







Dr. Jordan Peterson is right. Post-modernism, a deconstructionist movement, plans to infiltrate and obfuscate what has made the West a historical anomaly of economic and cultural prosperity at the highest levels, and we must carefully define the terms by which we associate to play on our own terms. This is consequent of the epistemological structure Social Justice Warriors (and generally, the Left) fight for: moral relativism. The moral relativists hold that right and wrong do not exist, because there is no varying degree of right and wrong. There is no sense of nuance with these people.

You have heard these argumentative points. Socialism isn’t Socialism, so long as it’s voted upon. Hitler and Donald Trump are one in the same (though Trump held an LGBT flag, a first in presidential election history, in days immediate prior to the conclusion of candidacy?). Thus, it is of little surprise that the Left’s attack on the obfuscation of the importance of meanings, of words having syntactically based definitions, are consequent of their philosophy, which is an intellectual disbelief that truth exists and there are varying degrees of good and evil.

They will fight you on whether the number of genders exceeds two. They will argue over economic theory and why men barter (time preference and subjective theory of value). They will call the science of a matter settled, when by definition, science is always open to new evidence that may affect current theory.









It is for just such reason that we must define the term “Globalism”; otherwise, we are no better than the Left.

Globalism, a phrase which gained much discussion consequent of the candidacy and election of Donald Trump, means many different things to many different people. It is important to understand the difference of sentiment expressed by different political figures, and if Libertarians should support the underlying preference.

While Libertarianism is a legal philosophy by which conflicts over scarce resources can be peacefully arbitrated, the economic system by which property norms arise clearly indicates a preference towards the least state-restricted worldwide economic system possible. That being said, when Donald Trump expresses disdain for the “Globalist agenda”, he is not at odds with why someone like Austin Petersen has historically said he is pro-Globalism.

Libertarians must realize that at this point, they are fighting for the reclamation of historical understandings of words vs. present use of them; a battle not ignoble, but must be played on the right terms. Language is constantly changing consequent of the subjective value of it’s speakers. While Ron Paul would espouse himself as a Classical Liberal, the association of Ron Paul with Liberalism (originally, a vernacular construct meant to denote support of Laissez-Faire that has continually moved Left) is lost on the majority.

The fight against Globalism, as indicated by the rhetoric of Donald Trump, and his supporters like Nigel Farage and Milo Yiannopoulos, is one of secessionist and pro-individualist tendency. It is Anti-EU. It is Anti-NATO. It is Anti-TPP and Anti-NAFTA. These “America First” tendencies bring about the right questions Americans SHOULD be asking.

Why do we need a meeting of lawyers between nations to trade? Why should America sacrifice for the behest of other countries? Why not American interests be placed first?

Logically, the most fair and free trade will come from the expression of preference closest to the individual. America First does not mean isolationism, and the very idea that those who desire markets open in accessibility to all consumers are isolationist, is rhetoric based in support for centrally planning the economy through coercively-based mandates from the State.

What organizations like the EU, NATO and other multi-national Federalized responsibilities has achieved is a direct backfire of the stated premise (Don’t look shocked). NATO has continually backed Western intervention into Middle-Eastern politics and anti-Russia fear mongering, and other such disastrous affairs as Libyan regime change. The United Nations Security Council supported the Iraq war, arguably one of the dumbest, most expensive government projects with in US history. The Paris Trade Agreement, which Donald Trump withdrew US Participation from, also fits the general mold that the government should forcibly redistribute wealth from America, the fiscally prosperous, to the third world countries, based in the Marxist ideal of economic egalitarianism.

This is why Libertarians MUST have this discussion. We all support Liberalism, in the classically and originally defined purpose by which it came into existence. However, identifying ones predisposition towards Liberalism, without describing the value or intent of the terminology, is a surefire way to find yourself allied with enemies. Fighting for the terms “Capitalism”, “Classical Liberalism”, and “Conservative” are extremely honorable discussions to be had. However, it MUST be done on our own terms.