The False Dialectic of Globalism vs. Nationalism

Richard Stanley

Administrator
At 24:20 minutes in the video at bottom James Corbett answers the question (in the colored boxes below) about the nature of Globalism in a manner that I generally agree with, and in a manner that I have struggled to attempt. He actually uses the term "false dialectic" much as I do with the False Dialectic of Western Civilization (referring to the synthetic construct of Jews versus 'Gentiles'). And in this case, the two dialectics conjoined by the narrative in Genesis 47 where Joseph colludes with 'pharaoh' to have them both become the feudal landlords of previously free Egypt, and which I say is the continuing expansionist (Globalist) model going forward till today.

Corbett explains that the terns 'globalist' and 'globalism' are very broad, but most of us today mean the formalized project of the elites, and for the elites. Otherwise, '(g)lobalism' could be a rather positive benefit for humanity if the elites didn't get to always step in to the front of the line. I say we should call their doing so a form of crony capitalism in this regard.

Corbett goes on to explain that the use of the term (G)lobalism naturally fools most to assume that Nationalism is the proper answer to the problem posed. And here he correctly points out that 'modern nation states' are simply a stepping-stone construct of the very same people that are giving us Globalism.

As such, Shlomo Sand, in his fitting title, The Invention of the Jewish People, goes on to explain the synthetic nature of the modern European (and thus wider Western) nation state, which formed out of essentially a collection of common serf stock ruled over by an interbred family of Euro-nobles (the same model as from Genesis 47). Common people are blinded by their evolved local and regional 'cultures' into believing they are of different nations.

Where I part company with Corbett is that a 'good', bottom-up (g)lobalism must still have common rules of the road, that resolve inevitable conflicts, provide 'standardization', and prevent individuals and groups from cornering markets (exactly as in Genesis 47).

The association of such with the Bible is a huge cognitive impediment for practicing and 'cultural' conservative religionists. Yet another reason why such sheepish people vote against their own best interests. Their religious culture informs them that we must accept rigged markets, assuming that it must be in everyone's interest, when clearly it is not.

upload_2018-1-4_10-29-11.png
upload_2018-1-4_10-29-55.png
upload_2018-1-4_10-30-42.png

 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I think David Ray Griffin has come under a lot of criticism as a "Globalist" when he nothing more or less than an advocate for possible benefits of internationalism.

For that matter, if you read through UN Agenda 2030 (successor to Agenda 21) it appears to explicitly deny many of the charges against it; it praises and promises to maintain national sovereignty, and put an end to poverty, war and other typical means of "population reduction". Wolf in sheep's clothing, no doubt.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

We reaffirm that every State has, and shall freely exercise, full permanent sovereignty over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activity. We will implement the Agenda for the full benefit of all, for today’s generation and for future generations. In doing so, we reaffirm our commitment to international law and emphasize that the Agenda is to be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the rights and obligations of states under international law.​
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Within the construct of Agenda 2030 then, I guess the question is, where do the figurative, psychopathic wolves get to play? If various 'nations' can continue to easily elect, or otherwise allow to rise to power, various despots, pandering populists and puppets, then what can really be accomplished? Just by dint of prior historical conquests and such, some 'united' nations will always have inordinate sway. Like the permanent members of the so-called "Security Council".

So what does "full permanent sovereignty" over those listed items mean, if the same elites still get to cut in line? It seems like other economic reforms would be required such as Georgist land reform. Land, and its various resources, being the primary historical focus of the aristocrats - implied by their very name.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
"Agenda 2030" reads like a political campaign speech, or a party platform. Every flavor of apple pie is revered, and the implied contradictions and predicaments are blithely ignored. In reality, of course the US and its allies are "more equal" than others.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I wonder if there is a link between Agenda 2030 and various nations and cities' "Vision 2030" programs, most in the news now being the Saudi plan to dramatically "liberalize" (aka Hellenize?) their strict society?

2030 is 40 years (one Biblical 'generation') off from 2070, of course. The official story of Jesus, also venerated by the Muslims as their coming apocalyptic savior (along with the Mahdi 3.5 years before him), has Jesus having a 'vision' in the year 30 CE, about an event 40 years later.

In that first Vision 30 [sic] the tension was between the Hellenizers and the strict, stiff-necked, and xenophobic Jews. The Globalists and Nationalists of their day.

But did those Jews carry tiki torches?
 
Top