A Case Against Globalism

The concept of globalism burdens American society, and this encumbrance comes mainly from the political and social Left. We rarely discuss what globalism is and many Americans don’t seem to see the grave dangers that it represents. We hear phrases like “global citizenship,” or “citizen of the world,” which are supposed to evoke an air of cosmopolitanism, or signal some admirable openness to compassionate dialogue among people and nations but these intellectual sensations are deceptive. Globalism is not that.

In fact, globalism is an ideology, and like all ideologies, it relies heavily on euphemisms to persuade the people of its moral goodness. It peddles in false promises of utopia and brings forth an illusion, if not a lie, of a beautiful society. We’ve been down this road before, except we called it Communism. As we know, that experiment didn’t turn out so well.

One of the aspects that characterizes globalism is its fluidity. Fluidity, in this case, implies change, constant motion, and the inevitable consequence of existential shapeshifting. Nothing is concrete, especially not any principles or perennial and human questions.

The fluidity that is seeping into every aspect of American society (especially in education) relies on what we might call primitive emotionalism—an idea that human beings merely emote and never use reason to reach conclusions, whether they be of a personal or a public nature. Emotions govern everything, and our reactions to events and other people are immediate. This is why there is such a premium today on those who are noted for their capacity to manipulate emotions. Globalism derives much of its strength from such emotional appeals and by presenting situations designed to provoke immediate compassion and action.

Emotions, in and of themselves, can be intelligent. But in the service of advancing globalism, they are meant to “shake people from their slumber” to see the supposed injustices of this world. The only problem is it’s the globalist who determines what an injustice is. No effort is made to understand or explain injustices. Feeling them and feeling outraged by them is sufficient.

The New Totalitarianism
Globalism’s biggest concern is eliminating the importance of differences between people or denying them in the name of a kind of bland corporate sameness. Nothing is exceptional; one thing is not better than another; and—while we’re at it—human beings are not particularly unique, either. Be they differences in abilities or characteristics of ethnic, national, or religious identity,  under the globalist idea, we are not allowed to be singular beings or to identify with the groups of our habits, origins, or choosing. Instead, we are meant to disappear into the masses. For a globalist, this is a necessary sacrifice. What we’re witnessing here is an ideology slowly becoming 
totalitarianism—a globalist determines and then regulates the behavior of individuals as well as the structure of the society at large.

And yet, despite their firmly held belief  in the fluidity of humanity, globalists cannot escape the necessity for some structure and grounding. Instead of creating a community composed of individuals, however, globalists attempt to create and partake in a collective that has no borders or boundaries. As Hannah Arendt wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism, an individual disappears “into One Man of gigantic dimensions. To abolish the fences of laws between men—as tyranny does—means to take away man’s liberties and destroy freedom as a living political reality; for the space between men as it is hedged by the laws, is the living space of freedom.”

A globalist is not interested in borders, whether figurative or literal. The inhabitant of a globalist “country” is a human being who is not allowed to have an interior life or any personal reflection. This also excludes giving primacy to one’s family and friends, all for the sake of the collective. It follows then that real countries are not allowed exist in any meaningful sense or to have their own identities. If an American begins to express an admiration for his country’s history and uniqueness, then he is immediately branded as nationalist. And nationalism, to the feeble globalist mind, is always inextricably and conveniently connected to National Socialism. In the globalist world, everyone who even remotely expresses love of America is a Hitler in the making.

Diversity, Rightly Understood
This troubles me greatly, in part because of my own experience of choosing to immigrate to the United States after surviving the war in Bosnia and my life as a refugee. I also chose to become a citizen here. I am not without concerns or judgments about America because it is, in many ways, filled with all kinds of paradoxes. But intellectual concerns do not equal hatred or a movement toward destruction of the United States. At its core, the foundation of America is life-affirming in that it guarantees the liberty and rights of each citizen. Globalism goes against this principle because it denies individuality. Once individuality is negated, a citizen has no rights, no freedom, and ultimately, he becomes voiceless. Though he may be a citizen “on paper,” he is in fact rendered stateless in the globalist ideological oppression.

If we are to give globalism the benefit of the doubt (which I am doing rather reluctantly), we may say that the intention is to create some kind of closeness and understanding among the people of the world; to unite us in our common humanity rather than to divide us by placing over-much emphasis on our differences. But the problem is that in order to be truly close to one another and in order to have a real dialogue, what is required is an acknowledgment of difference. It is in difference that we are individualized and more importantly, humanized. Dialogue is an impossibility unless each individual human being recognizes and lives his own uniquely human potential and discovers, freely, what he may and may not have in common with various representations of his fellow man. Then, and only then, can we enter into an authentic encounters with one another. Then, and only then, can we become friends and fellow citizens.

