While elites might articulate their righteous intentions behind globalism, the sobering reality is that the form it’s taken has only further enhanced the wealth and power of the world’s aristocracy (the 1% of the 1%) at the expense of an overwhelming majority of people across the world. The proof is in the numbers, such as the most recent Oxfam International report which states that just 8 people control as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the world’s population. No society can skew that far apart without rampant corruption within its ranks.
The foundational reason for this incredible explosion in wealth inequality are corrupt policies being implemented in the name of globalism. The agenda behind globalism is expansion of power, and it’s primarily achieved through two ideologies, neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism.
Neo-Conservatism is all about bringing political regimes into line with the international order through the use of military intervention, while neo-liberalism brings countries’ economies into line with the international order by passing trade deals that open up their markets to vulture privatization by foreign firms. In essence, an international network of elite interests (such as Bilderberg) has used globalism as a tool to bring every country into its sphere of influence, either through military intervention or economic intervention, in order to acquire control over its core assets. Once in place, these policies steal the wealth of the middle class and redirect it into the pockets of those in positions of international power.
Another major problem with globalism is the rise and forced acceptance of hyper multi-culturalism within nations. Because of open door policies and the relaxation of immigration laws, established cultures all around the world are being infiltrated by a variety of new cultures that are being allowed in or brought in by the government. For example, in many countries across Europe there has been a massive influx of Muslim immigrants into their cities and towns, which unsurprisingly has caused clashes due to cultural differences.
However, what many on the left overlook is that allowing a massive influx of immigrants into one’s own country can destabilize it, whether it’s economically through social welfare programs, or politically through massive cultural differences. One could even make the case that people within government are implementing forced immigration policies as weapons to satisfy political agendas.
In fact, boundaries are everywhere in the world. For example, abiding by the non-aggression principal, which is an ethical stance at the heart of Anarchism and Libertarianism that forbids initiating force against other people who have caused you no harm, is really an embodiment of respecting the individual boundaries of another human being. This principal has a spiritual synonym in the famous “Golden Rule,” which states that “people should treat others the way they want to be treated.”
This concept of boundaries can also be extended to collectives of people and the area in which they occupy. For example, a collective of people such as a town shouldn’t be able to initiate force and take over control of another town just because they feel like it. Similar to how a person wouldn’t let just anyone touch them, or how a family wouldn’t let just anyone walk into their home, collectives of people, whether that be cities, states or nations, don’t necessarily want to let just anyone come into their territory and take over their culture. This protectionism principal when it comes to the country is at the root of the growing populism movement for nationalism.
There are many positives that need to be brought to light. First and foremost is that a return to nationalism can be a positive shift away from globalism by re-establishing national sovereignty in countries all over the world, so that they are free to democratically determine their own destiny. This alone is important enough for people to strongly consider nationalism over globalism. When people are free to mold their communities the best way they see fit, the chance for peace always increases, as opposed to having one entity that controls many different cultures. Nationalism doesn’t have to end in the fight for freedom and democracy; it could simply be the first step in furthering the idea of decentralizing power in society.
Once societies start respecting current boundaries and the differing systems of law that exist, people naturally start to feel more comfortable with one another despite the differences, which then leads to a lowering of boundaries overall. Simply put, the world cannot let go of boundaries until trust is built up over time through the respecting of current boundaries; just like with human interaction on a personal level. The world is simply not ready to abolish the nation-state just yet, but returning sovereignty to nations is a great first step to creating a truly free world.
As always, question the motives of any leader at the helm of one of these anti-establishment movements, and call them out if they represent wolves in sheep’s clothing. It is also important to realize that the sentiment of “anti-establishment” and its reasoning for returning to nationalism is authentic and very real. Mankind might be wise to ride this wave of change, in the hopes that it can catapult humanity forward in its quest for further decentralization of power and the restoration of true democracy.
