The idea of globalism is similar to (and sometimes attached to) socialism but comes with a darker context and a scarier selling point. This article aims to simplify a few points so it is easier to understand. There will be parts that could be expanded upon, but I have chosen not to do this for the sake of simplicity. Instead, I will give you a basic overview, and if you are interested, you can research further on your own. However, be prepared for a twist.

Essentially, there are two main camps regarding globalism; pro-globalists and anti-globalists. The anti-globalists are all about popular sovereignty. By definition, popular sovereignty is the sovereignty of the people’s rule. It is the principle that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by the consent of its people through their elected representatives, who are the source of all political power. This is basically what the United States was intended to be. I.E., Constitutionalism. However, due to contortions of the meaning of the Constitution and of things relating to capitalism (like crony capitalism), the masses have become confused about the end goal, angry about some of the results, and have since turned to the promises of globalism.

Globalism is a national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state’s influence. It is the development of social, cultural, technological, or economic networks that transcend national boundaries. It is not a new idea. In fact, in some ways, Thomas Paine championed such ideas before our nation’s founding. Globalism is sometimes referred to as globalization and is what those on the left are pushing for as they use words like Democratic Socialism as a selling point. True, some do not realize what they are advocating, but the globalist utopia is global all the same, and the outcome will be much worse than anyone can imagine.

Sure, some might try to argue this point, so let me familiarize you with a gentleman named Robert Wolfe. Robert Wolfe was a professional historian with 40 years of experience teaching history at the college level. Writing for the New English Review, he said, “What is needed today is a socialist form of globalization, a system of planning and production that transcends the boundaries of the individual nation-states. The goal of socialist globalization should be the treatment of the entire world as a single economic unit within which the provision of necessary goods and services would be maximized and the damage to the environment minimized. The goal is clear: the question is how to get there. The answer is that socialist globalization must be founded on the principle of global democracy.” Sound familiar? He would go on to say that “Socialist globalization is what socialists today ought to be advocating (Wolfe, 2014).“

Wolfe alluded to the problem. We need to understand that globalization is the process of integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This does not sound too bad until you figure out that this entire endeavor is controlled by a consolidated power structure, and this same structure is pushing things like Agenda 21/2030 and false science in an attempt to get people motivated to follow blindly.

This may seem harmless in and of itself, but one has to ask – “Exactly who would be in charge of such a large endeavor, and could we trust them?” – Some might call it authoritarian in nature, perhaps even dictatorial. Would you have your Bill of Rights? Seeing how my Bill of Rights is holding up so far with the initial push toward globalization, I am guessing probably not. As a matter of fact, can anyone point to an increase in personal liberties or true economic growth under their direction thus far? Of course not. We see reductions across the board.

You can draw your own conclusion on that. Simply use history as a guide. Perhaps reference some of what the Founders had to say about government. Understand that this is not an isolated movement. IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde recently said that “countries need to extend the benefits of openness and integration, while alleviating the side effects” and said that “We need to make globalization work for all (Mayeda & Lam, 2016).“

Unfortunately, the seed has already been planted, and there are already those who suggest that globalization needs global governance. In fact, Pascal Lamy, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization until September 1st of 2013, lectured that same year under the endorsement of the Brookings Institute and the French Embassy in Washington that he believes that “globalization is indeed in need of some global governance” (Lamy, 2013). Sadly, there are many more like him who believe the same.

So let us dig deeper and ask, “What is global governance?” Global governance is exactly what it sounds like; world government. Think of it as a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. This movement aims to establish political integration of transnational actors. However, this dramatic change in political thought would require institutionalization. Institutionalization refers to the process of embedding a common belief, norm, social role, or mode of behavior within a social system or society as a whole. This is also known as “conformity.” The question EVERYONE should be asking is exactly which way of life is everyone on the planet going to conform to. And ask yourself which government officials or mega-corporation or mega-bank leaders you trust to handle this, and exactly why should they have a say in how you live your life?

