A Distinction Between Populist Movements and Globalist Ideologies

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

In the recent presidential election, the public voted to entrust the GOP with control of the House, Senate, and the presidency. In the view of the administrative state and their corporate media cohorts, this democratic decision has imperiled “our democracy.” They have primarily centered their paranoiac prognostications upon how a revanchist MAGA, particularly, and Republican populism, generally, will devastate the progressive experiment here at home. (Surprising no one, the media contrarily deems the left’s progressive populism embodied in Bernie Sanders’ supporters as a positive political force for the preservation of “our democracy.”)

Yet, the administrative state and their corporate media cohorts are capable of multi-tarring and feathering; thus, they have spewed an ungodly amount of bile deploring how an electorally triumphant MAGA/Republican-Populism will usher in a dangerous age of nationalism, one inherently xenophobic and supremacist. Ultimately, their argument apes Robert Frost’s “Fire and Ice” scenario: be it jingoism or isolationism, the security of the United States and the free world will be eroded and imperiled by one or both.

Surprising no one but themselves, the administrative state and the regime media are wrong. As the history of the 20th century proves, while populist movements have their perils, globalist ideologies have proven more destructive and deadly.

In ordering the affairs of a nation, populist movements tend to be practical, not ideological. There are domestic issues that need to be resolved, and populists want attention focused on them rather than other nations. Still, often naïve to the cunning ministrations of rulers, populist movements can be politically twisted into jingoism and/or isolationism. Rulers often use the prospect of conquest to spur jingoism among the populace, deflect the masses’ attention from a crisis in domestic affairs, such as an economic crisis, and buoy the regime to weather the storm threatening its survival.

For example, prior to World War II, having inculcated a jingoistic ethos within its population, the rulers of Imperial Japan’s territorial ambitions were in line with centuries of empire-building by countless regimes. The Japanese conquests were about capturing land and resources to power the island nation’s economy. The instilling of Japanese culture into the fabric of a captive population was not a consideration. The goal was not assimilation; it was control and servitude—and worse. […]

— Read More: amgreatness.com