The Dangers of Globalist Organizations

"Mind Your Own Business"

Aussie PM Scott Morrison Takes Swipe at U.N.’s ‘Negative Globalism’




Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison speaks at the Lowy Lecture at the Town Hall in Sydney on October 3, 2019. - The annual Lowy Lecture is the foreign affairs think-tank Lowy Institute's flagship event where the speaker delivers a speech on Australia's place in the world.

Simon Kent
Breitbart News

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison hit out at the United Nations on Thursday, saying he did not want to see global organisations interfering in the governance of independent nations and “demanding conformity” of words, thoughts and actions. 

The leader of the country’s governing conservative coalition spoke in Sydney a week after using an address at the U.N. to confront “internal and global” critics of Australia’s climate change policy. 
“The world works best, we believe, I believe, when the character and distinctiveness of independent nations is preserved within a framework of mutual respect,” Morrison said. “This includes respecting the electoral mandates of their constituencies.”

The prime minister warned more broadly that freedom of “exchange”, “open markets”, “capital” and “ideas” had never been more important, but were under threat by “unaccountable globalist bodies.”

Greta Thunberg--A Useful Tool, Easily Dismissed

Playing the Game

Greta Thunberg is a blame-shifter extraordinaire.  She finds it entertaining to point the finger at people older than herself.  She wants to place all that is wrong in the world at the feet of her parents.  And she carries a big stick.  If we will not listen to her, she will damn and condemn us for eternity.  

Thunberg tells us that things are obvious.  The threats from climate change are obviously real.  Older people have known all about this and done NOTHING! 

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear," Thunberg said. "How dare you continue to look away and come here and say you're doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are still no where in sight.

"You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency but no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that, because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil and that I refuse to believe."  [Stuff]

Well, have we got unfortunate news for poor Greta.   Nothing is going to change.  Nuffing.  Get that.  The reason is that poor Greta has been hoodwinked.

Some Helpful Definitions and Distinctions

Different Strokes and Folks

Three "hot button" words these days are nationalism, globalism and patriotism.

Patriotism usually refers to the love of one's country.  It is a term which is often used in contrast to nationalism and globalism.  Patriotism is not spoken of much these days.  However, it is important to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism.  According to

These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.”

But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism. [Merriam-Webster] 

Amongst an emerging group of politicians and nations, nationalism is bad, but globalism is good.  The idea here is that those who are globalist in their worldview purport to take into account the needs of the entire human race.  When adopting policies or pushing barrows the globalist allegedly considers the needs and aspirations of those who live in Bantustan, Manhattan, and Goa.  Or, that is the proud claim.

The claim is nonsense of course.  The globalist can never satisfy the aspirations or meet the needs of every person on the planet.  The globalist cannot promote policies which satisfy all individuals, all peoples, all ethnic groups at the same time.  So, the globalist uses the term as a smokescreen whilst he or she promote policies which are championed by the elites, the power brokers, and the monied.

President Macron of France has publicly championed globalism.  He has argued that this is what the true French patriot who loves France would do.  He is confused.  Lots of French who see themselves as patriots love France before an artificial loyalty to the whole human race.  Macron sees himself as part of a global elite trying to lead, pull, and push the whole world in certain directions--such as unrestrained borders when folk come knocking at one's door.

For the globalist, the evil bogey-man is nationalism.  The nationalist mindset has been responsible, it is said, for all kinds of wars and deprivations.

Mountebanks All

UN a Bunch of Condescending Snobs

Mike Hoskings
NZ Herald

The trouble, of course, in defending Donald Trump, is that your first hurdle is he is a buffoon, which makes any sort of defence difficult.  But the laughter we saw at the United Nations and grab all the headlines around the world yesterday encapsulates, in one small moment, just why the place is so disliked and distrusted by so many.

They are snobs. They're elitist, condescending snobs who, unless you have bought into their view of the world, see you as little more than an inconvenience and a Luddite.

Laughing at people is bad manners, it's rude, it's unnecessary - and of all places that should appreciate that it's the United Nations. Allegedly a global grouping designed to take on board the vast array of cultures, ideas, and political agendas, and mould them into some sort of workable operation in the hope of making a better world.  I'm not sure you are achieving that by belittling the world's most powerful country.

In the areas it really matters of course they're an abject failure and that is why - and they're too up themselves to have worked this out - we have seen the rise of people like Trump in the first place.  It's why Sweden lost its Prime Minister this week, it's why Angela Merkel virtually lost her reign as Europe's most powerful operator, it's why Britain is in the Brexit mess it is.

