Subject:
Re: Nation Busting: The Trouble With Globalism
From:
danny <danny@home.com>
Date:
Fri, 28 May 2004 23:27:34 GMT
Newsgroups:
alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.british,can.politics,alt.politics.immigration,talk.politics.misc



CBenton wrote:

> Globalism is the ideology that advocates the liquidation of nations.
> Its opposite is nationalism
>
> Globalism is a deliberate political choice, no more inevitable than
> socialism. Its key exemplars like the United Nations, free-trade
> extremism, the European Union, and mass immigration are political
> constructs that could be abolished tomorrow.
>
> The problem with globalism is not free markets but free-market
> extremism, a peculiar kind of right-wing Jacobinism that has no place
> in authentic conservatism. In the U.S, this means taking free trade
> beyond its common-sense limit of reciprocity with friendly nations and
> opening our markets to nations, like Japan, which keep their markets
> closed to us, and China, which nakedly proclaim their military
> hostility to us.
>
> Globalism also emerged because both Right and Left responded to the
> Cold War by interpreting their missions as a supranational battle of
> ideas rather than the well-being of the concrete American nation. As a
> result, at the end of the Cold War, both the dumber elements of the
> world Right and the smarter elements of the world Left came to the
> same conclusion: the nation-state was obsolete as a vehicle for
> furthering their ideas. The Right wanted more capitalism, the Left
> wanted more equality, and the nation-state, a natural bulwark against
> extremism of either kind, stood in the way of both. So they set about
> undermining it.
>
> The smart Left has admitted to itself - whether the dumb Left that
> forms its rent-a-mob gets it - that capitalism cannot be overthrown.
> If the inevitability of capitalism makes economic equality within
> nations unattainable, the next-best thing is economic equality between
> nations. To see free-trade extremism build up the incomes of the
> Chinese at the same time as it impoverishes American manufacturing
> workers is immensely satisfying to them. Some have openly said so.
>
> Because the smart Left has abandoned socialism, it no longer wants the
> strong nation-states that central planning implied. It now sees the
> existence of separate nations as an unacceptable redoubt of human
> inequality. Separate nations give peoples with histories of brilliant
> political and economic achievement, like Englishmen and Americans, the
> free and prosperous lives that their forebears have earned while at
> the same time consigning peoples of inferior ancestral achievement to
> lesser existences. Therefore, erasing the distinctions between nations
> - the "borderless world" - is the new leftist egalitarian project.
> Mass immigration into the First World from the Third is a key part of
> this project, because it forces the citizens of the First World to
> share their superior way of life. Globalism's socialist roots are
> clear in that it denies that nations are the property of their
> citizens, property they are not obliged to share with foreigners.
>
> The "technocratic" Left, which is just the power-hungry Left grown
> sophisticated, sees global institutions as a way to achieve policies
> that could never be imposed by national governments subject to
> democratic accountability. Because national sovereignty is the key
> barrier to achieving this, globalism attacks national sovereignty.
>
> National cultural identity gives peoples an emotional attachment to
> their national sovereignty, so globalism attacks national cultural
> identity too. In America, this assault takes the form of PC assaults
> on American history and the revision of American culture to a
> universalist culture. In Britain, it takes the form of guilt over
> long-vanished and frequently defensible colonialism. In Germany, it
> equates any German nationalism with the Third Reich. In the Third
> World, it takes the form of imported American junk culture.
>
> Globalism is contemptuous of any culture that cannot be bought and
> sold. It wants a homogeneous commercial pop culture designed to
> narcotize docile consumers and make the rootless cosmopolitanism that
> it produces seem sophisticated. Philosophically, globalism views
> culture as an arbitrary particularity or as mere entertainment.
>
> Globalism does not value the distinct cultures of the world: it is
> only interested in Third-World cultures as a means to subvert the
> historic cultures of the First World. Its cultural incoherence, which
> postmodernism tries to systematize and aestheticize, is a product of
> its split between the right-globalist impulse to make culture
> commercial and the left-globalist impulse to make it subversive.
>
> If this subversive itch sounds familiar, that is because globalism is
> the key successor to Marxism. It claims to represent the inevitable
> outcome of the laws of economics and a more efficient form of economic
> organization. It claims to serve the well-being of the populace but
> requires an elite cadre of experts to impose it. It claims to be
> independent of any particular nation, but it depends utterly on one
> nation's military power to enforce its system. And rather than
> coinciding with the "withering away of the state," it in fact requires
> the expansion of government power.
>
> Globalism gratifies the same mental pathologies as Marxism and is
> therefore perfect for disillusioned intellectuals looking for a new
> home. It claims to be an empirical theory but is in fact a "beautiful
> idea" invented in the abstract, which can only be maintained by
> ruthlessly concealing or rationalizing away inconvenient facts. It
> offers its devotees the opportunity to believe that they are a special
> in-group that is more advanced than everyone else. And like Marxism,
> globalism has a genius for inspiring disloyalty to one's country.
>
> Like Marxists, globalists realize they need global military domination
> to impose their vision, so they set about manipulating America into
> providing it. Their basic doctrine is that the United States must
> project power wherever it is lacking and maintain indefinite global
> military supremacy. This is sold as a means to maintain American
> security, but in fact the agenda is to uphold the globalized world
> order. Their ultimate intellectual coup is to redefine American
> security not as our ability to protect ourselves from harm -
> globalists have no interest in defending our actual borders - but as
> the security of the globalist system (which we are falsely told is
> just America writ large) worldwide.


This is the first really good critique
of globalism that I have heard.

danny

>
> taken from
>
> Nation Busting
> The trouble with globalism
> By Robert Locke
> http://www.amconmag.com/06_02_03/feature.html
>
>