About Emina Melonic

Emina Melonic is an adjunct fellow of the Center for American Greatness. Originally from Bosnia, a survivor of the Bosnian war and its aftermath of refugee camps, she immigrated to the United States in 1996 and became an American citizen in 2003. She has a Ph.D. in comparative literature. Her writings have appeared in National Review, The Imaginative Conservative, New English Review, The New Criterion, Law and Liberty, The University Bookman, Claremont Review of Books, The American Mind, and Splice Today. She lives near Buffalo, N.Y.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

29 responses to “A Case Against Globalism”

  1. I respect the author’s attempt to come to grip with ‘globalism’ but feel they have conflated globalism with something often called ‘cultural Marxism’. Globalism, is, to put it as succinctly as possible, predicated on the annihilation of the nation-state as a functioning political entity. The predecessor of all ‘globalist’ institutions is the Communist International.

    • In the current state of the world I agree Burger Man – if all the places in the world were similar in economics, government, culture , productivity, etc then maybe it’s possible? If you hypothesize that some globalists are not evil they are trying to drive the culture to be the same so the rest can come to pass…. but in the current state of the world that is amazingly naive. Just look how different a Sharia run nation is to our own, they are planet distances away in culture and all the rest, the globalist approach would actually be more logical if they were advocating the West and Far East become Islamic in culture, government etc then we would all be more similar and globalism would be possible? Or the reverse of course, their non practicality in seeing what real life is like is stunning.

      • My point was a tad more ‘academic’ I’m afraid. It has more to do conflating ‘globalism’ with ‘cultural Marxism’ (identity politics). I have no truck with the current ‘globalist’ ideology. I don’t hypothesize about the morality of globalists one way or another, I simply oppose their project as currently implemented which is coherent only to the extent that all globalists support the annihilation of the nation state — both despotic and democratic — as a functioning political entity. For example, I don’t think that ‘diversity’ is intrinsically good or bad, it’s just a description of a particular state of affairs. However, I do not think that it arises to the quality of ‘justice’ as a principle and should not allowed to be construed as such. The Sharia monoculture is just as dangerous as the ‘globalist’ monoculture.

    • Thank you for reading! I am not certain where exactly do you see the conflation with cultural Marxism? Is it because I mentioned Communism? My point, and I hope it was clear, was that globalism is an ideology, and structurally very much similar to Communism, particularly in the false promise of human unity. Certainly, globalism and cultural Marxism (identity politics) go together, but in this case, I did not focus on that. And I certainly agree with you that it is about annihilation of the nation state as you say, I agree.

      • I misconstrued the parts of your comments that invoked ‘fluidity’, ‘difference’ and ’emotion’ — tropes I consider to be part of the ‘cultural Marxist’ canon — and did not read you as carefully as I should and ‘conflation’ is certainly too strong a word.

        What I think I was trying to get at is that the phenomena of ‘fluidity’ etc, might exist independently of ‘globalism’ as a political enterprise — the goal of which is the annihilation of the state — and ‘globalism’ is simply exploiting these phenomena for its own purposes. For example, long before the ‘globalist’ political enterprise had gained much traction, writers were writing about the ephemeral characteristics of modern life vis ‘all that is solid melts into air’.

        Since my concerns are more about the political aspects of globalism, I failed to appreciate how you were connecting these various ‘cultural’ phenomena a parts of the ‘mobile army of metaphors’ of the globalist ideology, providing the ‘intellectual’ infrastructure use to ‘sell’ and defend the political enterprise, which, in the end is about power.

        The fault in misunderstanding was mine, not yours.

      • No worries! It’s conversations like these that are necessary in order to clarify what we mean. It keeps me aware too of what I’m writing to see if I have explained my arguments clearly and adequately. There is no doubt that cultural Marxism in America is deeply connected to globalism, and I totally agree with you that there has to be attention paid to the political implications of it – the practice of politics. In any case, I have tried to outline more of an ontological structure of globalism, the “interiority,” if you will and what it entails. Thanks for reading and for the dialogue! :)

      • Cultural Marxism (PC) is the orthodoxy of the modern, western elitist, parasite class. They are legion, and the academic system pumps them out non-stop. After all, what marketable, life sustaining skills are to be found in LGBT studies, women’s studies, African studies, gender studies, etc. – mostly none outside of government employment — including public schools — where they are used to socially engineer, and promote the dependency and victim mentality of a permanent underclass.

