Posted on 04/14/2018 9:14:35 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell
Globalism is as harmless as recycling and as sinister as enforced belief in gay rights. It is as pervasive as seat belts, and as cultish as watching Stephen Colbert in the belief that he is always right.
What is globalism? We use the term a lot, but what makes a person a globalist? The shortest answer I can formulate is that it has replaced communism as the doctrine of the far left, and become the creed of political correctness.
There are seven main distinguishing characteristics of globalism as compared to the politics of the democratic right (and these divides are always being eroded by the pressure on the right to conform, leading to centrist ambivalence that takes the form of doubt rather than opposition).
These seven characteristics are:
(1) The belief in an international community with some level of actual governance emanating from the United Nations or at least the consensus of nations approximating the principles of the United Nations.
(2) The willingness to promote Islam as being an equal religion, if not a superior faith, leading to pressure for large-scale Muslim immigration to western countries.
(3) The belief that the gay lifestyle is not only equal but perhaps superior to heterosexual, family-oriented lifestyles, and that business and government should accommodate all gender and sexual preferences, sometimes the same day that they are first announced.
(4) A general belief in racial equality but enhanced into a program for reparations against the white race for long lists of grievances that every other racial group is encouraged to formulate; concurrently, the promotion of racially based politics wherever this might weaken the fabric of white-dominated societies as a wedge to create further tensions and reduce the proportion of white people in those countries.
(5) The belief that the human race is drastically altering the climate, and the promotion of economic and technological programs that supposedly avert this invented crisis, in conjunction with stern warnings to dissidents not to engage in "denial" (which means not to argue with mom and dad who know best). In conjunction, a wide array of other environmental policies, outwardly appearing to conform to a green agenda, but depending on jurisdiction, also meant to weaken the economies of certain countries in favour of strengthening those of hidden supporters such as Saudi Arabia.
(6) The general notion that the state must form the conscience of the individual, so that the individual learns how to live correctly, for example, not driving a car but using a bicycle, or not smoking in public, although marijuana is fine and presented as no danger to the public. There could be a desire buried in this aspect to reduce the powers of cognition among the sheep who are to be herded around by the eventually all-powerful globalists.
(7) The desire and will to interfere in the politics of various countries in order to weaken them if they oppose this agenda, to present them as evil and corrupt, while lionizing those countries and leaders who promote the agenda, using Russia in particular as a sort of bogey-man reminiscent of the Cold War period when fears of the Soviet Union's intentions were widespread and based on actual facts easily understood by most western democrats of any political stripe -- now it is the Russians who take on this role but note that it is presented as an attempt to subvert western countries while in fact what is really causing the concern of globalists is the fact that Russia remains independent of globalism and not always willing to play along.
So with that summary, we can conclude that globalism is like a foreign country trying to invade our various sovereign nations, except that they do not have one overseas headquarters, but multiple power centers within our own countries. So it is more of an advocacy group except that they are so powerful that they act like a sovereign state themselves, using whatever resources they can subvert from the sovereign nations against the citizens of those nations who are cheeky enough to oppose their agenda.
The reprisals take the form of blacklisting from certain professions, lawfare cases of supposed defamation, lawsuits against non-compliant businesses relative to the sexual agenda (usually brought by private citizens and not the government of the jurisdiction), and on an inter-personal level, shunning or shaming. Of course this can work in both directions, a globalist would be unlikely to get a job with Alex Jones, or be welcome at certain kinds of social functions in conservative areas.
The globalists have created what some call a "deep state" but since this is well exposed and out in the open for the most part, it is more like a compromised state -- there is no real "deep state" but there is a bi-polar state that the constitution (in America at least) says should belong to the people, but apparently has been handed over to the globalists. If you take the view that the education system is part of the state (and most of it is, in structural terms), then right there the globalists have a big chunk of the state. They own large parts of the legal system and some parts of the police, perhaps also the military. They are represented by far more of our elected officials than is proportionate to the beliefs of the citizens, in part because some hide their views and practice only in secret (like certain so-called RINOs). And although the entertainment industry is not formally part of the state, it has become like a Soviet-style arm of the state.
So when Donald Trump became president in 2016, he upset the apple cart and prevented the fifth increment of globalism (if we assume Reagan was the last non-globalist president, then Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama and in theory Hillary Clinton was then to become the fifth increment). Bush 43 was no doubt not the first choice of the controllers, but proved to be reasonably malleable and served a purpose. The rest of that list were enthusiastic promoters of the New World Order, as the first of them announced it was to be.
Some of these developments are perhaps benign. There is nothing particularly bad about a functioning global community. The idea that somewhere a powerful international agency should have sovereignty over nations is a parody of the coming Kingdom of God and therefore bound to produce evil results since it comes without God's blessing or guidance. But if the nations get along reasonably well and can find consensus on important matters (for example, cleaning up the Pacific Ocean, something globalists don't care about because it is their patron, China, who is mostly responsible for the mess) that might be a step forward.
