The War on Globalisation

The War on Globalisation

There is a great variety of political movements that can be classified as both reactionary and radical, and what they are reacting against can be seen as different aspects of globalism. Communism, political Islam, radical enviromentalism, anti-urbanism, extreme nationalism, labour unions, Christian fundamentalism, US tea parties, Hindu fundamentalism and many others may not share the same ideological fundament, but they share a common enemy, the local social impact of the global changes in commerce, demographics, and technology.

In Europe globalisation can stir both European federalists and the EUrophobes into action. Speaking of the EU, the common market established the four freedoms, the free movement of goods, capital, services, and persons. These freedoms are constrained and not for non-Europeans in any case.

Is the inexorable progress of globalism as inevitable as the march of communism once was thought to be?

It's worst.
Communism had a face to fight against, EU it's based at what you have described as "four freedoms, the free movement of goods, capital, services, and persons." and being noting more than eliminating countries economies by quotas of production and over- regulating laws to protect central markets. German vision.

What about after strangulating countries economies giving them "credit cards" to spend and know use rating agencies to low credits rate and sell credit assurance for so much more money?
What about a country having his rating lowered, two degrees at one day, like my country, by just one rating agency? They are not so credible?? Why all the other rating agencies didn't change it??

Communist where idiots compared to this.
A war is happening under your poetic vision of EU. Of course German employees like it. They think that it will be to benefit them.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

A war is happening under your poetic vision of EU.

I don't have a poetic vision of the EU, in fact I have no vision of the EU. I think that of all post-WWII institutions the EU may be one of the most interesting ones, there hasn't been any creature quite like it before, but it isn't driving globalisation. Neither is it alleviating it.

The rating agencies are beasts of quite a different colour. The question has come up who shall rate the raters, and indeed their ratings have gone down. It is a confidence game, and confidence is most easily lost.

Originally posted by jax:

The rating agencies are beasts of quite a different colour. The question has come up who shall rate the raters, and indeed their ratings have gone down. It is a confidence game, and confidence is most easily lost.

I totally agree.

Originally posted by jax:

I think that of all post-WWII institutions the EU may be one of the most interesting ones, there hasn't been any creature quite like it before, but it isn't driving globalisation. Neither is it alleviating it.

Yes it was. It was driven by necessity. Let's forget divergences because others (US, China, Russia and others) want to replace us.
But under that intelligent move, it has come to surface what it's all about. EU will lost against external menaces because of German and pathetic French greed.

Just my opinion, of course.

Globalism is inevitable in a connected world, as it arises from that very connectivity. Moreover, it is inevitable in a world that aspires to freedom. As far as I can see, only isolation can prevent it, and isolation is a losing move. Roll on globalism, for good and ill.

I am completely behind economic globalization. Cultural globalization, however... I am not so sure about. I rather like my culture and I wouldn't want it to change too rapidly.

I m fully in support the globlisation.frnds it is not only today but since the human come in existed in the world he started to exchange his knowledge,views nd things.in today world when technology going up nd nations going to be either devloped or devloping fastly their is some country who has not able to arrange the neccesary things.nd also it is not neccesary that one nation who know how known by other nation.globlisation helps in those situation.it not only help in making life easier but also stands a great job oportunity.now think if globlisation will be banned then what happen.one are few countreis like america,russia, china, india,etc will go up with knowledge nd latest technology but happend with other contries like affrican contries.nd also it wil b harm full for devloped countries as job scarcity.it wil demotivate the the reserches.so globlisation is in favour of human welfare

If we look at the last 3000 years of history, or the last 3, we will see that globalisation has its ebbs and flows, but indeed long-term it seems as unstoppable as the sea, and about as appealing or appalling.

Opera Software is as good an example as any. Whether you see the company as one driven to make "the best browser" or simply to make money, it is driving globalisation as a consequence of what it does.

I think the EU 4 is as good a description of globalisation as any, and if you have a free flow of capital, goods, services, and people, a free flow of ideas will automatically follow.

If you have free trade you will get gay marriage later on. Most people in the world would like to get richer, but they don't particularly enjoy the idea of gay marriage, in fact there are probably many more who hate the idea than there are who accept it.

