ideas, that undermines the very purpose of citizenship itself.
The first thing to remember, as it pertains to the “Global Citizenship” that Americans have been inundated with through the public school system, is that if one buys into the concept, it weakens their commitment as a citizen of the United States. When push comes to shove, will Americans put America above the rest of the world, or put the world above America?
Obviously, globalist forces throughout the world would choose the latter. It’s only then, when Americans cede our interests to the interests of the “international community,” can the nations pilfer whatever they want from our national coffers, or send off our young people to die in their wars. If global citizenship were indeed a thing, whether in perception or reality, then the only war the globalists must fight is a war of propaganda, convincing American citizens that the world at large demands their loyalty, and not the motherland that birthed them.
Citizenship traditionally implies a reciprocal relationship: rights granted by a state (e.g., voting, protection) in exchange for duties (e.g., taxes, loyalty). "Global citizenship" lacks this. There’s no global government to enforce rights or obligations—no passport, no constitution, no court with universal jurisdiction beyond narrow treaties. Global Citizenship is a metaphor at best, diluting the concrete reality of national citizenship. Without a sovereign entity, it’s just feel-good rhetoric, not a status you can claim when, say, detained at a border.
Global citizenship is a Trojan horse for eroding state autonomy. If you’re a "citizen of the world," loyalty shifts from your nation—its laws, culture, and interests—to a vague, supranational ideal. This concept fueled Britain’s WWII overreach, prioritized globalist fantasies over self-preservation. This concept allows elites, like the United Nations and European Union, to dissolve borders and identities, leaving nations defenseless against migration or economic exploitation.
Who gets to be a "global citizen"? In practice, it’s often tied to privileged mobility—jet-setters with passports, visas, and cash, not the billions tethered to one place by poverty or politics. A farmer in rural Idaho doesn’t "think globally" when survival’s local; a tech bro in San Francisco can. Global citizenship is taught in cushy classrooms, but ignores power imbalances—trade rules, visa walls—that make it a luxury belief. It’s nonsense if it’s just a moral pose for the well-off.
If global citizenship means shared values—like UNESCO’s human rights or sustainability goals—it risks steamrolling diversity. Global citizenship is a Western construct, smuggling liberalism (like secularism) into cultures that prioritize community or faith. India’s RSS or Russia’s Putin rightly decry it as cultural imperialism, erasing distinct histories for a bland, borderless mush.
But beyond all this, Global Citizenship is folly. Look at past stabs at global unity—the League of Nations floundered, the UN’s toothless beyond vetoes. Kant’s cosmopolitan dream (1795) sounds nice but crashed on realpolitik. Churchill’s WWII coalition bled empires dry for a "global" win that handed half Europe to Stalin. History suggests humans cling to tribes—nations, clans—not abstract worldliness. Global citizenship’s boosters ignore this, peddling a fantasy at odds with human nature.
Finally, it’s performative. Schools teach kids to “think globally”, but what’s the output? Recycling drives while corporations dump carbon? It’s a salve for guilt, not a fix. Global Citizenship is an ideology masking capitalism’s grind, to make the plebes feel "global" by buying cheap jeans made in Bangladesh, when in reality they’re putting their neighbors out of work and making international billionaires filthy rich. If it doesn’t shift power or borders, it’s hot air.
THE DIVIDE OF TWO CITIZENSHIPS
The divide you saw this weekend over the Oval Office debacle shows better than anything I’ve seen in years, that roughly half of Americans view themselves as just that…Americans. The other half views themselves as Citizens of the World, who are not citizens of the United States, but only residents. And this is why those same people have extreme trouble differentiating between American citizens and migrants who just happen to live here; in their mind, there’s no difference.
Scripture emphasizes distinct nations—Acts 17:26 says God “determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live”—suggesting divinely ordained boundaries, not a borderless world. The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) warns against unified human projects that defy God’s design, and global citizenship’s push for a homogenized, supranational identity can feel like a modern echo. Our loyalty belongs first to God, then to our nation as a stewardship, not to a vague "global community" that dilutes both.
The concept also clashes with American Christian values of sovereignty and local responsibility. Global citizenship often aligns with secular institutions like the UN, which encroaches on national autonomy—like vaccine mandates or climate rules that bypass local input. Revelation’s warnings about a one-world system (e.g., the Beast’s empire) fuel suspicions that globalism, even in education, is a step toward ungodly control. Christians prioritizing "render to Caesar what is Caesar’s" (Mark 12:17) argue that our duty lies with America’s laws and culture, not a cosmopolitan elite’s agenda.
Practically, global citizenship is a hollow distraction from Gospel priorities. Jesus called believers to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), not to merge them into one. American Christians must focus on personal salvation and community belonging, prioritizing on helping the neighbors that we see on a daily basis, and not prioritizing nations across the ocean who - although they might be neighbors by Biblical standards - are not entitled to the same level of care and attention as those we can see and touch.
If you appreciate my work, please consider an $8 a month or $80 a year subscription to access exclusive content. This is one of the things I do to provide for my small farm and big family, so I sure appreciate it.
If you don’t want a subscription, please consider a one-time gift of your choosing by clicking the ‘coffee link’ below.
Share this post