The Archaeology of Globalism

Post Reply New Topic

From http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the ... globalism/

The Archaeology of Globalism
Posted by Matthew Roberts on February 04, 2008

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.
<snip>

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.

First, American wages are being driven down by both legal and illegal immigration, both in blue-collar and white-collar professions. 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 …

<snip>

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.
<snip>

That's amazing, is there really a minority in favor of war ?

globalism sucks but its bound to happen. i cant really see anything stopping it

This new religion of globalism is the mystery religion of the elites. It was passed on by Pythagorus, and has secretly existed among the elites throughout our known history. All our religions, as well as evolution/eugenics, and the new age crap and environmentalism, it's all based on this psychopathic mystery religion. It'll come out once they've got everyone chipped. This is what I mean when I say zionism is not a jewish thing, it's about elite bloodlines coming together to rule the world. And it is highly dangerous.

As a matter of fact, this "global warming" scare is a hoax, it's the scare they plan on using to unite people in slavery to accept their rule. Several generations ago it was "global cooling", remember that?
Really all that's happening with the temp. is a natural cycle of our planet. Look at what's going on with land and property rights right now, people being stripped. This also happened in Nazi Germany and Communist USSR.

Really, if those are the 3 policies of globalism, I would just axe off the first one on interventionist foreign policy and call it my position. An economy benefits a lot from freer flows of goods and labor, such is reflected in the theories, and I think that there is some work by Jeffrey Sachs on how free trade improves economic growth. If in the long-run economic growth benefits all people then I say promote economic growth, and I would say that it is pretty clear from the history of every developed nation that economic growth benefits all people in the long run. If one opposes cheap immigrated labor because it is too costly, I would merely say that we cut the welfare state and move on as such is probably still the most humanitarian act we can do.

A few decades ago, there was some concern over 'global cooling' - which was entirely in a few magazines like Time and Newsweek. It was based on the opinion of 1 or 2 scientists, and essentially no research in peer reviewed journals.

The idea of anthropogenic global warming involves thousands of studies and scholarly articles. I guess 'they' 'got to' most of the scientists (except for a few free-thinkers and those that work for the oil companies).

WTF is with Libertarians and BS conspiracy theories about global warming? I bet I know, Libertarians would rather delude themselves with lies then admit environmental regulations are needed. It is a FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a FACT that the increase in CO2 levels over the last 250 years from 280ppm (the normal CO2 level of interglacial periods over the last 3 million years) to 390ppm was generated by human activities. Even if all greenhouse gas emissions stopped tomorrow the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere will cause global temperatures to increase between 1 and 2 degrees C. Anyone who says this is part of a natural cycle is either ignorant, lying, or have been mislead by Big Oil's paid liars.

And the "Global Cooling" nonsense was the result of bad science journalism, over 99% of climatologists today accept that global warming is caused by humans, the disagreement is over how much it will warm and how rainfall patterns will be changed by the warming.

I would be perfectly fine with a global confederation of democratic states. If the nationalist idiots don't like that they can kiss my rear end. At the same time, though I prefer fair trade over free trade; IMO free trade only works well when all sides are at a similar level of economic development.

I would call snake to be more of a conspiracy nut than a libertarian. He certainly fears the government, but he has in the past supported ideas such as technocracy and other stuff. I really have not noted a strong ideological consistency and only see his paranoia and conspiracy mongering as constant features. To answer your question, I would say that you are correct on most libertarians. I think that some libertarian economists are willing to admit the need to account for environmental externalities, such as economist Greg Mankiw and his idea of the Pigou tax, but mainstream libertarian party libertarians or those who tend to side with them more will often tend to deny the utility of all government actions.


I'd just call for a confederacy and call it a day. Maybe have some counsel for externalities such as pollution, but let each grouping do what they want to do. I would probably want smaller states than we currently find though.


Yeah, and in the opinions of most economists I have heard, free trade works without any regard to the economic standings of any of the participants. Ricardo's comparative advantage is precisely just a matter of comparative advantages leading to combined gain. I do recognize that there is a subjective element to "work" but trade does do what it is supposed to do.