Why is it happening then? Is there a secret cabal of flaming gays manipulating us all? Political influence from European atheist intellectual vegetarians perhaps? The work of the devil? Are the traders and CEOs of the world secretly gay?

Sure there are gay activists pushing this issue, and they do have liberal/libertarian/libertine sympathisers, but their political reach is limited. The real force is commerce. Gay marriage isn't commerciay interesting, few people are gay, and even fewer of them marry. You won't get insanely rich selling wedding dresses to gays. What is happening instead is that the logic of international trade is like the logic behind gay marriage, the theory of evolution, or women voting. If you accept one you are more susceptible to the other.

Originally posted by jax:

Is there a secret cabal of flaming gays manipulating us all?

That is the most likely explanation I think.

In part I agree, Jax, but not because the logic behind gay marriage is the same as the logic behind international trade. I cannot see the connection there.

I think it, and other civil liberties, are expanding because cultural exports from dominant nations evangelise those values that do lead to gay marriage. Despite the backlash from conservative forces, they too tend to buy into the same basic ideals that inevitably lead one to tolerance and eventually to liberty. As long as western European, and their colonial offshoots, remain culturally dominant in terms of exporting culture, freedoms will expand in the less free world.
This is not inevitable, however, should a more restrictive culture be dominant, their restrictions would be exported as well (see the cultural export of creationism from the US for an example of that, or the wave of alcohol prohibition laws that passed around Europe at about the same time as the US).
If we were to assume an alternate history where the USSR were victorious, we would imagine their ideals spreading out to the rest of the world, much as liberal ideals have in the real world.

Globalization? To some countries, people say: "How about we first start with one global currency first?"

The idea is inspired by equal shares of profit. Compare a Zimbabwean dollar to the US dollar.

Originally posted by Redem:

f
I think it, and other civil liberties, are expanding because cultural exports from dominant nations evangelise those values that do lead to gay marriage. Despite the backlash from conservative forces, they too tend to buy into the same basic ideals that inevitably lead one to tolerance and eventually to liberty. As long as western European, and their colonial offshoots, remain culturally dominant in terms of exporting culture, freedoms will expand in the less free world.

That is a theory, but not what I am seeing. Liberal economics may be coupled with liberal social values, magazines like the Economist are based on this.

To avoid transatlantic language confusion, let us talk about political "progressive" and "conservative". Globalisation is becoming increasingly global. It used to be predominantly European, then North American, and now increasingly Asian.

I picked the example gay marriage exactly because it isn't particularly popular with business people. There are at least as many conservatives as progressives among their rank. Stilll it is happening.

You have cultural flavours. Opera, IKEA, or LEGO may be Scandinavian, while Sony, Nissan, or Nintendo would be Japanese. Hollywood has a reputation for being progressive in the US, and for being American outside the country, but the studio owner are still to a large extent Japanese. Is it Japanese values that the studio system is pushing? Hollywood is pushing what is profitable, and while studio bosses may have some personal kinks, ultimately studios making movies that sell outperform the ones that don't.

Yeah, lets just all shop at the same supermarkets, share the same information, wear the same clothes. While we're at it we could all spend the same money. No. Lets not stop there. I think we should have a global government. Lets join the EU, with (Mexico, and the whole of the US), plus Asia, into one social continent. Then we'll need to have a leader. Always a tough one.
What about Tony Blair or Obama? Or Merkel? I'm sure the candidates and the people involved would want whats best for us. Theres no way that anyone who would want to push economic and political globalisation would be a complete power hungry megalomaniac. My vote's for the short hyperactive chap with the Chaplin moustache. You know the fella?!?! Red armband, brown trousers, waves his arms about a lot. He inspires me. Can we do it? Ya ya ya.

Gee TroyMclure and here was me thinking he had snuffed it? The guy with the moustache that is. All this modern rush for bigger and similar is not the way to go. It will lead to power hungry politicians and we will all end up looking the same and be conditioned into the same things, lifestyle and so on. Frightening I call it.

