What you see is what you get.
Or is it?
Traditional explanations do not always explain history, the economy, or political agendas. It is difficult for the casual observer to recognize the complexity of the political realm, therefore more often than not the average citizen places their faith on sources of information they have come to trust over the years.
But what does a person do when those sources, it turns out, are not trustworthy?
This is where thought, and I mean Serious Thought, comes into the equation.
As a young man the threat of globalization concerned me. I recognized that society, our world, due to the growth of communications and trade, is becoming a global environment. Globalization does not necessarily mean that a nation cannot continue to be nationalistic. Japan has based her economy on exports for 50 years without ceasing to be one of the most nationalistic and culturally distinctive nations on earth.
The globalization of our world is not internationalism, or globalism. Globalism and Globalization are distinctly different, but the Globalists encourage the confusion. They wish you to believe that there is no stopping Globalism, an ideology based on the liquidation of nations, masquerading as globalization in order to gain sympathy by feigning inevitability. Globalism is a deliberate political agenda, no more inevitable than communism, liberalism, or socialism. Its key components are the United Nations, free-trade extremism, the European Union, and mass immigration. Each of these pieces of the puzzle are political constructs that could be eliminated tomorrow if we had the will to carry through such an endeavor. This is in opposition to the inevitability of Globalization, a process being better enabled by technology and information.
Globalism, contrary to what the proponents of the ideology proclaims, is not a fruitful co-operation between nations. Globalism is a single government that eliminates the nation states, downgrading them to mere territories.
I have repeatedly told people that I am a conservative, and there are many aspects of Republicans like Bush that I disagree with. One of those aspects is the globalistic intentions of the "neo-conservatives." Neo-cons, more often than not, are former liberals who have decided that conservatism can be promoted through big government. They often support open borders, benefiting immigrants at the expense of citizens and nourish big government by importing poverty and other social pathologies. As a result, the identification of national governments decline. Britain has learned this under the European Union. This kind of government promotes the growth of more distant, more autocratic, and less accountable authorities. The erosion of a nation follows, forcing the country to become a territorial part of a bloated centralized government entity not unlike the suffocation of Russia under the dead hand of the Soviet state.
Because of the "neo-conservatism" of George W. Bush, globalism has blossomed, but don't be fooled into believing that neo-conservatism and globalism are identical. Although neoconservatism seems to be more often than not globalist, it is not intrinsically identical with globalism. Neoconservatism is conservatism corrupted by globalism.
Globalist unity made sense when it came to winning the Cold War, and so the method was utilized. But after the Cold War ended, the ideas did not adapt, dragging us into a worldwide military presence in battles beyond those we have chosen to engage in due to National Security interests. Globalism is corporation driven, for big business could care less if there was a dismantling of viable nation-states. Countries are merely markets to them. Nothing more, nothing less.
However, the globalists did not anticipate the Islamic Jihad.
Like Globalism, the Islamists desire world domination, though their methods are more obvious and violent than those of the Globalist Agenda. Like Globalism, the Islamic Jihad is contemptuous of any culture that cannot be bought and sold, or refuses to accept Islamism. Globalism desires 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. Islam desires a homogeneous religious culture designed to control the people.
Globalism does not value the distinct cultures of the world, nor does Islamism. Globalism is primarily interested in Third-World cultures as a means to subvert the historic cultures of the First World, and though it did not anticipate the Islamic Jihad, it is prepared to use Islamism to its fullest potential.
Globalism is the key successor to Marxism, and the globalists have realized that like Marxism, they need global military domination to impose their vision. However, a strong American military makes such a plan difficult. How can a global military domination through an agency such as the United Nations dominate with the United States Military still intact?
This is where the liberal arm of Globalism enters the picture. In order to fit into the Globalist's plans, the United States must be weakened, made ready to accept our global position in the big picture.
Only Nationalism can combat such an insidious plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment