We hear the term “globalization” tossed around in the media almost every day, usually casting it in a positive light. In truth, it is one of the most insidious and dangerous modern agendas ever conceived. It is designed to erase your culture, your race, and your freedom.
Yes, that seems a tad heavy-handed. People have interacted and traded internationally, even globally, for thousands of years. But there is a difference between multi-national and global. The former participates in and adapts to the cultural landscape in which it operates. The latter, globalism, seeks to homogenize all before it so that one size, one solution, one government fits all, overseen by a small cadre of elites.
So when we talk of globalization, we must mean more than merely ease of trade. Instead, globalization includes a degree of uniformity not only in material transaction, but in cultural, political, and legal apparatuses. Perhaps even a racial hegemony as well. As Mr. Heaton states (in the video below), “True globalization would mean creating a hegemony of all nations all cultures into a coalition of the willing to abide by being governed by a single approved state entity. “
I watched a video recently on Youtube, and though I don’t necessarily agree with everything in it, I did find it valuable, informative, and at times, infuriating. I urge you to watch it as well. If you don’t have time for the whole thing, or are curious about the content, I note some highlights (lowlights?) below:
Some of the points that got my attention [bold highlights are my own]:
To many people globalization is the uniformity of nations into a single entity, a mutually agreed upon arrangement connecting trade currencies, immigration, even politics. To others, globalization is a clarion call to a socialist superstate where independent nations would lose their autonomy, their populations would lose their individual rights and laws, identities and cultures, and become absorbed into a one world movement for better or worse.
International trade, while surely a component of globalization, does not- in and of itself- equate to globalization. International trade has been documented to have existed for thousands of years:
“Middle Eastern kingdoms traded with Europeans for metals such as gold, silver, iron ore, and copper. Chinese silk was sold to the Greek and Roman Empires, and spices and precious stones from India have been found in ancient burial sites in northern Europe. Ivory from India and Africa was traded all over the known world as was olive oil from the Mediterranean regions. Wool and wine from Western Europe found its way to Asia with much of its international traffic being on the famous Silk Road as well as the growing fleets of merchant ships reaching ports on three continents.”
You will note that even with all of the trade mentioned above, the cultures in question remained: Greeks were Greeks, Romans were Romans, Chinese were Chinese… etc. Contrast that with the globalist agenda.
Not recognizing the inherent difference between races and cultures comes with a cost. The EU, viewed through a globalist lens, is rather like globalism writ small: unified currency, central bureaucracy, open borders, and a melding of dissimilar cultures and values.
Other EU nations such as Belgium, France, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, and Germany paid the price for their being naive and altruistic with regard to their extreme liberal applications of illogic. Many of these cultures, especially some Muslims, fail to assimilate into their adoptive cultures; they often refuse to even follow the local laws and in some cities they have established their own private micro-communities separate from the mainstream population. These are sometimes very dangerous areas for non-Muslims to enter, and even many police departments will not enter these areas where the locals there often practice Sharia law.
Globalization also fails to take into account the radical thought processes and sense of entitlement brought by certain groups into their adoptive nations. Therefore, having a single government entity to enforce universal laws and alter cultural thought processes seems quite unlikely, and many nations and societies would not want to change their ways. Citing the report from the European Parliament: “Europe is currently being overwhelmed by a wave of rape committed by Muslim migrants. Particularly in Scandinavian, countries the number of rapes of white women and girls is rising. These women are considered by Muslim migrants as third class citizens. In the English town of Rotherham alone 1,400 white girls were abused, raped, and murdered by Muslim gangs over a period of years. Many of these incidents are gang rapes.
[Side note: That makes this all the more bothersome:]
I’ll be honest: this last quote caught me off-guard. I didn’t think anyone in Youtube-land had the balls to really lay it out. But he does. It will be interesting to see if Youtube lets it go:
Globalization in total, including financial, economic, military, judicial, societal, educational, cultural, national identity compliance is problematic and unenforceable. In essence the concept of total singular worldwide control in all areas is as insane as any concept can be. For example, of 335 million Americans, if only one quarter of that population resisted such a move, the government loses, but this is why the liberal socialists want total control at every level, to include rigging elections, to try and achieve their objectives. This is why Biden opened the border. Even the Departments of Justice Homeland Security and Border Patrol acknowledge that at least 6 million if not more than 8 million illegal immigrants have crossed into the U.S. with the Biden Administration’s blessing violating federal immigration law. Over 200 of these men captured were on the U.S. and international terrorist watch list. The only question is, how many escaped detection adding to the unverified total number? This unfettered mass migration is a part of globalism. These persons flood into American cities draining resources and increasing crime rates and social tensions and many of them are not assimilating.
The video begins by referencing the Jewish-American economist Theodore Levitt and his paper The Globalization of Markets.
In a sense, this is the horse’s mouth. Although he didn’t invent the term “globalization”, he set the stage for the modern globalist agenda. A few highlights:
The multinational and the global corporation are not the same thing. The multinational corporation operates in a number of countries, and adjusts its products and practices in each—at high relative costs. The global corporation operates with resolute constancy—at low relative cost—as if the entire world (or major regions of it) were a single entity; it sells the same things in the same way everywhere.
The world’s needs and desires have been irrevocably homogenized. This makes the multinational corporation obsolete and the global corporation absolute.
Different cultural preferences, national tastes and standards, and business institutions are vestiges of the past.
—
The historic past, and the national differences respecting commerce and industry it spawned and fostered everywhere, is now subject to relatively easy transformation.
—
There is only one significant respect in which a company’s activities around the world are important, and this is in what it produces and how it sells. Everything else derives from, and is subsidiary to, these activities.
It all makes me a little sick to my stomach. But it also increases my resolve to stand-fast and not let the globalists erase my heritage, culture, and race without a fight.
Amerika Erwache!
2 responses to “The Global Agenda”
I’d like to point something out. Russia should have defeated Ukraine by now. They would have if it wasn’t for other countries sending Ukraine weapons and money, not to mention the boycotts and embargos levied against Russia by many other nations. In other words, the leader of every country has other national leaders watching them to make sure everyone behaves. If we allow ourselves to be governed by a one world government, well, as someone once said, “Who watches the watchers?” There will be no one watching the world government so they would be able to do just as they wanted.
An excellent point. Any world government will answer to… no one.