What is globalism and why is it bad?

Nov 2017
If you want to know what globalism means, simply look it up: the definition of globalism


1. the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.
If you want to know why it's bad, you can start by looking at the definition and noticing that it specifies that globalism means that the interests of one thing take priority over another thing.

Anarcho-capitalism is one example of something that means the interests of one thing take a back seat to the interests of another thing, specifically that the interests of the collective of society have to take a back seat to the individual & this is bad for the collective of society. Another example is socialism, which has the same problem except in reverse (the interests of the collective of society take a back seat to the interests of the individual).

We know that anarcho-capitalism and socialism are bad for society because it means the individual or the collective suffer, and if either side suffers, so will the other side.

Anarcho-capitalism, for example, is unstable, and would result in a society that deteriorates into war, then something controlled by warlords. People would be ruled by an absolute dictators or totalitarian warlords, and would have practically no rights, not even the right to live.

George Orwell shows what socialism leads to with "1984"; so does the now defunct USSR & same with North Korea. It leads to a national system where there are state-instituted classes of citizens; the higher your status is with the state, more elite you are, and the more privileges you have. It leads to a nation where almost everyone (except the rulers at the top) is a prisoner; it means state capitalism, which means central planning, which results in standards of living for almost everyone being much lower than those of a free market system. It puts a gun to people's heads and threatens to pull the trigger for victimless crimes, and it relies on putting a gun to people's heads to force them to work, because otherwise they would lack the incentive to freely choose to work without being individually rewarded, and without that the state would be too deficient in the resources - goods & services - that it needs. If you try to escape a socialist prison (they call it "defecting", which is Orwellian Newspeak for saying that a slave is trying to liberate themselves), they'll shoot you or punish your family, probably by killing them or sending them to a forced labor prison camp (within a much larger forced labor prison camp).

Now, some might argue & cherry pick this & that example of a nation that's supposedly socialist, or that's supposedly doing well as a socialist nation, where they don't have the extreme issues or problems that the now defunct USSR had, or that North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela currently have. I'll refer to such nations as having "soft" socialism, and although someone probably won't get shot for trying to "defect" from "soft" socialist nations, they're still probably - in a manner of speaking - "prisoners" by virtue of psychological forces rather than physical forces; for example, it's still where their family lives; it's the culture (with control over it dominated by the media) that they're used to and probably practically depend on. One thing that their media-dominated "culture" will do is impose some rather aggressive political correctness policies & standards. The reason these individuals don't flee their country is the feeling that they have nowhere to go, in a similar way that someone who would like to leave an oppressive & restrictive religion (such as Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology, but I think it can really apply to any type of religious institution) doesn't know where to go (i.e., get around in normal society).

BTW, notice that here in the US the socialists are trying to push their agenda with aggressive political correctness and violence; take for example when Conservatives are invited to do a talk, and these rich white (not to mention, racist) thugs, like Antifa, show up to wreak havoc. In a similar way, and for the purpose of globalization, they religiously use catastrophic "climate change" hysteria to try to intimidate people; if that intimidation doesn't work on some individuals, they'll engage in personal attacks against such individuals - even the very scientists who are the experts in the field! I guess it's normal for religion to attack science, because science is about truth whether you like it or not, and religion is about control and requires hiding the truth.

Anyways, globalization is analogous or similar to socialism, in the sense that instead of referring to individuals in a nation, it's nations in the world & individual nations get a low priority under the collective of the world. In reality, the most powerful nations would be the elite nations, and they'd be the ones with the privileges. In effect, globalism is a racist policy (for similar reasons, so is socialism).

We need equilibrium between the individual and the collective, whether that individual entity is a person (a single human being) or a nation. Without it, we have violence or oppression (or both). With globalism, we don't have equilibrium between individual nations and the world as a whole.
Likes: Sabcat

Similar Discussions