From http://globalpolitician.com/24323-globalization
The Scourge of Globalization
Kyle Bristow
Global Politician
March 27, 2008
Globalization poses as a threat to civilization, and in the interests of our people, it needs to be opposed. The ideology of those who promote globalization can be termed globalism, because just like Nazism, communism, socialism, libertinism, and all other utopian “isms” of the 20th century, it is unnatural and is a world-order that conflicts with human nature.
Globalists tend to be contemporary college professors, the students who are indoctrinated by these professors, multinational corporations, and the politicians who pander to the multinational corporations. It is understandable why people in academia are globalists, because after all, they have been removed from reality for so long that utopian theories are able to theoretically work unchallenged in their minds. Students seem to be told in the modern university what to think, rather than taught how to think, by their professors. The ideology of globalism that university professors subscribe to and promote in their classrooms is therefore able to flourish because it is uncontestable.
Multinational corporations promote globalization not because they exist in la-la land and are protected by tenure like the college professors, but because it is in their economic interests to do so. In order to take advantage of cheap labor in Third World countries and to sell the products manufactured there in First World countries without having to deal with what they view as international trade bureaucracy—such as tariffs and quotas—multinational corporations desire to eradicate national borders. Through campaign donations to politicians, these multinational corporations bribe politicians to betray their constituents’ interests.
When national boundaries are done away with, the sovereignty of a nation is lost, which jeopardizes the indigenous culture. The reason why multinational corporations despise economic borders is because they have no country to which they owe more loyalty to than any other country. If capital mobility is unrestricted internationally, a “race to the bottom” will occur, which allows multinational corporations to maximize their profits at the expense of working men and women. In doing so, multinational corporations are putting their interests first, but it is necessary to point out that their interests do not run parallel to the interests of the American people.
Joseph Stiglitz, author of Making Globalization Work, writes that for multinational corporations “economic interests often take precedence over cultural identity” and that “businesses pursue profits, and that means making money is their first priority.” American politicians should think about this before they vote to sacrifice American culture and the prosperity of the American middle class at the Alter of Globalization.
 | |
| |
|
The very idea of the nation is hated by globalists who seek to eradicate national boundaries and cultures. International relations scholar Benedict Anderson once described nations as nothing more than “imagined communities”; however, the idea of the nation is very important to the citizens of a given nation. The importance of the nation is evidenced by the fact that the citizens of a nation are willing to not only kill to defend it, but are willing to sacrifice their own lives for it. I highly doubt that a globalist would sacrifice their own life for their beloved so-called “global community.” The hatred that globalists have for nationalists is derived mostly from their disdain of people who are proud of their history, culture, and country. The fact that the love of one’s country prevents multinational corporations from establishing what Catholic theologian and historian Hilaire Belloc called the “Servile State,” in which people work likes slaves to maximize the profits of big business, is what really irks the globalist.
The globalists conceal the economic treason that is committed by politicians in Washington by ridiculing those who think that sending jobs to China and importing cheap, foreign labor may not be the best way to go about things as “statists,” “isolationists,” and “protectionists.” In my mind, the most accurate word to describe a person who opposes globalization is “patriot.” Only a person who subscribes to the ideology of globalism would dare to suggest that it is good for America when a factory shuts down and relocates to China. Globalization, in this way, is a zero-sum game. The globalist, multinational corporations win and the American people lose.
Globalism poses as a dire threat to the survival of nations, and is not a recent phenomenon, because it arguably was the cause of the demise of the Viking civilization during the early Middle Ages. The people of Scandinavia were isolated from globalization for a very long time, because they were in the region of Europe that is farthest away from where societal advancement occurred in ancient times. For example, Mesopotamia, which is commonly referred to as the “Fertile Crescent,” was where agriculture was developed, and did not reach Scandinavia until 2,500 BC. Also, unlike the rest of Europe, Scandinavia was isolated during the time of the Roman Empire, so it was safe from Roman conquest and imperialism. Globalization reached the Vikings in 600 AD when sailboat technology was introduced to them from the Mediterranean. This caused the rise and demise of the Viking civilization.
The sailboat technology allowed the Vikings to explore uncharted places such as Iceland, Greenland, and even North America. The ability to travel farther than ever before made it possible for the Vikings to trade with foreign peoples. Trading and exploration eventually paved the way for pirating and raiding.
Within a few centuries of acquiring sailboat technology the Vikings became globalists. The Vikings, who had grown tired of having to return home to Scandinavia after raiding prior to the winter months, started to establish settlements on the targeted coasts so that they could begin raiding earlier in the springtime. In these settlements, the Vikings intermarried and became assimilated into the local populations. Eventually the Viking language, religion, and culture disappeared outside of Scandinavia.
