– et dejlig diffust begreb.

Her er et bud på en indsigt i globaliseringens væsen (af Kyle Bristow via Global Politician):

Globalization poses as a threat to civilization, and in the interests of our people, it needs to be opposed. The ideology of those who promote globalization can be termed globalism, because just like Nazism, communism, socialism, libertinism, and all other utopian “isms” of the 20th century, it is unnatural and is a world-order that conflicts with human nature.

Globalists tend to be contemporary college professors, the students who are indoctrinated by these professors, multinational corporations, and the politicians who pander to the multinational corporations. It is understandable why people in academia are globalists, because after all, they have been removed from reality for so long that utopian theories are able to theoretically work unchallenged in their minds. Students seem to be told in the modern university what to think, rather than taught how to think, by their professors. The ideology of globalism that university professors subscribe to and promote in their classrooms is therefore able to flourish because it is uncontestable.

Multinational corporations promote globalization not because they exist in la-la land and are protected by tenure like the college professors, but because it is in their economic interests to do so. In order to take advantage of cheap labor in Third World countries and to sell the products manufactured there in First World countries without having to deal with what they view as international trade bureaucracy—such as tariffs and quotas—multinational corporations desire to eradicate national borders. Through campaign donations to politicians, these multinational corporations bribe politicians to betray their constituents’ interests.

When national boundaries are done away with, the sovereignty of a nation is lost, which jeopardizes the indigenous culture. The reason why multinational corporations despise economic borders is because they have no country to which they owe more loyalty to than any other country. If capital mobility is unrestricted internationally, a “race to the bottom” will occur, which allows multinational corporations to maximize their profits at the expense of working men and women. In doing so, multinational corporations are putting their interests first, but it is necessary to point out that their interests do not run parallel to the interests of the American people.

Joseph Stiglitz, author of Making Globalization Work, writes that for multinational corporations “economic interests often take precedence over cultural identity” and that “businesses pursue profits, and that means making money is their first priority.” American politicians should think about this before they vote to sacrifice American culture and the prosperity of the American middle class at the Alter of Globalization.

The very idea of the nation is hated by globalists who seek to eradicate national boundaries and cultures. International relations scholar Benedict Anderson once described nations as nothing more than “imagined communities”; however, the idea of the nation is very important to the citizens of a given nation. The importance of the nation is evidenced by the fact that the citizens of a nation are willing to not only kill to defend it, but are willing to sacrifice their own lives for it. I highly doubt that a globalist would sacrifice their own life for their beloved so-called “global community.” The hatred that globalists have for nationalists is derived mostly from their disdain of people who are proud of their history, culture, and country. The fact that the love of one’s country prevents multinational corporations from establishing what Catholic theologian and historian Hilaire Belloc called the “Servile State,” in which people work likes slaves to maximize the profits of big business, is what really irks the globalist.

The globalists conceal the economic treason that is committed by politicians in Washington by ridiculing those who think that sending jobs to China and importing cheap, foreign labor may not be the best way to go about things as “statists,” “isolationists,” and “protectionists.” In my mind, the most accurate word to describe a person who opposes globalization is “patriot.” Only a person who subscribes to the ideology of globalism would dare to suggest that it is good for America when a factory shuts down and relocates to China. Globalization, in this way, is a zero-sum game. The globalist, multinational corporations win and the American people lose.

Globalism poses as a dire threat to the survival of nations, and is not a recent phenomenon, because it arguably was the cause of the demise of the Viking civilization during the early Middle Ages. The people of Scandinavia were isolated from globalization for a very long time, because they were in the region of Europe that is farthest away from where societal advancement occurred in ancient times. For example, Mesopotamia, which is commonly referred to as the “Fertile Crescent,” was where agriculture was developed, and did not reach Scandinavia until 2,500 BC. Also, unlike the rest of Europe, Scandinavia was isolated during the time of the Roman Empire, so it was safe from Roman conquest and imperialism. Globalization reached the Vikings in 600 AD when sailboat technology was introduced to them from the Mediterranean. This caused the rise and demise of the Viking civilization.

The sailboat technology allowed the Vikings to explore uncharted places such as Iceland, Greenland, and even North America. The ability to travel farther than ever before made it possible for the Vikings to trade with foreign peoples. Trading and exploration eventually paved the way for pirating and raiding.

Within a few centuries of acquiring sailboat technology the Vikings became globalists. The Vikings, who had grown tired of having to return home to Scandinavia after raiding prior to the winter months, started to establish settlements on the targeted coasts so that they could begin raiding earlier in the springtime. In these settlements, the Vikings intermarried and became assimilated into the local populations. Eventually the Viking language, religion, and culture disappeared outside of Scandinavia.

Not even 400 years after the sailboat technology reached Scandinavia, the Viking civilization was in rapid decline. The fate of their traditional culture was sentenced to death when King Harold Bluetooth established Christianity as Scandinavia’s official religion. If religion is the basis of culture, as conservative philosopher Russell Kirk believed, then the change in religion ended Viking culture.

What was the reason for the Vikings to embrace globalism? It was arguably the opportunity for wealth to be made through raiding, trading, pirating, and colonizing. They sacrificed their culture on the Alter of Globalization for wealth. Instead of worshipping pagan gods like Odin, Thor, and Frey, they began to worship a false god that multinational corporations still worship today: Profit.

Unfettered capitalism may have more in common with socialism than an advocate of the former would care to admit, for both economic theories are essentially materialist dogmas. Under socialism, big government oppresses the citizenry of a nation. Under unfettered capitalism, big business is the culprit of oppression. Father Charles Coughlin was correct when he told his followers that they should combat both the scourge of communism and the plague of modern capitalism.

German economist Wilhelm Röpke understood this as well, and challenged both communism and unfettered capitalism. To Röpke, socialism was futile, because it is a system that erodes freedom to achieve a morally reprehensible equality of condition. When government takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both. Socialism, collectivism, and communism are nothing more than economic systems which advocate state-sanctioned theft.

Röpke understood the failures of unfettered capitalism as well: The formation of monopolies, the rise of unemployment, the tendency to centralize private and governmental wealth, the eroding of culture by the elimination and degradation of institutions, and a barbaric individualism that naturally ensues. To temper the negative effects of unfettered capitalism, Röpke felt that limited government is sometimes needed to intervene. According to John Zmirak in his biography of Röpke, Wilhelm Röpke: Swiss Localist, Global Economist, Röpke believed that “the economic power of colossal corporations [is] almost as dangerous as the political might of collectivist government” and needs to be dealt with if liberty is to be preserved.

When people are unanchored from a unique culture, religion, family, and other nongovernmental institutions, they turn to the only institution left to fix perceived societal problems—government and mass political movements. When this travesty happens, people no longer know what liberty means, why it is important, or how to defend it. For this reason, Röpke believed that economic freedom can only exist if tradition and religious faith are preserved. Civilization itself is at stake when institutions—both economic and noneconomic—collapse. Viking civilization is a prime example of this tragedy occurring.

If Western civilization and our country are to be preserved for future generations, the ideology of globalism must be confronted by the patriots of our nation. The globalists who wish to deny our people of our culture and our sovereignty and our legacy must be stopped. Enough is enough. It is time the patriots rise, stand up as one, and cry out in one united voice, “Here marches the national resistance!”

Kyle Bristow was until recently the chairman of Young Americans for Freedom chapter of Michigan State University, which had become famous due to its lively and controversial meetings under his leadership.

Læs også denne artikel af samme forfatter: The Diseased West

%d bloggers like this: