F*ck the Planet Chapter Extract: What is Globalism?

My book F*ck the Planet: How to Resist the Great Reset in the Trump Era explains the nature of our enemies. You should read it.

In the attempt to persuade those of you have not done so yet to rush out and buy my latest book, I’m offering below a chapter extract so that you can see the kind of discussions the book includes. I always try to define my terms before deploying them, and this one is an extremely important definition-that is, it’s my definition of Globalism.

Our enemies are varied and come under many names. Marxists, Communists, Radical Leftists, Progressives, Trans Activists, Liberal Elites, Metropolitans, Metrosexuals, Cultural Marxists, Democrats in the US, Liberals in Canada, The Labour Party in the UK, RINOs, Fakeservatives, Neocons, Islamists, the Deep State, the Permanent Administrative State, Citizens of the World, Remainers, some left aligned Libertarians, Socialists, Black Supremacists, Race Grifters, The Establishment, The Alphabet Agencies, Statists, Corporatists, Big Business, Big Pharma, the Military Industrial Complex….all these labels and more have been accurately applied to corrupt groups and interests fundamentally damaging to the rational hopes and interests of the average citizen of the Western World.

Many of these groups contradict each other in quite obvious ways-patriarchal Islamists and LGBTQ+ gender redefining activists, for instance, and yet we see instances of them apparently aligning or supporting each other when both are opposing more moderate and traditional western concepts regarding gender roles or simply the legitimacy of more widely held sexual and gender morals. But above that we see western institutions and governments, often to the distaste, distress and disadvantage of ordinary voters and citizens, strongly supporting contradictory groups and ideologies. We see very strong official support of radical feminism and radical Islam at the same time, for instance, with our governments promoting and offering special concessions and privileges to both ideas even as they clash with each other.

Many more of these groups claim to represent whole demographics without ever obtaining the consent of those they ‘represent’ to that claim. And some describe instirutions and departments of the State. Clearly many of them are very different from each other, but all tend to betray or threaten western nation states and western civilisation.

It might be thought that this multiplicity of groups and interests is mere intellectual confusion, or that supporting very divergent ones simultaneously is the kind of effect one gets when our leaders are midwits and mediocre thinkers incapable of consistency or logic. To some extent that’s true, but it’s more true to say that various extreme and damaging groups, wildly divergent in nature, are being backed by the same authority and power for the purposes of extending that power and profiting from it. Creating crisis, opening borders, backing destruction, wasting money, starting wars, backing socially extreme positions or radically perverse groups-all can be the means of disguising crime, transferring wealth, and concentrating power. And there is a uniting group that supports all these other groups and ideas wherever they harm and damage the kind of interests an ordinary citizen would prefer to see championed. Globalists consistently back every ideology or group, every idea and every enemy, that harms the interests of the average and ordinary western citizen.

So a definition of Globalism itself is pretty important. My book offers a lot more than that. It also describes how to respond and defend yourself from malign Globalist actions. But as a temptation, I hope, here is that initial definition, which forms the second chapter of the book. I hope it tempts you to want to read the rest (the book can be ordered via Amazon or direct from my publishers Bombardier Books):

“ World first and forever, nation never.

Abhijit Naskar, Visvavatan: 100 Demeilitarization Sonnets.

The present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long.

David Rockefeller, speaking to the UN Business Council on September 14, 1994.

Globalism is the dominant political ideology of the Western world today. It’s a set of views and attitudes that nearly everyone shares in Western mainstream politics, media, and business, especially at the upper levels and in senior management and administrative positions. In Rise of the New World Order: The Culling of Man J. Michael Thomas Hays asserts that these words were also voiced by Rockefeller at the same time as the above quote “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

While unconfirmed, it is a telling example of the difference between a benign and a malign reading of Globalist intent. Mainstream media invariably accept the notion that Globalists have the very best wishes for the rest of mankind, while alternative media sources almost always take whatever benign hope Globalists express as the cover of much more sinister intentions.

Every time you read any mainstream magazine or journal or newspaper, you will be getting a Globalist perspective on whatever topic is being discussed. Every time you watch any mainstream news channel, you will be receiving Globalist opinions and prejudices often presented as factual news and objective analysis.