There are three things you need to understand at this point: 1) “A dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power” is also the exact definition of the “New World Order” – and this sounds suspiciously similar to something like “Oligarchical Collectivism” – which was supposed to be an idea for entertainment; not meant as a guide (Trotsky, 1984). 2) There are those who are proactively attempting to embed these new norms, social roles, and behaviors into our society. This is usually done via shaming or via fear by the government, government institutions, and academia and is often pushed by biased media. 3) In order to achieve such a goal, those who oppose that agenda and who prefer popular sovereignty would either need to be silenced or removed as they are considered “non-conformists” and tend to educate the ignorant. I think we can begin to see why certain individuals who are not a part of the “establishment” are frowned upon in Washington. We can probably also see why certain conservatives continue to be targeted by both media and government agencies.

Fear and shaming seem to be the tactics of choice in the United States, at least regarding the people. Shaming people for being white, black, rich, middle-class, conservative, straight, male, female, loving your country, being educated, protecting yourself or your state, and so on. Doubt this? Think about how stomping on a flag or sitting during an anthem is now celebrated while wearing patriotic shirts; saying the pledge or waving a flag is somehow frowned upon. It is erosion via fear, and the people are not only accepting it; they are celebrating it.

It is not always direct fear, though. Sometimes it is economic. An example of this tactic might be how Jack Ma, the Chinese executive chairman of Alibaba, said that “We should keep on going along the path of globalization” because, as he said, “Globalization is good… when trade stops, war comes (King & Stevens, 2016).” See what he did there? Or even Lagarde suggesting that the United States should get on board more of these international trade deals and that focusing on our economy would hurt us – likening it to a “self-inflicted wound” (Elliott, 2017). This suggests, of course, that all of the trade deals thus far have helped. In other words, if you want to avoid war or economic calamity, follow along, give up your beliefs (and your rights) and bow to the new global socialist state?

The Twist

The twist (and scary part) is how they sell it to the public. Let’s face it; not many understand economics, trade deals, and so on. So if you were going to sell globalism to the world, wouldn’t you need to unite humanity against a common foe that was easily understood? What if the power structure found that foe, but that foe turned out to be ourselves? I hope that sounds as crazy to you as it does to me, but I am afraid that may be the case.

“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” – Maurice Strong – The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Balaam, 2016).

This just gets the ball rolling. Digging deeper, we find a global think tank that consults the U.N. on a variety of international issues, including the world economic system, climate change, and environmental degradation. It is called the Club of Rome, and it was founded by guys like the famed globalist and banker David Rockefeller. In 1992, this organization produced a report called The First Global Revolution. In that report, you will find the following quote: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill (Martingano, 2015).” Take a second to really think about what they are saying there.

While disturbing, we should not be shocked. After all, Rockefeller wrote in his memoirs that “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it (Rockefeller, 2003)”. Are the people of this world simply being played for a bigger agenda or power grab?

Notice that the global/climate agendas are being pushed by some of the very same seeking a socialist global utopia. It does not take a genius to figure this out, but just in case, I will provide the following. As reported in Forbes in 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order (Bell, 2013).“

The deeper you dig, the darker the hole gets. Ottmar Georg Edenhofer, an official with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is touted as one of the world’s leading experts on climate change policy, environmental and energy policy, and energy economics. His position is that “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…( Loris, 2010)”.

Perhaps everyone is being played, and there is a much bigger agenda that needs to be examined. Let me state clearly that I am not saying that climate change isn’t real. Temperatures have been going up and down for millions of years. It is very real; it changes all the time. That is not the point, though. The point is that this is turning into a modern “War Against Drugs” or “War on Poverty.” These were expensive government-expanding programs that just made the situation worse in the long run.

Of course, we could be doing a better job with pollution. This is not in debate. However, the hypocrisy is the fact that 87 percent of all human-produced carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels for things like electricity/heat and transportation, but many of the same politicians that advocate climate change initiatives accept millions from energy producers that use fossil fuels and oppose renewable energy (Williams, 2016). Surely, you can see this hypocrisy.

