This is an anti-globalism site, dedicated to combatting globalism in all its forms, particularly with respect to the United States of America.
The premise of the site is based on the assertion that any economic sphere is so inherently affected by the political institution that there can be no separation between political and economic systems.
Any political body that so much as extracts taxes is inherently bound to the domestic economy. To this extent, globalism is nothing more than a sinister way to circumvent the law of the people, to the detriment of the people.
The name of this site is derived from the Helots of ancient Greece. A Helot was a kind of slave, or not, depending on how one defines slavery. The Helots were bound to soil as were the Serfs during the European dark ages. The reason this name was chosen was based on the core belief of this site's founders that unless globalism is checked, it will eventually force the people of the world down to the level of Helotry.
Most technological progress will cease. Poverty will be the mode for all except the ruling class. The middle class will evaporate, just as it had done numerous times in history. Civil disorder will become the norm of society, as is the case with countries such as Haiti and Zimbabwe.
If you are wondering why the economy is so bad these days, stay tuned for the REAL reasons why.
This site does not align itself with any political party, since all of the dominant (and even some of the minor) parties support the very thing we fight: globalism.
One might think, aren't there enough anti-globalism sites out there? Is there really a need for another one?
The answers are yes, and yes, respectively. While there are many anti-globalism sites, many only target a certain segment of anti-globalism, not all of it combined. Others talk about the effects of globalism, but not the reasons behind those effects. Still others are mainly outlets for news items related to globalism, or the particular niche to which they cater, but not the core beliefs behind what they fight.
The thing that distinguishes this site is that it addresses the core values of why globalism is not only a bad idea, but is, in fact, morally wrong. Here one might ask "but isn't morality relative?" The answer is perhaps, but lets go through a moral checklist. If you answer yes to the following questions, then we need not quibble about moral relativism. Do you believe:
If you answered yes to these questions, then you are of the same relevant moral holding as the founders and members of this site. In the rest of this site, we will discuss the various forms of globalism, and why it not only bad foreign policy, but is also morally wrong.
We will also discuss who globalism benefits, who it harms, and the long-term consequences.
One thing you won't see here is a lot of news about current events pertaining to issues. We take more of a historical approach. Current changes in policy really do not affect our holdings, unless, of course, they happen to coincide. On that day, we may rejoice.
Proponents of globalism say that it's freedom: The freedom to buy from whomever they want, to hire whomever they want, and to sell to whomever they want, anywhere in the world, all without any additional tax, tariff, or legal penalty. In pure theory, this may sound like the epitome of liberty. In practice, however, there are many deeper layers to the whole picture.
Peeling back a layer, globalism really is about getting around laws that protect human rights and safety, taking advantage of exploited labor, buying slave-made products in countries that incorporate slavery or exploitation of workers, and then turning around and selling those products in markets where such things are outlawed, all in the name of maximizing short-term profit.
Freedom does not mean being free to buy stolen goods. Nor does it mean being free to enslave or coercively exploit others, or to benefit indirectly by buying slave-made products and services. Nor does it mean being free to usurp the rights of others to ones own benefit. In this light, globalism is not about freedom. Rather, it's about the opposite of freedom -- the brand of "liberty" that was demanded by the Confederate South prior to the American Civil War -- slavery.
If you believe that all individuals are entitled to the full value of the fruits of their labor, then for an "employer" to exploit the worker by coercively appropriating most of that value to his or her own benefit is effectively stealing from that worker. Slave owners confiscate the value of the fruits of the slave's labor. The same goes for masters of indentured servants, debt-bondage, the workers of socialist states, sweatshop owners, etc. Since many countries either do not have laws against such practices, or those laws are not enforced, or wages are controlled by the state, such countries effectively condone the appropriation (read theft) of the worker's labor value to the "employer," or to the state.
In that light, if you buy products that were produced under such conditions, regardless of the price, you are buying stolen goods -- stolen from the exploited workers in the form of appropriated value. Put another way -- for a free person to buy the product of non-free labor is tantamount to buying stolen goods, and antithetical to the notion of liberty for all.
Although many other countries afford a fair amount freedom to individuals, this does not address the level to which those other countries are willing to derive benefit from the products of non-free countries. For example, Canada imports sugar from Cuba, whereas Cuban imports are illegal in the United States. While on the surface it would seem to be no problem to have a free-trade agreement between, say, the United States, and Canada, this would still be indirect globalism, and just as wrong. Since Canada imports sugar from Cuba, which is a nation of state-slaves, and then uses that sugar to manufacture chocolate that is exported to the United States, it follows that under those circumstances, both Canada and the United States would be enabling Cuba to continue to exploit its people, by pumping Canadian dollars, converted from U.S. dollars, into Cuba. This perpetuates the enslavement of the Cuban people.
The bottom line is that absent extremely comprehensive agreements with like-minded free countries, all of whom would be willing to provide transparent enforcement of their non-exploitation clauses (which would be nearly impossible when dealing with sovereign entities), free trade with any other country enables immorality. Since such protections are not realistically feasible, it follows that such free-trade agreements are not feasible either.