Originally posted by jax:

Is the inexorable progress of globalism as inevitable as the march of communism once was thought to be?

Probably. It's sad too, because some of the best restaurants are the old "mom and pop" restaurants.

Originally posted by Thabotizz:

Compare a Zimbabwean dollar to the US dollar.

Compare Heads of State/Gov't and checks and balances in the two countries.
Mugabe is a dictator with no regard for inflation. He thinks he knows best. That is not the case.
I doubt many people will shed a tear when he kicks the bucket.

Originally posted by Redem:

because cultural exports from dominant nations

yep , we, U.S. is exporting imported values. Go figure.

Originally posted by jax:

You have cultural flavours. Opera, IKEA, or LEGO may be Scandinavian, while Sony, Nissan, or Nintendo would be Japanese.

Ah, Globalization even let us to have flavors. Thank you, Globalization. We thank you.

Originally posted by jax:

Hollywood has a reputation for being progressive in the US, and for being American outside the country, but the studio owner are still to a large extent Japanese. Is it Japanese values that the studio system is pushing? Hollywood is pushing what is profitable, and while studio bosses may have some personal kinks, ultimately studios making movies that sell outperform the ones that don't.

Hollywood it's Japanese?
Americans are being used, the poor.. Evil Japanese get control over American values and they colonized the world with false American values.

This is hallucinating.

Yes, this happened to the USA at the height of Japanophobia. It is always nice to have something to worry about. Japan was the big threat to civilisation and mince pie some years before Muslim countries took over the role.

As far as companies are concerned, headquarter location is just a flavour. Nokia may be Finnish and Samsung South Korean, but both let you send text messages to each other.

Presently, I'm more worried about Canada! And they're sooooo close to me here in Michigan.

Something smells pungent......oh yea,its globalisation!

Originally posted by Belfrager:

This is hallucinating.

I have the feeling your vision may be blurred ...hmmmmm

I'm a man of blurred visions. It's not a fault, it's a default.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I'm a man of blurred visions. It's not a fault, it's a default.

That is better.

Originally posted by Denny77:

yep , we, U.S. is exporting imported values.

Yep, re-exporting values is a sign of a vibrant society.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Presently, I'm more worried about Canada! And they're sooooo close to me here in Michigan.

Build a wall. Let me help you get started....

:brick:

this thread starts with some very flawed premises, so not sure where to start...

Where those premises are flawed, maybe?

Are we still building a wall?

Here's the cement!
:cement:
Ok, I'm done.

Globalisation is great, now instead of one business going broke, the whole f*****g world is.

I personally believe that there is a select group of very rich businessmen that have for a long time (about +/- 20 years ) tried to devise a way to bring the entire world under the leadership of a 'One World Government'. It seems like their plans are coming to fruition, & many of their statements over the years are coming to be very prophetic. Though they still are trying to sometimes deny their agendas, it's getting to the point that if anyone, or any group of states for that matter, wanted to stop them it would probably be virtually impossible because the machinery is well in motion.

Here are some articles that may give you better insight into what I'm trying to say. They are totally relevant to this threads topic.

Please read them completely, & decide for yourself if they make sense to you as they have to me.

The Movement Toward Global Government

In 1990, Maurice Strong said, “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

Source

The new world devised by Maurice Strong and George Soros

Have you ever wondered how capitalism was pushed over the edge of the cliff just six weeks before the American presidential election?

According to financial experts, the world, as we know it will change dramatically by the year 2012.

People, who provided for their families only three years ago, will be desperately searching for food.

The story of the economic meltdown of 2008 begins and ends with the United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order.

Source

From Smiley's source:

It is Obama’s job to demoralize the 58 million people who did not buy into his campaign and for all of those who do not want One World Order.

I'm almost at a loss for words.

Back to my comic book.

The article forgot to mention how Star Trek has been propagating a single world government since the '60s.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

The article forgot to mention how Star Trek has been propagating a single world government since the '60s.

Even worse, it's communism

Well, I figured to hear this from the crowd that would love to see it (Globalization via One World Government) happen. They have absolutely nothing to lose.

