Lynch Mob: How Globalism Lost Its Purpose and Its Credibility Without Any Globalists Noticing

The pundits sound surprised by Brexit and Trump. None of the experts saw it coming. It's shocking. It can't be explained. Yet it was majority rule. How can majority rule be a secret in today's information age? Maybe our information is poor because our discussion is lacking. Globalism is not becoming unpopular. It was never agreed to. It was never even discussed. If we had discussed "globalism", the belief that life is better with long distance trade across international borders, then we would have used the term "localism", the opposite belief that life is better with trade limited to the local community. You can not discuss brightness without the concept of darkness. You can not discuss globalism without the concept of localism, as a philosophy. But the word "localism" is not used to mean a philosophy but a mannerism such as playing hockey in Canada, baseball in the US or red telephone booths in Britain.

Globalism is perhaps the most dominating characteristic of twentieth century society, a time of unparalleled communications ability. Yet despite all of this media, much of which came from orbiting satellites, globalism received little actual discussion. It is often discussed as the opposite of "nationalism", the belief that trade should be held within sovereign nations but this implies that the benefits of local trade are only of interest to a federal government exercising armies and tariffs as if globalism was an instrument of prosperity and international peace. International trade often causes wars but rarely solves them. Fences make good neighbours. Borders make for good international relations, especially when international currencies become fiat, without actual resources like gold to back them up. At the present time, the global fiat currency has fallen into a credit based fiat currency and then a credit default swap, or derivatives based economy. Our money is now electronic blips mirroring goods such as snow peas coming from distant lands while local farms wither financially. The peace that Europe produced since the EU was created seems to have become a false peace. Globalism is not an instrument of prosperity and peace. It is instead an instrument of regulatory burden where people become dependent upon international standards and licensing for the necessities of life. Over regulation creates a deceptive and specious sense of harmony. When these licenses become unavailable, globalism removes people from economic attainment of life's necessities even in a land of abundance. But it is never discussed, at least not in the public media. As our media has become monopolized by globalist corporations, they have monopolized the conversation with their own assumptions so that they are never questioned. This can turn globalists into obsessive mad men who are so busy implementing their globalism they never find time for introspection to define their actual needs. In the end, their obsession with globalist fiat currency conceals to them the fact that, without the accountability of localized production, the status of money becomes a shade of its former self.

---

As ocean tankers and airplanes scuttle the globe, the nominal records of wealth grow higher but people's actual wealth declines. But again, no one notices. Opponents of globalism may be called "populists" which says nothing other than to admit that globalism is unpopular. They are called "protectionists", an admission that globalism is damaging, perhaps to everyone. They can be called "intolerant"; an admission that globalism creates errors that need to be tolerated but does not attempt to list or justify the errors of globalism. They can be called "xenophobic"; a criticism of a fear of strangers that loses validity as globalism converts communities into clods of anonymous bureaucrats in a globalized web. But we have not addressed the true opposite viewpoint of globalism: localism. Perhaps the globalized media is reluctant to use the term localist because we all see the value in local communities. People have always travelled ever since the time of nomads. The decision whether we should globalize or localize is not new. If anything, we have avoided the topic more and more as our ability to globalize expands. Until we do discuss globalism, and we must discuss its opposite that is named "localism" if we are to discuss globalism, globalism will he a habit, not a philosophy. It will be a habit that is never debated to be good or bad. It will be a habit that creates government and regulation without policy, economies without actual wealth, diversity without actual difference of anything except for point of origin, communication without discussion and messages without meaning. The perception of agreement seems to have come from the self-righteous opinions of those of us removed from actual situations but immersed in board rooms. We should not be surprised if globalism is unpopular now after modern technology made it so much easier, because it was never discussed, let alone agreed to.