Not even 400 years after the sailboat technology reached Scandinavia, the Viking civilization was in rapid decline. The fate of their traditional culture was sentenced to death when King Harold Bluetooth established Christianity as Scandinavia’s official religion. If religion is the basis of culture, as conservative philosopher Russell Kirk believed, then the change in religion ended Viking culture.
What was the reason for the Vikings to embrace globalism? It was arguably the opportunity for wealth to be made through raiding, trading, pirating, and colonizing. They sacrificed their culture on the Alter of Globalization for wealth. Instead of worshipping pagan gods like Odin, Thor, and Frey, they began to worship a false god that multinational corporations still worship today: Profit.
Unfettered capitalism may have more in common with socialism than an advocate of the former would care to admit, for both economic theories are essentially materialist dogmas. Under socialism, big government oppresses the citizenry of a nation. Under unfettered capitalism, big business is the culprit of oppression. Father Charles Coughlin was correct when he told his followers that they should combat both the scourge of communism and the plague of modern capitalism.
German economist Wilhelm Röpke understood this as well, and challenged both communism and unfettered capitalism. To Röpke, socialism was futile, because it is a system that erodes freedom to achieve a morally reprehensible equality of condition. When government takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both. Socialism, collectivism, and communism are nothing more than economic systems which advocate state-sanctioned theft.
Röpke understood the failures of unfettered capitalism as well: The formation of monopolies, the rise of unemployment, the tendency to centralize private and governmental wealth, the eroding of culture by the elimination and degradation of institutions, and a barbaric individualism that naturally ensues. To temper the negative effects of unfettered capitalism, Röpke felt that limited government is sometimes needed to intervene. According to John Zmirak in his biography of Röpke, Wilhelm Röpke: Swiss Localist, Global Economist, Röpke believed that “the economic power of colossal corporations [is] almost as dangerous as the political might of collectivist government” and needs to be dealt with if liberty is to be preserved.
When people are unanchored from a unique culture, religion, family, and other nongovernmental institutions, they turn to the only institution left to fix perceived societal problems—government and mass political movements. When this travesty happens, people no longer know what liberty means, why it is important, or how to defend it. For this reason, Röpke believed that economic freedom can only exist if tradition and religious faith are preserved. Civilization itself is at stake when institutions—both economic and noneconomic—collapse. Viking civilization is a prime example of this tragedy occurring.
If Western civilization and our country are to be preserved for future generations, the ideology of globalism must be confronted by the patriots of our nation. The globalists who wish to deny our people of our culture and our sovereignty and our legacy must be stopped. Enough is enough. It is time the patriots rise, stand up as one, and cry out in one united voice, “Here marches the national resistance!”
______________
Corporations Use Biometric Scanners to Track Workers (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Fingerprint.Timecard.Popularity.2.685864.html)
___________
From http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2008/03/osc-russia.html
Russia Increases Attempts to Regulate Internet
Open Source Center Analysis
March 27, 2008
Three bills under consideration in the Federal Asssembly suggest the government is considering extending its control over the Internet, particularly the blogosphere, one of the few alternative sources of information and collaboration open to the opposition in the face of increasing government control of the mainstream media. The bills have aroused some public controversy and even apparent opposition from some senior officials, with one of the proposed laws already being amended to remove provisions affecting the Internet. Government proponents have tried to reassure Internet users that these bills would not lead to censorship or limits on Internet access.
Limits on Foreign Investment in Internet Rejected
The amendment to the law "On the Order of Foreign Investment in Companies and Organizations Having Strategic Importance for National Security," sponsored by the Duma Committee on Building and Land Relations, would have expanded the number of sectors of the Russian economy that are considered "strategically important to national security" to include the Internet and publishing, thereby limiting foreign investment in the two sectors. According to Vedomosti sources, Vladislav Surkov, the Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration, was the driving force behind the expansion of the list of strategically important sectors (5 March). The amendment passed the first reading last fall. However, on 16 March, shortly before the second reading, committee chair Martin Shakkum announced that the committee would remove the section of the law covering Internet providers. An unnamed Vremya Novostey source stated that President-Elect Dmitriy Medvedev’s involvement in the issue precipitated the decision to drop the provision covering the Internet (17 March).
The previous version of the amendment would have required foreign investors wishing to purchase more than 50% of a Russian company related to the Internet to obtain the approval of the Russian Government. Any investor company in which a foreign government has a stake would have had to gain permission for a purchase of more than 25%. The law would not have been retroactive; however, companies with foreign investors who own more than 5% would have had to inform the government of that fact (Gazeta.ru, 5 March).
