Globalization Destabilization

The object here is not to blame globalization for hostilities between cultures, nor to excuse hostile or malevolent reactions between cultures which are being exacerbated by the convergence of civilizations. Conflict with others who are different is innate between diverse people and cultures. However, the correlation between global conflict and the convergence of nations is worthy of consideration, not only to understand the source of tensions and global instability today, but also to understand how globalization is setting off different cultures into both aggressive and defensive modes.

It is for this purpose I propose these questions: First, is an increase in terrorism and the radicalization of Islam over the past few decades a reaction to globalization? Furthermore, aside from Islam, are many other tensions between nations today related to the transition of nations from independent sovereign states, into a world of interdependent nations converging into a multipolar global society? For the current demand is for an international consensus of nations before one nation can act in its own self interest, and nations acting unilaterally in their own self defense or best interests, even when they are justified in doing so, are increasingly viewed as pariahs.

While globalization is not the source of Islamic violence—for an inherent nature in certain tenets of Islam has supported violence and suppression from inception—globalization has served as a catalyst by bringing together heterogeneous cultural elements which when mingled together are exceedingly volatile. This is in part evidenced by the upsurge in terrorism and increased radicalization of Islam over the past few decades, which corresponds with the global trend towards global socialization.

As nations immerse themselves in modern technologies, global communications, and international commerce, the world transcends further toward a singular global society. With this change, all cultures face conflict within as well as without. Societies fear change, not only for the upheaval it may cause, but by nature, cultures tend to fear the loss of traditional beliefs and customs to different cultures they feel are invading their domain. This discord is particularly evident in the convergence between tightly controlled collectivist societies and free societies, since in some instances ideologies diametrically oppose each other creating suspicions and conflicts.

The current system of individual nation-states based upon the preservation of national sovereignty, borders, language, ideologies and beliefs, has in the past to an extent served to diffuse some conflicts between civilizations by allowing each his own by a measure of isolation and sovereignty. As global synthesis takes place, however, cultures and ideologies clash resulting in two basic reactions:

The first reaction now common in Western democracies is to accept diversity, even embrace and promote it. This has resulted in the concept of multiculturalism where different ideologies, cultures, orientations, and nationalities are all to mesh together as one, but yet, keep their own group identity. All are granted status as "equals," even if it is felt that special favor and additional advantages need be given to certain minority groups to make them “equal”. At the same time, natural born citizens, who are forced to foot the bill, are often socially demoted in preference to minority or special advocacy groups. Under the guise of equality, actions are taken to create new laws, sacrifice culture, principles, long standing traditions, values, or anything else that might inconvenience or offend members of a minority group. Obviously, this creates divisiveness between groups.

The other common reaction to globalization is typical of totalitarian societies where freedoms are suppressed. These societies now feel threatened with a loss of control. For while international commerce increases wealth and prosperity, at the same time, dictators, oligarchies, totalitarian regimes, and theocracies fear free societies and free markets to the extent it may effect their control over their people by breaking their monopolies and the dependency of their people upon them.

There arises therefore, a love-hate relationship with globalization in totalitarian regimes, resulting in a clash between profitability and ideology, of which, they wish to surrender neither. They find themselves therefore, fighting to retain both. Their ideology is embedded, but on the other hand, it is profitable as well as it is necessary to participate in an evolving world system of commerce which they cannot stop, and which also empowers them economically. Indeed! They either participate in globalism, or they are left behind other nations in terms of both wealth and power.

Moreover, if indeed globalization is inevitable, make no mistake about it, totalitarian states have no intention of meshing into one multicultural global society as Western elitists imagine everyone doing, but rather, each will seek to establish themselves at top as the dominate force in world affairs in order to preserve their cultures and expand their own power. Conquer or be conquered is the crux of the matter as far as totalitarian states are concerned, not an equal say and equal share of power among nations as Western liberal elitists would like to imagine.

And in regards to Islamic teachings, Islam has historically expressed an ambition of global domination. However, with the advent of modern technologies, the spread of Western cultural influences and ideas into traditionally Islamic countries has created a formidable competitor of ideas, which they feel threatens their religious traditions and culture, thus, provoking a violently aggressive-defensive response.

But Islam is not alone in the global struggle for domination; all nations perceive the trend to internationalization, and even those who seem to welcome it, to varying degrees see the dangers posed by it. Even so, many do not desire to stop globalization, and those who do, don't see any realistic way to stop it. For this reason nations are jockeying for position to be at least part of a controlling force behind the change in an attempt to steer the direction and mold the shape of things to come.

Furthermore, the aspiration which is driving some Islamic nations to establish their culture and ideology globally, is also driving other world powers to stake out their own ideological ground in a global society. For all nations are wrestling for the greatest degree of power they can obtain in any coming international system. Therefore, even as nations are coming together, they are fiercely competing one with another for their own position of power, thus, deepening already existing animosities in many areas.

In a 1983 essay on "multi-polarity and stability" nuclear strategist Herman Kahn hypothesized that the economic giants of the world would eventually work out rules for a world system of order. Although Kahn recognized an inherent stability in the current system of unilateral nation-states where the consequences of nuclear war were so great that discipline was the only sane option, he also believed a multi-polar system could also be stable, that is, if you could ever get there safely.

The problem was the transition. The moment of maximum danger, Kahn theorized, would occur during the movement of nations from unilateralism to a multi-polar world. We are now in that transition, and as Kahn predicted, there are growing tensions and volatilities. For while East and West have both expressed interest in a world order, they are divided by ideological differences, the West, insisting on a universal set of values and human rights as a prerequisite for the foundation of a global society, but the Russians and Chinese and other authoritarian regimes holding that common global interests form a sufficient basis upon which to establish a system of international order.

