The Archaeology of Globalism

Great article on the "new religion" of globalism:
The Archaeology of GlobalismWherever we turn, we hear of globalization. Former Ambassador Robert Strauss recently donated $7.5 million for a globalism research center at the University of Texas. Rich Lowry, in "Global Capitalism Saves Children," implores, "let’s save the world – help it grow." And Thomas L. Friedman, 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.

---

Burke & Washington, are no doubt, anti-semitic Racists for not wanting to bomb the @$%# out of Iran, and open our borders to all who would come (no doubt why Neocons agree with liberals in marginalizing the past (except WWII) and vilifying the founding fathers). The stupidity of this ideology never ceases to amaze me, nor its impracticality, but then again, Neocons, usually from urban backgrounds and cultures who had no relationship with nature, probably doe not have the mental capacity to even conceptualize what a United State with a half billion people would be like.