Tuesday, July 5, 2016

You Can Have Globalism or Nationalism, But You Can't Have Both

"...a majority of civilizations have failed, as a matter of historical fact." - Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History

Religion, culture, ethnic group, tribe all predate the nation-state. By tens of thousands of years.

You can't have both globalism and nationalism simultaneously. I understand the English fleeing the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. It'd be the same as if Americans had to follow oppressive anti-American laws created in Mexico City. That wouldn't work at all.

Every country and culture wants to keep its identity - its community, which gives its citizens meaning and importance.

I understand what Europe was trying to do. After World War II no one wanted it to happen again. So they tried to create a United States of Europe, which anyone with a working brain knew was impossible.

The United States of America grew organically. Europe was a completely different animal with a bunch of countries, all speaking different languages and with completely different cultures.

Besides, who doesn't know that the purpose of bureaucracy is to enrich itself at the expense of the citizens? And to grow and grow and grow in power? And the purpose of multinational corporations (let's call them the "1%") is also to enrich themselves by bribing government bureaucrats to pass laws favoring them, thereby impoverishing everyone else?

How would you like it if billions of American dollars were sucked from unwilling American citizens and sent to support massive bureaucracies in Mexico City? ("And if we pull out the economy will collapse, the way Brexit will lead to a permanent world-wide economic collapse!!!")

If you're going to have world-wide harmonization of laws "to facilitate trade" it has to be done by a centralized bureaucracy with world-wide powers. And that only way to do that is to ignore the will of the citizens. In other words - ignore democracy and impose a fascism run by what Thomas Sowell called "the Anointed" - those who believe they are intellectually and morally superior to the dimwitted masses.

That's why you can have globalization or nationalism but not both. That harmonization of (managed) trade means ignoring what the citizens want and destroying their cultures and identity and indeed their countries (by flooding said countries with immigrants who cannot be assimilated). And all for money. Trading lives and cultures for money. And we know what the love of money is considered to be. The root of all evil.

I do understand the people who complain they can buy a TV for $250 instead of $2500 (which is what a color TV cost in the middle '60s) but can't find a job paying more than $9 an hour because all the jobs have been exported to countries where the workers are paid a dollar an hour and live in dirt-floor shacks. That's why so many people are turning against "globalization."

I know 70-year-old men who get up at 3:30 am to work 40 hours a week for $9 an hour in a warehouse.

I understand the attempt to facilitate trade - to lift billions of people out of poverty through progress. But the purpose of crushing government bureaucracies is to stop progress. That's why China, India and the Muslim world were so backward for so long - the rulers said "no" to progress and instead decided to regress.

So you can't have progress and a world-wide bureaucracy at the same time. It's an oxymoron. My God -Brussels dictates the size and shape of bananas! Tens of thousands of pages of rules! That's what bureaucracies do.

Some economists - and I have no use whatsoever for almost all economists - thought people would give up their national sovereignty and give such power to supranational bureaucracies. So they could buy those $250 TVs while having their lives micromanaged? Sure.

The gigantic wars of the past are apparently over - for now. What we have instead of a couple million tiny wars because of all the immigration from incompatible cultures.

Do all those bureaucrats care about this? Obviously not, otherwise all the murdering and raping and thieving Muslims and Mexicans and Africans in the United States would be deported. Such deportations and cutting off of immigration was done in the past, specifically during the anarchist bombings of the '20s (they even killed a President - William McKinley). They also detonated a bomb on Wall Street and murdered about 40 people - most of them messenger boys. Which is a drop in the bucket compared to the over 3000 Americans murdered in a few hours by Muslims on 9-11.

One anarchist imbecile tried to blow up the home of the Attorney General and instead blew himself to pieces, although he caused severe damage to the house. Some of his body parts landed on the front porch of Franklin Roosevelt, who at that time was not yet President.

The people of the United States and Europe have passed the limits of their endurance, watching their high-paying jobs being exported to Third World hellholes, watching their people being murdered and raped by said Third Worlders. And watching their treasonous politicians try to destroy their countries for money and power.

That's why England pulled a Brexit and why Trump is so popular in the U.S.. Each is for their respective countries and against globalization crushing their citizens (the Talking Heads/Chattering Classes do not understand that Trump is merely a symptom of a much larger problem and there will be more like him to come).

Speaking of Trump (and Clinton) this coming election is between a lying thieving globalist (all globalists are liars and thieves) and a one-quarter crazy multibillionaire nationalist - which is why I consider the election to be a watershed.

Some years ago I read an article that claimed that if productivity in the U.S. had continued at 1950's levels the average wage would be $100,000 a year. I was so intrigued by this I figured it myself. Yep. $100,000 a year.

Guess what? Productivity has just about done that. The U.S. economy has doubled itself in the last 20 years. The world economy has gone from $31 trillion in 1999 to $62 trillion in 2008 - a doubling in about ten years. So where has all the monetary gain gone?

Do I have to say it? That "1%."

Resentment is a very dangerous thing. And now we have a world full of resentment - which leads to the desire for revenge. Not that the bureaucrats know that. As always they're clueless.

For now. They'll find out the hard way, the way the clueless and stupid always do.

Government always fall, but religion, ethnic group, tribe, culture continues. Why should it be any different now than in the past? And government always fall for the same reason. Its explosive growth - which means that crushing bureaucracy sending everything backwards.

Their attempts to impose a One-World government? You might be looking at World War III.

"...when I write of the rise of nationalism I am describing a broader phenomenon - the assertion of identity." - Fareed Zakaria


Glen Filthie said...

Yes, but by the same token, wouldn't you agree that poverty and stupidity go hand in hand, Bob? You say you don't think much of economists but good grief, Unca Bob - when you start beaking off about evil corporations and One Percenters - you're essentially validating Karl Marx and his concentration of capital bullshit. What next? Eeeeevil Jooos? Ethnic cleansing?

Those guys are nothing new. If you crucified the lot and stole their wealth their replacements would be taking over for them tomorrow. It's always been like that.

In the 1950's there was a huge social stigma on welfare. Even negroes were loathe to accept it. So too was divorce viewed with derision and contempt. As were the queers and other sexual freak shows. Now we celebrate these vices and anybody who doesn't is a racist, sexist or some other thought criminal.

I have no problems with the One Percenters getting rich. It's the bureaucrats and wealth redistributionists that I have a problem with.

Anonymous said...

glen- there is no logical correlation of poverty to stupidity. strange that you would accuse Bob of validating Marx in one sentence followed by accusing him of being an evil nazi anti-semite in the next. But there are perfectly good reasons to be 'anti-semitic'; you spelled them out in the last sentence of your third paragraph. Our internal parasitic financial class just happens to be the ones responsible for those vast changes you hate. and for the destruction of Christian Western civilization. They are also responsible for the increasing stupidity and poverty of the working classes, and their own increasing wealth.