Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (15421)	3/15/2007 4:26:45 PM
From: Slagle	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 217936

Energyplay, Mark Twain was no admirer of religion, in fact he may have been a complete atheist, but even so, he was not a bit concerned about the effect of religion on American life, and his reason for this was very simple and often expressed in his writings: He believed that in America, with our multitude of sects, cults and congregations, with many of them in constant conflict with one another, that they "policed" each other and hence produced an overall positive outcome. National governments should be like that, each one, be they dictatorship or parliamentary republic, should be responsible to and controlled by their citizenry or a group of their nationals, to the greatest possible degree. And all together, this way they achive the very best possible GLOBAL governance, also. Globalism, as I see it, is an effort to overcome and subvert this desirable and necessary nationalism and to produce new, external and unaccountable power relationships around the world, the power relationships being primarily economic, at least initially. I truly believe that "globalism", which as a term is generally associated with trade and commerce, is related in many ways to "internationalism" which since the time of Marx is associated with global socialism and one-world government. There is a much stronger linkage here than most folks realize. All those features you cite; trade, FDI, movements, ect. we have had since the beginning of the republic and before. But what we have now is something entirely new, at least in application, a sort of "cult" or fetish with the objective of reducing the power of the individual nation-state and by extension the people therein, relative to powerful external individuals and institutions, and to remove these external entities from any accountability whatsoever. Viewed this way, globalism is nothing less than a new form of global dictatorship. Here is how I see it: The Chinese (all of them collectively) or the Filipinos or Indonesians or Mexicans, have no ability to affect the onward progress of the globalist agenda. But we Americans, we have a VETO. If things start to go really badly for us, and I think this is almost a given, though I am unsure about the time frame, then unless we have been subjugated to the extent of the unfortunates in these other nations, we will react. We will react and a new leadership will arise, maybe in the shape of a war party or an ultra-nationalist movement and the USA will play the part of the spoiler in the world, making "global free trade" dangerous and maybe impossible and thereby wrecking globalism. Slagle