Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Earlier in 2023, I penned a five-part series on Globalism and Nationalism, starting with The Tower of Babel and concluding with Conservatism: A Rediscovery. Today’s piece, in my series ‘Our world has gone mad!’ will attempt an update, informed primarily by the ideas of Yuval Noah Harari — who, it seems, may be a key inspiration for Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum — and Yuval’s book Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow (2017) in particular.

Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow

A history of tomorrow can never be written! Harari acknowledges this, but it is nevertheless an eye-catching title. This book gives the majority of its 513 pages to Harari’s description of the present, then extrapolates into the future through his worldview window.

The foundations of this book are the acceptance of evolution as a principle despite it being rendered as a theory, and the demise of all religions, notably Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Harari argues the case that God is dead, and therefore mankind must put away all myths relating to the supernatural and replace him with the ‘Man-God’ (Homo Deus). Establishing man as the supreme authority even with the ability to defeat death, bringing in the potential for immortality for ‘superhumans’, those whose biology has been augmented by technology.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), an English philosopher, jurist, and social reformer regarded as the founder of modern utilitarianism, is quoted:

The “fundamental axiom” of Bentham’s philosophy is the principle that “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”. (p. 34)

I am sure we could describe Bentham as a secular humanist, Harari’s preferred ‘religion’, with the establishment of subjective right and wrong a recurring theme in his book.

Essential Fictions and Narratives

Harari claims that society has only ever advanced on the back of lies, myths and fiction. He argues that the establishment of the correct narrative is essential for the twenty-first century.

Fiction isn’t bad. It is vital. Without commonly accepted stories about things like money, states or corporations, no complex human society can function. (p. 206)

I agree that yes, society and communities do need a clear narrative, but I do not agree with the fiction. Christianity gives me meaning; it gives me a clear definition of right and wrong; it also gives me hope. It is not surprising then that Harari must create a fictitious narrative, as he has dismissed the true one!

Shareholder Capitalism Replaced by Stakeholder Capitalism

There is a long tirade of the virtues of shareholder capitalism. Harari admits that capitalism and the necessity for growth have solved most of the world’s ills, poverty, war and plague. But:

The real nemesis of the modern economy is ecological collapse. Both scientific progress and economic growth take place within a brittle biosphere…We could lessen the danger by slowing the pace of progress and growth. (For example) global warming is already affecting the lives of poor people in arid African counties more than the lives of affluent Westerners. (p. 251)

He argues for a new capitalism, stakeholder capitalism, with zero growth. He goes on: society must be content with no further improvements in our lifestyle as we can see all around us the destruction of the environment; let’s preserve what we have left by limiting any resources we take from our planet.

The Flood of Technology

Another theme of the book is the insignificance of the individual and the supremacy of the collective. Harari suggests that the flood of extremely useful devices, tools and structures will make no allowance for the free will of the individual human. He argues that democracy, the free market and human rights will not survive this flood:

1. Humans will lose their economic and military usefulness; hence, the economic and political system will stop attaching much value to them.
2. The system will continue to find value in humans collectively, not in unique individuals.
3. The system will still find value in some unique individuals, but these will constitute a new elite of upgraded superhumans, rather than the mass of the population. (p. 356)

Harari asks the most important question in the twenty-first century will be, what to do with the superfluous people?

I have found this the most confronting prospect of his book. It is the most damming indictment of his worldview that I can imagine. The fact he can write this down and have it published astounds me! He goes on to say:

…we might witness the creation of a massive new unworking class, people devoid of any economic, political or even artistic value, who contribute nothing to the prosperity, power and glory of society. This ‘useless class’, will not be merely unemployed – it will be unemployable. (p. 379)

Harari’s vision for mankind, all bar the new elite upgraded superhumans, is that we will become mere vegetables, existing on the earth, consuming state survival rations and Netflix. In light of this, consider all the assaults on the sanctity of human life in recent years – adverse reactions to medications, excess deaths, abortion rates, live babies left to die, transgender normalisation, euthanasia and more. Devoid of purpose, what a tragic, depressing view of our fellow man.

This is Globalism

This is the heart of Harari’s beliefs: God is dead, all religions are myths, and there is no meaning other than what feels right at the time. And if this dystopian view of the world, its ecology, economics and political landscape is correct, I can understand a man who believes himself to be god would try to engineer a future for himself and his fellow elites. The only way to defeat all challenges would be to invoke global authority.

At its heart is the belief that the individual has no value and that nations are too small and consumed with petty rivalry to solve any global challenges. So, to save the human race, it seems that the globalists bypass democracy and human rights and impose their utopia from above.

