Globalism is the failed liberal authoritarian desire for a "one world" view that rejects the important role of nations in protecting values and encouraging productivity. Globalism is anti-American in encouraging Americans to adopt a "world view" rather than an "American view."
Globalists oppose nationalism and national sovereignty, and instead tend to favor on open borders, free trade, H-1B visas, interventionalism, and foreign aid. Globalists virulently opposed Donald Trump in 2016. Instead, globalists preferred Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz for the nomination, both of whom have voted in favor of the globalist agenda as senators.
Liberals support globalism because it leads to centralized power, thereby providing liberals with an easier way to gain control. It is far easier for liberals to persuade a handful of people in centralized government to rule in their favor than it is for liberals to push their agenda on a decentralized form of government.
According to the Oxford American Dictionary, globalism is the advocacy of "the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world." In its most extreme forms it is sometimes expressed using terms such as "one world," support for a single world government, and/or terms such as "world citizen" or "global citizen." Some globalist groups such as the World Federalist Movement, and some non-Christian religions such as Bahai, actively campaign for world government. "Global" is a currently fashionable term in business, where the term "international" would be more appropriate usage; the term "international" implies business operations between a few countries, while "global" implies worldwide business, making it an adequate term for some forms of business that do operate across the world. Many aspects of globalism fall under the umbrella of globalization, which refers to how local phenomena can become global phenomena.
The term "global" looks at the world as a single cohesive unit while the term "international" better recognizes the world's different countries, different cultures, different languages, different ethnicities, and national borders. Thus the two terms are not the same thing and using them interchangeably is often incorrect; however, it should be noted that the two are not mutually exclusive.
Globalism also involves the theory of a "global economy" in which the economic achievements of most if not all nations are interdependent with those of other nations around the world because of international trade. This is possible because of recent technological inventions such as the internet. For example, a farmer in Ghana can now be insured that he is payed the standard market price for a particular crop because of the standards set in Chicago which he can check with a telephone or internet connection.
Bhagwati (2004) explains how globalization has delivered a better standard of living in less developed countries, and how experiments with protectionist "import substitution" policies have systematically failed. he demonstrates that anti-globalism comprises a discontented brew of anti-capitalism, anti-corporatism, and anti-Americanism. His case that globalization has benefited the poor uses a two-step argument: trade enhances economic growth, and growth reduces poverty. He contrasts the failure of protectionism to deliver prosperity in post-colonial India and other countries with the progress and development in East Asia and other more outward-oriented countries. The growth spurred by globalization has not only expanded the pie but has done so in a way that is "socially benign" and possesses "a human face," says Bhagwati. Bhagwati refutes the liberal argument — heard frequently in the Democrat primary debates — that the U.S. must impose labor and environmental standards on poor countries in any future trade agreements. On the contrary, he shows that U.S. multinationals do not seek out less developed countries with low standards; instead they locate most of their affiliates in other high-wage, high-standard countries, and when they do invest in poor countries, they invariably pay wages and maintain standards far above those prevailing in the local economy. The result is not a "race to the bottom," but a race to the top. An inescapable implication is that if the Democrats succeed in withholding U.S. trade and investment from poor countries because they are poor, it will mean slower growth in those countries: fewer girls studying in school, and more working in farms, factories, and brothels.
Developments towards a one world government
- Main article: One-world government
- There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic, military, environmental — and social. 
- Globalization implies neither equity — nor homogenization. In fact, it is equally likely to amplify differences — or at least make people more aware of them. [ibid]
- On the United Nations: Large majorities approve of strengthening the United Nations by giving it the power to have its own standing peacekeeping force, regulate the international arms trade and investigate human rights abuses. 
- United Nations
- Articles about the United Nations from previous "In the news"
- League of Nations
- United Nations - Official site
Sites critical of the U.N. and globalism
- UN Watch
- UN is Evil
- What Liberals Say - Category: United Nations, Accuracy In Media
- American Thinker explanation
Further reading on the topic matter
- Does the Bible prophesy a one-world government and a one-world currency in the end times? GotQuestions. Retrieved March 18, 2017.</ref>
- What is the New World Order? GotQuestions. Retrieved March 18, 2017.
- Should a Christian be opposed to globalization? GotQuestions. Retrieved March 18, 2017.
- Does the Bible say the United Nations will have a role in the end times? GotQuestions. Retrieved March 18, 2017.
- Jagdish Bhagwati, In Defense of Globalization (2004)