On the other hand, you do have entities who desire no part at all in a world order, unless it is based upon absolute submission to their ideology: Enter Islamic extremists. Globalization threatens the destruction of Islamic culture and beliefs through modernization. Westernization being viewed as a direct attack upon Islamic civilization has created panic and served as an incendiary to ignite many adherents of Islam into action, not only to become "heroes" to defend their culture and religion, but to destroy all else if necessary to become the supreme power of the world.

Islam, however, is but one contender for world supremacy; there also still remains the danger of an even greater threat to civilization posed by those who hold ideologies with Marxist underpinnings which have crept in unaware into positions of power in Western Institutions. For while the former seeks to increase in power, the latter seeks to weaken traditionally held Western ideas and policies until they can be replaced.

Moreover, as the cultural conflict between the West and Islamic nations intensifies, another struggle is taking place for the control of resources and the global economy. It was for this purpose the European Union was created to be a global competitor. Now however, Russia, and China, along with other totalitarian regimes have joined the fray, having been empowered by the US dollar, open global markets, and a growing share of control of the world's natural resources and energy supplies.

At the same time as they participate globally, however, Russia, China, and other Marxist minded countries are taking harder lines internally. Recoiling in an attempt to balance free trade with their controlled societies, they are attempting to preform a balancing act in an effort to achieve both. I would argue that you cannot have both, but for the short term; for in the long term prosperity and totalitarianism are incompatible.

The only reason socialist nations and closed societies have prospered to the extent they have is that they were built by, and thrive off of the enterprise of free open societies, even if only indirectly. The partnership made between open and closed societies was a mistake made by free societies. The prosperity of both is temporal. The free societies will collapse, having sold out their economic underpinnings for cheap labor. On the other hand, totalitarians cannot sustain themselves other than by what amounts to slavery. Furthermore, as western societies weaken, the totalitarian societies are empowered; when they feel strong enough, they will eventually unite to supersede the free nations from which they have derived their wealth and power.

In the effort to establish a new world order, there is no nation on earth which has empowered totalitarian governments more than the United States. Nor has it been done without design or manipulation of politicians, corporations, and financial powers. Indeed; it has been contemplated, planned, and worked towards for decades. Unfortunately, the ideology driving the establishment of free trade with totalitarian nations was built upon the misconception that globalization and free trade by themselves would eventually break down ideological barriers and bring about more freedom and a global democracy. The reverse is true, for the result has been the spread of socialism globally, and a loss of freedom.

For decades powerful liberal elitists have realized the power, wealth, and control that could be obtained through globalization. They have for years set about to establish an international order to make it feasible. In so doing they have discounted the importance of individual freedoms and moral principles essential for enduring stability and prosperity. For although you can have some stability in a system absent a foundation of liberty and human rights, it requires absolute totalitarianism. When the overriding goal of government is to enrich itself by achieving foreign relations at any price, tyranny is at the door. it is a dead end road where awaits either war, surrender, or both.

The United States and other Western powers opened the door to prosperity for other nations whose values are contrary; these nations, many of them totalitarian, are now becoming powerful enough, if not alone then confederate one with another, to challenge Western Civilization on many fronts. Thus, by empowering these totalitarian states, the West became a global prostitute who agreed to “put out” now in hope of getting married later. Now her lovers are walking away. The whole world is now in jeopardy.

At this point, America and other Western nations, are too deep in with adversarial nations to get out without great harm. If the US should reject many aspects of a global system proposed by the totalitarian entities it has empowered, the US faces the possibility of future military conflict. If, however, the US capitulates to China and agrees to a socialist system of global governance based upon imagined common interests, as adversarial nations gain the upper hand, they will be able to manipulate the US diplomatically, collapse the US economically, or even worse, force a conflict of unimaginable consequences. At this point, the world is already facing a lose or lose situation which in all likelihood will lead to another war.

It was unwise to focus only upon the threat of radical Islamic nations, which would have little wherewithal to be a threat without the support of more modernized nations such as Russia and China, which pose a greater threat. The EU also has added greatly to this threat to freedom by embracing global socialism. At this point, even in the US, should global tensions spill over into conflict, many US citizens would blame America and embrace the enemy and accept global socialism.

Globalization is no longer merely an idea. It is here now, and global socialism is to follow. And, no, globalization did not bring freedom to the world as projected, but to the contrary. If America is to ever be made great again, it may not be in the same way as before, but possibly more in a way like Samson was made great again.

America, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is the “last best hope of earth” but it can only be so as long as the underlying principles which made America great are intact. Forsaking or compromising those principles, as we see happening before our eyes, in order to embrace a multicultural global society for the, “common good”, will produce a corrupt global nest indeed.

For the result of a world order built on shared interests absent individual rights will be the loss of liberty, eventually leading to a total breakdown, casting the world into global chaos and death on a scale of such as has never before been seen. Indeed, for interests and loyalties always shift over time creating conflicts and wars, whereas, sound principles do not change. I for one fear we have already crossed the point of no return and our world is even now existing on borrowed time.

Two words. F$@&. That

- America. The land of the FREE!

And get this you globalist assholes.

Come and try and take our guns. We DARE YOU asswipes to set one foot on our sacred land

2 posted on 03/15/2021 10:07:25 AM PDT by Truthoverpower (Fraud !!! Now we’re off the TRUMP TRAIN and on the Swamp express to communist hell !! TRUTH! )

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.