The Archaeology of Globalism
Quodsi tales dei sunt ut rebus humanis intersint, Natio quoque dea putanda est..., quae quia partus matronarum tueatur a nascentibus Natio nominata est.” - Cicero, De Natura Deorum, III.XVIII.
In July of 2007, Rep. Ron Paul wrote:
We must remain focused on what ideology underlies the approach being taken by those who see themselves as our ruling-class, and not get distracted by the passions of the moment or the rhetorical devices used to convince us how their plans will be “good for us.” Whether it is managed trade being presented under the rhetoric of “free trade,” or the ideas of “regime change” abroad and “making the world safe for democracy” – the underlying principle is globalism.
Wherever we turn, we hear of globalization. Former Ambassador Robert Strauss recently donated $7.5 million for a globalism research center at the University of Texas. Rich Lowry, in "Global Capitalism Saves Children," implores, "let’s save the world – help it grow." And Thomas L. Friedman, in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, writes that this great panacea "increases the incentives for not making war and increases the costs of going to war in more ways than in any previous era in modern history.’’ Neoconservatives and neoliberals alike warn us that if we turn our backs on the great project, we are doomed. Or worse, we are evil, as charged former World Trade Organization Director-General Mike Moore:
“There is also a darker side to the backlash against globalization. For some, the attacks on economic openness are part of a broader assault on internationalism - on foreigners, immigration, a more pluralistic and integrated world.”
But what is this new religion of globalism? It has become such a pervasive ideology that no single camp exists. Almost all elitists seem to buy into it – whether one is a neoconservative supporting war, a Wall Street investor backing free trade or a Hollywood liberal adopting God knows how many children from around the world – although they disagree on some points. Ad minimum, globalism presupposes international integration. Thus, we infer three basic tenets of globalism: (1) interventionist foreign policies, (2) free trade and (3) mass immigration (illegal or legal).
Regarding the first point, not everyone in the world (e.g. conservative Muslims) wants to be integrated into an internationalist order. But whereas a George Washington or Edmund Burke would let them go their own way, the globalist feels the imperative to assimilate them, thus sensationalizing a charge (e.g. supporting terrorism, ethnic nationalism or hating freedom) as a pretext for intervention, which usually begins with global sanction and often ends in invasion. Although globalists may disagree on the target region (Serbia, Iraq or Darfur) or what type of punishments must be meted out (a harsh scolding, sanctions or invasion), they all agree it is our business to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.
Although one often hears criticism of the negative effects of free trade, both the Left and Right continue to back it. The old labor-union leftists were critical of free trade for decades, but they either no longer have any influence or have morphed into internationalist crusaders. Regarding leftists and their changing priorities, Paul Gottfried has written:
“The major change that the Left has undergone over the last 30 years is the replacement of an economically-oriented socialist persuasion by a multicultural one.... The updated Left plays down such old-style socialist goals as nationalizing productive forces, and it favors the market when commerce can be used to break down regional and national barriers and to achieve cultural diversity.”
This is no surprise, nor is it a recent development. In fact, the Left’s support of free trade can be traced all the way back to Karl Marx, who in 1848 said:
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
One should not be astonished, then, that neoconservatives, many with Trotskyite origins, have nearly silenced all criticism of free trade in the GOP despite the fact that conservatives historically and philosophically have opposed unbridled free trade. It is unfortunate that many Republicans have been so thoroughly "neoconned" on this topic, as it is enfeebling our economy and undermining our national sovereignty.
There is probably no more potent marriage between big business and Third World ethnic lobbies than on the issue of immigration. Big business acquires cheap labor; Third World immigrants get the spoils of a First World welfare state; and liberal politicians gain new constituencies, assuring continuance of their power. Everyone is a winner. Well, everyone except the native stock, American workers and taxpayers. Two things are taking place. First, American wages are being driven down by both legal and illegal immigration, both in blue-collar and white-collar professions. Labor economists, such as George Borjas, have well documented this phenomenon. Second, immigrants take more from the economy than they invest in it. For example, the Lone Star Foundation figures that illegal immigrants cost Texas about $4.5 billion per year, versus about $1 billion in tax revenue. In short, taxpayers are subsidizing big business with the cheap labor that is driving down their own wages.