I guess I was right on 2 out of 3.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I personally believe that there is a select group of very rich businessmen that have for a long time (about +/- 20 years ) tried to devise a way to bring the entire world under the leadership of a 'One World Government'. It seems like their plans are coming to fruition, & many of their statements over the years are coming to be very prophetic. Though they still are trying to sometimes deny their agendas, it's getting to the point that if anyone, or any group of states for that matter, wanted to stop them it would probably be virtually impossible because the machinery is well in motion.

Here are some articles that may give you better insight into what I'm trying to say. They are totally relevant to this threads topic.

Please read them completely, & decide for yourself if they make sense to you as they have to me.

The Movement Toward Global Government

In 1990, Maurice Strong said, “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

Source

The new world devised by Maurice Strong and George Soros

Have you ever wondered how capitalism was pushed over the edge of the cliff just six weeks before the American presidential election?

According to financial experts, the world, as we know it will change dramatically by the year 2012.

People, who provided for their families only three years ago, will be desperately searching for food.

The story of the economic meltdown of 2008 begins and ends with the United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order.

Source

Many apologies, SF, but if you buy into this Alex Jones' propagated nonsense, your credibility has dropped somewhat in my opinion.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Many apologies, SF, but if you buy into this Alex Jones' propagated nonsense, your credibility has dropped somewhat in my opinion.

If by 'somewhat' you mean 'below zero'...

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Many apologies, SF, but if you buy into this Alex Jones' propagated nonsense, your credibility has dropped somewhat in my opinion. :frown:

As I said once before, no apologies necessary dawg, but Alex Jones?

Neither article I quoted was written by, or quoted reference to this person.

How then do you make a specific connection to Alex Jones, that I might somehow buy into something he espouses, via the articles I quoted?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Neither article I quoted was written by, or quoted reference to this person.

How then do you make a specific connection to Alex Jones, that I might somehow buy into something he espouses, via the articles I quoted?

I have no clue who Alex Jones is, but I did take a look at Judi McLeod's credentials:

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

Here where I live "journalist" and "columnist/opinionist" are different things.

Originally posted by jax:

f you have a free flow of capital, goods, services, and people, a free flow of ideas will automatically follow.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Well, I figured to hear this from the crowd that would love to see it (Globalization via One World Government) happen. They have absolutely nothing to lose.

I guess I was right on 2 out of 3.

Globalisation, as I described above, is one big elephant. People and movements (like the aforementioned "Communism, political Islam, radical enviromentalism, anti-urbanism, extreme nationalism, labour unions, Christian fundamentalism, US tea parties, Hindu fundamentalism") focus on different parts of the same animal. Globalisation doesn't need an "One World Government", just that free flow of capital, goods, services, people, and ideas.

If you don't like the consequences, you would have to try to stem that flow. Governments and movements have tried to do so throughout history, which has had consequences of their own. Others have been part of that flow, migrants and traders, and the businesses they have set up. If you want to find cheerleaders of globalisation, look to WTO and the caste of economists. Technologists are also on the same team, with the slogan "information wants to be free". If I were to pick a pro-globalisation magazine, I would pick The Economists. Anti-globalisation magasines would be too many to mention.

The entry you linked to was a classic conspiracy theory and not a well constructed one either. I could list why, but it would be time consuming and shouldn't be necessary. Some of the underlying complaints may be real though. I am not cheering on globalisation either, but have come to the conclusion that it has done vastly more good than ill in the years since WWII. That doesn't mean that it doesn't do ill, and that it has its risks.

Originally posted by leftwing:

Globalisation is great, now instead of one business going broke, the whole f*****g world is.

For once you wrote something I could agree with. One consequence of most of the world being financially intertwined (and almost all of the money) is that there is no recourse in case of a meltdown, unless you want to go to North Korea, Burma, or some African states. That is why it is interesting and necessary to have a look at what happened in this crisis.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

How then do you make a specific connection to Alex Jones, that I might somehow buy into something he espouses, via the articles I quoted?

Quite simple on three fronts:

1. Alex Jones is the most well-known, daily radio-spouting, proponent of the NWO nonsense.
2. He singlehandedly made the NWO "theory" as well-known as it is today.
3. You make it clear that you think the NWO "theory" is a plausible theory, thus is is reasonable to conclude that you have acquainted yourself with Jones, his propagation of the theory, and his radio show, and done proper research on the NWO theory before coming out in support of it.

Perhaps I am wrong?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Neither article I quoted was written by, or quoted reference to this person.

SF, when you see the word "Soviet", what do you think of?
When you see the term Bill of Rights, what document do you think of?
When you see the term Judicial Branch, whom do you think of?

There is a similar thing here.
I daresay that anyone on here that has seen the term NWO before, immediately thinks of that idiot, Alex Jones.
It's not all that difficult to link.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I daresay that anyone on here that has seen the term NWO before, immediately thinks of that idiot, Alex Jones.

Depends a bit on context. Otherwise I'd be more likely to think of H. G. Wells or the Bahá'í.

But yes, with the articles referenced here that's the kind of context where Jones comes to mind.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

But yes, with the articles referenced here that's the kind of context where Jones comes to mind.

Exactly!

Originally posted by jax:

Globalisation, as I described above, is one big elephant. People and movements (like the aforementioned "Communism, political Islam, radical enviromentalism, anti-urbanism, extreme nationalism, labour unions, Christian fundamentalism, US tea parties, Hindu fundamentalism") focus on different parts of the same animal. Globalisation doesn't need an "One World Government", just that free flow of capital, goods, services, people, and ideas.

I see your point, & agree with your basic summation. As with just about all beasts, there is good mixed in with bad.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Perhaps I am wrong?

Yep, wrong. I had to look up your Jones friend. When you mentioned the name, I honestly didn't know the gentleman. The basic theories may be similar to some degree, but that's where it ends.

Never assume--You know the rest on how that goes.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Neither article I quoted was written by, or quoted reference to this person.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

SF, when you see the word "Soviet", what do you think of?

When coupled with Union---as in 'Soviet Union', a Communistic Evil Empire

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

When you see the term Bill of Rights, what document do you think of?

Sacred Document of American Rights written by Our Founding Fathers, one that makes America unique in the world because it defines our American rights as inalienable, whereas in many other countries similar rights are subject to the will & whim of Monarchical Rulers or governing bodies (Parliament, etc..).

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

When you see the term Judicial Branch, whom do you think of?

One of the Three Branches of the United States Government, as defined by the United States Constitution. I also think of The United States of America's Supreme Court---The Highest Court in the Land.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Perhaps I am wrong?

Yep, wrong.

Never assume--You know the rest on how that goes.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Neither article I quoted was written by, or quoted reference to this person.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

SF, when you see the word "Soviet", what do you think of?

When coupled with Union---as in 'Soviet Union', a Communistic Evil Empire

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

When you see the term Bill of Rights, what document do you think of?

Sacred Document of American Rights written by Our Founding Fathers, one that makes America unique in the world because it defines our American rights as inalienable, whereas in many other countries similar rights are subject to the will & whim of Monarchical Rulers or governing bodies (Parliament, etc..).

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

When you see the term Judicial Branch, whom do you think of?

One of the Three Branches of the United States Government, as defined by the United States Constitution. I also think of The United States of America's Supreme Court---The Highest Court in the Land.

I see you failed to see my logic.
Oh well, such is life.

Frenzie certainly saw it, but I would like to be enlightened as to how exactly I am wrong.
Also, if you don't mind, I would like to know exactly how you are quite sure there are such plans for a New World Order.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

....I would like to be enlightened as to how exactly I am wrong.

Also, if you don't mind, I would like to know exactly how you are quite sure there are such plans for a New World Order.

See my edited test above (sorry, I continually revise & sometimes we unfortunately overlap)

...Yep, wrong. I had to look up your Jones friend. When you mentioned the name, I honestly didn't know the gentleman. The basic theories may be similar to some degree, but that's where it ends...

The term 'New World Order' is yours. I never defined that specific phrase in any of my writing, but I will note it was the last 3 words in one of the texts I quoted.