Regardless, I do not think the masses understand how complex this debate can really be. Perhaps that is why those in power chose it. I mean, how many people are actually going to examine the data in-depth? My guess is not many, especially if it is not their job to do so. Let me give you some examples of what I am talking about, just in case you are questioning my tone here.

Let me take you back to 1982 when Dr. Paul J. Crutzen, director of the Max Planck Institute for Atmospheric Chemistry in Mainz, West Germany, and S.O. Wandiga of the University of Nairobi in Kenya found that termites, digesting vegetable matter on a global basis, produced more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the world’s smokestacks. Maybe it was deforestation or something else but are you going to dig to verify? I just want you to see it is not as simple as the media often makes it out to be (Sullivan, 1982). MANY things must be examined. The oceans, animals, radiation, etc.

“But David, it is not just CO2. It is methane and all of the other greenhouse gases as well!”

I get it, but I also know that animal agriculture is responsible for roughly 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. I am also aware that research led by Princeton University and published in The ISME Journal in August of 2015 suggests that methane-hungry bacteria not only remove methane from the atmosphere but also become more efficient as temperatures rise (Lau, Stackhouse…, 2015). These guys are called methanotrophs because they metabolize methane as their only source of carbon and energy. Nature is awesome, but would you have even considered that in your research?

The point is that instead of examining the issues and data, we give up, buy into the attack on people and imply that more government is the answer because someone said there was a consensus. However, we never really verified that claim, either. That is crazy, irresponsible, and dangerous. This is especially true when you factor in how long Climate Alarmism has been around. Let me provide you with an awesome example.

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

The Washington Post: November 2, 1922

Here is a climate fact – EVERYTHING affects the planet – always. Forest fires, volcanoes, humans, animals, bacteria, solar activity, and so on. The Earth heats, and it cools. It will continue to happen. The most recent cooling period started in 1300 and ended in 1850. It was called the mini-ice age and was accompanied by advancing ice sheets that destroyed many towns in Europe. Understand that this period came after a long warming period, and it all happened before industrialization. Be skeptical. Let me also suggest that you look into the gray on this one and understand that it is probably not an “all or nothing” situation.

Let me destroy another narrative that seems to be at the heart of this debate (or selling point). Science is not about consensus. Even if it were, there is simply NOT a 97% consensus about global warming, and I can give you plenty of examples to prove this. Since I have more topics to cover in my work, I will provide just a few.

To begin with, the idea that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human activities are causing the planet to warm is based on a 2013 report by Australian researcher John Cook; he made some bold assertions that have been contested ever since (Cook, 2013). A study published in the journal Science and Education by Dr. David Legates and four other prominent climatologists found that only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined explicitly stated that mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950. If this bears any weight, then this means that any real consensus is actually at 0.3 percent (Legates, Soon, Briggs & Brenchley, 2013). Dr. Legates said, “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.” You’ve been manipulated.

Related facts paint the picture. According to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields conducted by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity or that they did not know the cause. A 2012 poll of 1,862 American Meteorological Society members showed that only 59 percent of those who responded stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming (Tuttle, 2015). In other words, they are still looking into it.

I am not going to write too much more about this. This is partly because too many are already emotionally vested in the agenda regardless of its ultimate goal or known hypocrisies. It is ironic, but I think Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, said it best when he told Forbes that “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true (Lamb, 2002).“

So why does the public ignore people like meteorologist John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel, who has been on numerous media channels such as Fox and CNN telling people that he thinks we are being lied to? One such incident occurred on November 2nd, 2014, on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” with host Brian Stelter. In the interview, Coleman said that “if you get down to the hard, cold facts… there’s no question about it; climate change is not happening. There is no significant, man-made global warming now; there hasn’t been any in the past, there’s no reason to expect any in the future, there’s a whole lot of baloney, and yes… it has become a big political point of the democratic party and part of their platform, and I regret that it is become political instead of scientific… but the science… is on my side (Di, 2014).“

Let me be extremely blunt. Clearly, some things need further examination from both sides before we simply trade liberty for the perception of security. This is especially true when we begin to see a nasty socialist agenda entangled at the root, and it is clear that climate is being used as a tool to achieve their goals – by their own admission. Be skeptical, especially when someone tells you that we just have to do something or we are all going to die in the next few years if we do not.

