Globalism: The Political Elephant in the Room

Today’s Democratic party is unprecedented in that it fundamentally opposes the sovereign nation-state system as a legitimate form of governance. Their leaders don’t come out and say this, but their core beliefs are clear: if all cultures can peacefully coexist, they ought to, and dividing people into countries is segregation. To them, this is especially true if you believe the United States should restrict any forms of immigration.

Globalism, according to Merriam-Webster, is “a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence.” We have to understand that those who subscribe to this philosophy, like Barack Obama, are very forward thinking people (hence, we call them “progressives”). They’re not thinking about American men and women living paycheck to paycheck who just want to provide food for their families today. No, they’d build the Keystone Pipeline if that were the case. They’d use taxation powers to bring jobs back to the United States. They’d distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. They’d block the TPP. Contemporary progressive policies (from both parties) are meant to engineer tomorrow — a tomorrow so far down the road that most of us don’t think about it.

They understand the implications of rapid, unfettered immigration. If you can successfully integrate cultures, you eliminate nationalism and prevent war. National borders become immaterial. Rapid multiculturalism may cause problems today – such as incompatible ideas, social unrest, and terrorism – but they believe it works and it will eventually work, provided everyone puts the agenda of a secular state before their own religious or cultural beliefs.

Better for progressives: they exploit minority groups for votes. Law-abiding immigrants are essentially units of political capital.

They understand the implications of “climate change.” Climate change is a blueprint for redistributing wealth internationally. Conspiracy theory? Well, in Paris this week, they tried to agree upon that (among many other things they did agree on). Hundreds of millions of dollars of American tax dollars are supposed to go to developing countries because America industrialized, industrialization releases carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide is the reason poor countries are poor.

If you’re skeptical, if you don’t believe Obama has a right to do that, or if you believe climate change policies will actually harm these countries, you’re a bigot. Personally, I don’t think it will happen, but most mainstream sources do.

Progressives in both parties also understand the implications of unsustainable national debt. Notice how Obama preaches an apocalyptic vision of climate change (because over spans of hundreds of years, climactic disruption will cause some problems, sure), but the U.S. is years away from a currency crisis. We can keep printing money to pay off our debt, but they forget what inflation is, let alone the entire subject of economics.

They understand the implications of political correctness. At least we have seen this backfire – the weight behind the word “racist” has dramatically decreased. Whereas racism before was associated with Jim Crow laws, the Klu Klux Klan, and black oppression, it is now associated with wearing an Indian costume for Halloween, having a Confederate flag on your car, and the song, “Baby it’s cold, outside” (Yes, the Huffington Post just wrote an article saying that song is essentially rape). Especially on college campuses, they have to know they’re attacking free speech. Think about it: free speech and free thought could seriously jeopardize the goals of globalism and multiculturalism.

Owning guns also jeopardizes these goals. Hmm…

Finally, we have to understand their interpretation of societal change. They believe technological change and globalization (carried out by several corporations and banks who support climate change and progressive policies) means that free people are not equipped to deal with the challenges they face. The core of liberalism is knowing how society should look, and taking whatever steps necessary to make sure it becomes such.

And there are serious flaws in this worldview. First of all, getting the public to openly embrace government-enforced “sustainability” is literally getting them to embrace the notion that the ends justify the means. Humans become units of consumption rather than divine individuals. Many left-wing advocates like Bill Gates and Al Gore preach that the world is overpopulating. So, then, aborting your child would actually be a service to the collective, right? In a required climate change class at Michigan State this year, my professor said this verbatim:

“Some people say there should be a stigma for having more than two kids. Sometimes I look at people with three kids and I think, ‘you just had to have the third one?’”

It is also flawed because it is fundamentally illiberal. As the president of the United States and leaders of the United States, your only priority is the people who live here (such as drug addicts, single moms, and the homeless). Illegal immigration puts the world before the United States. Corporate welfare and outsourcing put the world before the United States. Bringing refugees from ISIS-controlled regions puts the world before the United States.

And it’s not unethical to believe that. Government is not charity. Voluntarily donating money (which many do) is charity. Taking money from people to disbenefit them is tyranny.

I don’t support Donald Trump, but I understand why people do. These are all things that would make our founding fathers cry and the Anti-Federalists say, “I told you so.” They’re things that never should have happened in the first place. Most know the change Obama wants for the United States was not the change he sold to the public. But turn on the TV and read the New York Times, and believing this makes you a right-wing nutcase.