History: The Failure of the Great Globalist Vision

There is no future in globalization. At least not the kind of globalization that we’ve seen emerge for the last 50 years.

One component of the great globalist vision was that the world would shrink with the advent of modern transportation technology – we could move our products from Baltimore to Beijing and back almost as easily, and often cheaper, then moving them from Baltimore to Cleveland. As we now know however, this vision is in direct opposition to the realities of climate change and a diminishing oil supply.

Another component of the great globalist vision was that the titans of banking and industry would have a global marketplace, unimpeded by the barriers of sovereignty, within which to operate freely. Global markets and all the world’s resources would be at their fingertips and the entire wealth of the world would be consolidated into an integrated global network.

As we can now see clearly, however, the centralization of this global network is its greatest threat. And while it has the power to bring down the economies of the world, there is no global authority to arrest that collapse.  

Inspired by the United States and their early success with tariff free trade (the US was seen as a multi-state, free trade zone), the early globalists, who were loyal to the British crown, set out in the late 19th Century to make a united world. Their first step was to convert the British Empire from a hard, military power to a soft, inductive power. The direct result of this is with us today. It is called the Commonwealth of Nations. Recognizing the desire of the colonies to be free and independent, the Lords of England concocted a scheme whereby they would give the colonies nation status and the pretense of autonomy, while keeping them safely nestled to the Royal teat. (If you doubt the power of the Crown, you need look no further than the recent decision of Elizabeth II, Queen of England, to suspend the Canadian Parliament.)

The next step was to create global organizations, thinktanks and lobbying groups to advocate, and often times manipulate, for the vision of globalization. This movement among Britain’s ruling class was to be spread throughout the establishments of Europe, the East, and the Americas. Naturally, the United States was a particular point of focus. They formed groups like the Council on Foreign Relations and enlisted the barons of Wall Street, mostly through the Morgan and Rockefeller interests. They placed powerful members of their movement in the most important press and media outlets. They recruited politicians and lobbied others. And they worked tirelessly, year after year, decade after decade, behind the scenes as much as possible, for the singular purpose of building this global, political and economic infrastructure.

The world that you see today was not a series accidents, or the inevitable path of progress. It was a deliberate, monumental effort that took generations to accomplish.

And while it was a socio-political movement in the early days, it was not like any movement that came before it because its members were not like any other. They were the wealthiest, and most powerful people on Earth. And they were arguably the first humans to truly grasp the scope of the modern, petroleum world, as only they could. They were its architects.

It was also their vision that foresaw, and brought about the rise of the automobile, rail and air travel. It was this vision that they enlisted Edward Bernays, father of the public relations industry and nephew of Sigmund Freud, to sell to a depressed American public at the 1933 World’s Fair, a fantasy of modernization and the prospects of commerce as an alternative to another vision gaining ground during the Great Depression – FDR’s New Deal.

FDR’s vision has largely faded from memory. The globalist vision persists. But it has changed over the years. The early self image of the globalist as good stewards of the masses, who learned to get along with the New Deal, and gave rise to early 20th Century liberalism, eventually gave way to a new  breed of ruling elite. One that had been influenced by the ideas of people like Ayn Rand, John Nash and James M Buchanan.

This new vision made a virtue of selfishness and incorporated the notions of  the rational man, working for his own self interests, which leads to maximum prosperity for all. This was the brainchild of John Nash, working in the basement of the Rand Corporation, which envisioned humans as rational, calculating self-interest machines. This radical and absurd idea proposes that humanity benefits most when each individual is working only in their own self-interests. In this world, because what is best for the individual is best for the whole, democratic government becomes almost unnecessary. Indeed, the market itself is the most efficient form of democratic expression. Market democracy where your ballot is your credit card.  

These were radical thoughts that had no basis in reality, but they were embraced by the business elite who saw this new “rationalism” as a fresh angle on the age old conflict between the proponents of individual freedom versus those of the common good. It was Adam Smith on steroids. In the business elite’s view, individual freedom, indeed, selfishness, was the path to common good.

By the 1960s, the globalist movement began to embrace these radical ideas and supported their champions with grants and university appointments. They financed thinktanks to propagate, financed the campaigns of like minded politicians, and waged a public relations campaign to sell selfishness to the public.

