I recently posted a comment on the blog written by Ben Garrido saying that the true antagonists on the current world stage are the Globalists versus the Mahdis.  He replied by saying that he could find nothing in my posts on that subject.  The reason nothing could be found was that I had never actually written on the subject.  In my rather simplistic view I considered this to be a self-evident fact that needed no support.  I was wrong.  But the question is intriguing and so here goes an expanded thought on the matter.

First The Globalists:

Globalism or Globalization lends itself to several definitions but for the sake of this piece it is meant to refer to the means of production and access to markets.  Once upon a time our America was an isolationist nation and the primary goal of industry was to provide goods and services for the American populace.  Blue Bell Creamery (Brenham, Texas) famously used a slogan, “we eat all we can and we sell the rest.”  That slogan could well have been applied to America’s approach to foreign trade.

The winds of change began to blow in the years just prior to America’s entry into WWII.  Europe was already involved but public sentiment in the USA was anti-war and so our direct military support was out of the question.  To solve the dilemma of how to bolster Britain’s war effort the “lend-lease” program was developed which arguably spelled the end of American isolationism.

Since the close of WWII there has been a concerted effort on the part of the US government to engage in global nation building, ostensibly to improve and ease foreign relations but when coupled with laws designed to allow manufacturers to minimize costs and maximize profit by relocating off-shore, has had the effect of exporting both the means of production and American jobs.

In this context the obvious end game of dedicated globalists is one world government so as to eliminate those pesky borders that impede the flow of commerce which must then be dealt with through slow, diplomatic negotiations.  For the Globalist this is not about politics, simply a step toward establishing “Earth, Inc.”

There are winners and losers in this game.  The losers are those industrialized nations which have built a strong middle class through the domestic manufacture and consumption of goods and agriculture.  As their manufacturing base erodes they lose jobs and the income necessary to consume goods.  In America we have chosen to address this problem by moving millions of our citizens out of the middle class through extended “benefits” in lieu of creating jobs.  Unemployment figures are kept low by simply not counting those who have abandoned the job search or who are underemployed, seeking better opportunities.  When a family of four, living below the poverty line, can add tens of thousands of dollars in federal and state subsidies to their annual income it is not surprising that there is little outcry against the status quo.

The winners are the manufacturers who add greatly to their bottom line through cheap labor and friendly regulation and those citizens of third world nations who have replaced the American worker.  When viewed as one united planet, raising the living standard in one section at the expense of others is not seen as a negative.  It is simply bringing about global equality.

The Mahdis:

Mahdism is extremely complex, not something that would lend itself to full explanation in a forum such as this.  The subject of The Mahdi has a history going back 1144 years and many books have been written about it.  What is important for this discussion is to explore the influence Mahdism exerts in contemporary times.  Rather than attempt to capsulize that which many other writers more skillful than myself have written I will simply provide a few links which the reader may follow, and expand upon, to get a full view of this ancient but current movement.

The important thing to note is that Mahdism is an apocalyptic movement which has highly placed proponents in several legitimate Middle Eastern governments and in fact shapes actions taken by those governments.  A close analogy in western society might be if the Christian leaders in the USA, the UK, France and Germany were of a mind to bring about the second coming of Christ by starting the War of Armageddon.

The Globalists as described in this post are not members of some monolithic conspiracy.  They are more a group of businesses with with mutually supportive agendas, all acting in what they see as their own best interests.  They have no desire to govern, merely to manipulate existing governments in such a way as to render national borders irrelevant.  An overriding governmental authority for the entire planet, a super United Nations, would be the ideal end game.

The Mahdis are religious zealots.  Their aim is to bring about the return of the 12th Imam and establish a worldwide caliphate under Sharia law.

As these factions continue to work toward their identical goal, a one world government under their control, they will inevitably clash.  When it comes to actual engagement on the battlefield, the Mahdis will bring their own armies, the Globalists will use you and me as their surrogates.

This is my view and I welcome yours.




