The Schism of Globalism

One-worldism not what many people assume

Leftist elites benefit most from globalism. Under the plans of globalist elites, middle-class Americans would give up their freedom, their private property, their food and, sometimes, their very lives. The new online documentary No Farmers, No Food: Will You Eat the Bugs? investigates some of the most pressing issues.¹ How did we get here?

According to the author of The Dying Citizen, military historian Victor Davis Hanson:

Globalism is not new. Efforts at world unification have come into and out of vogue over the past twenty-five hundred years of civilization. History’s succession of imperial globalists—the various Islamic Caliphates, the Mongols, the Ottomans, the British imperialists, and later Napoleon, Stalin, and Hitler—for a while collapsed national borders and spread uniform language, architecture, customs, and culture, usually by force of arms.

Here we have it from Hanson again: Globalization occurs mostly through coercion.

Its transnationalism is less natural and requires more violence, not less, to enforce its inconsistencies and paradoxes on too many different, restless peoples continually seeking to return to what is comfortable and familiar….Much less do citizens of the world contemplate that “equal, fair and sustainable” citizenship extended to eight billion people might well require a loss of individual liberty, lots of mandatory redistribution, political instability, and a considerable degree of coercion—starting first at home…. One-worldism requires the subordination of ancient local cultures, the creation of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-coercive unelected executive elite, and the use of force to implement such visions.

Leftists justify violence on the grounds that the state must first provide for the greater welfare of the people. For instance, the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development details ninety-one approaches to achieving universal entitlements focused on economic equality, social equity and climate change. Never mentioned is the reality that these entitlements would require mandatory redistribution and the use of force.

Still, little did the postwar architects of the UN charter know that most communist governments would soon justify their denials of private property, free commerce, and the right of dissent on grounds that the state must first provide for the greater welfare of the proletariat… The naivete of the internationalists was even more shocking because the national socialist instigators of World War II in Adolf Hitler’s Germany and Benito Mussolini’s Italy had recently railed against corporatists, merchants of wealth, capitalists, and other dark forces that had allegedly denied the working classes fulfillment of basic human needs and rights. Thus, the only way to address these tragic lapses was to give an idealist and national socialist like Hitler or Mussolini the power to ensure cradle-to-grave entitlements, to protect the environment, to rein in capitalism, and to provide a worker’s paradise on earth. In that context, curtailment of free expression and dissent was, and often is today, seen as a small price to pay.²

In order for globalization to be accomplished, national allegiances would be transferred to global governing boards. Who would be on those boards when, at present, roughly half of world’s nations are not democratic or constitutional? Would you want to be governed by tyrants and totalitarians from around the world?

By its very nature, transnationalism is illiberal. Given that most antidemocratic regimes dislike most democratic regimes, and given the nonjudgmental nature of the United Nations, international bodies are by definition inherently hostile to tolerant regimes.³

Many globalist elites like Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Gates and George Soros, to mention just a few, are opposed or noncommittal about the concepts of individuals’ inalienable rights and U.S. democracy. They, and the global media they support, promote narratives and agendas that are anti-American.

Yet the central problem with global elites remains a sort of retrograde tribalism. For all the grand talk of being citizens of the world, they really owe their limited allegiances only to like kind—westernized elites with proper credentials—or rather, to the systems and fonts of their wealth and success. They are like the royal families of Europe before World War I, incestuously related and essentially more akin to each other than to their constituents. Globalists may claim to have transcended barriers of race and gender as well as nationality. But they certainly have not risen above a shared class, training, education, and culture, which bind the men and women of Davos together just as much as ethnic chauvinism or nationalist pride did in the past—and blind them to their own antidemocratic and narrow self-interests.⁴

Past visions of globalism have always failed. This time will be no different. Today’s leftist elites are incapable of solving their own problems at home whether it is poverty, crime, homelessness, mental illness, addiction, housing or schooling.

In addressing such existential and age-old challenges, we are left where we started in Western civilization: the only means are transparent, decentralized local government, audited by a free and disinterested press and acting under the aegis of a constitutional, consensual republic, serving only at the pleasure of a voting citizenry.⁵

There’s no place on earth that protects individual liberty as well as the U.S. Constitution and the American Bill of Rights.

Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: the site of the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution

1. No Farmers, No Food: Will You Eat the Bugs? Online documentary. https://nofarmersnofood.com/

2. Hanson, Victor Davis. The Dying Citizen. 2021. Hachette Book Group.

3. See footnote 2.

4. See footnote 2.

5. See footnote 2.