In many ways, the words “Globalist” and “mainstream” are synonymous, because Globalist ideology suffuses the Western world’s mainstream now in the same way that Islam suffuses and dominates the Islamic world, or the way that Christianity used to suffuse every attitude and idea (and political approach) in the Western world. In some senses, especially when you think about the irrational nature of many of its attitudes and commandments and the fanaticism of its adherents for ideas and people that would not rationally inspire such devotion, it might be best understood as a religion that manifests through politics rather than as a purely political movement.

This is not, of course, how Globalists see themselves. Many of them are firm atheists or secularists, and one of their assumptions is that they are more rational and less religious than their opponents. Many Globalists are likely to have huge contempt and disrespect for Christianity without realizing that this is because Christianity provides a traditional moral framework they are seeking to destroy and replace (and which, in terms of the attitudes of the ruling and professional classes, they already have replaced).

But this very dislike of Christianity and association of Christianity with ignorance and backwardness is a reflection of the fact that Globalism is in, some ways, simply a rival faith, a belief system in which automatic “truths” are held by means of magical thinking rather than rational analysis.

It is necessary to understand that Globalism is not just a political movement. Rather, it is a belief system that some adherents hold as an article of faith. It is a belief system you do not share and that is often directly opposed to your traditional beliefs, which it frequently views with contempt. Understanding that your Globalist media and political class are using all their power and influence to promote an alien and rival belief system allows you to comprehend the enormity of the gulf between your attitudes and theirs.

It works through politics, but it inspires fanaticism. Things that are assumed to be true are based on faith, rather than things that have been proved or can be proved. This is, ironically, especially true for those adherents of Globalism that are the most dismissive of religious faith and the most prone to thinking that “The Science” and rationalism is the foundation of their worldview.

As we saw during COVID, what Globalists believe in is not scientific inquiry, analysis, and research (they suppressed any part that reached different conclusions). They don’t truly value or honor the scientific method. They don’t reach rational conclusions based on evidence, and they don’t allow a free speech environment in which other scientists and experts can dispute Globalist policies and responses, which only claim to have a scientific consensus. The very fact that consensus has become part of their mantra is, of course, a classic logical fallacy. It is their appeal to authority—which would have been the same basis on which many factually accurate but radically original scientific breakthroughs were disputed by prior “experts” who suppressed knowledge and discoveries—that did not suit the dominant cosmologies and moral systems of that period (which are always the worldviews of the ruling class).

In other words, the fact that a huge number of dissenting scientific experts were dismissed and silenced during COVID while baseless and inherently irrational approaches were adopted and mandated (instead of these things being fairly and properly assessed in an objective fashion), shows that Globalist views can be at their least scientific when they invoke “The Science” or use compliant and paid scientific professionals to press their case. What we are dealing with in those instances is Scientism, a faith in the pronouncements of anyone with the right degree and a lab coat when expressing views already held by the ruling class that pays them.

A typically Globalist take on “The Science” was expressed in a Twitter post by Eric Sorensen on November 30, 2022, which became a meme used by both sides of the COVID debate. Sorensen considered he had delivered a devastating blow towards anti-COVID policy commentators but really expressed a sort of confused, ignorant but all-encompassing love of being directed and ordered towards certain conclusions by anyone in authority:

“If you disagree with scientists about science, it’s not really a disagreement. You’re actually just incorrect. Science is not truth, it’s the process of finding the truth. When science evolves, it didn’t lie to you, it learned more.”

Such expressions of total devotion to men in white coats, no matter what they happen to order or promote, is, of course, deeply irrational. It allows no such thing as civil liberty or a moral code to intrude on or limit Globalist scientists in any way. It ignores the difference between disputing a confirmed fact and disputing an alleged one, or a political policy in reaction to that fact. Most obviously of all, it ignores what it is saying itself—if science is not truth but a process of discovering truth, there should be no objection to anyone as part of that process looking at the evidence themselves or disputing the evidence where it seems to be debatable. In sum, it’s simply an attempt to confer “absolute truth” on existing authorities, a step that always comes before punishing people who share any genuine inconvenient truth.

Globalist claims of owning the scientific consensus and being purely rational are, therefore, themselves aspects of their irrational nature and key elements of the faith-based nature of Globalism—its true nature is presented as a kind of creed we are all supposed to bow down to and accept rather than a thing really reflecting the evidence and objective reality.

A true respect for science would mean allowing dissenting scientists to speak and doing things like properly testing experimental gene therapy medicines before putting them in most human beings on the planet. It would not reduce itself to slogans like “Respect the Science,” and it would not mandate things that are themselves irrational (like wearing masks that don’t work or like obeying distancing rules that were simply made up with no scientific basis).

