What is the new religion of globalism?
by Matthew Roberts
In July of 2007, http://wvwnews.net/story.php?id=3283 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 http://wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2465."
Wherever we turn, we hear of http://wvwnews.net/story.php?id=1296, 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.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_archaeology_of_globalism/