The longevity of our neoliberal order has effectively found its end. Faith in liberal democracy, the supplanting of the True Faith with secularism, and the economic sustainability of international free trade capitalism remain vestigial only to a small portion of the urban classes and the coastal elites. For the rest of the country—and in many cases, even the rest of the world—the naïve belief in a New World Order, free of borders and politics, with all basic needs met and a life of leisure guaranteed for all, has been completely dispelled. Worse, many more are waking up to the realization that the New World Order was never intended to be one that they would be invited to live in. To have lost hope in a dream is one thing, but to realize that the dream sold to you was a lie from its inception—this is the foundation, for many, of anti-Globalist sentiment.
But it’s not enough to be angry at the fact that we won’t get to live in the palatial utopia depicted in something like Star Trek, where all basic needs are met because of a few as-of-yet unlikely (if not outright absurd) technological advancements that solved things like the resource and energy scarcities. No, what’s angering is the systematic dismantling of the world that came before. The arts, the buildings, the very design of the cities—to say nothing of the political systems, the religious doctrines, the economic and social gestalts, the very operation of our communities: all of it has been irreparably altered by the encroachment of modernism. Our economy degrades us, our elites find ways of replacing us, and those that try to pursue a virtuous life must navigate a pornographied landscape inundated with materialism at every turn.
We’ll start with the economy. Capitalism has been sold to us as the economic model that allows the free market to flourish. It’s been sold to us as the economic model in which small businesses can be established by sole entrepreneurs with great ideas, and those in turn can go on to grow and grow and grow to become enormous, monolithic titans of the business world, provided cool heads and great markets prevail. And it’s been sold to us as quite literally the best thing since sliced bread, having dragged out of poverty untold billions worldwide and set the stage for technological advancements to be easily purchased by the masses.
What capitalism gave us instead was the proliferation of a model based on thievery—not from the laborer by the business owner, as the Marxists claim, but rather from all forms of labor by the money lenders. What we got was an out-of-control industry of speculation on debt which has time and again crashed the economies of nations—and not all of them have recovered. What we got instead were international trade agreements in which domestic workers had their livelihoods destroyed because it was cheaper—albeit not necessarily easier—for international corporations to find their labor overseas. Sometimes that meant moving the factories to the foreign labor, but sometimes it meant moving the foreign labor to the factories.
And what do the defenders of capitalism say to the communities it ripped part? “Tough luck, that’s the markets!” or worse, “you just have to keep up in the modern world, bro, better find a way to change your entire career halfway through life so you can survive!” The level of delusion expressed by our elites was on full display during the 2016 election cycle, characterized most prominently by the efforts of the Never Trump brigade of intellectual retards as they mocked and derided the working class. Noblesse oblige today means services owed to one’s stockholders, not the people who work for you.
So what does this tell us about capitalism and those who have pushed it on us? It’s the same thing it told the Russians about the Soviet program: those who aren’t clearly lying to you are useful idiots of the regime. The knuckleheads at National Review? Liars. That slightly annoying libertarian friend of yours? Useful idiot.
The advocates of the system tried to cloak its essence under the guises of terminology that already existed. The embrace of a “free market” meant, at the time of the eighteenth century, an seeking an alternative to the mercantilist systems of colonial England. What it came to mean, as the nineteenth century plodded forward from one revolution to the next, was the release of moral inhibitions and the modern-secular state stepping in to govern the rules of the market. A mild-mannered consumer might presume that the term ‘laissez-faire’ implies a lack of government interference altogether, but it just shields the obvious: under the modern state, government has to safeguard and guarantee the transactions that take place, it has to maintain courts that can uphold contract law, and it has to be the strongman that can take transgressors to the mat when victims of scams are wronged. The government has to decide what the definition of freedom entails under this let-it-go method, because it’s the only unifying body capable of doing so under the modern system. Free market economics assume a moral character to all economic transactions while also asserting that there should be no moral dimension to the governance of the economy.
So we already know that capitalism per se requires the union of economic interests with the government, but the real question is: which sectors, specifically, have to face that sort of integration? And in a way, that’s actually asking the next question: what is the economy? Where does the money in circulation actually come from?
There’s the rub. Capitalism is defended as an economic theory that guarantees the free enterprise of its users, but in reality it is the union of government regulation with the banking sector. You can have your businesses and your products and you can generate your wealth, the government agreed, but in exchange, you had accept that interest would become the cornerstone of the entire global economy. And not just any interest either—compound interest. Fiat currency has never been the main villain, and nor really is inflation. It’s the acceptance of usury as the driveshaft of the economic engine. The West bombed its cities to dust and dynamited its cathedrals in order to build its disgusting modern architecture in swamps of usury.
And who lives in those buildings now? In some cases, as in the staggeringly ugly 432 Park Avenue building in New York City, foreign nationals have bought up the block, but many of them might never even step foot in the building. In cases less luxurious, such as Westlake, Los Angeles, the buildings reek of the same downward trend that still plagues most American metropolitan centers in the wake of the Second World War. Meanwhile, a different sort of foreign investment has taken place: the physical bodies of those from South of the Border. Nearly sixty-eight percent of the neighborhood wasn’t born in the United States, and most of the rest are children of immigrants. Most haven’t finished high school, and about half of the households earn less than twenty thousand dollars a year. Westlake isn’t an exception for some rule, either; this is a reality of the border states and it’s been getting worse since the passage of Hart-Keller. Nations don’t tend to come back from this sort sweeping and sudden ethnographical change.