At the moment, the globalists have devised a demonic formula -- tar and feather all opponents to every scheme as "Russian trolls." Now, no doubt, there are Russian trolls on the internet. It would not surprise anyone to find evidence that the government of Russia pays people to promote views helpful to their interests on the internet. Everyone else does this, so why would the Russians, who are masters of both technology and communications, not do it? And perhaps they do try to influence our elections. So do millions of the citizens of the countries. It is not like everyone is a little child silent in a classroom and some evil foreigner walks by the open window and cries in, "children, don't listen to your teacher, listen to me."
That is what the globalists want you to believe. They want you to believe that any view you hold which is different from theirs came to you from Russia, direct from the mind of Vladimir Putin, who must therefore be bent on world domination like the evil Stalin was in his day. Putin, he has so much free time on his hands having solved every problem in Russia, now wants to take over the world.
And that means that _____ ______ of New York City cannot do so.
There, it's out in the open. I bet every single one of you filled in the same name. But does ____ ____ really plan to take over the world? No, he plans to get even wealthier by making sure that people he can trust are running every country. The whole framework of internationalism is really the desire to make money for the associates of ______ _______ .
Once you know this, you are free. Make your countries free. They do not belong to the globalists. One day they will pay. It is enough that they look in from the outside and see non-compliant leaders like Orban and Trump in power. But are they always going to be non-compliant? That depends on the pressure we bring to bear on them. Orban has done really well. But Trump? He is a work in progress. He banished his most vocal anti-globalist advisors. He seems to be rooting around in the garbage dump of neo-conservatism for new ideas that will help him outfox his critics. This may be a smart game, or it may be the first steps towards accommodation, the disease that wrecked the government of Canada's Stephen Harper and led to the full-strength globalist alternative.
We don't win by accommodating. That just slows down our destruction. We win by understanding that globalism is our mortal enemy, a beast with seven heads as I have described it, and more than ten horns apparently -- they have the full brass ensemble.
Can we beat them? I don't know, because generations have been brainwashed, evil has been marketed to millions as good, and sophisticated lies have been told -- more sophisticated than the clumsy lies that Andropov and Brezhnev used to tell, more like Hitler's soft velvet lies. That is why the globalists are more fascist than communist in my estimation. Make no mistake, they are totalitarians. If they had the force, they would start rounding us up. But they don't. Let's keep it that way.
Very good post.
Just one minor quibble.
GWB was a willing participant.
Like father, like son, trying to steal the country from the citizens by flooding it with foreigners.
That’s because, at the upper echelons of the parties, they are a party unto themselves. They aren’t Democrat and they aren’t Republican. Their purpose is to entrench the ruling of the elites over the American people.
U B Right.
A1
Both are all about International Socialism.
There are leaders of big corporations who are clueless about any ideology who will accept globalism to increase profits. The are dangerous.
Russell Kirk said everyone should resist globalism vigorously.
“What is globalism? We use the term a lot, but what makes a person a globalist? The shortest answer I can formulate is that it has replaced communism as the doctrine of the far left, and become the creed of political correctness.”
Great post. This should be shared everywhere.
Repackaged communism.
You made a good argument and the isn’t much that can disagree with. I would like to add that the “conservative” movement, like so many organizations in America, has been co-opted by the globalist left. Somebody has been paying the “NeverTrumper’s “ very well to do the squealing that they’ve been doing.
Excellent post. Unfortunately, the practice of calling folks “Russian Trolls” has even permeated into a number of FReepers. Sometimes it’s just a way of lashing out at someone with whom they disagree. But sometimes it appears to be a tactic employed to enforce belief in certain globalist dogma or, at least, to suppress expression of dissent to that globalist dogma.
Well said. Thank you.
Freedom.
Save for later
Nailed it. The 7 facets are part of a whole of world domination for profit and power. Like terrorism that exists without a defined country, flag, or uniform, globalists buy our sources of info and power from wherever they happen to be, like all successful parasites.
And yes, W Bush was part of his father’s globalism. We were fooled.
Thanks for sharing your writing.
bookmark
Great post! Thank you!!
There are no tribes in America except American Indian tribes. Yes tribes were collective in nature. But modernity brought about the rise of the Middle Class and the Industrial Working Class not the middle tribe. Marxists oppose the bourgeoisie middle class (nuclear family). What happened after the New Deal was the rise of a second middle class - the Knowledge Class comprised of intellectuals, academics, professionals, heath and social welfare workers and the unionized working class. This second middle class is almost entirely dependent on government outlays and has class resentment toward Capitalists. They believe they have superior knowledge and thus have a monopoly on running government. This resentment is a social marker of their class consciousness (Marx). Communism is a revolt against alienation but alienation is what gives us freedom from tribes, clans, castes, social classes and totalitarianism. Property rights adhere to individuals, husband and wives, limited liability companies and corporations, not to tribes. I understand what you are driving at when using the word “tribe” but one must understand their adversary. And to understand them is to become aware that they are an adversarial Middle Class that needs to rule over the Private Middle Class and industrial Working Class in order to extract resources for their livelihood. Class, not tribe.
Well said. I am just getting the concept of tribalism in my mind and you have expanded on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.