Globalism. OMG: another conspiracy theory! And, of course, if one ever uses that term in public, the odds are that person will be labeled a “conspiracy theorist.”
In this helter-skelter world in which we awaken every day to some new type of label, that particular one is a bit tiring it’s been around so long. It would seem to me that, by now, someone would have come up with a NEW label — you know, like they did when it was first “Coming Ice Age,” then it was “Global Warming.” And when both of those catastrophes failed to materialize, a new term was invented — a “catch-all” that would encompass all climate and weather events and could NEVER be debunked: “Climate Change.”
So why do we still have “Globalists” and “Globalism?”
The probable explanation for those hanging around is because there’s truth in those labels and what they represent as opposed to the other tags.
Let’s define and analyze “Globalists” and “Globalism” as well as systems that are part of the same international conversation and see if we can make any of this make sense. Let’s start with “Nationalism.”
Nationalism is a feeling of unity among a group of people born out of the French Revolution and Age of Enlightenment idea of worship of the Patrie, or one’s national origins and a sense of pride in their country.
Nationalists today support national sovereignty and self-governance over creating a “one-world” society, preserving their respective national cultures and demographics over multiculturalism and a border wall.
Sovereignty and self-governance
Nationalism can be considered a form of limited government. Rather than a global government either controlled by elites or, at least, requiring a massive bureaucracy to successfully operate, nationalists support localized government, where individuals have the freedom to set policy for their communities.
As nationalists believe that individuals and their communities (whether local or national) should be sovereign, citizens should have the right to self-governance. Nationalists believe the two go together and cannot be separated. Jean-Jacques Rousseau echoed these views when he argued that freedom and democracy thrive best in small nation-states and that monarchy and dictatorship thrive best in large nation-states. Thus, nationalists oppose policies such as open borders, mass migration, and forming international organizations, at least with the end goal of a one-world government. They also support policies such as building border walls and maintaining border security.
Relation to conservatism
Because of nationalism’s support of limited, localized, and self-government, conservatives usually support nationalism or at least lean towards nationalism. Most non-establishment conservatives see nationalism’s support for maintaining independent nation-states as the best avenue to maintain and promote freedom, such as those provided in the U.S. Constitution. Also, as conservatives tend to be patriots and love their countries, they oppose policies that undermine national sovereignty and identity, such as open borders, mass migration, and membership in international organizations such as the European Union.
Paleoconservatives and national conservatives are conservative ideologies that emphasize and support nationalism the strongest. Euroskepticism is mainly a regional form of nationalism.
Globalism: the Panacea of the Left
Globalism is a liberal and authoritarian desire for a “one world” view that rejects the role of sovereign nations in protecting values and encouraging productivity. Globalism is anti-American in encouraging Americans to adopt a “world view” rather than an “American view.” The ultimate goal of globalism is the eventual unification of humanity under a one-world government.
Globalists oppose nationalism, national sovereignty, and self-governance. Instead, they favor open borders, free trade, H-1B visas, interventionism, foreign aid, and changing the U.S. Constitution. They oppose strong border security and the building of border walls. Globalists can come from several political leanings, from the far-left to those considered on the right-of-center.
Liberals support globalism because it leads to centralized power, providing liberals with an easier way to gain control. Liberals can more easily persuade a handful of people in a centralized government to rule in their favor than convince everyone of their agenda in a decentralized form of government.
War on Sovereignty
Doing away with national sovereignty and eventually creating a one-world government is the ultimate goal of globalists. They believe that humanity is progressing for the better, and they want to create a utopia where humanity is unified and where there are no wars, conflicts, or borders (cultural and national). Supranational organizations such as the United Nations, European Union, World Trade Organization, and the Paris climate agreement appear to be the forerunners to a complete one-world government. Liberals support all these organizations. A one-world government is the epitome of big government.
While many of those who either disbelieve or deny the existence of a “War on Sovereignty” imagine it as a very speedy attempt to unite the world into a global government instantly, those who are actively pushing for a one-world government are pursuing a relatively longsuffering strategy that will slowly merge all the countries of the world into each other before the official establishment of any world government. They believe this strategy to be the only way it can be successfully achieved. Zbigniew Brzezinski, an Obama advisor and member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, admitted this, stating that “we cannot leap into world government in one quick step. The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization.” Organizations such as the EU and NAFTA are examples of this “progressive regionalization.”
Additionally, Richard N. Gardner, a former State Department official, wrote in 1974 that a world government could not be established in one step. Rather, he argued that “in short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down,” and that “an end-run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault.” Gardner’s strategy has been fully adopted by globalists. International organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, Paris climate agreement, and the numerous disarmament treaties are all examples of this strategy in action – eroding sovereignty bit by bit until all the countries of the world are so integrated by the complicated web of international organizations and treaties that the official establishment of a world government can be accomplished seamlessly and would rather be a mere recognition of de facto reality.
