0 votes

What is the problem with globalism?

Hi everyone. I don't post a ton here, but I browse almost every day. I've been "libertarian" since 2004, and discovered Ron Paul about one year ago and never looked back since. I believe he is spot-on with almost all of his positions, and is really way ahead of his time (contrary to what others might say).

At this point I am leaning hard towards voting for Chuck Baldwin in November. I think he is closest to Dr. Paul in his views, and I believe that he has integrity. He is very outspoken against the NWO and has made it clear that he'd support a new investigation into 9/11, which no matter where you stand on that topic, you should be in favor of if you are truly a supporter of freedom.

This quote by Baldwin was very interesting, and leads to my question. It goes something like this: "Todays battle isn't between Republicans and Democrats or Consevatives and Liberals, it's between Americans and globalists".

Now, I understand this, and I understand that Obama and McCain are globalists. My problem is that I had someone ask me the other day, "what's wrong with globalism?", and I had difficulty answering that question except to say that globalists don't have the best interests of America in mind.

How would you best articulate this?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The word globalism is an amphiboly

We use the word "globalism" to mean two entirely different things. Baldwin is talking about internationalism. Central banking. One-world government. The end of sovereignty. Etc...

In Global Studies 101 you learn that globalism is the relationship we have between different societies, functioning together over time and how we effect eachother. The effect it has on our culture, economies, and policies is the phenomenon that your friend is talking about.

Amphiboly can not apply to a single word like "globalism"

but bump for the content of your post. :-)

This opinion is for entertainment purposes. It does not represent the opinions of this website, sources cited, nor my actual beliefs. I do not consent for this post to be duplicated or replicated on any internet/digital/print/other form of media. C4L4EVR

Troy, it sounds like you got your indoctrination

of 'globalism through university'. Is that true?

I don't think the problem is Globalism...

...so much as the worldwide economical addiction to US consumerism.

First of all, there will never be a "one world government", at least not in our generation or the next few generations to come. It is easy to envision in the states because we are a giant melting pot of cultures from around the world, a young nation with little cultural history in the world scene. I have been to over 50 countries, I have seen the national pride in most of them, the general populace would not submit to a "world government". Even simple membership status in the European Union had a lot of opposition in my little home country of Lithuania (and still does today) just because they feared cultural dilution (from the immigration laws, not from anything else). If the EU had complete government control over its member countries, I doubt it ever would have been successfully formed.

But let's get back to the addiction to US consumerism. There was a wonderful analogy by a professor of economics at a prominent US university (maybe someone on this forum can remind me who it was?) I read 6 months ago. If the "world" was stranded on a desert island, and every major world power or region had a representative on that island, given today's global economy the island would work like this:

Each person would be given a task.. for example, the Chinese man/woman would go gather wood for a fire. The Indian would go catch fish. The South Americans would go hunt for game, while the Africans collected water. Every evening, a feast would be held, and the American's (USA) job is to consume, eat, drink at the feast. Now the American would leave enough behind to let the others have their sustinance, as they are required to have jobs and go out to repeat their tasks the following day. If all the other people on the island were capable of banding together and refusing to create this feast for the American some day, their standard of living would drop momentarily, but when recovered and order was restored, they would find themselves much better off than when they were working to feed the consumerism of the American on the island.

I think the world economies are trying to ween themselves off of our consumerism-driven market, which would spell bad news for us because we would all have to start WORKING again to produce something. All we seem to export these days is music, movies, some aircraft, very few cars, and soldiers. They haven't found independance yet, a great example of this is the world markets coming down over the news of US financial giants Lehman & Merrill succumbing to their wounds, or the fears France & Germany had over a looming recession so that their central banks would start buying dollars again & reverse the dollar crash vs. the Euro.

So... globalism evil? I dunno, but I don't think it is at the root of ANY of our problems.. if anything, it might at least be helping us in some way since its softening the crash of our system.

