From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Flag of the United Nations
The European Union is one of the numerous globalist, left-wing organizations in the world.
For the main and ultimate goal of globalism, see One-world government
See also: War on Sovereignty

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." The ultimate goal of globalism is the eventual unification of humanity under a one-world government.

Globalists oppose nationalism, national sovereignty, and self-governance. Instead, they favor open borders, free trade, H-1B visas, interventionism, foreign aid, and changing the U.S. Constitution. They oppose strong border security and the building of border walls. Globalists virulently opposed Donald Trump in 2016. Instead, globalists preferred Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz for the nomination, the latter of which have voted in favor of the globalist agenda as senators. Globalists can come from several political leanings, from the far-left to those considered on the right-of-center.[1] George Soros and the Koch brothers are globalists.

Liberals support globalism because it leads to centralized power, thereby providing liberals with an easier way to gain control. Liberals can more easily persuade a handful of people in centralized government to rule in their favor than convince everyone of their agenda in a decentralized form of government. Goals of American globalists include:

European globalists (also known as Europhiles) have similar goals, including the removal of national sovereignty and eventually establishing a politically unified Europe and world government,[2] encouraging mass migration from countries that do not share the values of the European host countries, and the support of crony capitalism.

Theologically conservative/orthodox Christians believe that the ultimate reason for the push for globalism and one-world government is rebellion against God leading up to the Antichrist – rather than submit to God and recognize that only He can unite the world and bring world peace, liberal globalists seek to create utopia themselves and glorify humanity rather than God.[3]

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 paid 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.[4]

Developments towards a one world government

Main article: One-world government


  • There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic, military, environmental — and social. [1]
  • 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. [2]

See also

External links

Sites critical of the U.N. and globalism

Further reading on the topic matter

Further reading

  • Jagdish Bhagwati, In Defense of Globalization (2004)


  1. Leahy, Michael Patrick (October 31, 2017). Paul Singer and George Soros: Billionaire Bookends of Globalist Opposition to Trump Agenda. Breitbart News. Retrieved November 1, 2017.
  2. Newman, Alex (August 20, 2013). The EU: Regionalization Trumps Sovereignty. The New American. Retrieved November 25, 2017.
  3. Hohmann, Leo (October 16, 2016). Is Globalism Actually Demonic? WND. Retrieved December 26, 2017.
    See also:
  4. See the review by Daniel T. Griswold, "The Road to Wealth," National Review April 19, 2004