At both the top and the bottom, the United States is slowly and steadily scooped out and replaced with peoples who are, by definition, not American. At the bottom, the replacements are people who have fled from other countries—migrants, usually, but sometimes refugees. At the top, they’re people who can afford to not belong to any one particular continent—Globalists in the clearest definition of the term. Those at the bottom come to represent the sort of labor that those at the top would rather see do the jobs that are left on American soil: they’re cheap, willing to put up with terrible working conditions, and they have only the barest grasp of the native tongue.
For the people at the top, it isn’t simply that they’d prefer low-wage labor. It’s only natural that they would, being the ostensibly secular, material-minded capitalists that they are. But it’s more than that. If Americans were willing to work for such pittances and live in sub-optimal conditions, as Americans have demonstrated an historical willingness to do provided the ends were right enough, the globalist elites would still prefer foreign labor. They want that erasure of borders. America is neither a people nor even a nation for these people, so much as it is an idea. They conceive of Europe, similarly, as a loose collection of histories held together by the political apparatus enshrined in Brussels that was built from the bones of the one entombed in Rome. Nations are plots of land occupied by arbitrarily by people, and people, so they believe, exist for their own personal service. They want slaves.
But it’s hard to ignore that their animosity is directed quite pointedly at only one collection of nations. The Chinese do not draw their ire the way Germany does. Saudi Arabia, despite its alleged human rights abuses, does not draw the same cultural attacks as Britain, France, or Italy. Spain’s historical imperialism remains entrenched at the foreground of the culture war whenever discussions of the Native Americans arise, yet the savagery enacted against Africans by various caliphates remains unspoken of.
You’ve been paying attention, though. We all have. Globalism isn’t destructive to nations per se; it’s destructive specifically to the western nations. It was designed and engineered to undermine them. But it’s deeper than that. To call globalism anti-West is to see the forest for the trees.
You speak to globalists and they’ll proclaim their love for so-called western values. Free speech, free thinking, free enterprise—whatever any of it means in their given contexts. They value the Enlightenment values that established the West, as we’ve heard so many conservatives tell us in the past few years. Those Enlightenment values they admire resulted in the most catastrophic pair of wars the world had ever seen, tearing down the West and reducing it to a collection of states too bankrupt and morally destitute to defend their own borders. The globalist will tell you that he is the future of the West. He is the West, or what it was supposed to be, having shed the vestigial remnants of what was holding the West back from success. And we know what he’d be talking about.
The West needs the Church to survive, but our globalist friends have decided—and convinced much of the rest of us—that the Church is old and outdated, some sort of superstition, inconvenient, and when those accusations fail, it’s politically flawed and accused of harboring all the skeletons that are hiding in Brussels’ closets. The West has made its decision, time and again: it does not want the Church. It did at one time, and many stuck in this stream of history do, in fact, still cry out for the Holy Magisterium and for communion. But those who have been steering the apparatuses of power don’t care.
Globalism is not anti-Western so much as anti-Catholic. Its animosity toward Western ideals do not stretch back to slander a time merely two or three hundred years ago, but close to a thousand. Globalism’s memory is long, and the splinter in its ego remains the world of medieval Europe, led by a Church in which most of Europe was unified under the Latin rite and steered by various common modes of integralist governance between national authority and spiritual guide. The uniquely Catholic coordination of national regent, papal authority, magisterial bureaucracy, and local feudalism resulted in a Europe that flourished against the Islamic invasions, reconquered Iberia, survived the worst series of plagues then thought possible, and instituted an economic system that honored labor and craft while simultaneously making possible endowments for the arts.
The high middle ages were not the peak of Christendom as a political platform; it was the peak of Christendom as an entire mode of life for Europe. This is the enemy of globalism. Globalism doesn’t fear free speech or free enterprise. Those things can be worked around or subverted or outright squashed, as we have seen and will continue to see across the tech giants and populist movements. Globalism doesn’t care about your bumper stickers, or what college you’re going to, or what your field of interest is. Globalism doesn’t even care who you sleep with or what you do with them and pretty soon, it won’t even care about how old they are. Globalism is evil.
Globalism cares about the Catholic Church. It wants you to hate Christ, and it wants you to ignore Him. It doesn’t care if you hate the Lutherans or the Methodists and it doesn’t even care what the Mormons are. But Rome it wants to annihilate by any means necessary.
Make no mistake: Rome has enemies within its ranks. Pay enough attention to Catholic circles and you’ll find deep rifts splintering across the same lines of modernism that fractured the West. They’ve been there for about a century now, maybe a little longer. The Church is not a monolithic entity. But there is fight left in it—both in its clergy and its laity. There is more fight there, and more passion to be reckoned with, than any other enemy of globalism around.