About rixlibris

Retired from child care photography after thirty years of coaxing smiles and wiping noses. Currently venting years of repressed fictional story lines via self-published novels. Married and still alive in a remote corner of Waller County, Texas.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Hmm, I certainly agree that Mahdis and Globalists are some of the forces acting on the world right now, but I’m not sure they are the only two or even the most important two. I’d also like to point you towards some older versions of globalism and apocalyptic world-views. I think you’ll find that these things can end up taking some surprising forms.

    First, for the current world, I’d say that Confucianism is a hugely important cultural force in China, Korea and a huge swath of South East Asia. I’d also say that secular nationalism more defines many countries, Russia for example, than either globalism or apocalyptic orientations. We even have holdover Stalinist countries like N. Korea and Cuba.

    Second, I think that globalism is a lot older than you’re giving it credit for in this article. One of the really interesting things to consider in the bronze age is the extent to which globalization shaped the Egyptian, Hebrew, Assyrian, Babylonian, Mycenaean, Hittite societies in the Mediterranean world. The apocalyptic worldview is at least as old as the written word (indeed it is very present from the earliest Sumerian narratives).

    It might be interesting to think of the Golden Horde as a combined apocalyptic globalist group.

  2. rixlibris says:

    No argument here, my friend. By logical extension of your viewpoint, true globalism began when that first dude began to feel that Africa was too crowded and started hiking north. All of your points are well taken but my modern day globalists are those who would control commerce on the planet without regard to national boundaries. This is not a monolithic movement but rather a grouping of thousands of individual concerns with mutually supportive agendas. They have no desire to govern or hold territory, merely to have an open world with no barriers to trade, a condition which can only be accomplished if they can exert control over the governments that do exist or cause those entities to unite under a single banner. A one world government would best suit this end and so it will be encouraged as much as is possible. Our Mahdis seek to unite the world under one religious view by converting or destroying everyone not sharing their view. Apart from being an intellectual exercise I do not believe that either of these factions will ever succeed in reaching their end game but I do fear the damage that either might wreak in the attempt.

    • Haha, thank you for the kind words. This is fun for me and I hope it’s fun for you as well.

      It’s interesting, when you worry about the damage these groups would cause, I find myself agreeing in the abstract. That said, I’m not sure globalism isn’t a more benign force than that which it replaces – imperialism.

      This is really fraught because I’m not sure I can honestly say that even imperialism did more harm than good. Yes, the treatment of indigenous people was awful in many cases, but we don’t see a lot of former colonies rushing back to their traditional ways of life post 1960s. Global literacy levels, industrialization and the wide availability of food owe an awful lot to cut throat Brits running over tribal peoples, cut throat Romans running over tribal Brits and cut throat Mongols running over everybody.

      • rixlibris says:

        Been awhile. Funny how being T-boned by a drunk driver, having your only transportation destroyed and dealing with two insurance companies while living twenty miles from town, with no public transport will realign one’s priorities. I admire your grip on history and ability to compare past events with present day realities. My point about the danger of this new wave of globalism is that…., well let me digress to make the point. I am the product of an absentee father. As a teenager, during a rare summer visit, he gave me what was probably the only advice he ever shared, “don’t ever sleep with someone who has more problems than you do.” The reason is fairly obvious, problems will have a way of evening out between a couple. It’s one sum gain. Most of the planet traditionally had more problems than did the US of A and Globalism puts us firmly in bed with the rest of the planet. An equalization of global problems can and will only work to the detriment of our living standards while raising those elsewhere. This simple fact is a major part of the appeal of a Donald Trump. BTW, your book arrived Saturday. I have (I hope) one more insurance thing to iron out and then I will find a tall beverage, go out into this afternoon’s 80 degree temperature and stretch out on the hammock with the book.

      • Jesus, I’m glad you’re okay.

        About your observation, I’m not going to take a position one way or another, but I do wonder if you think hegemony usually degrades the hegemon.

  3. rixlibris says:

    Time wounds all heels. Taking your long view of history, I would have to say yes. We’ve gone from “The sun never sets on the British Empire” to this near total destruction of European culture. Finished your book. Great read. I posted a review on Amazon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s