But the madness does not stop there. Not only are Americans asked to sacrifice their livelihood for the sake of the great project, but also to forsake their posterity. Whether consciously or not, almost all internationalists push for some sort of "propositionalism," the belief that a nation can be founded upon the common belief in a few propositions. This type of universalism lacks any Burkean appeal to tradition, common ancestry or historical underpinnings, which is why proponents of it believe they can erect democracies in vacuums and transform the United States, via immigration, into a multicultural utopia. It has become a new religion in and of itself; consequently, older religions like Christianity are not immune. In a recent interview with Al Arabiya television, President George W. Bush said, "I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God.... I believe there is a universal God." Au revoir, Nicene Creed and the last 1,500 years of Christianity.
Although globalists espouse versions of these three basic tenets, they often disagree on policy implementation and issues such as global warming, abortion, the role of the U.N. and Middle Eastern affairs. While neoconservatives make it their primary objective to transform the Middle East into a liberal democracy, other globalists have different priorities. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt may criticize the Israel Lobby’s influence on the United States, but as members of the Council on Foreign Relations they are not calling globalism into question. And while Sen. Chuck Hagel or Robert Novak might criticize the war in Iraq, they both support other aspects of globalization, especially policies that allow mass immigration. This infighting can be acerbic, as the war in Iraq has demonstrated. As a result, viewpoints are often mischaracterized. For example, Andrew Sullivan has called Hagel "the great paleocon hope," although Hagel is in no way a paleoconservative, but an internationalist unhappy with the implementation of the war. (A defining achievement of the Old Right was the Immigration Act of 1924, the resuscitation of which Hagel most certainly would oppose.) In short, these internationalists fault failed policy decisions rather than championing an alternative paradigm, such as regionalism, traditional patriotism or America-first priorities.
Shadowboxing among globalists has come to pass as debate in the United States. Every frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential Election, Democrat or Republican, is a globalist to one degree or another. Although leading Democrats oppose the Iraq War, they support intervention in Darfur and elsewhere and certainly support allowing an inundation of Third World immigrants, which they believe will sustain their hold on politics. In the mainstream media, few pundits criticize globalization. Those who do complain, like Patrick J. Buchanan or Lou Dobbs, are castigated by the rest.
Yet, there is still hope. Despite all the propaganda in the media and academia, national polls show that the majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq, free trade and mass immigration. If a charismatic politician were to rally round these three issues alone, he could foment a broad base of support. Perhaps it’s high time for a political realignment, but a movement needs organization and a leader.
--------
Matthew A. Roberts writes from Kansas City, MO. Image courtesy of the Slovenian band Laibach
Comments
Sometimes I lie about at night trying to picture a one world governing body, like in Star Trek, except without the silly uniforms.
Maybe what the world needs is an alien attack to bring them all together, to unify us as a race of beings. Of course they wouldn’t be real alien ships, no sir. Our economy is firmly rooted in creating weapons that lase, tase, fly, roll, nuke and bunker bust.
So, we should make alien decoy ships, have them whirr and whirl around the spacious skys and amber fields of grain, from purple mountains majesty and above thy fruited plains.
Just think, we could hold hands and sing the Coca-Cola song as our taxpayer dollars fired million dollar missiles into the starry aether killing those evil little green men who hate our freedom, our way of life and want to cut our anus’s out with surgical precision.
The politicians would be happy, the MIC would be thrilled, no one would really die, and we would have a world order like never before! Borders would fall, people would call each other brother and sister, we would have a global currency and a global air force!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In the picture, the NATO symbol is in the “Heaven and Earth” occult posture…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The Preamble to the Constitution makes it clear by the limiting phrase, “To ourselves and our posterity,” that the government established has no obligation or goal other than to the explicit good to the large and diverse tribe called Americans. America is tribal, not propositional. Any, who do not stand apart, are welcome. Those with another loyalty are not, because a paramount adherence to a proposition undercuts tribal loyalty just as any alleged dual loyalty to another tribe would. The Constitution is incompatible with the notion of propositional government or the absurd, self-contradictory concept of multiple loyalty.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Roberts gives a cogent overview of globalization and its ill effects on middle America.
