Going Global

The Patriot

When addressing the United Nations in 2019, Donald Trump boldly proclaimed to the globalists facing him that “the free world must embrace its national foundations…it must not attempt to erase them or replace them…if you want freedom, take pride in your country; if you want democracy, hold onto your sovereignty; if you want peace, love your nation…wise leaders put the good of their own people and their own country first.” Most importantly, he concluded with this bold statement: “the future doesn’t belong to globalists, it belongs to patriots.”

For any political normies puzzled as to why Trump is relentlessly attacked by politicians on both sides, the media, the Justice Department, major business leaders, and more, one reason (among many) lies in this very sentiment.

Nationalism is an idea that has been vilified over time through the use of propaganda and the media machine. The power of this machine cannot be underestimated, as although its power is slowly decreasing with the increased popularity of alternative media, they still obtain the ability to shape reality for most of the sheep (for lack of a better term).

Examples of this power are ubiquitous, but two pertinent examples given the recent election are Project 2025 and abortion.

Instead of acknowledging Project 2025 as a genuine list of policy objectives crafted by real conservatives—not RINOs—it is endlessly derided as “fascist propaganda.” Similarly, abortion, an objectively evil act that terminates the life of the most innocent among us, is framed as healthcare and a “societal good.”

Weaving back to nationalism, it has undergone similar explicit and implicit attacks that has seen a negative connotation strangely attached to the word.

If one were to go to the average “elite” liberal college and ask students to name words they associate with nationalism, most would rattle off phrases like “Mussolini,” “Hitler,” “Nazi,” “fascism,” etc. This is no coincidence.

There is a reason why people are conditioned to think that trucks with American flags waving must contain a racist driver.

There is a reason why children are constantly fed the narrative that the Founding Fathers were immoral bigots whose only goal was to uphold the institutions of slavery and white supremacy.

There is a reason why it is impossible for college students at most universities to take any type of class that shows our country or its history in a positive light.

That reason is this: nationalism and globalism operate on a zero sum basis; a country that adheres to nationalist principles detests globalism and vice versa.

Simply put, nationalism and its tenets are what stand in the way of the globalist policies that have become popular over the past few decades.

Let’s take a deeper dive into its history and implications.

World History

The idea of creating a global governing body isn’t new—it’s intrinsic to almost every leader or group with the power to pursue it.

Rome is most likely the first thought that comes to mind and rightly so. By the early third century, it had about 70 million citizens and encompassed roughly 2 million square miles extending from Hadrian’s Wall to the Persian Gulf and from the Rhine River to Northern Africa.

The idea of Roman citizenship had initially started out as an exclusive badge that guaranteed its holders with a list of rights that was not only unique to those that held it but also could not be stripped away by a tyrannical government.

As time went on, it became more and more diluted; Emperor Caracalla, whose reign spanned from 198 to 217 AD, issued his infamous Edict of 212, in which he granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire. His narrow minded pursuit of increasing tax revenues at the expense of the cultural stability of the empire proved to be lethal.

Sure, these newcomers would be “citizens,” but would they speak Latin? Would they be conducive to the original values of Italian republicanism? Would they actually uphold the responsibilities of citizenship rather than just enjoying the privileges that come with it?

It’s almost like something similar has been occurring in our country…but nevertheless, I digress.

Rome is obviously not the only empire or country that fits into this category; the Mongols, Ottomans, Islamic caliphates, British imperialists, Napoleon, Stalin, and many more attempted to collapse their borders and spread their language, culture, and customs through militaristic actions.

Political analyst Victor Davis Hanson in his book The Dying Citizen gives a laundry list of negative consequences of the attempt of world conquest: territorial overreach, financial insolvency, military defeat, corruption, demographic calcification, rampant inflation, inefficiency, and bureaucracy are just a few.

The concept of nationhood and nationalism has its faults of course and has been the impetus of endless conflicts spanning across different time periods and geographic zones. However, conflict is inevitable and there will always be reasons to battle against groups of people even without the existence of formal nations.

Hanson also explains that globalism historically causes more violence to enforce its inconsistencies and paradoxes on too many different, restless people that seek to return to what is local, comfortable, and familiar rather than global and distant.

He elaborates by identifying the idea of a limited good being the chief flaw of globalism, as a resource can only be shared so much before it becomes diluted beyond the point of any real value. The most pertinent example of this is citizenship, as this can be seen in the Ancient Roman time as well as modern day America.

In addition, the further a governing body is from its citizens, the less it will care about the negative externalities of the policy enacted.

