"Changing World" - Bahamas AI Art
©A. Derek Catalano
Globalist Agenda
The
term "globalist agenda" typically refers to two distinct concepts
depending on whether it is used in a formal political context or a
populist/conspiratorial one.
1. Formal Political and Institutional Meaning
In
political science and international relations, globalism refers to the
belief that the world’s problems are best solved through international cooperation rather than isolated national actions. Key elements of this institutional agenda include:
- Economic Integration: Promoting free trade, reducing tariffs, and supporting global markets through organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
- Global Governance: Using intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations (UN) and NATO to manage peace, security, and human rights across borders.
- Sustainability Roadmaps: Implementing voluntary global agreements, most notably the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which outlines 17 goals for ending poverty, protecting the planet, and ensuring prosperity.
- Cooperation on Global Threats: Addressing issues that transcend borders, such as climate change, pandemics, and organized crime, through shared scientific and political efforts.
2. Populist and Conspiratorial Context
In
recent years, the phrase "globalist agenda" has frequently been used by
critics as a pejorative to describe a perceived threat to national
sovereignty. These narratives include:
- National Sovereignty Concerns: Opponents argue that globalist policies erode a nation's ability to govern itself by shifting power to unelected "transnational elites" or international organizations.
- The "Great Reset": A World Economic Forum (WEF) initiative that has been the subject of conspiracy theories claiming it is a plan for government overreach and a "one-world government".
- Coded Rhetoric: Organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC) note that "globalist" is sometimes used as an antisemitic dog whistle, implying a shadowy cabal of Jewish elites is secretly controlling world events.
- Cultural Identity: Some critics fear that cultural globalization leads to the "homogenization" of culture, where local traditions are replaced by dominant global influences.
Can wars be created to bring on a globalist agenda?
In
2026, the relationship between war and a "globalist agenda" is viewed
through two primary lenses: as a catalyst for international cooperation
(institutional perspective) and as a tool for forced control
(conspiratorial perspective).
1. Wars as Catalysts for Institutional Globalism
Historically,
major conflicts have been the primary drivers for creating
international systems. Experts in 2026 continue to analyze how wars
necessitate global governance:
- The "New World Order" Origin: Following World Wars I and II, global governance bodies like the United Nations and the World Bank were established to prevent future conflicts by integrating national economies and legal systems.
- Integrating Enemies: Post-war strategies, such as the U.S. efforts after 1945, aimed to integrate former enemies into a Western-led global order to ensure long-term stability and shared values.
- Collective Response to Threats: Modern conflicts, such as the ongoing war in Ukraine or the 2025/2026 crises in the Middle East and Sudan, often force international organizations to create new frameworks for sanctions, humanitarian aid, and peacekeeping, effectively deepening global institutional reach.
2. Geopolitical Strategies in 2026
In current geopolitical thought, wars are sometimes analyzed as tools to reshape world orders:
- Imperial Hegemony: Theories suggest that rising superpowers may use war as a means to reshape zones of influence, while declining powers may see war as the method through which territories exit their influence.
- Competing Globalist Agendas: In 2026, China is noted for advancing its own "globalist" agenda (the Global Governance Initiative), which challenges Western norms by positioning itself as a leader for the Global South, often through infrastructure and security partnerships in conflict-prone regions.
- Transactional Diplomacy: Under recent U.S. shifts toward transactionalism (sometimes called "crony diplomacy"), peace deals are often negotiated to prioritize economic returns—such as mineral rights or trade corridors—over long-term historic grievances.
3. Conspiratorial Interpretations
Populist narratives frequently claim that wars are intentionally "created" or manipulated to achieve specific globalist goals:
- The "Great Reset" Theory: Critics argue that global elites use crises (including wars and pandemics) to dismantle national sovereignty and install a "one-world government".
- Strategy of Tension: Some theories suggest that "false flag" operations or manufactured crises are used to justify preemptive wars abroad and political repression at home, facilitating a transition to a more controlled global state.
- Shadow Elite Meetings: Groups like the Bilderberg Meeting are often central to these claims, with critics alleging they operate as a secret cabal that orchestrates world events to bolster Western capitalism.
In
January 2026, the "globalist agenda" is no longer a singular roadmap
but a fragmented battlefield of competing visions. The traditional
postwar order is being dismantled and replaced by a more chaotic,
deal-driven reality.
1. The Death of Multilateralism
The unified global system led by Western institutions is in a state of rapid retreat.
- Institutional Erosion: The World Economic Forum’s 2026 Barometer confirms that while cooperation persists in technology and climate, it has collapsed in peace and security.
- Sovereignty Reasserted: Major powers, particularly the U.S., have shifted toward "interventionist isolationism," prioritizing national utility over international law. Recent actions, such as the U.S. rendition of Venezuela’s president in early 2026 and renewed claims on Greenland, have signaled an end to the 80-year-old era of rigid national sovereignty.
2. War as a Transactional Tool
In 2026, conflict is increasingly used not to build global institutions, but to secure strategic resources.
- The Monroe Doctrine 2.0: U.S. foreign policy has shifted toward a "Trump Corollary," where military operations are used directly to secure energy reserves and mineral-rich territories.
- Economic Nationalism: Governments are now major players in the corporate arena, using conflict and "gunboat diplomacy" to protect industrial strategies and critical mineral supply chains.
3. Competing Globalisms
As the Western-led "agenda" fades, new models are vying for dominance:
- China’s Global Governance Initiative (GGI): Beijing is positioning itself as the new leader of a "fairer" globalism, appealing to the Global South by framing itself as a stable alternative to Western interventionism.
- Modular Alliances: Cooperation is becoming "agile" and regional. Instead of broad UN treaties, nations are forming small "coalitions of the willing" to manage specific interests like AI standards or trade corridors.
Final Summary
By 2026, the "globalist agenda" has transformed from a idealistic pursuit of world peace into a geopolitics of scarcity. The world is shifting from a rules-based system to a transactional world order where power and resource control outweigh international cooperation.
