Why do liberty-loving people hate globalists—because somewhere across the globe, far out of sight and out of reach, people are making decisions on your behalf.
By Jim Goad for Taki’s Magazine
If you oppose globalism in any way, you must be some kind of Nazi. At least that’s the message I’m getting from the slavishly pro-globalist press.
It’s long been my suspicion that this extended, cringeworthy, and now years-long display of wantonly reckless public diaper-shitting known as “The Resistance” to Donald Trump—which has tweaked the dial all the way up to Full Screech Mode ever since he declared his candidacy in June of 2015—is nothing more than a full-on panic attack by global elites whose hegemonic grip over American affairs is finally being threatened by a politician who’s too headstrong, and fundamentally too much of a dick, to humbly take orders from anyone, no matter how powerful they are.
In other words, nothing Trump has proposed is extreme. But the reaction to his proposals has been so extreme, it might be easy to confuse the two.
While campaigning for president, Trump uttered the following sentence that a Washington Post writer named Ishaan Tharoor—sounds like a globalist—saw fit to describe as an example of “dubious and rather hysterical ideas” that evoked “echoes of a very dark past” due to its use of “Nazi-era vocabulary” which, but of course, led to “charges of anti-Semitism”:
We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.
That’s all Trump said. I don’t see anything “dark” there, but that’s just me. I didn’t see any mention of Jews, either, no matter how hard I looked.
A week before the election, Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon explained the sudden, er, global appeal of anti-globalism:
People want more control of their country. They’re very proud of their countries. They want borders. They want sovereignty.
OK, I’ve closed my eyes, wriggled my nose, and clicked my heels together twice, and I’m still having a tough time seeing anything “dark” or “anti-Semitic” there. Do I need new glasses?
Last week when Trump’s top economic adviser Gary Cohn resigned, a reporter for Fox News brought up the topic of globalism with White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders:
He was a noted free trader, a globalist. Will the president seek another globalist, another free trader?
Then Nick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, tweeted this regarding Cohn’s departure:
As a right-wing conservative and founding member of the Freedom Caucus, I never expected that the coworker I would work closest, and best, with at the White House would be a “globalist.”
During a cabinet meeting on Thursday, Trump invoked the dreaded “G” word in describing Cohn:
He’s been terrific. He may be a globalist, but I still like him.
For some inscrutable reason, the Washington Post’s Ishaan Tharoor seemed certain that Trump was talking about Jews. I mean, technically he was in the sense that Cohn is Jewish, but Tharoor said the term “globalist” is an “anti-Semitic dog whistle” that summons those “days when some in Europe spoke of Jews as ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ and enemies of the national interest.” Tharoor also quotes some guy whose surname is Levin and who works at something called Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University about how criticizing globalism is merely a way for lying Nazi bastards to say they hate Jews.
Pardon me for noticing, but the only people mentioning Jews here are Jews and their sympathizers. I wrote a while ago about a certain breed of anti-Semite who tastes Jews in his sandwiches, but this seems even one step weirder. If you’re a Jew who’s sensitive about Jews, why mention Jews when no one else is mentioning Jews? Why the need to create anti-Semitic moral panics out of thin air? This also happened a few weeks ago after NRA President Wayne LaPierre decried “European-style socialists” and was immediately charged with the unforgivable sin of disliking Jews.
Luke O’Brien is a Nazi-hunting scribe whose face expresses the deep pain and internal suffering he subjects himself to in his noble quest to slay anti-Semitic windmills wherever he imagines them. He, too, seems certain that when Trump says “globalists,” he’s merely saying “Heebs”:
The term “globalist” has been used at the White House at least three times this week in reference to an outgoing Jewish Trump administration official, raising some eyebrows because the word is increasingly used in xenophobic and anti-Semitic contexts….For the anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi members of the so-called “alt-right” white supremacist movement, “globalist” is a euphemism for “Jew.” It refers to the longstanding conspiracy theory about an international Jewish cabal working to undermine the traditional white family and Western culture by pushing for immigration and diversity.
Whoa, Nelly! Take it down a notch, lady! Again—doesn’t it strike this little water boy, or anyone like him, as the least bit odd that he’s the only one seeing Jews here? What are they trying to say—that Jews are disproportionately represented among gun-control advocates and as power players in the global elite?
Sounds kind of anti-Semitic to me.
Let me tell you a little story—a true one, if that helps. You don’t even have to think about Jews in order to understand why many people hate globalists.
Despite what you might have heard, Ireland’s current prime minister is not the leprechaun on the cover of Lucky Charms cereal boxes, but rather a gay man of Indian descent. And his government recently became enmeshed in a scandal wherein officials bribed journalists to write double-page advertorials praising Project Ireland 2040, a scheme that plans to import a million foreigners into a nation whose total population doesn’t even crack five million. In other words, the government paid off the press to brainwash Ireland’s indigenous inhabitants into embracing their demographic replacement. For the most part, readers thought they were reading objective news articles rather than paid advertisements. As part of their payout, alleged “journalists”—who pose as the defenders of the people’s interests against the elites who would wish them harm—were forbidden from writing anything negative about Project Ireland 2040.
Now comes word that the tiny southern Irish spa town of Lisdoonvarna—population around 300—is the planned dumping ground for about 115 asylum seekers who will be neither Irish nor Christian, and if anything will be hostile to the strange customs and culture of their new hosts. A local hotelier whose property was the planned site of relocation efforts originally promised he would not sign the contract if the town’s residents didn’t want it—and they made perfectly clear that they didn’t—signed the contract anyway, opening the doors for the planned permanent “transformation” of the tiny Irish town into something that will forevermore be non-Irish in all meaningful senses.
According to American expat and current Lindoosvarna resident Michael Walsh:
Ireland is under the impression that these people will all become Irish, pretty much overnight, and everything will just continue on to be terrific. But, in fact, as history is showing us—in Sweden, France, and Germany—this is not necessarily the case.
Walsh says that the indigenous Irish aren’t raising too much of a stink for fear of being called “racist.” But the town’s residents never voted for their own extinction. They were never even offered the choice. And this is why people hate globalists—because somewhere across the globe, far out of sight and out of reach, people are making decisions on your behalf.