For me, this book, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, has been the biggest indictment of globalism I have ever read. It nails their colours firmly to the mast for all to see. And what is most disturbing is that this globalist DNA can be read in all the agendas coming from Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF). However, I don’t believe the WEF is the globalist government.

Lineage-on-Lineage versus the Cosmopolitan West

Before going there, let’s consider another perspective as outlined by Dr Bret Weinstein on Neil Oliver’s show on GB News. Bret made the observation that through most of our history as a human race we have been organised into lineage-on-lineage groupings. In other words, our genes and our geography have been the primary determinant of our loyalty and cooperation.

Yet, in recent times, the cosmopolitan west has arisen as we have aspired to put our differences behind us. Bret argues that this has worked very well; our world has been safer, fairer, and more enlightened as a result. However, he fears that in hard times, such as the present Israeli–Hamas conflict, we are likely to fall back into lineage-on-lineage fighting with the potential for the demise of the human race altogether.

It seems to me that these two competing teams battling it out on the playing fields of life are the globalists and the nationalists.

The cosmopolitan west, the globalists, tend to be younger, think of themselves as progressive and better educated, having shaken off the straitjackets of their community’s traditions and values. They are mainly to be found in the major metropolitan centres of the west.

The lineage-on-lineage, the nationalists, tend to be older, thinking of themselves as guardians of traditional values, and are often seen as reactionaries, and the greatest threat to progressives and their innovations. They are typically to be found in regional centres or in the more ethnically homogeneous suburbs away from current waves of immigration.

So, we all must decide. We can’t serve two masters, for either we will hate the one and love the other, or we will be devoted to the one and despise the other. (Matthew 6:24)

We might sympathise with the globalists, conceding some problems need global innovation, intervention, and leadership while celebrating our cultural individuality and honouring our homeland. But I contend that this is sitting on the fence. If the globalist’s agenda is being worked out under our feet, we will soon have no nationalism left to celebrate.

Who is Running the World?

Just a few years ago, I would never have asked this question. But I now believe that our world has gone mad! Nationalism has been parked in the lay-by while globalism has powered on down the freeway.

So, who is running the world if it’s not Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF)?

Let me introduce Guy and Jessica from Coin Bureau, and their take on the Concert of Europe, the League of Nations and the place of the United Nations in global governance.

In 1815, the Concert of Europe was founded by Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. It was designed to prevent member countries from going to war. It fell apart with World War I in 1914.

The League of Nations (1920 – 1946) was the first intergovernmental organisation established “to promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security”. It is often referred to as the “predecessor” of the United Nations. It, too, fell apart with World War II in 1939.

Then:

as World War II was about to end in 1945, nations were in ruins, and the world wanted peace. Representatives of 50 countries gathered at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco, California from 25 April to 26 June 1945. For the next two months, they proceeded to draft and then sign the UN Charter, which created a new international organization, the United Nations, which, it was hoped, would prevent another world war like the one they had just lived through. (UN History)

Today, there are 193 member nations, only two excluded — Palestine and the Holy See (Vatican City). It is the effective global government, with designs on a single world currency and a single global military. It fights mis and disinformation, and it champions the UN’s 17 goals of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), by 2030. A central plank of the SDGs are the Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) scores.

Further, the UN’s drive for Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is not letting up, along with their plans for digital ID and smart cities. And the WEF is partnering with the UN to accelerate the achievement of the SDGs.

One thing has particularly intrigued me about the work of the UN. I had not noticed how many less developed nations have become developed in the last 50 years. Apparently only two: South Korea and Taiwan. Does it serve the UN agenda to keep the world divided between the rich and the poor? Indeed, can it be said that the divide between the rich and the poor has actually widened in the last 50 years?

It seems to me that the world is being run by the United Nations out of its General Assembly in New York, USA. I argue that this is madness.

If individual nations are debating the 17 SDG, the merits of ESG, the wisdom of digital ID and smart cities. Then, taking their nation’s perspective to the General Assembly of the UN in New York for honest, open debate, I might be cautiously optimistic. But the reality is that individual nations are not debating these issues at all; they have turned a blind eye to the UN’s agenda. They are sleepwalking into the future with apparently no conscience that they are betraying their people who elected them to the new global elites.

I call for a rise in nationalism. A return to the days when governments believed in themselves and their future and protected their people from undemocratic globalist agendas that, according to Yuval Harari, will:

… witness the creation of a massive new unworking class, people devoid of any economic, political or even artistic value, who contribute nothing to the prosperity, power and glory of society. This ‘useless class’, will not be merely unemployed – it will be unemployable. (p. 379)

___

Photo by Xabi Oregi.