In September of 2021, I wrote about the errors of neo-cosmopolitanism concerning covid and the withdrawal from Afghanistan. In that article, I use the words of New York Times columnist Ross Douthat to describe the climate of neo-cosmopolitanism as a feeling that promotes a “hegemonic order coalescing around the exotic foods and different spiritualities that individuals partake aesthetically – in the creation of an ‘elite tribalism’”. However, with that description of the feeling, it has still been challenging to categorize who a neo-cosmopolitan is. As in, who are these elite hegemonic individuals, and how would they be described as a person, removing the hyphen, and simply a neocosmopolitan?
First, who makes up the neocosmopolitans? I have provided seven individual traits along the socio-political spectrum that can provide the answer:
- Neoliberals: Embrace political-economic change through methods of capitalism, deregulation, cronyism, and market-driven forces.
- Neoconservatives: Embrace a hawkish approach to foreign policy. They generally support a strong military presence, assertive promotion of democracy, and a proactive stance in addressing global threats.
- Globalists: Advocate for increased international cooperation and integration. They believe in the importance of global governance, international institutions (such as the UN), and the interconnectedness of economies through open borders and environmental sustainability.
- Transhumanists: Transhumanists are proponents of using technology to enhance human capabilities and overcome biological limitations. They envision a future where technologies like genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and cybernetics contribute to improving human intellect and physical abilities.
- Malthusians: Following the ideals of Thomas Malthus, they express concerns about population growth outpacing the availability of resources. They argue that population growth can lead to overpopulation, strain on resources, and environmental degradation.
- Anti-Natalists: Belief in discouraging or actively opposing human procreation. They often cite concerns about overpopulation, environmental sustainability, or ethical considerations to limit or eliminate human reproduction.
- Futurists: Explore possibilities for the future in various fields, including technology, society, science, and culture. Futurists aim to understand and shape the trajectory of human progress.
Some of these overlap, some seem at odds, some are common socio-political leanings, and some are obscure political leanings. However, there are striking similarities that you can find in the definitions that create parallels between all 7.
- An underlying theme of anti-humanism
- Rejection of free will
- Embrace of elitism over populism
For as much as the original definition of cosmopolitanism embraces the growth of the human, the neocosmopolitan movement – much like most neoclassical movements – only portends to use the original definition and bastardize, deconstruct, and create a new form antithetical to the original. Neoliberalism is the same way in this sense. Although the original intention of liberalism was to embrace the growth of the individual human, neoliberalism uses the concept of the individual human but growth dependent on political-economic forces.
What does this mean? Consider how you act in a marketplace; you are most certainly free to choose whatever product you want, so long as it meets the requirements of the decision-making process outside of your control. You have a variety of apples that you can buy at a grocery store, but you are only subject to the apples Walmart has contracted through vendors, vendors that are only beneficial through subsidies, and subsidies that are beneficial to government leaders. The neoliberal version of a “free market” is not so free after all – given the illusion of choice in the marketplace.
We begin to see the type of person that fits the mold of the neoliberal-neoconservative-globalist just by seeing the mainstream media narrative of the war in Ukraine. Both CNN and Fox News could not be more opposed to each other, but this is one area they agree on, sending money to Ukraine and allowing NATO to expand and be a control in the world. Again, this meets the neoliberal goal of market expansion into the territory. It meets the neoconservative goal of hawkish power in the region (see the rise of U.S. Aerospace and Defense ETF’s ramping up toward the war in Ukraine). How might this meet the needs of a globalist? Well, a globalist would be in support; they support the NATO/EU agenda in coalescing power through the integration of nation-states for military and economic purposes. Also, the UN is heavily invested in Ukraine with many future initiatives such as economic growth through industry innovation and infrastructure. As you can see from the link, Ukraine is paramount to the goals of the United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG) toward 2030.
Not only Ukraine, but China is key to helping the neocosmopolitans usher in a new era. For as much handwringing as there is about the “threat of the Chinese Communist Party,” the neocosmopolitans love China, and what they have to offer – notably on the economic front. I think James Lindsay @ConceptualJames provides a good synopsis of how the neocosmopolitans have embraced the Chinese model of basic dictatorship to meet their ends. He connects the push for Chinese power through the Cloward-Piven Strategy: a strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crises such as overbearing government bureaucracy, massive amounts of national debt, and other destabilization events such as illegal immigration. Here is the Lindsay statement in its entirety.
As you know, I talked about the Cloward-Piven strategy right out of the gate on my new appearance on Rogan. I also mentioned that part of what’s going on is the program architected by [Henry] Kissinger, [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, Deng [Xiaoping], Chan [sic, Chen Yun?], and [David] Rockefeller to build up China, leading us into “the trap of Thucydides’ Trap.” The question is WHY they would do that.
The answer: Money, power, and ideology, in some combination, likely to work out to benefit them in all three ways.
Let’s say they wanted a system change to unaccountable monopoly neoliberalism. To get that and make it global with themselves on top, they had to make conditions for it. Due to China’s dire straits after Mao and desperate need, they could beta test the model in China, which had the motive (extreme poverty, devastated economy, no face internationally) and infrastructure (CCP autocratic leadership). If the model worked, it would create conditions where the West has to copy to compete to keep up with the monster the State Department and Rockefeller Foundation was creating in the East. Deng’s (and Chan’s) motivations aren’t complicated here, but CCP global dominance with a modified “productive socialism” model remained at their heart.