One of the very first things we must do in challenging Globalist attitudes is to know that they will always claim to be rational, be based in evidence and science, and represent moderate, standard, professional opinions supported by expertise and research studies. That’s true of Globalist attitudes on social matters, gender, race, and everything from foreign policy to educational approaches to dietary choices and food policy. It’s what we see when Globalist policies are advocated for in terms of the energy sources we use just as much as when Globalist policies are advocated fordealing with pandemics.

And in case after case, we can find that the Globalist position ultimately depends on articles of faith and pure assumptions rather than real, concrete, indisputable evidence. We find that the position and policy is reached first and the science and research follows, using enormous private or public (or public-private partnership) spending to justify the already decided upon position. All while contradictory evidence—no matter how expert, scientific, logical, or rational it is—is starved of funding or banned from public view. In many instances, we will see contradictory evidence ignored after it has proven some Globalist policy as disastrous or deeply irrational or harmful to the public (or all three).

So, the very first part of our resistance is in never accepting an argument by authority or an argument by alleged consensus (a version of the argument by popularity logical fallacy) as the basis on which a Globalist policy is accurate and should be followed. These are the views of the ruling class that are being imposed on us to benefit the ruling class. Of course, they can pay for technical support and research weighted to favor their position. Of course, they can find people in lab coats prepared to conduct dishonest or biased research supportive of their position. We are talking about the people who already have control of most institutions and most sources of funding.

Several areas of research now only exist because Globalist assumptions are dominant. The vast majority of experts and professionals are not going to admit that the branch of inquiry they work in is thoroughly corrupt or solely exists to produce specific results. It takes an unusual and brave climate researcher to say that his field is riddled with assumptions and errors based on false reasoning, bad computer modeling, and people paying his colleagues (and him) to reach predetermined conclusions. Few scientists will put their name to research that shows that all their professional friends and colleagues are in on a kind of moneymaking grift or even advance a paper they know they won’t get funding for because it says or proves something uncomfortable. With no conspiratorial intent, even, people do what their bosses want, and people produce what they are expected to produce to get paid, get fresh funding, and get promoted or praised.

Thousands of ordinary people lower down the line who are just doing their job can be persuaded to do increasingly terrible things if those things are described everywhere as normal, necessary, and rational, which is what we saw with ordinary doctors and nurses during COVID. Their senior colleagues and professional institutions were telling them a certain approach was necessary and vital. Their unions were largely doing the same and refusing to back those who had doubts. Their governments and employers were both demanding they follow a certain approach and paying them to do so. Their TV channels and the news they followed was praising them for that approach. It was made increasingly clear to them that if they advocated a different approach or questioned the approach followed by their clinic, hospital, or institution, they would then be fired.

So millions of trained doctors and nurses, those best positioned to have some professional awareness that the things that were being done were not necessary and normal—to be aware, for example, of the difference between a vaccine and a gene therapy or to be aware of the Hippocratic oath or of the normal timelines of safe and adequately tested research and development for a new vaccine—were the least likely to question these things.

Their livelihood depended on not questioning these things. And so, they went ahead and were the people putting the needles in arms. Those who did question were those with unusual degrees of courage and critical thinking skills, rather than simply those with the right professional degrees.

This example might seem a long way from answering the question of what Globalism is or who is a Globalist. But it’s vital as an illustration of some very important things. Globalist attitudes don’t just affect a small number of people. They affect everyone in the Western world and beyond. They are as global in their effects as in their ambitions. And Globalist attitudes and policies aren’t just enforced by people who are themselves ideological Globalists.

They are enforced and enacted by millions upon millions of non-Globalists who are just doing their jobs, just obeying the rules, just following the crowd. These are people who may have never even heard of Globalism and never have seen a connection between very different areas of politics and culture, which Globalists are shaping and radically impacting upon.

How many nurses would resist a policy if it meant losing their job? Not many. How many of those nurses would understand that the fact that their hospital enforced a particular approach to COVID has some connection to the fact that their hospital also has strict diversity and inclusion policies, a Pride poster in the canteen, and a diversity officer (or several)?

Would they see those separate things as all being mandated from above and all representing Globalist views? No. And certainly not if that nurse then turned on mainstream news to understand the world and what was happening in it.