This opinion is for entertainment purposes. It does not represent the opinions of this website, sources cited, nor my actual beliefs. I do not consent for this post to be duplicated or replicated on any internet/digital/print/other form of media. C4L4EVR

The most ubiquitous organization of 'Globalism' is the CFR, or,

The Council on Foreign Relations. Est. in 1921 by the Rockefellers. This was an American chapter organization from 'Britain'.

Their agenda is known by several terms that are used intermittently yet mean the same thing: 'World hegemony', 'One World Government', 'New World Order', and Globalization'.

Some can trace the ancestors of these current folks back to the American Revolution. Many of these 'agents' infiltrated the congress, senate and white house throughout the 19th century and attempted a few times to install a private 'central bank' but were mostly foiled. However, they did get their foot in the door during Andrew Jacksons' presidency with the beginning of a new banking system.

This would lead to the next phase in 'perfecting' this banking system. After causing the 1907 'run on the banks', they developed the Federal Reserve and had it installed by their 'puppet', Woodrow Wilson in 1913.

After the failure of the League of Nations, the United Nations was installed which is their 'para- world government' center in process.

In order to fulfill their long term vision, it requires that nations and individuals, disarm, and give up their 'sovereignty' at every level of government so their agenda of take over may proceed smoothly. This also required the 'dumbing down' the education of Americans so they would not understand what was taking place.

One could say, that 9/11 was the 'magic bullet', with multitudes of spin-offs that benefit this organization and its vision tremendously.

The CFR's membership is the who's who of elected government representatives, white house cabinet, executive, heads of military industrial corporations, Universities, most all big media, and others etc.....

If you fail to understand the significance of this, then you really cannot fully comprehend the 32 year battle Dr. Paul has had with these globalists in congress and how they operate.

I would suggest the following to educated yourself:

See Aaron Russo's 'America: From Freedom to Fascism' video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

http://www.liveleak.com/v...

Websites that list CFR memberships go here:
http://www.fdrs.org/cfr_m...

Young professionals in Foreign Policy - or how they recruit young members and 'groom' them for a potential future positions (like the young Obama at Colombia U.)
http://www.ypfp.org/cfr_o...

CFR enrollment processes:
http://www.cfr.org/about/...

A patriot (and former CFR member speaks out)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/586965/posts

Eventually it will lead to a one world Goverment...

"Observe the masses,and do the opposite."

"Observe the masses,and do the opposite."

also

if there was a one world government it would be a lot easier for one person to take over the world. if there was a one world government and hitler tried taking over their would have been a lot more casualties

It is another vehicle for

It is another vehicle for oppression, whether intended to or not. That is the problem. The idea of a global community itself is not a bad thing. It is the enactment of that idea into reality coupled with genuine decision making power that makes the movement towards one global entity destructive to liberty and freedom.

a long quote from R.J. Rushdoony

written approximately 30 years ago:

"When men in unrighteousness or injustice suppress or deny that knowledge, they cannot evade the necessity of God, and so they declare or create new gods in their image, or in terms of their imagination (Rom. 1:18-25). The most powerful, and most deadly, of these new or false gods has, through the centuries, been the state. The state, as a false god, claims total jurisdiction, and it declares itself sovereign or god: it is, in terms of ancient paganism, Hegel, and modern political thought, god walking on earth. Men, having denied the true God, cannot escape having a god, and the modern state is the great Baal (or Lord) of modern man. The cry of modern man is a political cry, 'O Baal, hear us' and save us (I Kings 18:26). Here is idolatry, and too long the church has been silent in the face of it, or has urged its people to submit to Baal in the name of Jesus Christ: to its idolatry, it has added blasphemy."