I am interested to know how one might lump in "globalists" with "libertarians".

And yeah, I can't see Greg Mankiw being called a Libertarian Economist with such anti-Libertarian essays as the Pigou tax or How to Decentralize Monetary Policy or any number of his other blog posts (those being the most outstanding.)

Oh, and as a non-libertarian I would suggest that this anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. Not because I am deluding myself. But because there is nothing that would justify the establishment of coercive measures of government to force people from their rationally chosen endeavors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_East_India_Company

The Swedish East India Company (Swedish: Svenska Ostindiska Companiet or SOIC) was founded in Gothenburg, Sweden, in 1731 for the purpose of conducting trade with the far east. The venture was inspired by the success of the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company and grew to become the largest trading company in Sweden during the 18th century, until it folded in 1813.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Company

The Plymouth Company (the Plymouth Adventurers, also called the Virginia Company of Plymouth or simply Virginia Bay Company) was an English joint stock company founded in 1606 by James I of England with the purpose of establishing settlements on the coast of North America.

===============================
NWO global economy and all the rest of the paranoid stuff has been going on for a few years

Because libertarians aren't necessarily nationalists.

He has self-identified himself as libertarian, which makes sense given his views on taxation in general, free trade, and labor markets. The pigou tax is merely Mankiw's way of dealing with an externality without doing something a lot more invasive. Mankiw is certainly not a minarchist but as seen in this post http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/my-politics.html , but he fits the category of centrist-libertarian more so than any other category. We can argue from there, but he seems to me to be more libertarian than he is something else.

I suggest you read The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes. According to Landes it was Western countries ignoring "comparative advantage" and protecting their industries that allowed the Industrial Revolution to spread out from the UK to the rest of Europe the US, and Japan. The ideology of free trade is simply how the dominant economic power (the UK in the mid 1800s) and the US today) and the economic elite of that dominant power tries to protect their dominant position to the detriment of developing countries. The UK was perfectly fine with protectionism until it became the dominant force in the global economy, then they suddenly became the champions of free trade. What is considered "mainstream economic theory" depends far more on the ideology of a country's economic elites then objective merit, which I why I don't trust "mainstream" economics.

Odin, I know about the infant industry argument, however, I disagree with it, and it is also absolutely useless to invoke in this situation. I do not call for stupid free trade agreements because those are stupid, I call for the cessation of tariffs, import quotas, and whatever stupid restrictions on foreign goods that exist. Such a policy ONLY has to do with the US, if other nations wish to place a restriction then they can.

Technically, all social sciences will be influenced by ideology, however, the issue you reference does not go back to ideology but methodology as there is a technical framework that reaches these conclusions. It is not as if economists suddenly invent ideas to fit the elites and pull them out of their rears, if that were so then supply-side economics would be seen as a valid economic theory(even conservative economists make fun of Reaganomics), socialism would have been roundly condemned by economists during the Cold War(technically during that time, only a few extremists such as Hayek, Mises, and Friedman asserted socialism would fail, and 2 of those 3 were outside of the economics mainstream methodology), Ricardo would have never expressed a fear of land-holders ruling the world, and economists would not hate the idiotic policies of *so many* politicians. Certainly there are some examples where economists seem blind to the world, such as in American economists during the Gilded Age, but given that economists tend to like so many odious ideas such as markets for organs, free trade even if entire industries slip away, or even drug legalization, I really tend to doubt that economists are actually just defenders of a mainstream ideology. The right-wingers are such amoral, individualists that any conservative would stare at them as antiChrists, and the left-wingers really tend to be 3rd way people and are too pro-market for the average left-winger but too pro-government for the average right-winger and I think that simply examining the ideas of economics and the ideas of the powers that be, I think we see a disconnect as economists are willing to tread into dark waters that nobody would dare march.

I see globalism and discussions of world government to be extremely promising developments. Moving from tribes, clans, and consanguineal (extended) familes, as central loyalties, to nation states also met with resistance. My only concern is that the collectivization of transnational corporations accompanies globalization.