The last sentence concerns me a bit; conditions are ripe for the advent of a charismatic leader of populist-turned-fascist proportions.
What I like about the “Ron Paul Revolution” is that it is more about ideas than the charisma of the man himself. Opportunity is knocking, but most Americans are not answering the call. Will today’s brewing frustration devolve into a populist-fascist backlash in the future? If so, a future generation may look back on the Ron Paul phenomenon and realize the missed turn in the road.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“national polls show that the majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq, free trade”
Well I guess it depends how you put the question.
If you ask “Are you against cheap foreign goods
undercutting good old American products and stealing
American jobs” then you
might get one answer. If you ask
“Are you against lower prices, higher quality, more variety
and increased wealth all round?” then you might
just get a different answer.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
First the same problems and petrified thinking left over from a century ago:
1. There is no Left or Right. Political ideology isn’t grafted on a line from Left to Right. The map of political ideology looks more like a Chinese Checkers board. Neither the ecologists, nor the Whigs (neither “neo” nor “conservative"), nor the libertarians, nor the “Radical” tradition, nor Christian Democracy are Left or Right. If “Right” means Fascist, fascist, and Clerical Fascist, these are not “conservative” but revolutionary movements, and accordingly Toryism isn’t “Right”. If “Left” means Latter-Day Marxism, then this ideology itself has become neo-nationalist. Nationalism appeals to an number of ideologies and seems to take over them.
2. In the same way “conservative” and “liberal” are useless terms to be abandoned.
3. The proletariat the bourgeoisie no longer exist. The blue collar worker has been absorbed into what was once called the Petty Bourgeoisie, as has the “pink collar class”. The old Grand Bourgeoisie has morphed into a “Professional” class of experts and upper management. What’s left of the old “middle-middle” class of white collar lower managers exists only in statist bureaucracy.
Further observations:
i. ”free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities”
Good! With reference to our recent debate on “nation”, “Nation” and Nationalism are inventions of the centralizing and imperial state, be it done by Whigs, Jacobins, Bonapartists, Social Democrats, Marxists, Fascists and fascists, etc.
ii. Globalism is both good and bad:
ONLY four things should be Global: ecology, free trade, a world gold standard currency, and religion. The first two need a global police force. And free trade, global market being the only market for those who wish to prosper, also obliges that firms be allowed to choose anyone who is qualified to be in upper management and on the R&D;staff, from </i>anywhere. </i>.
EVERYTHING ELSE should be local, the polis. That means that the vast centralized state (“The Nation”) should be abolished or allowed to die, itself a dinosaur headed to the garbage can of history. Such a polis may wish to loosely confederate with other poleis for defense and agreed immigration (e.g., the Roman “Latin Rights”, the Lombard and Hanseatic leagues).
Long live the New Venetian Age!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks to Mr. Roberts for an excellent post on an important subject.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Zionism, of course, is the prototype of globalism. In fact, Israel (Zionism’s incarnation) was founded with the odd characteristic that it has no geographic boundaries, the better for future absorption of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Brooklyn and (politically) Washington, DC. Globalists talk a good game of internationalism, free trade and understanding, but these are the same folks that brought us Islamofascism, telling us that Muslims hate us for our freedoms. In one particularly good illustration of the cultural isolation and Zionization of the US, FOX News’ Brit Hume speculated, a few years back, that Europeans hate us for our wealth. So… if any of that Eurotrash gets uppity about Iraq or the upcoming war crimes in Iran, Americans can avoid all responsibility in the knowledge they are hated for their wealth.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I thought that only I listened to LAIBACH!