Globalism is dangerous for many reasons, but the most important is the fact that globalist policies simply weaken national power and sovereignty.

Whether it’s American companies outsourcing jobs overseas, international bodies establishing climate change canons for the US, or promoting global ideas of censorship and deplatforming, these ideas and policies that originate from outside the US inevitably hurt the country because they undermine the institutions that have been built.

When we outsource jobs overseas, we negatively impact the national labor force and especially decimate local communities and cities, particularly in the middle of America and Midwest.

When the World Economic Forum dictates the appropriate level of carbon emissions for the US, it weakens our cleverly devised legislative body of Congress.

When we the idea of censorship is cloaked under the bourgeoisie slogan of “combating misinformation,” it erodes the strength of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The list can go on and on.

Circling back to the ever-so-relevant World Economic Forum, for those who aren’t familiar, it is a gathering in Davos, Switzerland of roughly 3,000 of the world’s elite where large-scale topics like global health, climate change, wealth inequality, and more are discussed.

To put it more succinctly, billionaires fly into Switzerland on their private jets and discuss why the peasants should stop eating meat and drinking coffee to save the environment.

Hanson describes the modern day Davos Man as a “conceited cosmopolitan that sees the world as a 7 billion person market whose mindset, ethics, and loyalties lie above whichever country he’s from.”

Moreover, his vision and ideas for the world need to be foisted on the rest of the world, no matter how unpopular, illogical, or immoral they may be.

Most importantly, he is highly insensitive to the effects that these terrible policies have on the middle classes of the country that they are from but most likely don’t reside in regularly.

These Davos men have a “special place in their heart” for some abstract concept of humanity’s wellbeing but turn a cold shoulder to the flesh and blood citizens of their own country.

C.S. Lewis puts it nicely by stating that “it is easier to be enthusiastic about Humanity with a capital 'H' than it is to love individual men and women, especially those who uninterest us or repel us. Loving everybody in general may be an excuse for loving nobody in particular.”

Similarly, Charles Dickens's character of Mrs. Jellyby in Bleak House displays a woman who is so caught up in the welfare of the poor and downtrodden abroad that she ignores her own family and friends and leaves her kids in a terrible state of manner.

The only difference between Mrs. Jellyby and a Bill Gates-esque character is that Gates and the rest of his Davos buddies could not care less about the welfare of a poor Somalian child thousands of miles away.

When describing how the World Economic Forum is able to achieve their policy goals globally, Klaus Schwab, the chairman and founder, puts it simply: “we penetrate the cabinets.” A great example is Canada and its malevolent leader Justin Trudeau, in which “more than half of his cabinet are from our Young Global Leaders program.”

In other words, how global bodies like the WEF are able to force its agenda on the rest of the world is simply through infiltration. While the mainstream media may label this as a conspiracy, I would find that hard to believe given he said it himself.

And it’s not just the WEF either; global organizations like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, World Health Organization, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and more are major threats to countries’ sovereignty and freedom.

For Europe, the establishment of the EU in 1993 has essentially stripped any level of freedom that European nations have over their decision making. Realistically speaking, that was the purpose behind its creation.

More specifically, I believe that the main motivation of this usurpation of sovereignty was to facilitate the mass migration of Middle Easterners and Africans to European countries without the possibility of countries objecting. This move has changed Europe in a way that will be extremely difficult to undo and will completely transformed into a place with completely different languages, customs, traditions, cultures, and religions in about 100 years or so on its current trajectory.

But that’s a story for a different time.

Panning back to America, the pandemic was a prime example of this, as American lawmakers were under heavy pressure to comply with the WHO’s standardized guidelines on how to handle it, even if it didn’t make sense in for the country to do so.

In fact, what most people don’t realize is the only reason why we had to listen to an overweight computer nerd give us health advice is because he (Gates) was the major donor to the WHO, as records show that he provided $531 million in financing to the organization in 2018-2019.

The more power relinquished to these international organizations directly equates to less sovereignty and prosperity for America simply because these people don't care about America’s prosperity.

Even the elites that don’t have direct ties to any international groups still maintain such a low level of patriotism that in the case of the American empire collapsing, they would simply pack up and move to whichever power that would assume the throne next.

The bottom line comes down to this: American voters vote for American leaders, not for global philosophers who don’t care about how policy affects most Americans.

In the world of politics, money, time, energy, and effort, like most other resources, is zero-sum. Given this fact, it needs to be totally directed towards America and its interests.

Simply put, we need leaders that will put America first.

Thanks for reading and until next time.

Headlines