Loving One's Neighbour Rather Than "Global Mankind"

Poland and Hungary Unite Against Eurocrats

‘We Don’t Want to Live in an Empire’

Jack Montgomery
BreitbartLondon



Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary and Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki of Poland have predicted a “year of great battles” with the EU establishment at a summit in Budapest.  “We don’t want to live in an empire. For us, the European Union is still the alliance of free European nations”, declared the veteran Orbán, who has been in office since 2010.

“The EU’s immigration policy is not working. What is more, it is not only not working but it has failed spectacularly,” he said.  “It’s clear that European people don’t want immigration, while some European leaders are still enforcing the failed immigration policy.

“The Hungarian standpoint is that we have to protect the borders [and] migration must be stopped. We shouldn’t bring migrants here, but we should bring the help where it’s needed,” he added, referring to his country’s ‘Hungary Helps’ programme of works to help people in the countries migrants typically originate from, particularly Christian minorities.

We Feel Tony's Pain

Globalism Shobalism

The creases on Tony Blair's brow have deepened.  He is facing up to the failure of his particular plan of redemption for mankind--which is to oversee the demise of nation states, and the triumph of internationalist globalism (with guys and gals like Tony running the show, for the good of all the peons like you and us.)




Over the New Year holiday, the following piece was one of the more satisfying that we read:

The "Populist Surge" Shows No Sign of Ending

BreitbartLondon
Oliver J J Lane

The “populist surge” in Europe has far from peaked and is the most significant change to the European order since the end of the Cold War, a new report by former British left-wing Prime Minister Tony Blair’s own think tank has claimed.

Assessing what the report identifies as a “populist threat” as a means to defeat it and “renew the centre”, the globalist Institute for Global Change document questions widely-held assumptions that right-populist politics is an “interlude”, or blip in history which “optimistic” observers believe will burn out.

To the contrary, the Institute’s own research shows “the trend line suggests that populists will continue to gain strength in the next round of elections”, and particularly in Eastern Europe, the report noting: “Populists are strongest in Eastern Europe. They routinely out-compete the political mainstream and have already taken power in seven countries: Bosnia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Serbia, and Slovakia.”

Populism could instead prove to be “the new normal” and may “drive European politics into a more nationalist and protectionist direction… governments would move decisively towards restricting net migration flows; make access to some social benefits conditional on citizenship status; and undermine minority rights in key respects.”

Breitbart London@BreitbartLondon

Populist Woman Mayor Wins Rome by Landslide: ‘New Era’ Begins http://bit.ly/28IeBew 

9:12 PM - Jun 20, 2016

•  99 Replies
 
•  7373 Retweets
 
•  6060 likes

Looking forward, the paper predicted that should the next decade see populist parties enjoying the same growth as they had in the past ten years, then nations like Germany and Sweden could too see themselves “vulnerable” to such movements.

The report comes as left-wing papers including The Guardian and New York Times mourned the “demise of Europe’s centre-left”, at the expense of the populist right, noting surging right-wing parties across the continent.

Beyond protecting Europe’s borders, one of the areas of right-populist influence that apparently most concerned the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change authors was changes to institutions, across Europe often created or shaped in the post-war period and widely acknowledged to be totally in the hands of mainstream, politically-left management as a result of the famed “long march through the institutions”. One prominent example of such change being presently wrought by a European populist government is reform of the judiciary in conservative Poland.

A hangover of the old Communist system, the Polish government was elected on a platform of judicial reform to increase accountability in the courts, but has been relentlessly attacked by globalist institutions such as the European Commission for attempting to rebalance. Poland and Hungary are both key points of interest in the Tony Blair report, where the ruling parties of both nations are accused of emphasising “a nationalism based on soil, blood, or culture”.

Despite the criticism, the report concedes “populist governments in Hungary and Poland are as popular as ever”.

Clutching At Paper Straws

What Do Soros and Merkel Have in Common With Neville Chamberlain?

"See no evil, hear no evil".  So much of the West's response to Islam falls under this rubric.  Why has a generation appeared which is fixated upon overlooking what is obvious: Islam is a violent religion.  One reason would be that there are few in the West who have bothered to read the Koran--Islam's holy book.  Another is that Islamic violence does not fit in with the myths of humanism.  It is necessary for the maintenance of those myths that Islamic believers be regarded as "just like us" and if treated in a humanitarian, humanist manner they will quickly become both both humanitarian and Western (there is fundamentally no distinction between the two).