But in everything that nurse doesn’t connect and maybe doesn’t consider that much at all, everything that nurse was accepting as normal, and everything that nurse was obeying to keep her job, she would be following Globalist set boundaries, rules, procedures, and policies. She would be living a Globalist-mandated life, both professionally and personally, just to be a functioning and accepted member of society and just to earn a living and pay for a house.

This is what it means to live within a society shaped by a dominant ideology, even one that most ordinary people aren’t worrying about, talking about, or that are aware and knowledgeable about. Especially when that ideology is both faith-based and extremely politically active. Globalists are pushing Globalism into every single aspect of life, and they are doing it from the top of society down. Globalism is an incredibly active force, and its agents have both massive profit motives and massive psychological and ideological triggers to keep pushing, keep enforcing, and keep spreading their ideology through everything. The average jihadist is no more determined about spreading his faith through whatever means necessary than the average Globalist is. Many other people, many non-Globalists, are people who have to go along with it to survive, while some can’t even spot that it is happening because it is already all around them.

So, if it’s active in so many different ways, if we are receiving Globalist direction and instruction on the food we eat, the science we believe, the gender and sexual politics we consider normal, the energy sources we use, and the whole culture, structure, and fundamental beliefs of our society, how are we to distinguish what Globalism itself is? How are we to recognize what the core of the ideology is separate to the various things it supports or pushes? Because without that core, we are just listing a whole series of things we don’t like. What’s the core of Globalism?

Well, a few very simple basics can define it, from which all the rest derives. And those basics are these:

1. Globalism is the political ideology and faith system of the ruling class in the Western world. Globalism is an ideology of the elites, and the professional classes who serve elite interests. As such, it is deeply distrustful of the ordinary citizen and the general public (who can’t be trusted to provide the “right” votes for the “right” people).

2. Globalism believes that all the most important issues are best understood in a global context and best dealt with by globally active institutions.

3. Globalism sees purely national responses as inefficient and incapable of addressing the things that matter, as well as seeing nationalism as inherently evil and something to be moved beyond.

4. Because of the above, Globalism always transfers more and more power and resources to transnational bodies like the EU, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and similar bodies. It always advocates pooling resources internationally, sharing agreed aims and objectives, and following the same policies globally at the direction of transnational bodies. These measures both increase the power of the elite and lesson the power of the individual citizen and the general populace.

5. Globalism sees a single-world government, where every policy is aligned throughout the globe, as both inevitable and beneficial.

6. Globalism sees populism as a dangerous, extremist, and regressive force, which only opposes Globalist policies out of malice and ignorance or due to the demagoguery and “misinformation” of populist leaders.

7. Globalism is socially and culturally radical, supporting “progressive” leftist ideas on gender, sexuality, family, identity, race, and social morality as a cultural “new normal” on these issues. It is radically libertarian in terms of sexual kinks and even perversions that were previously taboo or widely considered disgusting or evil, adopting a bland and non-judgmental approach even towards taboos too extreme to actively promote (like child abuse).

8. At the same time, Globalism is severely repressive and authoritarian towards even still standard attitudes and traditional moralities that oppose or threaten it. It favors authoritarian measures against nationalism and populism, or even many general conservative attitudes, and it doesn’t recognize traditional civil liberties and democratic boundaries on what can be imposed on its own civilians.

9. Globalist policies always serve the financial and social interests of the elite, and always negatively impact the finances and lives of the non-elite.

10. Globalist policies are both technocratic and heavily technologically based, requiring new technology or resulting in new and transhuman technological approaches with the abandonment of working, tested, and safe technologies that already exist.

These ten points are not the sum of Globalism but the core. If we look at other Globalist policies and attitudes, we can see that, in each case, they tend to be aspects of the above.

Take, as an example, the Globalist advocacy of climate change and its demand for a “net zero policy” that transitions the entire world economy away from oil, “greenhouse gases,” and “fossil fuels” in favor of new energy sources like wind and solar power. This allegedly Green set of policies could easily have been placed on the list above. Globalists believe in man-made change, and Globalists support the radical policy of “net zero” to fundamentally transform the entire economic model and energy supply basis of the world.

But not everyone who believes in the man-made climate change theory is a Globalist in their other attitudes, necessarily. Again, there are lots of ordinary people who believe in it. It may even be true, partially or to a limited extent (climate temperature may, on average, have risen slightly since modern records began, and human activity may possibly have contributes to that).