  2. Melanic’s attempt to make a “case against globalism” and the totalitarianism that accompanies it is indeed appreciated but confusing. Why would Melanic cite Hannah Arendt, who opposed totalitarianism but ironically embraced revolutionary socialism; was romantically involved with Martin Heidegger, at one time a Nazi; and married Heinrich Blucher, a Communist? Arendt loved America but hated Bourgeois Americans (of the type that elected Trump) whom she thought were the harbingers of totalitarianism. She disdained “job holders and familymen” who passively supported Hitler and she thought the American working class and its middle class bourgeois were the same. Thus, her social science of totalitarianism, based on conflating the American middle class with totalitarianism, was a fiction.

    Commenters below have argued that Melanic conflates “cultural Marxism” and globalism. Melanic refutes this. However, what Melanic conflates is globalism and modernization. As the eminent sociologist Peter Berger defined modernization it is a process of spreading a condition of homelessness, rootlessness, “emotionalism” and “fluidity” (Melanic’s terms). Conversely, socialism is a counter modern movement that offers people a new home (see PL Berger, The Homeless Mind, 1973). Globalism, like socialism, promises a new cosmopolitan home based on fictional free trade with monopolistic companies run by Communist and “totalitarian” regimes and cheap goods for all. Globalism takes on the mask of modernization but it is countermodernization.

    Melanic, like Arendt, an emigre to America from a war torn totalitarian nation, may unwittingly be seeking the same sort of “home” that Arendt did, albeit by conflating globalism and modernization. I find it odd that Melanic would cite Arendt who believed in that Americans were “deplorable” (not Arendt’s term) in a journal dedicated to “American Greatness”. I don’t find this surprising, however, in that Melanic has a background in literature, not sociology. I welcome her thoughts about globalism but find them too commingled. Despite these misgivings, I look forward to reading more from Melanic.

    • Let me address your concerns.
      Arendt’s personal life is without a doubt very conflicted. Her affair with Heidegger alone is troubling, and despite her philosophical writings, she is contradicting herself in relation to her personal life. However, I am not interested in her interior life. Rather, I am merely referring to her essay on ideology found in The Origins of Totalitarianism, quotes which I found quite relevant and important for my own discussion. If I were to mention these personal and intellectual conflicts that Arendt had, that would be an entirely different essay.

      Cultural Marxism – I have just addressed this for the reader who was concerned about it. Please see above.

      Can you refer to particular texts, letters, interviews, etc where she said Americans are deplorable? I was not aware of that, and would like to take a look at it.

      I am not sure why you mention sociology, whether in Arendt’s case (since she was a political theorist and in my opinion a philosopher despite the fact that she denied this repeatedly) or mine. No, my background is not in sociology, but neither it is ONLY in literature. I hold MA in the Humanities, MA in Philosophy, and MA in Theology. I mention this just to give you an idea where my thoughts come from, and that they are always informed by philosophical thinking.

      Thank you reading and your comments. Like I said to the reader above, it’s good to have a conversation about these things and to clarify what we mean.

      PS: By the way, you misspelled my name, although I am sure this was an honest mistake. :)

      • You can find a very good and succinct overview of Arendt’s life work at the following link which quotes her views on American “job holders and familymen”.


        Arendt was a very conflicted person and her work on totalitarianism was flawed and I was gently chiding you in the hope that you weren’t going in the same direction.

        I mention sociology only because one doesn’t need to be a sociologist to have an underlying sociological view of globalism. I would suggest reading Peter Berger’s book The Homeless Mind to get a clearer understanding of why “modernized” persons reflect “emotionalism” and “fluidity”. Modernized persons are uncoupled from institutions and have mostly their emotions and fluid thoughts to rely on. Berger was not a Marxist sociologist as most are today and had a background in theology, philosophy and the humanities as you do.

        I apologize for the misspelling and look forward to reading more of your work.

      • Without taking too much of your time, would you mind spending a few more words on the your point, ” Modernized persons are uncoupled from institutions and have mostly their emotions and fluid thoughts to rely on.” ? I am having trouble of connecting ‘modern person’ with emotions and fluid thoughts. I admit I do not have a grounding in those terms as used.

        Thank you.

