Globalist Myths and the Agenda They Serve

by Mark Angelides

Globalist Ideology has infested every aspect of modern Government and multi-national corporations; and what’s worse is that it has seeped through to the lives of real people. But the idea that a Globalist society is for the benefit of the many is a myth, and the reality is that Globalist practices have failed in almost every regard.
Politicians say that Globalism is the only way forward as we are naturally becoming a more “integrated” world; they claim that is not a contrived action but merely a side product of working with other countries on trade and security issues. If this were truly the case, then why do they need the entire MSM to be cheerleaders for the politics and policies they push?
The truth is that in the 1950s there were around 100 recognized Nations, and since then this number has almost doubled. We are not “naturally” coming together as nations in the spirit of cooperation; we are in reality, setting out borders that protect self-interest.
Some say that Globalization started with Christopher Columbus because his “discovery” opened up trade routes and trading more than any other historical event, but this only applies if you see Globalization merely trade. But it is much more than that. It involves “pooled sovereignty”, free trade agreements that are protectionist in nature, the free flow of capital, goods and people, and the sharing of laws through treaties, accords and “agreements”.
The Myth tells us that the free movement of capital increases equality and the lives of others in less advantaged nations, but according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2007, they said:” inequality levels may have been increased by the introduction of new technology and the investment of foreign capital in developing countries.”
Many believe that trade deals only came into being for America with NAFTA in 1994, but “developed” nations have been either using or moving towards deals like TTIP (or the US version TTP) since at least the Treaty of Paris in 1951 (later redone as the treaty of Rome, then the Maastricht Treaty, and its present incarnation the Lisbon Treaty). One of Paris Treaty’s main architects was one Jean Monnet, and its openly declared intention was to create a United States of Europe.
In some ways, Globalization DOES create more equality between nation states; it does so by making the richer state poorer and the poorer state richer. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both blamed NAFTA for destroying American jobs and spoken of the need for urgent reform; the key point here being “American Jobs”. It does, in fact, increase jobs in other countries…This is Globalism, or as even heroes of the Left have described it:”a race to the bottom”.
Globalism is not for the people. This is the truest aspect of it. It IS for those in government, it IS for Supranational organizations, and it IS for large companies to create larger profits. It IS NOT for the benefit of actual people who are carried along on the whim of the next Globalist fantasy.

We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!

2 thoughts on “Globalist Myths and the Agenda They Serve”

  1. The globalists have played a trick on us here with language – by giving us just one word, “globalization”, instead of multiple words for different aspects.
    Some aspects of globalization are inevitable (obviously there will be more migration between different continents when the technology to travel around the world in 15 hours is there and affordable to many, as opposed to having to spend weeks on a ship to get to the other side of an ocean), some are beneficial (take the Internet, for example – an exchange of ideas should be just about as global as it gets), and some are plain old wrong and evil (installation of a global tyranny, “free trade” deals to help corporations that are already way too big over small competitors, …).
    By wrapping it all together in one word, they essentially control the subject – speak out against global tyranny and you’ll get ridiculed with statements like “so you want to go back to before the Internet existed?”
    Speak out against “free trade” agreements that in fact serve to eradicate consumer rights and turn over more control to big multinational corporations, and you’ll be labeled as racist (“only someone who hates the people of [whatever country the deal is with] would oppose trading with them!”)
    We need to stop playing on their terms and treat different things as different, regardless of how many words there are.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.