Why would the others do that, though? Money, power, and ideology, just like their CCP comrades.
Rockefeller’s known socialist sympathies aside, he and Harvard Man Kissinger, with protege Klaus Schwab in tow, are best thought of as (Platonic) OLIGARCHISTS. They don’t particularly care what the system should be as long as their council rules it. Communism is extremely effective for creating oligarchical conditions, so why not, of that’s what China has? Communism is, in fact, an oligarchical model pretending not to be! So that’s ideology. They are the rulers because they want to rule. Simple as. Power follows directly from that model.
Money turns out to be a major bonus. They can flip the world into a system under their control and get crazy rich in the process by manipulating the environment in which major multinational corporations act. There are certain benefits for the Western population, so they’ll go along with it for cheaper goods, but at the same time the huge corporations, especially the ones moving into the captured Potemkin market environment of Neoliberal CCP Communism, are going to make crazy money over that time. It’s kind of a no-brainer if they have very little loyalty to their countries and very much loyalty to the growing council they’re a key part of.
The mix they’re using is basically multinational “national” socialism running Western neoliberal software as an economic apparatus and CCP-style (Communist) social control and “benefits” (read: dependency) for their willing and unwilling subjects. Social credit and controlled digital currency are the main tools, but these double as both Communist AND corporatist remolding devices for the underlying population. This is being implemented through a new Potemkin market called “stakeholder capitalism,” which is the model Kissinger handed off to Schwab at Harvard and the model the CCP runs, with itself as sole stakeholder.
Why the Cloward-Piven strategy and so much ESG-driven Degrowth? Well, I explained it on the show, but the short answer is to break the West and all of its free, capitalist “shitheads” who don’t want their tyranny. Once the American repubic [sic] and constitution fall, they can get away with anything and put the whole world in this system, under their control and to their enrichment. If they’re ideologically Communist, as some surely are, they can run the tools to try to remake man, as their religion demands.
The key themes of money, power, and ideology underscore this forceful method from globalists and multinationals. Similarly, this aligns with the neocosmopolitan goals of anti-humanism, rejection of free will, and elitism over populism. Money, power, and ideology are like oil in the water of humanism, free will, and populism. Neoliberalism, or cronyism, is about making a prosperous free market for the powerful in government and business, not for the populous. Of course, populists would reject this notion and revolt, but they have their second stage the removal of free will – such as multinational groups drafting treaties and policies meant to supersede inalienable rights handed down by your creator. This, in turn, is why they are existentialists. The neocosmopolitan existentialist views themselves as above conventional moral standards, believing that their existentialist “authenticity” grants them the right to act with impunity.
Again, neoliberalism – and in totality neocosmopolitanism – is a fake free market that fakes its care for the general populous. An illusion built upon the premise that you have a say, or a piece of the benefit (see James Lindsay) “There are certain benefits for the Western population, so they’ll go along with it for cheaper goods”, but those benefits come with a price. A price for more slices of your freedom such as data, digital access, banking information, and emergency orders for things like climate, or something else. Also, if you are reading this and think, “What a tinfoil hat statement, emergency orders!” Were you living under a rock in 2020-2022?
Some of the seven characteristics listed at the beginning can be hidden under the guise of compassion. But individuals like the Malthusians, anti-natalists, and the futurists are flat out kooky. This is why they have latched on to the real power centers of neoliberalism and neoconservatism to expand some of their ideas, without shining too much daylight on their ideology. But the Malthusian and anti-natalists have some pedigree behind them as this concept is well over 100 years old with Julian Huxley and the Eugenics movement. Yes, all you need to do is watch the amazing videos on YouTube by Jason Bradley, aka @everybodyshook, detailing the connection of the Malthusians and anti-natalists to the Eugenics movement and the Nazi Party in the 1930s. This movement also connects to massive NGO groups post-WWII such as the Club of Rome, United Nations, the Population Council, and more locally, Planned Parenthood started by famed eugenicist Margaret Sanger.
To conclude, we must create a clear definition of who the neocosmopolitans are. In my blog linked at the beginning of this piece, I describe the climate and the attitudes of neocosmopolitans on a quasi-national level, but more scrutiny needs to be applied to who this individual is – especially on a multinational level. The Neocosmopolitan is someone who embraces the concept of being the ‘citizen of the world,’ and appears outwardly progressive in the areas of human rights and justice. However, this is just a façade to exploit others toward their own agenda of power; such as exploiting global connections for personal gain, and promoting superficial diversity while ignoring deeper issues. Neocosmopolitans are the ultimate hypocrites, almost accepting their hypocrisy at the behest of the populist for the sole mission of economic, social, and ideological power. Because when you have economic, social, and ideological power – you can be a hypocrite, and there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it. The ultimate marrying of neocosmopolitanism and nauseating nihilist existentialism.
This may feel like a black pill. But I – for the most part – am a generally positive person. So, I will provide a white pill that can be ingested, a call to action if you will.
- Keep speaking your mind (on social media or out in public)
- Critically think about everything.
A news story catches your eye: “Hmm, why are they connecting everything from the food we eat, to the T.V. shows we watch to climate change?” “Why are they demonizing domestic air travel?” “Why do these companies seem to shoot themselves in the foot with woke stuff, and not seem to care?” I feel remaining confident and vigilant in these areas, we can go headfirst into this, and come out of it, dare I say, victoriously.
carsonbabich.com 