Understanding Globalization: Thoughts on Walls
2/6/08
(I’ve decided to start jotting down a few thoughts while researching globalization. Globalism is an interesting piece of the modern puzzle that is the City of Man, and like many I’m not entirely sure what to make of it except that I don’t like most of it, and am extremely skeptical of the rest of it. In the end, however, it depends on how you define it.)
By far the best treatment of globalization I have had the privilege of reading is Thomas L. Friedman’s The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Friedman got me thinking about walls earlier today:
“The Berlin wall didn’t just fall in Berlin. It fell east and West, and North, and South, and it hit both countries and companies, and hit them all at roughly the same time. We focused on the Berlin Wall’s fall in the East because that was so dramatic, and so palpable: a cement wall crumbling on the evening news. But in fact, similar, less palpable walls fell all over the world. And it is the fall of all those walls all over the world that made this era of globalization and integration possible.”
Friedman seems to understand globalism - If I could be so bold - as the very large increase in free market capitalism, and the subsequent numbers of people communicating faster and from greater distances than ever. I don’t know if this leap in “free market” capitalism and communications is the cause of the shift towards “globalism”, or if it’s a result of some other more fundamental cause - I’m tempted to see it as a necessary condition, put in place by a group of elite, for something else. The question I have about walls has to do with those nationalists in America who would like to build a wall on our border with Mexico. The global Elite (those who make up secretive groups like the Bilderberg Club) do not like walls because they provide a psychological, if not physical, barrier to global governance. [1] Bringing an end to the cold war was, perhaps not so much about peace as it was about wresting control of the worlds wealth into a smaller group of hands. For this smaller group of hands an assemblage of empires unable to agree on fundamental principles of world governance simply won’t do. Some still say that America is on the same short list the USSR was, and that it’s on it’s way down. The deterioration of America will result, they say, in a balance of world power that will give way to global government, but balance is unlikely given China’s rise to fame. It seems that it would be fore more difficult for the “world community” to deal with China without imperial America, and word is that China is not very happy with the elites running the show in the UN. In short, I have hard time understanding the plan - if there is one - of the elite. On thing is for sure, walls have got to go, and that means no walls dividing America and Mexico. An America-Mexico wall would put feet on the already steady increase of psychological tension between the two counties and their “shared” citizens. Sharing citizens is important for the future of the North American Union program - and there is a program.
I’m not wall proponent, I’m a proponent of fixing our economy. Fixing our economy will cushion the fall from America’s impending economic crash - that crash that even the most positive economists are admitting is on the way. Fixing our economy, by obeying God’s word - which means a lot more than returning to a truly free market system - would put America in a position of needing more workers and having the money to pay them properly. (Not that we don’t have the money to pay Mexican workers properly - we most certainly do.) We may need to put an end to illegal immigration while we fix our economy, but in the long run America, if we can get back on our feet, will need more workers. Of course, this means more families, and if there is one thing the elite doesn’t like, it’s more people.[2] So what we’re left with is domestic and international migrant workers fighting over a smaller piece of America’s economic pie. Pretty soon there will be little, if nothing, left for anyone which will signal the end of immigration. Who wants to immigrate to a country who’s currency is experiencing death throws? Until then, there will be no wall, because the elite are in favor of what Friedman calls the “homogenization” of America and the globe. Homogenization is part of globalism and some are convinced that it will put an end to racial, national, struggles. Who knows? Until then, there will be no walls, because this homogenization is good for projects like the North American Union.
The Great Wall of China is but a memory as China has becoming a leader in the global market. Elites like zbigniew brzezinski have praised China while promoting the Communist cause of Pol Pot. [3] Perhaps China is the new model for the United Nations as many are purporting it to be. China is globally connected while maintaining an intense police-state, a controlled media, and a one-child policy to keep those populations low. Surely that “great” wall is nothing more than a tourist trap, but must signify, in some way the police-state there.
1. Many call it “global governance”, as opposed to “global government”, what with the bad press and all. However, in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, CFR member James Warburg refered to global governance in a more honest way: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it –by conquest or consent.” ( as quoted by Gary H. Kah, En Route to Global Occupation. Huntington House Publishers, 1991, Lafayette, Louisiana, Pg .33 )
2. The U.N.’s 1994 Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, envisages a 70% reduction in world population to 2 billion people. The National Security Study Memorandum 200 (April 24, 1974). The Georgia Guidestones (erected by a secret, obviously wealthy group) outside of Elberton Georgia promote a population of only 500 Million.
3. “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot…. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.” [Blum, 1995; Z Magazine, 1997]
You must be logged in to post a comment.