Frank Furedi with a deep dive into the Globalism thesis, that Power (very broadly) is interested in delegitimizing the concept of the Nation and borders (and the people who would, then, be organized or identified by or with such concepts) for reasons that are unclear, and that this has taken on a moral valence.

Is this true/real? It strikes me as one of so very many competing theses to explain what it is that we're experiencing. How do we test these things? How do we understand what is true and real?

"Opponents of Populism criticise this movement’s embrace of patriotism and of the nation. Cosmopolitan politicians and commentators go so far as to denounce such territorial attachments as backward and they insist that borders and the status of citizenship are outdated and artificial concepts. They often advocate migration as an antidote to the prevalence of national consciousness and contend that national cultures are inferior to multiculturalism.

"From a globalist-cosmopolitan perspective it is essential to deny the moral significance of borders to promote their wider objective of de-legitimating the status of the nation and the sovereignty of its people. The unbounding of foundational political categories such as sovereignty, nation, citizenship and democracy depends on emptying borders of moral content. In practice, the project of de-legitimating borders ignores their meaning for people who inhabit within the territory they demarcate and one-sidedly adopts the standpoint of those prevented from crossing into it.

"The moral condemnation of national borders alleges that the demarcation of territorial space unjustly excludes the ‘other’. The distinction between citizen and non-citizen is frequently portrayed as unfair and immoral. Loyalty to a nation is decried as an outdated prejudice"

https://frankfuredi.substack.com/p/for-the-social-engineering-technocrats