A conservative news and views blog.

Location: St. Louis, Missouri, United States

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Globalist Ambitions

Conservative Truth had this article by Alan Caruba detailing the ``North American Federation``, an entity that Caruba and others (notably Jerome Corsi) have been warning is under construction. Even if you disagree with their interpretation of what our government is doing, you cannot argue with the facts they present which show an internationalist tendency in U.S. policy. The government is clearly weakening border security, and is forging closer relations with Mexico.

The reality is that those who run our government-the President and his staff, the Senate, many in Congress, and much of the bureaucracy, are not members of mainstream America. They haven`t been for a long, long time. Most of them have received Ivy League educations, have spent most of their lives working in the public sector, have some ties to internationalist think tanks and organizations. Washington is the penultimate in elitist snobbery, from the journalists to the governing class, to the menial bureaucrats. These are people who have a mindset different from our own. Most of them have been educated to believe in the coming of a new world order, and that the nation-state is growing obsolete. Of course, they would never say such a thing in public, and may even deny they believe this to themselves, but the reality is that too many of those running things have more in common with elites from around the globe than with the average American.

See how far you can go in government service without having attended Yale, or William and Mary, or some such leftist academy of vacuity. How far can you go in the military without Annapolis or West Point? You have to attend the approved schools if you are to make it in government service.

The President is a Yale man, of course, and is committed to his father`s vision of ``A New World Order``. How else to explain his insane view of border security?

This does not make them evil (necessarily)-it just means they hold a view which believes that greater international cooperation is the coming thing, and that we should begin surrendering our sovereignty to multinational institutions in the spirit of the times. (Why do we keep bothering with the U.N.?)

There is an economic component to this as well; many of our leaders are successful businessmen, and they want free trade and open borders. They want cheap labor available, so are willing to dissolve the stark lines between nations to get this. They believe in internationalism because it`s good for big business.

In fact, many conservatives hold the view that economics are the only important component to life. These are the ``guest-worker`` conservatives, the people who are more interested in our economic well-being than in protecting and defending our culture. (Note to gw`s; we won`t have a good economy if we allow our culture to collapse.) Economic considerations are an important component in any society, but they are an effect and not a cause, and it should be understood that the blessings of wealth flow from the unique heritage which our forefathers bequeathed to us. Our success comes from our liberty and morality, not the other way around. Spreading wealth does not spread liberty and morality, and anyone who doubts this should examine what the ``War on Poverty`` did to the poor of this country.

That`s why
this piece by Jerome Corsi is interesting; the Chinese understand what is happening in America, and they are positioning themselves to take full advantage of our negligence. They are infiltrating Latin America in such a way that they will be deeply entrenched in our ``southern provinces`` when the time comes. How can we stop things from moving into the country if our borders are open via treaty? How can we dominate economically if the Chinese are already there?

China has been planning this fight for a long time, convinced that it will come. North Korea`s bellicosity is fully supported by the Chinese, as I have argued at the American Thinker, and there is mounting evidence that China has given active support to Hezbollah. We know they have aided other enemies of America (Saddam, for instance). Their generals have warned that war with the United States is inevitable. They are making preparations, while we continue with ``engagement``.

Bill Clinton engaged us into a nuclear gallows; he allowed his contributor Loral Aerospace to tell the Chinese how to fix their satellite launch systems-which meant they now knew how to build accurate long range intercontinental ballistic missiles. So, thanks to Clinton, the Chinese could launch a thermonuclear strike on any city in America, all in the name of trade and engagement. But they wouldn`t do such a thing, we are told, because we sell them blue jeans and cocoa-cola. They would be cutting off their supply of Brittany Spears cd`s and Air Jordan shoes! How could China live without these things?

Trade is not the Alpha and Omega of life. Were it so we would never have witnessed the First World War, which wrecked the economies of the great powers of Europe at a time of unprecedented prosperity and trade. Were it so we would not see Africa existing under the conditions it currently does; many African nations did far better under colonial rule than under the tin-horn dictators who plunder the Continent today. We would not see Venezuela elect a Hugo Chavez.

Jefferson Davis was absolutely convinced that Britain and France would intervene in the Civil War for the South because of ``King Cotton``; cotton was far and away the favored fabric for textiles in Europe, and Davis thought that the Europeans simply would refuse to be denied this valuable product. He was wrong-slavery was more distasteful to Europeans than the loss of a valuable economic asset.

Successful trading should not be our sole policy goal. It`s important, but so are many other things-such as our national security and the maintenance of our culture and way of life.

Ralph Peters, writing in the Weekly Standard, makes the argument that the return of tribalism is lashing back at the globalist vision of modernity. (Thanks, Aussiegirl!) He makes the case that the elites in society have more in common with elites from other countries than with their own citizenry, and that they work for internationalism out of what they see as logical progression, while the citizenry resist out of old tribal loyalties. He makes a strong case, even if I don`t agree with everything he says.

Human beings are tribal in numerous ways; anyone who attended high school knows this. Tribalism is innate to our psychology, and is (to those who believe the Bible) Divinely ordained; God confused the languages as a rebuke to ancient Globalism at Babel (which shows that Globalism is, likewise, an ancient Human desire.) Even if you don`t believe this story as anything but an allegory, it still illustrates that these principles were understood at the time the Book of Genesis was written, so they are very old, indeed. History can be understood as a battle between this dichotomy, between those who would build large, universal structures, and those who wish to remain free of such things.