Shakkum did not say whether the section of the amendment covering publishing would be changed. If the amendment is adopted in its current form, foreign companies wishing to invest in publications would only face limitations if the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service deems their position in the market "dominant," meaning that any of three companies controlling 50% of the market together or any of 5 companies controlling 70% together (Gazeta.ru, 5 March).
Despite support for the amendment from some Duma deputies and the fact that the law was proposed by a Duma committee, several officials and experts from various fields strongly criticized it, calling it harmful and senseless.
Duma Deputy Gennadiy Gudkov, a Just Russia member of the Security Council in the Duma, raised concerns that the bill’s Internet provisions would cause Russian Internet resources to be moved to the shadow market. "I do not understand how such a law can function in relation to electronic mass media and Internet publications. The location of servers has no importance for electronic mass media….They can be moved outside of Russia and such a move would have no effect on their work," he maintained (Gazeta.ru, 5 March).
Leonid Bershidskiy, the owner of KIT-Finance, asserted that even if the limits to investment in publishing concerns were adopted, they would not have any effect because no Russian publication matches the criteria outlined in the law: "Every company dreams of creating a publication that would gain 50% of the market but no one has succeeded so far….If someone did decide to limit the presence of foreign investors on the market for print media, that would bear witness to the even lower level of liberalism of the new authorities compared to the old. But I do not think that will happen" (Gazeta.ru, 5 March).
Leonid Reyman, minister of Information and Communications, criticized the previous version of the amendment, stating: "I feel that there is no benefit in any kind of restrictions. This will lead to a situation in which the Internet will pull out of our country." (Vremya Novostey, 17 March)
Amendment to Law "On Mass Media" Raises Concerns
Vladimir Slutsker, deputy chairperson of the Joint Commission on National Policy and Cooperation of Governments and Religious Unions of the Federation Council, announced the planned amendment to the law on mass media on 11 February. If passed, the amendment would give any electronic media which has more than 1,000 hits per day the status of mass media, thus making them subject to laws on mass media such as the law on extremism. The 1,000 hit per day threshold was determined based on the current legal threshold of a distribution of 1,000 copies or more per day for print media. The sponsors of the amendment stated that the goal of the law is to control the spread of child pornography, libelous information, as well as terrorist and other extremist information (Strana.ru, 11 February).
Amid controversy and outcry provoked by news of the draft, supporters of the bill attempted to assuage fears that it would lead to censorship, promising that the law would not affect sites that are "not information sources." They also promised that the bill would be put up for discussion by members of the Internet community prior to being passed.
| |
| |
|
On 11 February, Slutsker gave a very broad definition of sites to be covered: "Any regularly updated Internet site can be included in the understanding of mass media, including personal diaries, various forums and chats including, for example, dating sites" (Gzt.ru, 11 February). However on 12 February he backed off, stating: "The amendments to the law ‘On the Mass Media,’ which were discussed today by the Internet community, only concern sites which are in fact Internet mass media although they are not registered at the moment…The blogosphere, dating sites, and search engines will not fall under that law because they are not mass media" (SMI.ru).
Boris Gryzlov, speaker of the Duma and leader of the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, said that no limits on the spread of information on the Internet should be enacted: "As concerns the Internet, in no way should there be an attack on its freedom." However, he asserted that security must take precedence, stating: "We know that the Internet is all too often used as an instrument for destabilization and for terrorism. That kind of use of the Internet must be stopped" (Newsru.com, 12 February).
Bloggers expressed varying degrees of alarm over the potential danger the law would pose to their community, with some alleging Slutsker is trying to use the law to silence his opponents and dismissing the law as unlikely to be passed.
Blogger may-antiwar wrote: "As soon as a site becomes mass media we will be threatened not only with immediate shut down but also unpleasant personal sanctions under the law ‘On extremism’ and we will become political prisoners. They have declared war on our resource" (may-antiwar.livejournal.com, 27 February).
Blogger Viking-nord asserted that Slutsker "just wants to get even with the Antikompromat.ru site, on which the journalist (Oleg) Lurye insulted the family of the senator." (1) The blogger called the initiative "extremely stupid" and claimed that "over the last five years there were 20 such initiatives and no one ever passed one of them" (Viking-nord.livejournal.com, 11 February).