      • Unlike animals who have instincts, humans depend on social institutions to provide norms and guidance as to what to eat, dress, etc. Human history is a story of how institutions, mostly notably organized religion, has shaped human nature. But modernization, the release of persons from the bonds of clan, caste, tribe and sect, results in people uncoupled from social institutions and having to mostly, though not entirely, depend on emotions and relative standards (not absolute standards). The “birth of individuals” and individualism didn’t begin until about the start of the printing press and the Reformation. See “Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Liberalism by Larry Sidentop. A problem with the modern individual is that they are often lost in an ocean without a proverbial compass and thus easily persuaded (“fluid”) and subject to their own emotions as the only guide. Sociologists call this “anomie” (without norms) and leads to alienation and powerlessness. Those who are most prone to totalitarian movements are modern (or have modernized consciousness). Some groups, such as Evangelical Christians, are very modern but only because they compartmentalize their lives. Evangelical Christians are modern in that they believe in choice (“being born again”). Modernization is more of a process as opposed to globalism which, as Melonic aptly points out, is an ideology. So modernization is not only an ideology but part of social change. There is also countermodernization and its ideological counterpart de-modernism. Globalism, like Socialism, offers an often fictional “new home” to individuals who are alienated. The working class, however, is less modernized and not as prone to mass movements, social movements and hysteria.

      • Succinct and enlightening. Thank you. Again, no wanting to impose on your time–do you see the Social Justice Movement (the SJWs) part of this movement searching for identity–a defining of place in society? They seem to be the most ardent advocates for a new society. I’ve seen and read of some with anarchist tendencies–burn it all down, socialist tendencies–those who supported Bernie Sanders, and some I would term Utopia-ists–a tendency to centralized authority but seeing only benevolence in such a scheme.

        But, to me, all have the commonality of rejecting the status quo–be it traditional Democrat ideology and especially conservative ideology.

        My individuality, my identity came, I suppose, came by growing up in a military family. I certainly can attest it instilled personal responsibility, love of country, a conservative outlook–all the things that appear detesting to today’s college age youth.

      • Everett – You picked your parents carefully (hah!). You were lucky you were “over” socialized in a military family. Families either from the Knowledge Class (academics, media, nonprofits) or the Underclass (unemployable) tend to under-socialize their children. Those involved in the Social Justice Warrior movement are typically from white, Knowledge Class families. Conservatives are less prone to join such movements because:
        1. They accept the messiness of history.
        2. They are skeptical of “progress” especially violent progress.
        3. Accept others as they are
        4. Value order and continuity
        5. Skeptical of grand intellectual designs for improving society
        6. Skeptical of movements
        7. Are inclined to leave people alone
        (see Peter Berger and Richard Neuhaus, Movement and Revolution). : On American Radicalism)

        Another observation born from studies of social movements: they often end up bringing about the opposite of what they intended in part because there is push back against them and partly because the Law of Unintended Consequences prevails.

      • Thanks Wayne. I have always felt lucky in my upbringing. There was little extra money. Dad was an NCO and there were five of us kids, but WE SAW THE WORLD!

        Your list is as good a description of me as if it had been the result of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter.

        Funny, I find number 3 to be especially true which would totally baffle the SJWs. They wouldn’t really understand the why or how. The same goes for number 7. People wonder why there haven’t been huge right wing demonstrations– a few hundred might show up compared to many hundreds to thousands of committed social changers. Many on conservative sites put it down to “law and order” or “too busy working or raising a family” but I think your list describes us more fully.

        Thanks again for your response. I found it very heartening.

        Edited: with your permission I would like to copy your list to use at other times. I will give you full attribution.

      • A quick look at the historical record shows that conflict between different groups has been common throughout human history. Tribalism seems to be the default mode of human political organization. It can be highly effective: The world’s largest land empire, that of the Mongols, was a tribal organization. But tribalism is hard to abandon, again suggesting that an evolutionary change may be required.

      • I realize you are using the term “tribalism” in a generic sense, but use of appropriate words is important. We have no “tribes” in the US except for possibly native American tribes. The “ethnicities” we have are mostly political inventions. Neither have we castes or clans (except for political ruling clans – Bushes, Clintons). We have more “fluid” social classes, most notably we now have two middle classes: an older Business Class and a New Knowledge Class that was formed by Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Knowledge Class tends to be globalistic and the Business Class nationalistic. We have class conflict, not tribal or ethnic war.

      • Thank you for the link, I will most definitely look at it, and also on the recommendation of Berger book. I certainly don’t agree with Arendt on everything, but I do think the essay on ideology which comes as last in The Origins is spot on about ideology itself and its structure. My point, in any case, was that globalism is an ideology and it contains no freedom for the individual.
        Thanks again for reading and commenting! :)

  3. Globalism is Communism disguised. There is no freedom involved. That fake “love” and those fake “rights” are all smokescreens. In Truth, globalism is slavery disguised as freedom. None are more enslaved than those who mistakenly believe they are free. They promised a “free lunch”, not freedom. Their idea of “freedom” is actually a controlled police state full of censorship disguised as “protecting the feelings of the poor minorities”. Actually, it is just Orwellian Thought Control.
    “Diversity” destroys community. It smashes social trust. It atomizes people and makes them into rootless and easily controllable units. Singularly, you are powerless. Individualism is an illusion. The family is the basic unit of any stable and functional society. Their attempt to redefine this as any group of atomized people shows what they are doing. Crushing any dissent and creating easily controllable rootless and cultureless slaves.