Perhaps what I have provided thus far is not enough to keep your attention on the actual agenda instead of the selling point. Then let me help ease your anxiety on this issue. I want to share the words of James Renwick, a professor of physical geography at Victoria University of Wellington, who served as a lead author on two Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. He says…

But we honestly don’t know what the climate system is capable of, really – and to the best of everyone’s knowledge, the chances of those big changes happening in the next century are pretty small.

And even if they did happen, it would change the climate and it may accelerate warming and so on, but again, none of those things would wipe out life on Earth.

It just wouldn’t. (Morton, 2016)

All that being said, know that it is my opinion that those who avoid renewable energy at all costs are just as bad as the ones that demand it at all costs. Furthermore, we can do plenty of things about pollution and emission that do not require a global government or more taxation.

Yet Another Twist

Honestly, I do not think global warming is something we should be too worried about. I do think global cooling is. Remember when I told you about the mini-ice age that came after a long warming period that was accompanied by advancing ice sheets that destroyed many towns in Europe? And did your history teacher ever tell you that history repeats itself?

Recently, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the U.K. said that the Sun would soon begin its Maunder Minimum. It should be noted that Zharkova’s model is said to have near-perfect accuracy. If this is true, that means that there is an excellent chance that we will (once again) experience a cold period starting about 2030 to 2040 (Khoury, 2015).

Of course, the Sun is already starting to slow down. Yaireska M. Collado-Vega, a space weather forecaster at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, points to the decreasing number of sunspots and suggests that we may be entering a nearly spotless solar cycle, which will result in lower temperatures… and this will last for decades. He said, “The solar cycle is starting to decline. Now we have less active regions visible on the sun’s disk (Nowakowski, 2015)”. Weird, right?

Learn more: Why has the Sun gone quiet?

Climate is not the point. Warmer or colder – if we were in danger due to climate, a larger or even global government would not be the answer, and neither would your tax dollars. Know that governments turn tyrannical, and it is not a question of if; it is a matter of when.

Clearly, popular sovereignty/anti-globalism is the direction we should be heading as a nation. In his pamphlet “Only In America: The Goodness That Greatness Begot,” Doctor Jerome Huyler states that “America was forged on an anvil of Individualism. The Founders firmly rejected its age-old nemesis, Collectivism.” He goes on to say, “the principle of individualism affirms something else, entirely. It sees human beings as self-governing sovereigns, free to do as they please, and bear responsibility for the choices they make. They are obligated only to leave their neighbors free to do as much (Huyler, 2017).” Truer words are hard to come by, and I would like you to keep these words in mind as they provide a solid context for coming articles.

The lesson here is simple. We must be willing to learn from history, and we should not assume the best from a historically flawed and unethical ideology or from those that promote it. Also, understand that I have provided merely a few examples of many just to demonstrate the point. You are encouraged to research objectively and come to your own conclusions. You are also encouraged to explore new energy ideas and embrace them – especially those that do not require government intrusion.  

Let me conclude this article with some simple advice: if you believe in the Constitution, then avoid and resist ideas, people, or actions that further erode the foundational intention of the document. The ignorant are being lulled – do not be fooled or bullied; be the intellectual. Remember that people flee socialist and communist nations for an excellent reason. If the world gets a global socialist society, where will you flee? Be aware of what and who you follow, as they may be pseudo-transformational leaders and selling you lies. Live by definition and seek all the facts. Always examine the pros and cons/benefits and risks. Finally, NEVER blindly follow anything – including me. Yes, it takes effort, but it is worth it.

RESOURCES