"Moreover, every modern state has demonstrated that its enmity with foreign powers is a transitory and changing thing. Yesterday’s and tomorrow’s enemies are today’s friends, and future friends as well. Each and every modern state has one abiding enemy against whom perpetual warfare is waged, under the façade of concern and 'welfare.' That abiding enemy of the modern state is its own people, against whom perpetual war is waged in the name of perpetual concern. The foreign enemy is often real, but it is the domestic enemy which is constant."

"The humanistic state is at war with God. For God’s law, it substitutes the state’s law. Because the humanistic state is at war with God, it will be at war with every faithful Christian. Even more, it will be at war with man as such, because man is God’s image-bearer. Therefore, the state seeks to remake man and to obliterate God’s image."

"But man cannot live without a doctrine of Providence. The idea of predestination is an intellectual necessity, because the alternative is a world of total chance and meaninglessness. The doctrine of laissez-faire had shifted the government and decree from God to Nature, while tacitly retaining all the forms of the theological formulation of the doctrine. With Darwin, a further transfer took place. Now the state (or with libertarians, anarchistic man) became the source of providence and predestination."

"The politics of the anti-Christian will thus inescapably be the politics of guilt. In the politics of guilt, man is perpetually drained in his social energy and cultural activity by his over-riding sense of guilt and his masochistic activity. He will progressively demand of the state a redemptive role. What he cannot do personally, i.e., to save himself, he demands that the state do for him, so that THE STATE, AS MAN ENLARGED, becomes the human savior of man. The politics of guilt, therefore is not directed, as the Christian politics of liberty, to the creation of godly justice and order, but to the creation of a redeeming order, a saving state. Guilt must be projected, therefore, on all those who oppose this new order and new age."

"Because man is a religious creature, the god-concept is inescapable to his thinking. Man will either serve the true God or create a false one. If man removes his gods or God from heaven, he will speedily create a new god on earth. In any system of though lacking in transcendence, and, ultimately, only biblical Christianity has a true doctrine of transcendence, power and omnipotence become immanent concepts. As a result, the highest point of power in any system becomes the god of that system. As a result, statism, the most logical expression of that immanent power, becomes the manifest expression of divinity on earth. Thus, as religious unbelief increases, statism increases….Political liberalism is thus a logical development of theological liberalism, in that both involve a transfer of sovereignty from God to man; both rest on a concept of the independence of time from eternity, implicitly or explicitly. Both are indifferent, cool, or rebellious towards the sovereign decree and favor a democratization of authority as the true ground of civil order."

"The essence of planning is this attempt to be as God, to replace God and his predestination with man and his predestination. Under the opiate of planning, the dream of reason aspires to circumscribe every man and every eventuality within the omnipotent arms of the Great Society, the Kingdom of Man. The Plan is a net to ensnare God but which instead ensnares Man. Its purpose is to bind the creation and its Creator within the decree of the City of Man, to creation and its Creator within the decree of the City of Man to make man supreme, but the only thing controlled is man: God remains sovereign. The politics of blood guiltiness is thus statism."

Freedom would be gone.

A global government will not be structured from the American system. History has proven that freedom is not the method of choice for the elite to retain their power. Even in America we're losing our freedom, and you can bet we'd be living in a system based on what China is using right now. If you saw any of the Olympic coverage you should have seen the stories about the protest licenses. The Chinese government offered protest licenses to the citizens, and every citizen who applied for one was tossed into jail for the duration of the Olympic games and probably much longer than that.

In short, if you want someone else telling you, and every other human on the planet what to think, and what you can do, then globalism is great. If you want to be free to think for yourself, globalism is bad.

Arron Russo said it best in Freedom to Fascism

Local government is where you have the most power.

Working with the city is horrible, dealing with the state is a nightmare, and the federal government nothing short of oppression.

Now imagine GLOBAL government where the same laws that apply to someone in a rice patty in China or in a jungle hut in Africa are now applied to you.

Basically your individual value has gone to shit and you are now not just one of 300 million, but one of 6.7 billion.

Do you think in a 'world democracy' you're going to have much say in a world where 1 out of every 4 people is Chinese?