I'm more in tuned with the phrase 'One World Government', which may have some remote similarity,
but is different on it's own.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The term 'New World Order' is yours. I never defined that specific phrase in any of my writing, but I will note it was the last 3 words in one of the texts I quoted.

I'm more in tuned with the phrase 'One World Government', which may have some remote similarity,
but is different on it's own.

Thus, by the preference of this particular term, we can, after some more research, finally conclude you are exactly in tune with Alex Jones as has already been suggested

If Alex Jones is also interested in the phrase 'One World Government', then you may be correct, to some point, in your reasoning. He seems interesting, I will have to read more about him, & naturally come to my own conclusions about him & his ideas.

He is not merely "interested", he is more or less responsible for it being a conspiracy shared by many, instead of a deranged few.

<a href="http://www.economist.com/node/17493309">Europe in the new global game</a>

In 2011 the European Union (EU) will be a more focused actor on the world stage. Global economic governance will be a top priority, notably in the G20. In 2010, we put our own house in order, practically, economically and financially. Now we are better equipped to respond to the global challenges—both the foreseeable ones and the surprises that 2011 will bring.

Historians will interpret the period we are living in as the transition from the economic phase of globalisation to its political phase. Economic globalisation came into full swing after the events of 1989, which ended communism and united Europe, and the West was proud of the universal attraction of its lifestyle. The number of democracies rose. Global trade and technology lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, all over the world. Negative effects, such as growing inequalities, were brushed aside. This phase is over.

Originally posted by jax:

Historians will interpret the period we are living in as the transition from the economic phase of globalisation to its political phase.

Regarding Europe, those are nice words for another German attempt of Europe's domination. It's what? the third one? Cheaper by economics than by war?
No economics, no vote, Mrs Merkel says. We'll see.
As we already saw it at the past.

Originally posted by jax:

Is the inexorable progress of globalism as inevitable as the march of communism once was thought to be?

Globalism is more of a reflection of the march of Technology. Roads are overcoming what were once physical barriers. Communication has shortened correspondence time, email has largely supplemented snail mail. Where before we were dependent on a journalists class (the fourth estate) now any person with a cell phone can tweet an occurrence worldwide instantaneously, photos and video can be similarly transmitted. GPS has enabled anyone to navigate a ship or plane reducing trans shipment time.

Originally posted by jax:

Historians will interpret the period we are living in as the transition from the economic phase of globalisation to its political phase.

Or rather Historians will say that this era is beginning of the end of the national political state, replaced by regional alliances. Ruled by supra global commercial entities wielding political power through their political surrogates. There are three types of power Social, Economic and the Political. We are presently seeing the Economic dominating the other two power bases.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

No economics, no vote

This what most of the protesting is about, the people having a say in reigning international corporations that have largely due to their multi national character and their influence on the political class have achieved an ability to flout the law of the individual countries in which they are located. That is the multi-nationals are mainly above the law and are not accountable to anyone other than their Board of Directors and at times stockholders.

Bomb GM!

I think General Motors may do its own bombing.

Well aren't they in a turn round situation now?

A book review, which might seem relevant here.

Originally posted by Mark Mazower:

Was there even an “east” at all? How much – apart from the pain of being condescended to, ruled and humiliated in countless ways by Europeans and Americans – did the very different faiths, languages and historical communities of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Pacific really share? The truth is that cosmopolitans – whether anti-colonial or communist – were generally let down by the 20th century and the rapid spread of nationalism across the colonial world in the hands of technocrats, military men and party officials. By the 1930s, at the latest, pan-Islamism and pan-Arabism were both dead as political projects; neither Nasser nor (much later) al-Qaeda had any chance of reviving them. As for pan-Asianism, it was pretty much dealt a deathblow once the Japanese turned it into an excuse for their own version of imperialism.

And now the world champs at globilisation and imperialism is guess who? For those who live across the pond look between Canada and Mexico if you know enough about the world to understand a map.

We can't all be backwaters, can we?

One cheerleader for globalisation, Alex Tabarrok on how ideas trump crises

You will be in due course OakdaleFTL the decline is inevitable.