A Hard Lesson for the Globalist Agenda

A nation puts the interests of its own citizens first. That’s the purpose of having a sovereign government. But something went wrong with the rise of the globalists, who envisioned an order that overrode mere nations and sought to build a conglomeration of like-minded operators with an internationalist outlook. Adhering loosely to a Nash equilibrium, each country assumed that all others would not deviate from the set course. And then came the return of President Donald Trump.

Globalists and the Nash Equilibrium

The Nash equilibrium, a game theory idea, assumes that in a non-cooperative game, no player can gain an advantage by changing strategy. We have seen this across decades, with “stability” in diplomacy and economic policy driving decisions. Part of this is necessary as imports and exports control vast chunks of the world’s economies. And yet, the idea that developed countries can operate in conjunction – as per the globalist mandate – is flawed on a number of levels.

First, there is the basic notion that politicians are not elected to look out for the global world order. When voters talk of candidates’ foreign policy bona fides, the understanding is that they can deal with other world leaders on an even footing, command respect, and build cooperation for national prerogatives. But that assumes their nation’s interests are at the top of the pyramid. Instead, we see billions of taxpayer dollars shelled out to other countries with a flimsy veneer of unspecified returns. The recent USAID and Treasury funding under the spotlight suggests that much of the return on investment (ROI) is for unspoken ideological advancement rather than tangible benefits for citizens.

Consider the following: American voters overwhelmingly rejected the progressive push for pronoun-centric cultural battles spearheaded by the government. The most powerful ad in the last election campaign was from the Trump team declaring, “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you.” The Electoral College, the popular vote, and a clean sweep in the swing states – how much clearer could the electorate have been? And yet, federal agencies have squandered millions of dollars on transgender initiatives, operas, and comic books in faraway lands. Where’s the hard cash ROI?

More importantly, these huge dollar outlays to foreign nations to change their cultural fabric – often unwanted – suggest that no Nash equilibrium exists. Remember, such balance relies on not changing strategies. The wayward funds are a clear effort to change the game board. […]

— Read More: www.libertynation.com