In short global government = GAME OVER.

Might as well head to Walmart for a job application or join the military now because those are the only jobs that will be in demand.

============================

Glen Beck -- An Exposed Enemy:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/90198
Glenn Beck Supports NAFTA and taking your job:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/86643

It depends on what one means

It depends on what one means by "globalism". If a one world government would eliminate trade restrictions and immigration restrictions, we would probably see an end to wars, one of the most economically destructive forces. This would result in a massive increase in wealth the world over.

Whatever

Don't think to hard, its not working for you.

The problem with globalism...

The problem with globalism is the fact that the NWO is steamrolling over every sovereign nation on the planet.

They aren't building a world for the free people to get along, they are building a global dictatorship of the super-rich.

The very first thing that

The very first thing that comes to my mind is always this: What's wrong with Globalism? What's wrong with Alexander the Great? What's wrong with Napolean? What's wrong with Hitler? They all wanted one world order. What about the British Empire? What's wrong with Globalism? We would LOSE the Constitution of the United States, that's what..

I Think This Will

explain the problem with globalism,next time someone asks "What's wrong with Globalism?" show them this.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/council_on_fo...

Globalism is a shell game...

Where they use one group or nation's weakness against another...

what they would like us to think of as fair and free trade is actually exploitation accross the board. So if the United States and 5 other countries produces Apples... the common thought would be to sell the Apples to the rest of the countries but instead the idea is to only sell apples from the country they can make the most profit from and has the least restrictions. So they may actually sell Apples in Apple producing country A from Apple producing country B at a lower price than they can actually produce them until they are out of business. And then country B has total pricing power! These trade agreements give neither countries nor their citizens any power... only the Corporations.

It will eventually destroy our food supply as well as everything else because at some point a few will have all the money and the rest will be dirt poor. And who needs hungry dirt poor people?

Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom" and "Revolutionary Business"
visit www.mikeandjake.com

Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom"
visit www.mikeandjake.com

Globalism would be great if

Globalism would be great if the governments of our world were small and limited and just got out of the way. It would be great if our world had a sound monetary system and a variety of different asset backed currencies to trade with. It would be great if we didn't have artificial trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA etc. that artificially benefit a small amount of corporations. It would be great if governments didn't regulate, protect, and bailout corporations.

I believe there will come a day where freedom will reign supreme worldwide and there will be free and natural trade that will benefit everyone on earth.

I feel as technology improves the world will get smaller and our logical message of freedom and personal liberty will most probably "infect" a large portion of the world.

The current day globalists don't realize what's ahead. They're getting desperate. Their reign of control will one day end. I can feel it. It's only natural.

---------------------------------------
Do you know someone who cares a lot about Israel? Send them this link that explains why Ron Paul's message is better for Israel, America, and the world. www.AmericansForIsrael.com

Awesome Baldwin Quote

plus - he even said on a video clip -
it is now between globalists and Constitutionalists...
bringing it even more direct ...to those who want to uphold the Constitution

I am with you - Voting for Chuck Baldwin ....
the Only Message I can get behind!

Globalist = loss of soverignty
yes USA
no UN

with the 2 major parties we have 2 choices....
Socialism
Fascism

Oh ya (3rd choice no one wants us to know about) Chuck Baldwin

Globalism is a nice thing until...

...lust for territorial domination enters the picture. Many globalists are so filthy they make garbage look good. I don't think globalism in itself is a bad thing at all.

Just this morning I sent out a mass e-mail (almost my whole address book), urging people to read about John McCain's proposed Leage of Democracies. I mentioned that Iraq didn't work out (apparently the Middle East didn't have the vast oil reserves the "experts" originally thought), so the DC mob declared 62 other countries enemies of the United States--and that's only a teeny weeny bit of the sleazy story.

I feel that abuse of globalism is the problem.

