A Conflation of Definitions
A few months ago, I wrote a small series of articles for Pressenza that were critical of “globalism”.(1) The articles were generally very well received with the exception of a few notable detractors who seemed to feel there was a contradiction between my criticisms of “globalism” and my advocacy for the birth of a universal human nation. While I appreciated their feedback, in this case my detractors made the all too prevalent mistake of conflating “globalization” with the geopolitical ideology known as “globalism”. The word “globalization”, devoid of its tacked-on political overtones, simply refers to the technologically driven process of growing interconnection between cultures that previously developed independently. Globalization is a central aspect of the ongoing human evolutionary process. “Globalism”, on the other hand, is a violence driven ideology that has been spearheaded by a bipartisan elitist coterie of absurdly wealthy bankers, financial speculators and war-obsessed neo-imperialists over the course of the last 3 to 4 decades.
The Effects of De-Industrialization and Financialization
In my articles I noted that over the course of the past few decades, countries all over the world have shifted (and in a notable number of cases they were forced to shift) from production based economic systems to debt-entrapped finance based systems. As a result of this change, consumption and consumerism have replaced production (the building and making of things) as the central feature of a continually growing number of nations’ economies. This switch from production based economies to de-industrialized finance/consumption based economies has rendered a perpetually growing number of nations dependent on the banking system for loans, creating more and more national debt along with continually rising unemployment, inflation, and recession. We see this (clearly) happening in Europe now, just as it happened in South America in previous years.(2),(2a)
Automatic Assumptions
My critics seemed to automatically assume, incorrectly, that by pointing out the aforementioned facts, which are undeniable, that I had aligned myself with one of the burgeoning nationalist, anti-immigration factions that have been growing in size and strength over the course of the last 2 decades. These detractors, a few of whom consider themselves to be humanists, also seemed to feel that my challenging the aims of Western globalist leaders such as EU president Ursula von der Lyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who have all been unrelenting in their push to get a full-on confrontation going between NATO and Russia, was somehow in conflict with what it means to be a proponent of the birth of a universal human nation.
Globalist Warlusting
In Britain right now, there’s already news circulating regarding the stiff punishments that will be handed out to all citizens who refuse military conscription.(3) Meanwhile EU leader Ursula von der Leyen is seriously discussing the “need” to consider using what she referred to as “lazy Europeans” pensions and savings in order to keep the Ukraine war and Europe’s war dependent economy going.(4) All indications are that these European leaders are gearing up to have Europe fight Russia and its allies in the Global South, perhaps “until the last European”?.(5),(6) This is obviously not the pathway forward toward a universal human nation. On the contrary, it’s a reckless route to a global cauldron of mass violence and unprecedented levels of destruction.
Humanists’ Aspirations
As humanists our aspiration has been, from the beginning, to overcome the violence within ourselves and in the world around us and to lend a hand, to the best of our abilities, to the eventual configuration of a nonviolent universal human nation. In this sense we are in favor of “globalization” in the strict sense of the word. That being said, as Silo, the founder of our humanist movement once exclaimed, “I reject any faction that proclaims an ideal that is higher than life and any cause that, in order to impose itself, generates suffering. … Before you accuse me of not being part of any faction, examine your own hands—you may find on them the blood of complicity.”(7)
All of this to say, if we don’t make the effort to clarify ourselves about the kind of distinctions this article is pointing to, despite our good intentions, we’re going to end up slipping into the same corporate media choreographed team-sports version of political assumptions and affiliations that we’ve been critical of in the past.
CITATIONS:
2-https://invezz.com/news/2026/03/18/why-germanys-economy-is-collapsing-faster-than-anyone-expected/
3-https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2243376/severe-punishment-brits-conscription-WW3
4-https://x.com/i/trending/2094070218931003765
6-https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/the-us-will-fight-russia-until-the-last-ukrainian/