Seeds were planted in the minds of students at Princeton, MIT, and the Chicago school of economics. From there these new apostles would go out into the real world and try out their economic theories, commonly known as neoliberalism, on real people, in real states.

In the US and UK, they would rise on the tides of Reagan and Thatcher, but their agenda would be tempered by opposition from Democrats and Old Labor. It would actually take the Trojan horses Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to get their revolutions here (Revolution marked by the defeat of serious opposition to the free market, neoliberal orthodoxy.) But other countries, where there wasn’t a long tradition of a middle class and social programs, and only weak or nonexistent labor movements,  weren’t so fortunate. From Chile, Ecuador, to even Russia, everywhere the neoliberals and their radical theories went, economic ruin and social crisis followed. The more freedom the neoliberals got, the more devastated the country’s economy.

Despite the clear failure of neoliberal economics, the global elites refused to abandon ship. Some would acknowledge that globalization hasn’t done a good enough job of benefiting everyone, but they still refused to abandon the ideology. Of course, that ideology is extremely profitable for some. And economic failure for the system as a whole is not always economic failure for the few.

But for many of us who have followed the spread of neoliberal economics, and the destruction in its wake, we have understood the danger of that spread into the US. We have watched as the same exact symptoms we saw in Africa and Latin America throughout the 80s and the 90s began showing up here: massive leveraging of dept, massive increases in corporate profits with rapidly declining wages and standards of living, the disintegration of social and civil services, and expanding and pervasive corruption.

Much of the slow economic decline of the last 40 years in the US has played out in hyperspeed in the neoliberal laboratories of the Third World. If it weren’t for the Democratic party in the US and Old Labor in the UK, the collapse we are experiencing now would have occurred many years ago.

Now, the Superclass is scratching its collective head wondering how it all could have gone so wrong. But they knew. They saw it over and over again, in country after country, and yet inertia kept it going, like a runaway train. They kept forging ahead partly out of greed for certain, but the inertia factor cannot be underestimated. And it is perhaps the greatest obstacle defeating both globalization and the neoliberalism that has spread along its arteries.

The reason why it is important to understand the history of globalization is it is the only way to fully appreciate how old and powerful the movement really is. It has changed over the years, radicalized with the rise of neoliberalism, but it is the same movement that a small crowd of British lords began over a century ago – with the same institutions, even in the same buildings. Some like to see it as some sort of conspiracy. It is much much worse. It is a movement with thousands of members. And many of this movement’s members, the elites of the elites, have been indoctrinated to its goals from childbirth, for generations. They cannot just let it go.

The integration of the world’s global economies, and specifically their financial sectors and central banks, into a concentrated network that is both transnational and extranational, is a severe threat to the sovereignty of nations and their ability to avoid and respond to external economic events of which they have no control.

This is all too apparent to nations across the globe that see the prospects of economic ruin as a direct result of policies and actions originating in the United States. And the US is equally vulnerable to economic events abroad. The globalist have put us in an incredible dangerous predicament: a resounding interdependence, and a lacking international authority with which to manage the system.

To understand fully, let me quickly share an old friend’s “Story of the Two Sidewalks’.

There were two sidewalks. One was old and laid with bricks. The other was new and laid of only a few, large concrete slabs.

Over the years a tree’s roots had grown under the sidewalks, forcing them up above the ground. For the old brick sidewalk, this was inconsequential to its overall integrity as the individual bricks easily conformed and adapted to the new topology.

The concrete slabs did not fair so well. Their singular, rigid structure could not conform and so the slab began to crumble into the dirt. In no time, the concrete slab lost its structural integrity and had to be completely replaced.

It should be clear now that the argument about globalization is no longer limited to lost jobs and the renormalization of American living standards with those of the Third World. We have put our very existence at the mercy of a hostile, and unstable system on which our influence is tenuous at best.  

Aside from the many, commonly expressed concerns about great concentrations of wealth and power, there is another question that is far too rarely addressed in the public sphere: can such a concentrated system even work, or will it, like the concrete slab, disintegrate into ruin? If there were any doubt, recent events make it clear that, though economic decentralization is anathema to the globalist vision, it is essential for our survival.

