The Kingdom of God vs Globalism

I've been reading some comments and finding myself surprised that there still exist people on the right who don’t understand what is going on. Some even want to conflate the Kingdom of God with globalism. So to parse this out, I’m going to try and provide loose definitions; because whatever the case may be, it is loosely defined.

The Kingdom of God, it is true, is universal. However, it is a spiritual kingdom with God at its head. It being a spiritual kingdom means that it does not compete for control over worldly rulers, but instead encourages its citizens to respect the authorities of the world, and only disobey if they directly contradict God’s law. Written underneath the Kingdom of God is a separation of worldly powers - or subsidiarity - to limit the reach of corruption and degeneracy that may exist in one nation but not another.

The chief aim of Christians is eternal life with our loving creator spread to the world, with Christ as King, and organized within our nations and local churches (subsidiarity).

Globalism, on the other hand, seeks to leverage control over existing world powers to unite them under some kind of rule by committee (currently). At the moment, the primary vector on which it works is economics, weakening domestic trade by forming dependence on foreign trade, weakening internal structures, culture, and attitudes that promote subsidiarity. In simple terms, it promotes the ideal of a global citizen over the idea of American/French/English nation (people of birth). It’s chief aim appears to be financial, the manner in which it seeks to succeed is rule by men globally.

These are not the same thing!

One of the history lessons of free trade among states (the commerce clause and interstate trade) is that it increased the power of the central government and weakened the states’ governments. Trade seems to be something that governments seek to facilitate by an overall governing authority to handle disputes. It’s true at the individual level, it’s true at the state level.

In the rise of Free Trade, there was the idea that free trade would promote global peace… largely because it would depend on an overarching authority to adjudicate it. The adjudicators gained power - see US Federal government, EU, and NAFTA administrators (the US?)

The thing is, little people don’t much care for global free trade because they usually are the ones shouldering its burdens. Dislocation being a huge one. So one of globalism’s mechanisms of achieving its goals is in the cultural revolution proposed by Karl Marx - you MUST erode the bonds of faith and family to succeed in uniting the peons under Communism. And that’s why the idea of nation is so pilloried by globalists - because it is literally the people of your birth… your family. If you can destroy this, you win. By promoting radical individualism to the point of atomization, you can control them all. If they have no bonds to others, they have no means or desire to resist. Someone somewhere once said that Nationalism is the means through which you secure your rights. There has to be a group with which you share kinship bonds in order to protect yourself from tyranny. Marx knew this, and it’s why it must be destroyed for Communism to succeed.

Control reproduction through sterilization and IVF; break marriage; physically isolate people through the promotion of relocating for work; create dependence on government for help, and social media for human connection… then push transportation that can only go 25 miles from home in one trip and a dependence on energy from a centralized, state-controlled distribution center; censor from social media dissenting voices; rely only on approved news sources that won’t tell you St. Paul is burning. If a tree falls and no one reports on it, did it really happen?

Then use pandemic emergency orders to shut down local economies and push all economic transactions through a handful of large, global corporations.

I do not know who is supposed to be the head of this global monstrosity. From what I can tell, it is less concerned over domestic governance than it is in having control over those governments through blackmail, extortion (see COVID policy adoption tied to World Bank loans), or bribery. And the who in charge seems to be very loose and more based on membership in a group of individuals that have influence over governments than any one individual.

I can’t be more specific than that. It’s too simple to point to Bill Gates or WEF as the instigators of globalism. But they are part of it, if not the whole of it.