The archive is catalogued by 'Economics', 'Politics', 'Mockingbird', 'And in other news' and 'Thoughts on other things' 

MarkGB 

"Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world" - Henry Kissinger

and yet...

"Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences" – Robert Louis Stevenson

Nationalism Vs Globalism? It's bigger than that

In response to an FT article by Martin Wolf on 17th January 2017, entitled ‘The economic peril of aggrieved nationalism’

https://www.ft.com/content/5c7c6a26-db0a-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce?desktop=true&segmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a

“The idea that the best way for societies to relate to one another is via mutually enriching trade is the validating philosophy of the World Economic Forum, which has its annual meeting in Davos this week. It emphasises commerce over conflict and what human beings have in common over what divides them” - Martin Wolf

I agree with the first part of your sentence Mr Wolf  – the best way for societies to relate to one another is via mutually enriching trade. The rest may appear to be true on paper, but the actions of many of the 'globalists' who proclaim commerce over conflict tell a very different story.

I also agree that ‘nationalists’ have a very long history of evoking ‘enemies’ to galvanise resentment within their populations – i.e. they identify someone to blame for people's pain. Where your analysis is too narrow, however, is in suggesting that this perversion of power is restricted to a particular branch of ideology – ‘nationalism’ - it isn’t.  The identification of bogeymen and the propaganda of warlike ideas is also a characteristic of the ‘globalism’ of the past two decades – it has, however, been better disguised - aided and abetted by uncritical coverage in the media.

In short you underestimate the depth of influence wielded by ‘neo-conservative’ and ‘liberal interventionist’ politicians and the financial and business interests that they are wedded to - what Eisenhower referred to as ‘the military-industrial complex’. However, as his younger brother Milton, a scholar at John Hopkins University, subsequently revealed, Ike had originally wanted to refer to the ‘military-industrial-congressional complex’ but persuaded himself that this would have been 'biting off more than he could chew’, even for a president and decorated soldier.

So…the danger to free societies comes from ‘empire’…whether that ‘empire’ is defined by national or multi-national elites is secondary. The following is a description of some of the strategies that have been employed by empires throughout history to create or defend their hegemony.  These same strategies have been apparent from our globalist elites over the past few decades:

1. They wrap up territorial/economic ambitions in the fabric of a nobler objective

2. They seek to impose their values and/or religious beliefs on other cultures

3. They demonise rivals, inventing a narrative that is laughable from the perspective of a few hundred years, or even decades, but which seems acceptable to the majority of people at the time

4. They sacrifice 'human rights' at the drop of a hat when it suits the expansion of power

5. They take their countries to war at times that are very convenient from the perspective of governments wishing to distract their population from economic or domestic concerns

6. They carry out false flag incidents, and lie about military intelligence in order to demonize rivals and justify war

7. They persecute and undermine journalists, honest politicians and/or members of the public who attempt to expose their hidden agendas; in many cases such people seem to find themselves involved in ‘unfortunate accidents’ or ‘mysterious suicides’

8. They lie to their people about their activities at 1 to 7, leaving historians to spill the beans at a later date

9. They seek to convince the population that history stopped with them…that there is no subterfuge on ‘our side’ any longer

Number nine is the most insidious lie of all. For example, just a few years ago, George W Bush and Tony Blair presented fabricated evidence to the US Congress, the UK Parliament and the United Nations in order to justify the invasion of Iraq (number 6). Many of us were fooled, we thought 'no...they wouldn't lie to us about something like this'. Ah but they did - number nine was alive and well and living at number ten.

This is not about nationalism vs. globalism Mr Wolf – it’s about abuse of power.  De-stabilising foreign governments in the name of ‘democracy’, ‘open society’ or ‘humanity’ is not a force for good – it’s an abomination - one that would make Adam Smith and John Locke turn in their graves. In my view the WEF is more about ‘corporatism’ than it is about ‘free trade’, more about ‘control’ than it is about ‘freedom’. For those present in Davos for whom this is not the case, they may want to re-examine the company they keep.

Spare a thought for 'Disillusioned of Davos'

Martin Wolf shills for Davos Man