Globalists also have used mass migration, such as the European migrant crisis incident, to advance their goal. As mass migration puts large numbers of people from certain locations into another country with different values, it causes much disruption. This can reduce national pride and make the transition to a global world order relatively seamless.
For decades we have heard those we once called “conspiracy theorists” trumpeting details of the U.S. race toward Globalism. Most have scoffed at the concept. After all, our forefathers fled something similar to Globalism to establish a nation with a government controlled totally by its people. Of course, that concept flies in the faces of those who see a unified government over the entire world as a much more attractive choice.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Take these few “tenets” of the purest type of Globalism — open borders, the elimination of the Constitution and self-government, limitless foreign aid, and the elimination of sovereignty — and we have the utopian nation that globalists wish for.
What about what the People want?
In a globalist U.S., the People are immaterial. “We” becomes “All.” There’s NO entrepreneurship, NO “be all that you can be,” NO “liberty and justice for all,” and NO Bill of Rights. The citizens of those countries currently living in this system have NO free speech, NO presumption of innocence until proven guilty, NO true private business ownership, and, most importantly, no say-so in anything to do with government! There may be elections, but candidates will be stand-ins for government bureaucrats. Those who serve in government — those so-called “elected officials” — may tell citizens they represent us in government. But those bureaucrats control everything.
Folks, Globalism is just one more small step away for our society as a whole. Many, if not most, of our freedoms, are already abridged in our political system! Want an example or two?
- Please point me to the U.S. law that authorizes a President or Governor to mandate ANYTHING in healthcare that directly impacts citizens in which the citizens have NO choice. There is none. Yet this President, without Constitutional authority, has “called for” mask mandates, business lockdowns, without a law with authorization for any of those. Oh, he says incessantly, “I can’t tell Americans to stay at home, wear masks, or get a vaccination. But ‘responsible’ governors and mayors do have such authority and I trust them to ‘do the right thing.'” Want me to interpret that? “I might not be able to do it statutorily, but if I say it needs to happen and all those in the line of command don’t do them, I have ways to punish them for their resistance.” Those very things have been happening throughout this pandemic.
- Lawless in government is abundant now. In fact, there is no universal “Rule of Law” to which government officials adhere. Look at the rioting, looting, and killing that is rampant across our nation. Look at those alleged “rioters” from January 6, many of which are still locked up while deprived of their right to access for legal representation, Miranda rights, or a speedy trial. These current actions happen continuously in globalist countries in which a small group of people controls EVERYTHING — not a Constitution “for” the People.
- Who are the American Globalists? This may shock you: President Ronald Reagan was as were Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.
- Reagan gave legal status unilaterally to millions of illegals.
- Clinton thumbed his nose at Congress while filling his own pocket and letting lifetime globalists set and operate all of his economic policies.
- W. speaks fluent Spanish, had great relationships with the President of Mexico and others in Central America, yet NEVER attempted to do anything about illegal immigration. And he had a Congress that wanted to.
- Obama literally bowed to foreign leaders and actively called for a “unified world system.” In speeches and meetings with world leaders in his famous “Apology Tour” right after his first inauguration, he consistently apologized for Americans’ insistence upon the continuation of independence and hesitance to join hands with everyone around the globe for “unification.”
- Biden is fulfilling the “Summary” for his globalist predecessors on this front. The Paris Accords, Iranian Agreement, while sucking up to every globalist leader he speaks to is being trumpeted around the world as “the end of Americanism.”
I’ve actually heard people say that Globalism CAN exist in a Democracy. That cannot happen — it’s impossible! The two are each mutually exclusive. Don’t let that lie lead you down the path away from our Representative Republic.
So here’s your homework: put the speeches, debates, interviews, and news reports if every current leader in U.S. and state and local government. Judge their political positions not on what they “say” to you, but what they “do” in government. Globalism is so easy to conceal and diminish in its current state in our country. But it can rear its ugly head in an instant. And when it does, its destruction is instantaneous. Just ask any of those Europeans who never gave a thought to the possibility of an authoritarian globalist government in their nation.
Relying on Big Brother for more and more handouts that are dangled before us without any real strings attached doesn’t make you pause? It’s almost as bad as “Hey little girl: want a piece of candy?” There’s always something expected in return — even if it’s never verbalized. You know, that “quid pro quo” thing.
Hey, isn’t Biden’s nickname “Quid Pro Joe?”
I wonder why?