Secondly, there is a Marxist overtone that Western elites want to impose.  As part of humanist dogma, national governments are subject to nationalism--which, we are told--plays to ignorant, nativist fears, prejudices, and divisions amongst men.  Internationalism, however, escapes from such prejudices.  It looks with fondness upon mankind as a species, in the abstract.  When a human being is properly supplied with redistributed wealth all of the ignorance, nativist fears, and prejudices will fade away.  Islamic violence, we are told, is a hangover from days of tribalism and nationalist excess.  When properly exposed to humanism, and removed from nationalism, the Islamic believer will thankfully and willingly sign up to Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III.

As a consequence, most Western humanists operate in a cone of naive myopia.  They are like Neville Chamberlain in the run up to World War II.  His pacifism required, not only that he not give due recognition to Nazi nationalism, but that he act towards the Nazi's and Hitler according to the principles of his pacifist beliefs.  He was a significant contributing factor to Hitler's rise and domination of the German armed forcesy.  "Peace in our time" became the absurd myth driving Chamberlain's diplomatic dealings with Hitler.  Angela Merkel and George Soros fall into this kind of folly.  They (along with many others) are the Chamberlains of our age.  When it comes to Islam they are determined neither to see, nor hear, evil. 

Meanwhile, reality is starkly different.

A Moderate, Reasonable Perspective

We’ll Never Have Paris

The Editors
National Review Online

President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. The United States never should have been in it in the first place, and it’s not even entirely clear that it ever was. In choosing American interests over Davos pieties — in the face of resistance from some within his own administration — the president here has made good on his promise to put America first.

The Paris Agreement is a treaty in all but name: The European signatories put it through their usual treaty-ratification protocols, but the United States did not. President Obama went to great lengths to pretend that the treaty was something other than a treaty because he did not wish to submit it for ratification by the Senate, which was almost sure to reject it — as, indeed, the Senate would likely reject it today. In a government of laws, process matters.

Substance matters, too, and here the Paris Agreement is deficient.

Even if one accepts, for the sake of argument, the alarmist interpretation of climate-change data, the Paris Agreement is unlikely to produce the desired result — and may not produce any result at all.

One for the Good Guys

A Faux-Calamity Kicked Out of the Park

So, Trump has pulled the United States out of the Paris Accord (Treaty?).   At the White House Rose Garden, Trump stated his principal objections to the Accord:

Trump complained in the White House's Rose Garden that major polluters like China are allowed to increase their emissions under the agreement in a way that the US cannot. India is hinging its participation on billions of dollars of foreign aid.

'The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States,' he said.   He argued later, 'The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.  This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States,' he contended. . . .

As of today the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.   This includes ending the implementation of the National Determined Contribution and – very importantly – the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a vast fortune.   The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.

Compliance...could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the National Rconomic Research Associates.  The cost to the economy at this time [by 2050] would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and in many cases much worse than that. 

Embarrassing Exposure

Globalism Takes a Hit

One of the great idols of the age has come under attack.  The buzzy bees in the hive are angrily swarming.  It has somehow come to pass that the Commentariat and its attendant Chattering Class have come to believe something quite strange.  It is now received wisdom that when a democratic nation elects a leader, somehow that leader's primary obligation and responsibility, once elected, is not to the voting citizens, but to globalized humanity.  This is a recent, radical view, which fundamentally changes the concept of the nation state.  It also profoundly changes the principles and tenets of democracy.  It has become one of the great ideological heresies of the age.

This strange ideology has been brought into sharp relief with the election of Jehu II in the United States.  That country has been in a quandary--not unique to itself--in which its citizens have suffered violence, attack, and murder at the hands of foreign nationals engaging in jihad against the United States.  One would have thought it is a fundamental duty of a sovereign state to serve and protect its citizens.  Even a child would understand that it is the duty of the elected government to protect the people from such violent evils.

But something strange happened on the way to the forum.  Now it seems, our elites have adopted an entirely foreign notion: when someone is elected to lead a nation, immediately upon election his or her primary responsibility becomes to mankind in the abstract, not to the voting citizens nor to the nation state to which they belong.  They call this exotic names like globalism, or global citizenry, or humanitarianism, or progressivism.  This is one of the most radical ideological changes in the history of mankind--but it is a change which is not "of the people" or "by the people" or "for the people".  It is a radical change fomented by self-styled superior humans, intellectuals, enlightened folk--that is, by those who believe they are our betters and can assume the status of the gods.

Nowhere has this radical change been more clearly illustrated than in the United States.