Internet sites, like bloggers, expressed their concern that the law would lead to the closure of Internet resources and ridiculed the 1,000 hits per day figure. Newsru.com, a popular Internet news site associated with exiled media magnate Gusinskiy, warned: "After the adoption of such a law, being on the Internet will make one subject to the Criminal and Administrative Codes and any critical comment directed at the authorities could become defamation or libel. This could lead to the closure of Internet forums and their owners could be punished for opinions expressed by forum participants if they are deemed extremist" (12 February). Strana.ru, a news website owned by the government’s TV and radio broadcasting company VGTRK, opined: "To anyone who is at all familiar with the Internet, such an idea is absurd. Internet sites with more than 1,000 hits per day number in the thousands on the Russian net and far from all of those are information resources. There are social networks, online journals, employment searches, forums, Internet stores, file hosting…It is not clear how and more importantly why one should register them as mass media" (11 February).
Draft Bill "On the Internet" Mulled
On 29 January the Federation Council Commission on Information Policy discussed a draft law entitled "On the Internet," written by the Center for Internet Technology (ROTsIT) and the Electronic Communications Association for the Inter-parliamentary Assembly of Governments from the CIS. The bill would create a model law that would outline fundamental concepts, terminology, and directives for Internet standards. According to the text of the bill posted by Lenta.ru, the law will "define the system of government support for the Internet, designate participants in the process of regulating the Internet as well as their functions when regulating, and define the guidelines designating places and times of the performance of legally significant actions upon use of the Internet" (Lenta.ru, 29 January). Gazeta.ru reported that the Federation Council would consider the bill in March (29 January).
Pro-government supporters of the draft bill presented it as necessary to prevent Internet crime and tried to reassure citizens that the law is not intended to enact censorship and will not limit access to Internet.
Putin ally and commission chairperson, Lyudmila Narusova, began the meeting by attempting to reassure possible critics of the law, stating: "I want to disappoint those who think that our bill is directed at repressive measures, at putting pressure on or blocking someone." She argued that the primary goal of the bill is to outline fundamental concepts and regulate a "series of things on the Internet, because, in the wrong hands, this could lead to various forms of crimes." She cited the spread of child pornography, instructions in how to make explosive devices as examples (Gazeta.ru, 29 January).
Sergey Mironov, leader of the Just Russia party and speaker of the Federation Council, promised: "It is necessary to regulate this sphere, but there can be no censorship of the Internet" (Gazeta.ru, 29 January). Yuriy Sharandin, head of the Federation Council Committtee on Constitutional Legislation, stated: "It is not only possible but necessary to regulate the content…not preemptively because then it would be censorhip, but by punishment for breaking the laws, for example, on the distribution of pornography, and inciting racism or ethnic discord" (Gazeta.ru, 29 January).
Internet sites reacted in various ways to the news on the draft bill "On the Internet," with some predicting government censorship and others declaring that the law would not be repressive. Forum.msk.ru, a leftist, nationalist website featuring political news and rumors, raised concerns about the law’s provisions for a national registry that can "simply annul a domain name because the contents of the site violate the laws of a third country." The editors concluded: "In fact serious censorship of the Russian Internet…is being proposed" (1 February). Novyy Region, a nongovernment news website covering regional events, emphasized that no repression was planned: "Despite all the fears connected to possible censorship of the net, it seems that the goal of the new draft law is not the limiting of freedom of information, but will touch on Internet terminology. According to the authors of the law, there is no immediate need for government interference in the Internet" (29 January).
Some bloggers warned that a law regulating the Internet would lead to Internet censorship similar to that of China and cautioned the government against interfering.
Anton Nosik, head of blogging at SUP-Media and well-known Russian Internet figure, warned that "the adoption of a single law on the Internet will lead to the same limit on Internet activity as in China." Instead, he recommended making separate updates to the Civil or Criminal Codes (Gazeta.ru, 29 January).
Responding to Nosik’s blog post, dudinov wrote: "The draft bill is technically illiterate" and reflects "the desire of specific individuals in the Federation Council to talk themselves up and of others to forbid things….Our Union of Webmasters of Russia and I have started actively to educate ‘lawmakers’ on the dangers of regulating what works well and is developing on its own" (dolboeb.livejournal.com, 29 January). Implications The increased attention to the Internet suggests that the Kremlin is considering greater control over the heretofore largely free medium. However, the scaling back of sections of the bills suggests that the Kremlin is proceeding cautiously, sending up trial balloons in the Federal Assembly through United Russia. This could also reflect a divergence within the Kremlin over the approach to the Internet given that Medvedev was credited with the changes to the bill supposedly pushed by Surkov.
_____________
NPR News: National Pentagon Radio? (http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon03272008.html)
http://www.infowars.com/?p=1093
________
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/03/defense_intelligence_agency_hi.html
_____
No comments:
Post a Comment