Saturday, August 04, 2007

What is Globalism and Why is it Bad?


mark
i would like to ask an honest question. it may sound stupid & maybe I've missed something, but i have been see a lot of references to "globalists".
could you define the term for me & what you mean by it?

****************************************

Thank you for your question.

A globalist is someone who wants to weaken the national sovereignty of individual nations in favor of a unified world system, in an effort to advance some other goal.

They come in various flavors. For example, a leftist may want to advance a single set of rules for "gay rights" and impose that agenda on cultures they feel are "backward". A multi-national corporation may seek such a system in order to maximize its own profits, regardless of the costs to others.

While you may think that a gay rights activist and a global corporation have little in common, you can see that both share the same goal of weakening national sovereignty in order to impose unified global rules that are in their own interests. This helps explain the otherwise inexplicable support for the homosexual agenda you see in so many giant corporations such as Ford Motor Company.

As for the political class, their interest is in obtaining more and more power over your life with less and less accountability to you. This is why unless they make a conscious and sustained effort of the will to fight it, government people tend to be centralizers. They like to centralize control and decision making. Global government gives them one more layer of power and one more layer of bureaucracy between them and their subjects.

There is also the tendency to see themselves as the "cream of the crop" from their own nation. As they pursue relations with those who view themselves as "the cream of the crop" from other countries, it is only human that a certain amount of elitism creeps in. That is, they come to view the foreign leaders as their friends and equals while viewing the "little people" in their home countries as inferiors.

I need not take the space here to inform you that the Founders were in steadfast opposition to such thinking. They desired to give only limited essential authority to the central government and let regulation of most daily affairs of life pass to the states, or to the people.

Here is a Milton Friedman quote which applies, ""Government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. [Because] if I do not like what my local community does, I can move to another local community... [and] if I do not like what my state does, I can move to another. [But] if I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations." -Milton Friedman

Of course, a global government would make it even harder to hide from a government which goes wrong and starts persecuting people for the sake of "political correctness".

It may surprise some that the scriptures also take a dim view of the nations becoming united under one banner. Psalms chapter two is one of the classic passages in which it is revealed that world leaders will attempt to shake off the constraints that God has declared apply to all men. The elite, used to having their own way, are most likely to resent God's standards for civil government and private conduct.

A radical hyper-individualistic view of freedom is that no locality has any right to impose any rules on you. A classic view of liberty respects the rights of localities to order their lives as they see fit by imposing agreed-upon rules on its members. Under the latter view, a homosexual man cannot strut into a town which considers homosexuality a deviant act and demand that they change all their rules to accommodate he and his partner, who wants to be the church organist. Under the former view, a central government can impose its own standards, or lack thereof, on the community. Thus, this view of government and individual rights takes form the townsfolk the liberty to order the rules of their society as they see fit and transfers that authority to a distant and unaccountable elite in a distant capitol.

In this short article I have not written a tithe of what I could write on the wicked potential of globalist thinking. Suffice to say that it is the duty of all persons who desire freedom for their posterity to fight the rising power of globalism in all the hydra-headed policies by which it devours our liberties.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for the explanation. i agree and i have always been leery of the bushes, especially 41 with all of his talk about the new world order. now it looks like 43 is cut from the same cloth the way he is trying to melt us into this north american union.

i was a little confused reading some of the other disscusions. it seemed that some on here threw the term around loosely, labeling any mainstream republican who supported any kind of military operation or intervention overseas as a globalist

2:25 PM, August 04, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good practical explanation of globalism Mark. You covered most bases.

8:44 PM, August 06, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home