--Cliff Treeadway, Sioux City, Iowa

On Facebook:
Personal ProfilePolitical GroupPolitical Page

So you like the idea

of Foreign countries directing our armed forces?
You agree there should be an international court?
You like the UN ending ownership of private property. Agenda 21
You like the idea of the UN calling the shot as far as mineral rights
gathered from the seas? LOST treaty
You could care less about your right to bare arms??
or maybe you'd like to see an end to our national sovereignty??? Lets just agree to disagree and be one big happy family UN style. NO THANKS!!!!!!!!

Whats wrong with globalism.......geez

@$%^^&*(((&$#@

Compared to "Flat-Earthism"?

Nothing, I guess.

Compared to sovereignty and independence? The Federal Union is bad enough... another layer on top of that, a Global Union if you will, is just too much more of the wrong medicine.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Ask them what they like about the idea of globalism

They may like the idea of being friends with everyone and having no borders. If so, suggest we could accomplish that with a non-interventionist foreign policy and reasonable immigration and border policies.

They may like the idea of free trade and economic growth. If so, suggest that by setting an example of protecting property rights and removing trade barriers, we can set a good example, not have all eggs in one basket, and perhaps encourage other countries to institute a property-rights system.

If they aren't in California, I like to ask if they like the idea of Californians outvoting them on issues. Are they glad that Californians are limited to passing laws for California? (If they are in CA, then ask if they like the idea of California being able to "lead the way" instead of having to wait for the rest of the country.)

Then ask, do you really trust people in other countries to serve your best interests better than California does?

IMissLiberty

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Tell them

Our founders made a government system designed to protect our birth rights. Globalists destroy those rights systematically by making our rights secondary to the rights of the majority. The rights of the majority are determined by the government, so they might as well call them the rights provided by whatever the government says your rights are.

There are so many issues that the globalists have messed up. Here's a good book to read:
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Lies-Treason-America-Relations/d...

One thing I've learned is I need to read more.

Democracy isn't scalable

I suppose that in the abstract, a loose global confederation, based on the failed U.S. articles of confederation would be workable, but nothing more.

World wide democracy is stupid, because the Chinese and the Indians would rule.

a global federal republic create too many layers, and you become too far removed from your representatives.

Socialism or a social democracy would divert funds from the rich countries to the poor ones, by force.

Of course we have the worst possible case now, economic integration of countries by economic elites. Sort of a soft facism.

Globalism

serves the ones in charge of the government. It's easiest to exert control over the masses within one large centralized system. Deglobalization serves the citizens. The more decentralized the government and the economy, the easier it is for citizens to have influence and control over their own lives.

Pro-United Nations Organization

I agree.
I also think that doesn't mean that, for instance, presidents of nations cannot meet each other and talk about issues. Because of that I think, just because of the technological developments which allow for example to travel around the world and to communicate via internet, something like "United Nations" is something good. But not the kind which exists today, but another kind.

Otherwise you could argue that Non-globalism is indeed "isolationism", which is not.

Good point

I wasn't trying to say individual nations shouldn't interact, but I suppose that could've been inferred from my post. I don't think there needs to be a "United Nations" at all. Nations can manage their own interactions individually without a centralized organization.

Okay...

The UN is not necessary. Well said.
On a philosophical level there will be interaction as the opposite of isolationism. My point is to consider how to react to the reproach that you mean isolationism by argueing against the UN.
A replacement with nothing is no isolationism, at least not necessarily.
As Paul said: "talk and trade".
I like this philosophical consideration.

Where do we start...

It undermines the Constitution and the Bill of Rights-there is NO WAY the globalists will allow us to keep the Constitution as rule of law.
We will be subject to UN whims, where a majority of nations are ruled by oligarchy, monarchy or dictatorship (not to mention those ruled by Islamic radicals.)
We can say a fond farewell to representative government- hello mob rule (or dictatorship) and the end of individual rights.
Any more enlightenment on what globalism would mean?

Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15