    • Unlike the Communism of the old USSR I see the Globalists as a cabal between the political elites and the corporate elites to develop a hegemony and to divide the spoils among themselves. The selfish reasons for promoting the cheap labor of a movable migrant population –especially in the light of the destruction such policies entail–demonstrate to me that we are seen as nothing more than worker drones. This goes both for the importation of uneducated Muslims into Europe or the similarly unprepared illegal immigrants from Central and South America.

      As far as the US is concerned, once those folks are firmly in the grip of the Democrat Party and are given (or usurp) voting rights there will be no viable Conservative agenda again.

      Sounds like the ravings of a deranged conspiracy nut–right? But what other conclusions can a person reach? I find it hard to believe those who promote the EU over the needs and concerns of its member nations are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

      • There is no animus or “competition” between Capitalists and Communists. This is a LIE. The Bolsheviks were FINANCED BY WALL STREET. Every Billionaire except Trump who was her opponent, supported Hillary. Even the Koch Bros. Sheldon Adelson reneged on his support, because he was only trying to “make a deal”.
        Much like the 1960s Yippie/Hippie Movement, all the “socialists” are just thugs working for Big Money. The Hippies were all pushed onto Americans by Giant Corporations that control the Media. This is ALL ASTROTURF. Almost all those “protesters” are bussed in shills. The college professors get there to run the operation. Colleges recruit “activists”. These little apparatchniks understand that running Psy Op Astroturf is PART AND PARCEL OF THEIR JOB. These “useful idiots” are under the misguided impression that they will be High Officials or Commissars after the “Glorious Revolution” succeeds. However, they are actually “Expendable Assets” that will be DISPOSED OF since they are “True Believers” who are not TOUGH ENOUGH to crack skulls and Really Oppress People.

  4. Globalism seem to have a stronger hold on America and Europe w

  5. Globalism seem to have a stronger hold on America and Europe. It Appears in articles and discussed far more than other places around the planet
    Maybe because Globalism has done the most damage in Europe and America where both share open borders. Both are suffering from the collapsing effects of Christianity and tradition.
    In areas where Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism are strong Globalism’s religious destroying effects have not been felt
    As for that metaphor of a “giant man’ representing all of mankind merged into this person I ask which face will he have? European, African, South or East Asian? Which faith will he adhere to? Where will be his power? in Western cities or non western? Which language will he speak? Where does he keep his money? Western world or Asian world?. here are some places where constant resistance will rise

    • Globalism is driven primarily by left leaning Euros and Americans and they have a near religious aversion to colonialism/imperialism. To make amends they allow “brown people” to do as they wish. That’s why Japan or Korea can have highly restrictive immigration rules or Zimbabwe can systematically seize the property of or even kill white people and they can still come up and eat at the Golbalism trough.

  6. Why give globalism the “benefit of the doubt” when the people don’t even get a vote. Elected officials in the US already think they know what’s best for the “little people” so trust no one, perform your due diligence and be politically active. Eyes and ears wide open because the intoxication of power is inhaled immediately by the elected official. A mere few in Congress get it right and speak for their constituents and fight on their campaign promises.

  7. This woman will have a difficult time justifying the US and their embracing of globalism. Countries in the Balkins know the value of nationalism because they have suffered the terrors of hostile intruders bringing their version of mayhem. The memory of 400 years of Ottoman Turk rule will keep Croatia nationalist as long as they have bullets for their guns. The strategy of the Elite is clear: In the new global economy the American elite will become part of an international elite, while the mass of Americans who work for a living must accept their future place in a global labor pool. In other words, the overwhelming majority of European Americans are supposed to accept a way of life that will be somewhere between the European standard and that prevailing in the Third World.

  8. The repubikins have never heard of the Luddites!!!!

  9. Power hates a vacuum! WhenAmerica retreats, our enemies advance! The republikins are retreating from markets all around the world! They are surrendering very lucrative markets to those who want that wealth, to buy weapons that will destroy us!!! Good grief, you people don’t have a plan, just party slogans!!!

  10. Gobalism is Free Market capitalism applied the the entire WORLD MARKET! You see, for our faith the “free market” to be true, we MUST remain the the global market, or retreat into our own hypocrisy!