Globalism : Old Enemy, New Friend?

Back when I was first wetting my feet with the liberty movement circa 2011, consuming a heavy diet of Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and Adam Kokesh, it seemed to me that everybody with libertarian leanings had an agreed upon common enemy—globalism. Everybody from Big L Libertarians, Paleo-Conservatives, conspiracy theorists, anarcho-capitalists etc. could all point their finger at globalism : the evil elitist ideology set on eradicating decentralized government and the Constitution in favor of an authoritarian world government determined to undermine Liberty. This coalition known as the Liberty Movement could even pinpoint the proponents of this narrative down to a handful of individuals and institutions.

Essentially, these are institutions comprised of a variety of political, financial, and industrial interests that all appear to be in lockstep with a general consensus that looks a lot like neo-conservatism. They are in favor of an aggressive US foreign policy, for centralized management of the economy, and are big fans of there own little version of Macroeconomic “Libertarianism” they call, “Free Trade.” So if you are a fan of either the Bush or Obama presidency’s, it might be a good idea to try to rise up in the world and solicit membership.

However, historically populist movements like the Liberty Movement have opposed the school of globalism at every turn, for it violates every principle of our philosophy, to both radical activists and Libertarians together. The globalists are generally considered to be both the progenitors and pioneers of popular activist terms such as crony-capitalism, corporatism, authoritarianism, etc. and make no mistake—they hit the nail on the head. If these are words you have ever uttered, let me be clear, it’s the globalists, stupid.

While a lot of people dismiss Alex Jones offhandedly, there is a reason the Paul family frequented the INFOWARS appearances, lamenting against these transnational engines of US public and global policy. While there are a plethora of other organizations libertarians would point their finger at, such as the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, The Bohemian Grove Club etc., the Council on Foreign relations (CFR) has always been at the focus, because it is an American organization comprised of the top American public policy makers and business magnates. At one point in time, I lived only about 15 blocks south of their headquarters in New York City, The Harold Pratt House. In fact, you can learn more about them on their own website

The CFR is of particular import because the Libertarian Party’s current vice-presidential candidate, William Weld, is a high-ranking member of said organization. And yes, Bill Weld fits the precise definition of a globalist, or to use slightly less objective terminology, a crony-capitalist authoritarian that shamelessly allows financial institutions to influence the political process. Weld himself, a private equity investor, former prosecutor, and former governor, would have been considered a sort of Great Satan in the liberty movement four years ago; however, a lot has changed in the last four years. The libertarian consensus that viewed globalists as our arch enemy has been broken. As the Libertarian Party has demonstrated, globalists are now kind of viewed either in a nonchalant, innocuous way ,or as a necessary level on the pyramid of power to seduce voters if libertarianism is to have any mainstream future.

There are essentially two camps in the libertarian movement on the matter of accepting or rejecting globalism. The first camp, that has radical and activist leanings, is entirely opposed to it, while the latter more pragmatic and status quo camp views accepting globalism as a necessity, desperately trying to make it palatable as acceptable to all libertarians. The latter camp appears to be in control since the political (globalist) establishment is backing them, and the more radical and activist camp is becoming disillusioned with the liberty movement, breaking bread with its historical arch enemy (and I would add, a lot of these libertarians, such as Walter Block, are getting pushed either towards the Alt-Right margins or in the Trumpist camp). While on the surface the libertarian movement appears to be having an identity crisis, I would prefer to think of it more as an unfortunate polar shift.

This split on globalism has drastically changed the demographic of the liberty movement. I can most notably think of the Alex Jones camp and his fanbase as demonstrative of this shift. Alex Jones used to describe himself as a libertarian, used to have prominent libertarian thinkers on his show, but now he is a Donald Trump supporter; and he is specifically a Donald Trump supporter primarily to Trump’s superficial (if not genuine) opposition to his arch-nemesis—yes, the G word.

Alex Jones has also taken a lot of his fanbase with him, conspiracy theorists and activists who were once very warm towards the libertarian movement, who now view it as a non-factor for their goals of radical change and standing firm against the globalist agenda. Through osmosis, as they shift out of the liberty movement, a more liberal left and status quo friendly group of members have begun to (I will not say infiltrate) populate the LP. While the LP would like its members to think that this is simply business as usual, the end of the polar shift will drastically redefine the identity of both the LP and the liberty movement.

This demographic shift will decide if libertarianism is to be the shining beacon it once was against globalism and its pejorative half-synonyms like crony capitalism, centralized economic planning, etc., or if it will be a slightly more palatable form of neoconservative globalism. Will the LP be the party that radical activists like Alex Jones, Julian Assange, and Darryl Perry call home, or will this be the new home for disillusioned Bernie Sanders Democrats and Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney (CFR members who are close to endorsing the LP ticket)? The Libertarian Party should take a giant step back and evaluate the direction it is heading. Does libertarianism succeed on the outside chance of it reaching parity with the other two parties, or as a party of radical change?

I personally think the LP will dissolve if this new direction towards partisan parity takes effect, and libertarians should protect their activist and radical routes at all costs. I just do not think there is sufficient demand from the electorate for a political triopoly as opposed to a duopoly. I think the vision of the Gary Johnson campaign is simply a market redundancy with the other two parties—like Taco John’s is to Taco Bell.

To me, it has no proof of concept. However, the Paul family has shown us that a populist, activist, anti-globalist message can in fact advance the ideas of liberty and has proven there is a large demand from the electorate for it.

In conclusion, if libertarianism loses its radical, activist, and anti-globalist roots, it is doomed to fail. That is why I say to Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, go back to the CFR where you belong!