The globalist movement has failed. It is collapsing as we speak, throughout the world. But this does not mean it is dead. It won’t ever die unless we kill it.

For more background on the history of the globalist movement, see How the US Government Was Overthrown In Three Easy Steps.


Skip to comment form

  1. I had posted it last night then remembered that I forget a whole bit at the end.  

  2. I think, I suspect, a lot of the BIG thugs got feed up with cheney-bush cuz if you weren’t 1 of their halliburton texas oil patch cronies, you got fucked over just like the rest of us peeee-ons.

    remember when enron & arther andersen (sp?) went POOF! First we the big bullies on the block who everyone ran from OR who you had to kow tow too, then they stumble, then they’re down on a knee hurt THEN EVERYONE jumps the fukcers and kicks hte shit outta them so they can’t get back up!

    I think the big boys work well together to elect some drooling puppet like RayGun or Bush, BUT, then boeing and lockheed gotta start fighting each other over who gets to steal more, meanwhile Exxon & BP are SCREWING everyone, hurting Boeing and Lockheed too, oh, by the way — AIG & Goldman just stole MORE than any of you fuckers could EVER dream of stealing!

    we need OPEN OPEN OPEN systems.

    we need systems which EXPECT people to be selfish, short sighted, ignorant fucking pigs – which means we don’t need sunday school teachers running over sight systems, we need honest, dedicated to openness, ball busters.

    (raising arizona – if you want to find a donut shop, hire a cop. If you want to find a criminal, hire a criminal … ha ha ha)

    we need SIMPLE SIMPLE rules – and the first simple rule is – the MORE complex the rules, the faster people cheat. so, propellorhead and legal eagle fucking idiot, Keep It Simple STUPID.

    good diary, like always.


    • Edger on January 17, 2010 at 23:46

    Except in name only, she has no power to do so. There is a long a complicated history, and the current situation is that it is the Prime Minister who dissolves Parliament, and in  doing so ceremonially “asks” for the assent of the Governor General. This “asking” however, is not an asking for permission in the sense we normally think of the work “ask”, but instead is a ceremonial formality in which the Prime Minister is really just “informing” the Queen through the Governor General that he is dissolving Parliament, and the Governor General (being a ceremonial position) “assents”, ceremonially, and has no power to refuse.


    The Governor General Today

    Today, Canada is a self-governing and independent nation. So why do Canadians still have a Governor General? The reason lies with Canada’s modern system of government and its continuing links with the monarchy.

    The monarchy continues to play a central ceremonial and symbolic role in the nation’s democratic system. Canada’s Head of State is a King or Queen, and, while this monarch no longer has any real political power, s/he continues to serve as a symbol of the Canadian “nation” or “peoples” and has important ceremonial roles to play in the day-to-day operation of government.

    Government & the Governor General

    What are the powers and duties of the Office today?

    While the Governor General has no real power
    , the Office nevertheless plays an integral role in the operation of government in Canada.

    Opening and Closing of Parliament

    The Governor General also has the power to call, in the name of the monarch of Canada, the opening of Parliament. This occurs after every general election and involves the setting of the date and time when the new Parliament will be officially summoned and when its members will sit for the first time. While it is the Governor General that actually makes the formal proclamation that summons Parliament, s/he always does so on the advice of the newly elected Prime Minister.

    The Governor General also has the power to dissolve Parliament. Again, this is generally just a formality. Under the Canadian Constitution, a general election must occur at least every five years or whenever the government in power loses a vote of confidence in the House of Commons. The actual date is decided by the Prime Minister, who then advises the Governor General to make the formal proclamation dissolving Parliament. There have, however, been rare occasions when a Governor General has failed to take the advice of the Prime Minister in regard to dissolving the Parliament, the most famous being the 1926 King-Byng Affair.

    See the History of the Governor General’s Office section of this article for more information on the King-Byng Affair.

    The 1926 King-Byng Affair

    One of the more controversial events in the recent history of the Governor General is the 1926 constitutional crisis involving Governor General Lord Byng and Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King (often called the “King-Byng Affair”). This crisis led to changes in the role of the Governor General, not only in Canada, but throughout the Commonwealth.