But it’s actually as a consequence of those other core Globalist principles above that ordinary people can go around assuming the case for man-made climate change is settled, and the proposed measures for dealing with that are normal ones. Because it was only when the ruling class took these ideas seriously that wider society did. A few years back, the Green movement was not supported by all businesses or by most ordinary voters either. A misanthropic Green idea of human beings as a cancer on the Earth polluting everything and destroying the planet was an extreme position. Now, every mainstream organization takes up the role of apocalyptic messenger of doom regarding climate and does so in a deeply religious fashion. You can’t check the weather report without every variation (or even temperatures and conditions perfectly standard for the season and place) being linked to climate change. If it’s wet, it is due to climate change; if it’s dry, it is due to climate change. A storm is climate change and so is a period with no significant winds. Temperatures that twenty years ago were just “summer” are now backlit with the flames of hell on weather report maps.

All of this is irrational on the surface and not normal. It’s not rational or normal to think that cow farts are going to kill off all life as we know it and turn the American Midwest into a dustbowl worse than the ’30s or turn the leafy parts of Kent (also known as the “Garden of England”) into the Sahara Desert within a few generations. These ideas are mad fear-mongering ones, directly equivalent to hellfire and brimstone sermons, because they are both ludicrously apocalyptic and because they are linked to our normal behavior and supposed moral failings.

You flushed that toilet too many times. You made too many cups of coffee or tea. You drove a diesel or gasoline car. Therefore, the planet is dying, and you are killing it. Your normal everyday existence is an ecological and environmental crime, and you are guilty, as is the level of modern comfort you expect or the populist politician or the nation-state that doesn’t adopt radical, allegedly Green proposals immediately.

The core Globalist characteristics described above are actually responsible for the adoption of “net zero” by Western governments and for the normalization of even the craziest and most apocalyptic fantasies in society at large. The turning point—when environmentalist activists who were once considered fringe weirdos and tree huggers that ordinary people laughed at then became leading environmentalist politicians and when every school pressing apocalyptic climate change literature on five-year-olds—came when the elite adopted these views.

The Globalist core is in the whole “net zero” agenda—there’s a global problem that can only be solved by global solutions (core points two and four). Almost everyone in the mainstream ruling class believes and presses this idea of man-made climate change and this solution of a radical energy supply shift to solve it (core point one). “Net zero” demands new technology and the abandonment of working and efficient technology (core point ten). Climate change science and the computer modeling that provides the only scientific “evidence” for man-made climate change being potentially disastrous comes primarily from a transnational organization (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a subsidiary of the United Nations), which accords with the Globalist nature of the United Nations and the Globalist assumption that transnational bodies are the arbiters of truth and policy (core point four).

So here is the summary. The elite have this crazy new religion, this ideology they fanatically believe in, which they are pushing on everyone else. But this religion is also a vast con. It is about increasing their power and wealth, and that’s why they push it and love it. They can simultaneously claim to be stopping pandemics or saving the planet and force you all to pay for vast government projects, giving money to the Green or “health” companies and new technologies they own and invest in. Theysave Mother Earth…but you pay for it. They save Ukraine…but you pay for it. They save the LGBTQ+ community…but you pay for it. They save the migrants, dreamers, and refugees…but you pay for it. They support Democracy all around the world…but your sons fight the wars, and their sons sit on the boards of Rebuild Iraq Corp or Rebuild Ukraine Corp as they make vast profits, just as their sons sat on the boards of Bomb Iraq Corp and Bomb the Russians Corp as they made vast profits too.

Everything that you look at and say “but that doesn’t make any sense,” from the mask on your face to the rainbow painted on the police car to the foreign war you don’t actually care about to the new medicine you don’t want to take to the crack addict being encouraged to shit in your street is doing two things:

It’s making money for Globalists somehow, and it’s costing or harming you somehow.

And everything that the “great and the good” in our society, and the institutions and organisations at both the national level and the transnational level that they control, are promoting, enforcing, and demanding is something that can be disguised as rational or scientific or as progress or as compassion or as doing good, but in reality is only ever about making them feel good, appear good, or get more of their way and more money and power concentrated in their hands.

That’s Globalism. A kind of religion of the self-interest of the elite, masquerading as a set of things done for beneficial or rational reasons. All of which reduce your rights and steal your money or waste the public funds and the public effort that could be going to the real duties of government and the real wishes of the general populace.

So, these are the next questions:

How do we reduce the power these Globalists hold over us, and how do we live and thrive and survive as, often, powerless people when we are being bombarded with allthe policies and all the propaganda that Globalists can throw at us?”