Are you saying in a veiled fashion that our real hope lies with the NSK and its virtual, transnational state with Laibach serving as the Ministry of Truth?!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
We Americans have common interests but we haven’t had common ancestry since at least the mid-nineteenth century (unless you count anyone of European ancestry as having common ancestry). Our common interests are the preservation of the English language that almost all of us speak, preservation of Christianity and the culture it has produced, preservation (or better, restoration) of an economy that allows the average Joe to prosper and preventing hostile foreigners from establishing centers of power in this country to our detriment. Needless to say, multiculturalism and the elites who support it are opposed to all these interests.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God.... I believe there is a universal God.” Au revoir, Nicene Creed and the last 1,500 years of Christianity.”
The liberal powers that be in the country have prevented Christians from criticizing the immigration of non-Christians into the US and the transformation of the US into a pagan state. The votaries of free trade have made a religion of an economic doctrine. Free trade will not be the salvation of mankind.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Watching the Superbowl last night, it finally dawned on me that I don’t live in a land called “America” or even the “USA.” No, the real name for where we live is called “Fox” and it encompasses all from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, the specter of islamofascism, to third down conversions.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Almost all elitists seem to buy into it – whether one is a neoconservative supporting war, a Wall Street investor backing free trade or a Hollywood liberal adopting God knows how many children from around the world…”
…And none of these privileged few will have to live in the day-to-day stew-pot of a “globalized” world. They can wing from copter to jet to warm estate in deep creature comfort, content in the knowledge that – unlike charity – social experiments do NOT begin at home.
The key to “multiculturalism” is not building tolerant societies in which a great quilt of babblers can co-exist in their jackass superstitions and front-yard goat farming. It’s centralizing power to a tiny elite. Where societies are fragmented and feudal, the rules of the economic jungle prevail; that’s the high-and-mighty, and profoundly ugly and hypocritical, goal of globalization.
Mr. Roberts, this is a brilliant and insightful article.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Laibach is alright, I have that war themed CD depicted here. But listen to Rammstein, they really rock.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into ALL white countries and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for ALL white countries and ONLY white countries to assimilate, i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“If a charismatic politician were to rally round these three issues alone, he could foment a broad base of support.”
If a leader were to come along that embraced all this he would be shunned by the press who would write him off as a crackpot, or a racist antisemite.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
San Fernando
You are spot on. It is revealing of the torment of western societies how so often those individuals who cause the most social strife are lauded by the media and those in power.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I wish Liabach would make a video/song making fun of
neocons. Bum ba ba ba ba...Life Is Life. LOL.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“American wages are being driven down by both legal
and illegal immigration, both in blue-collar and
white-collar professions.”
No, sorry but american incomes are out of whack.
$40,000 yearly for an average family is nuts to the
average african or asian. With the recession, it
will be brought back to earthly levels, like,
$10,000. Heck, $5,000 would be ideal. We are going
from a consumer society to an industrial one. Incomes
cannot help but be reduced. Reduced incomes mean
manufacturers come back to the US in numbers. I
think that’s good.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Race does not exist, race does not exist ... twitch ... the New Venetian Age, the New Venetian Age ... blink ... purge the browns, purge the browns ... twitch, twitch.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Wonderful piece.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Anawesome description of the “Beast Of Globalism”!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The article is insightful and spot on. I disagree with the commentor above who thinks manufacturing will return if wages shrink. Nothing is going to return unless our government is pressed by us to do away with the one way global free trade and stop giving breaks to importers and the globalist companies. Start a VAT tax on imports like many othe countries have with our products, force outsourcers to pay the going wages and taxes due the US on any offshore projects and or visa workers. Do away with the deduction of the cost of outsourcing on corporate income taxes, do not allow importation of products from any country that doesn’t have the same or like importation of US products. In effect balance trade.
Lastly, do away with TEMP workers. Issue visas only when the foreigner wants to come and settle in the US permanently, with a small exception for college - however no state sponsorship of foreign students - they either pay their way or not come here.
The best and brightest are already here - in fact they are so bright they don’t want to work for the crap wages some companies want to pay them for their skills.
http://www.madnamerica.com
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.