Every Empire in history can be viewed as an early attempt at Globalization.

The Nation-State was a balance, an amalgamation of like-minded tribes united for mutual benefit. It has been the most successful, most stable such institution in history-only the city-states could compare, and they suffered from their inherent inability to cooperate and their relative weakness. The Nation-State has been the best flawed humanity has devised.

Empires, on the other hand, have never done all that well. Most only last a few decades. Some last a couple of centuries, but that is the extent of it; there are too many people pulling this way and that for an empire to last.

These new creations which the Globalists seek to create have the same flaws as the old empires; they try to amalgamate disparate peoples into a large, unwieldy structure. It just doesn`t work.

Whatever happened to Yugoslavia? To Czechoslovakia? To the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Why didn`t the Indian Subcontinent form a single nation? Why do we see civil wars and revolutions around the globe? Because people have more in common with family, kin, church, and culture than they do with such lofty goals as commerce, international cooperation, and, yes, peace. When the chips are down, people tend to stick with their own kind.

America has been fortunate, since those who came here became ``our own kind`` of their own volition. That is what makes this whole illegal immigration business so dangerous; despite what Mr. Peters says, these invading groups are not interested in assimilation, but in their own tribalism. They are rivals, not immigrants, and our success has always depended on our peculiar form of universal tribalism, whereby out of many come one. Modern times are fracturous, and there are many (notably liberals) who would make many out of one. This is perilous, indeed!

Peters devotes a long section of his piece to universalist religions and magic, which is interesting. I`ve long compared the liberal worldview to magic, despite their insistence that they are rationalists (in fact, Ann Coulter makes this connection in her book Godless.) They teach a series of myths very loosely based on history, myths such as ``the Crusades were a Christian attack on a peaceful Moslem people who were minding their own business``, or that people believed the world was flat until Columbus, or that Christianity was hopelessly against science until the brave heroes of rationality ripped open the gates of ignorance to expose the sunshine of truth.

I`ve often noticed that, whenever you argue with a liberal, he invariably tries to slip into some highly technical jargon (for whatever subject is being discussed.) Liberals love technical jargon, because it makes them sound intelligent. This is the equivalent of the incomprehensible pronouncements of the Oracle of Delphi, which had to be interpreted by a priest. It is the tendency towards magic in the liberal, towards maintaining a sacred language which only the initiates can understand.

You also have a slavish devotion to a particular worldview, or philosophy, which cannot be shaken by changing events. Darwinism is a classic example of this; the Darwinists grow hysterical when anyone questions the science of their theory, or the philosophy, or any other aspects of their theory. Why? Because they have built an philosophy of life based on a materialistic worldview justified by Darwin, and they must defend their faith. Ditto environmentalism, socialism, etc. No matter how badly exploded these theories are, the lefty will doggedly cling to them, just as the New Guinea Islanders believed that the White Man stole the Cargo which airplanes delivered, and that the planes would land if he made a mock airstrip. Liberal materialistic magic is no different.

At any rate, It`s important for us to realize that the current immigration crisis is part of an ancient battle, one which has been fought for centuries between two worldviews. Unfortunately, our President seems to be in a camp different from Middle-America. If we are to survive as a nation, we cannot cede our national sovereignty to these globalist ambitions.



Anonymous Mike Austin said...

A bit disheartening if Bush is indeed more of a transnationalist than a nation-state type. But I find his position on our southern border to be inexplicable.

The true tranzies are Kerry, Gore, Clinton and their ilk. And this flotsam absolutely hate Bush. Unless there is some internecine warfare going on among corporate boards, the Trilateral Commission and 'one-world' types I find this hatred odd. But then I find Kerry et. al. odd as well.

The Darwinists and materialists and the 'man-as-economic-being' types are indeed as you implied: involved in their own religious views. To argue with them is to find yourself face-to-face with a competing faith: one intolerant and bigoted. Environmentalists are of this type. They cling to global warming and recycling like alcoholics to their bottles. It really is a waste of time to argue with them. One might as well try to teach algebra to a baboon.

I have long felt that the concern over China is vastly overstated. We heard those very same arguments about how awesome and powerful and far-seeing the USSR was moments before it vanished from the earth. China has such severe structural problems in its hinterlands that I doubt whether it will survive until 2010, let alone whether it can defeat the USA by seizing some sort of high economic ground in Latin America. Just as materialist Russia found it a tough go in the Islamic lands on and around its borders---Afghanistan, for one---materialist China would find it a tough go in what is a most definitely Catholic Latin America.

A very nice and poetic touch about the Tower of Babel. I think I will steal it to use in my classroom!

Be well.

10:40 AM  
Blogger StaticNoise said...

I think globalists are idealists (and we all need a little idealism)and like many environmentalists/socailists they are simply blinded by their utopian visions. Like I said it's not wrong to have idealism in your heart but by God you'd better have realism in your head. Trade is a good thing - it has made life better everywhere its been practiced but the playing field is far from level.

Capitalsits, free traders and multi-national businessmen can be just as blinded by their own vision of utopia. I do not advocate a borderless world and certainly do not support the concept of one world government. As you said Tim, the nation-state has served us well. The world would abandon it at its own peril.

Very nice piece...

12:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by