    Prime Minister Mackenzie King … petitioned the British to change the role of the Governor General. This led to the Belfour Declaration of 1926, in which it was agreed the Governors General of all Commonwealth countries would cease to be agents of the British government; instead, they would only represent the monarchy. A new office, that of the British High Commissioner, was created to provide representation for the British government in Canada, with powers and duties similar to those of an ambassador.

    Many people in Canada are very unhappy with Harper proroguing Parliament, myself included, with 61% of voters polled opposing and only 19% agreeing with it. Harper is a corporatist, a religious nutcake, and a far right freak, imo. Farther right than even Cheney or Bush.

    But as Prime Minister he has the power under the Constitution to dissolve parliament, and if the Governor General had tried to refuse assent it likely would have led to a major constitutional crisis in Canadian politics.

    Harper has miscalculated badly. Better to let the voters boot his and his party’s sorry asses out in an election.

  3. Seriously.

  4. The solution unfortunately is war yet they want that too

    Keeps the population down, less people to control

    • banger on January 18, 2010 at 15:27

    Context, these days, may well be everything. Most people, even here, buy into the media Narrative and think it has some relationship to the truth — it doesn’t. The world the MSM has created is what makes us all seem like we’re living in the land of the Lotus Eaters.

    Neo-liberalism is not a failure. It has created an emergent international imperial system in a relatively de-centralized and robust manner. Despite shocks and bubbles the system is still doing very well for those that profit from it. Resistance to it is almost non-existent particularly on the left.

    Neo-liberalism is not just an economic program to remove trade barriers and integrate the world economy it is, above all, a political force to eliminate opposition movements particularly the left. This has been done with cooperation of the left in ways I’m not sure of but all I know is that the left in this country reeks of the scent of the Stasi opposition in East Germany. To be more precise, the growth of covert operations since WWII within and without the U.S. may be the single most important political dynamic influencing our political situation — beyond the obvious corruption in Congress.

    Neo-liberalism has also succeeded in identifying itself with technological progress when, in fact, technological progress has been rather anemic, in my view, considering the possibilities science and engineering has created. Neo-liberalism has also succeeded in creating low-cost consumer goods that delight and entertain the masses for which they are grateful. There is a sense that any private fantasy no matter how lurid and perverse can be fulfilled by the marketplace — and it can. You want to have sex with children — go right ahead and sign up for a tour of Asian brothels. Any vice can be very quickly indulged in if you have the cash. This notion is very, very seductive to everyone even evangelicals (who are, as a tribe, very materialistic and love to indulge in consumer gluttony) because everyone has been brought up to believe that they are, as you said, independent agents who deserve to be fulfilled without having to content with the commonweal.

    Despite the obvious economic problems I see no evidence of any opposition movement anywhere springing up other than the corporate controlled “tea party” activists who are so hopelessly lost in right-wing propaganda (there is no substantial difference between neo-liberals and neo-conservatives) that they are no threat to anybody in power.

    So neo-liberalism, until there is something there to replace it even theoretically (and the “left” in America has absolutely no theoretical framework to offer as an alternative except being more “fair” whatever the hell that means). The tragedy is that there are theoretical frameworks outside the neo-liberal/neo-conservative world-view. These frameworks have to be explored or even if there is major economic collapse we will just there is no fucking hope for an alternative structure.

    • Xanthe on January 19, 2010 at 00:32

    I am going to reread it in am – I think better in the morning.  I haven’t been reading about globalization or attending lectures since I left school a few years ago or discussed these matters with other students (I was considerably older than the other students and we traded off our strengths).  

    When Clinton said some years ago in essence those jobs aren’t coming back.  Did it ever occur to him and others in power to fight for manufacturing power?  Why did they just give up?  

    Now we hear all the time we need to make things.  When I said same in the 90’s I was laughed off the stage.  Do young people, students, even understand this – never having experienced it?  In political science class once, when I made such comments – there was embarrassed silence.  Not in their mindset at all.  

    In any event, thanks.  

    • dkmich on January 19, 2010 at 12:41

    My main anger towards Democrats is their eager participation in this.  So much for the party of the working class.  This is why after all these years, I’m out to vote against them.  No point in voting for anyone cause it does no good.  Next up.  Get even.  

Comments have been disabled.