The Communists promised ‘Workers Paradise’ – what they got was an authoritarian nightmare and subsistence poverty. Today’s Politicians promise Globalization and ‘Free Trade’ – what we’ve gotten is a shrinking Middle Class, growing poverty and welfare dependence. Workers Paradise was actually Bankers Paradise where oligarchs owned all the means of production and natural resources. America is deeply in debt to a Private For-Profit Central Bank. The entire wealth of the nation, land, natural resources, industry and people are collateral on the fraudulent Federal Reserves debt system. Few people realize that the Marxist Bolshevik Revolution was funded by Wall Street. This is documented historical fact. The world is being dragged into this same scenario under the guise of “Free Trade.”
Globalization is Global Government ruled by an unelected commissariat of psychopaths and their disposable sycophants. Europe is/was the guinea pig for this experiment in this ‘kinder gentler’ form of Technocracy. If the process is allowed to complete itself Globalization will be enforced by a kind of Red terror that usually accompanies Totalitarian rule.
Now, the people are now fighting back. At least nine other countries are petitioning for exit from the European Union. Globalism is an abject failure. It must needs be rescinded in favor of National Sovereignty, decentralization and more local representative Government.
National Sovereignty is given a bad name by Globalists who promise Utopian Paradise whose end is a Dystopian hell on earth. However, National Sovereignty is, by definition, power of, by and for the People; where government and economics are local and accountable to their respective counties and States.
henever the “experts” on various television news programs bring up the topic of nationalism, and how it is becoming increasingly popular throughout the world, they invariably stick to a very narrow script which decries this trend as a terrible, racist, and xenophobic movement. Never once do the “experts” display any intellectual honesty by mentioning how globalism has just as many flaws as it does positive attributes.
The increasing push both in Europe and in America towards open borders and free trade has been done, largely in unison, by elitist politicians and multinational corporations who spend absurd amounts of money on lobbyists in order to further increase the size of their corporate coffers. Never has there been a true public debate where the average Joe or Jane gets to have their say as to whether or not they want all of these immigrants from all around the world entering their country in large numbers, or whether they favor expanded trade with countries such as China where the cost of labor is a pittance in comparison to having something manufactured in the USA, England or Germany.
It is this blatant disregard for the working class on both sides of the Atlantic that has led to such a strong political backlash which has culminated in the election of Donald Trump and Brexit in England. One of the biggest lies which is oft repeated is that we all share the same values and want the same thing. There is only one huge problem with this narrative: it has absolutely no truth in it whatsoever. Plato once wrote, “Any city, however small, is in fact divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another.”
This rings as true today as it did back in his day more than two millennia ago. Except that now we are not dealing with two cities, but rather two entirely different worlds, each with its own agendas and self-interests.
There are polls which state, in numerous countries such as America, Sweden, England, etc, that the overwhelming majority of the people living there do not want increased immigration. They want reduced immigration, and often dramatically so. Nobody asked for turning their country into a multicultural society. Not in Sweden, or in France, or in England, or in Germany, there was never any open and honest public debate where the people voted in favor of such a referendum in order to dramatically reshape their country in both a demographic and cultural way.
So why do the elites who run our nations blatantly push policies, both foreign and domestic which time and again run contrary to what the public wishes? Then these very same individuals and their parrots in the mainstream news media are surprised, caught completely off guard when a wave of nationalism starts to sweep numerous Western democracies all around the world. They keep stating how if you vote for your own interests, to preserve your own culture, and to keep your jobs from being outsourced, well, you must be either a racist, a bigot, or my favorite of them all, a White nationalist.
Demonizing an entire segment of one’s own society, a very large segment of society for voting their own interests and wanting to preserve their own cultural heritage with the stated goals of wanting their children to not grow up in a world which is dramatically different from the one that they grew up in is neither a racist sentiment, nor should it be casually brushed aside by the powers that be. To do so would be a form of political suicide, as they are slowly starting to understand.