Monday, 16 February 2009

Nationalism and Globalism.

The real meaning of Globalisation

By Albion

A New World Order and Nationalism is an anathema, as is a New World Order and Protectionism. The cornerstone of a New World Order is built on Globalism. Our traitorous Prime minister, a Mr Brown repeatedly talks of a New World Order in the same breath as Globalism. Nationalism has no place in a New World Order; it is its mortal enemy. It explains why Patriotism and Nationalism are so reviled in Great Britain and Europe. It is reviled by association which is non existent, but subject the people to lies long and often enough and they will believe anything.

At Davos recently the keynote of the economic forum was Globalization. It is all part of the grand design for a New World Order whose birth is taking place right now in Europe. Globalism is an integral part of the Grand Design for Europe and it is the continual reference to this that keeps the momentum moving forward.

Sarkozy like Brown never shuts up about Globalism. What they are actually saying is that Globalism cannot move ahead when countries indulge in protectionism. Nationalism and protectionism are seen as bed mates, they are seen as one and the same. That is why Nationalism must be destroyed by fair means or foul, a New World Order cannot move ahead otherwise.

A country that can retain control of its Sovereignty, its currency, its borders, its system of law and its markets cannot be part of this New World Order. When our Queen signs the last EU treaty, the Treaty of Berlin the UK which has tenaciously clung on to its currency, despite being the only country in the EU to have done so, will be hard pressed to continue retaining the Pound. All members of the European Union have had to sacrifice all these aspects of their sovereignty to be admitted into this New World Order.

The New World Order is a misnomer. It cannot be a new WORLD order as I stated earlier as Nationalism and Globalism are the antithesis of each other. Countries like Japan, China, India and Pakistan are fiercely nationalistic. They would never sacrifice their borders, currency, sovereignty and markets to an elitist group of European and American globalists and industrialists.

No, this scenario is being played out in Europe only. It will become a one party, one government, one currency, no border, race-less society. It is not by coincidence that all countries that are part of the European Union are beset with tremendous social problems. Forced cultural diversity was never going to work, but they are determined by draconian legislation to force it to work, if not the New World Order will not see the light of day.

In time it will become an authoritarian oligarchy heading a full blown dictatorship, but this new type of dictatorship will be one the world has never seen before. It will only encompass the land mass of Europe. It will not be run by be-meddled blacks in Generals and Field Marshall uniforms but smooth talking Moguls and industrial Magnates in silk suits.

Note by Green Arrow

Over on the forum, Albion responds to a question about the North American Alliance.


5 comments:

Unilateralist said...

Would anyone mind explaining why why nationalism - including excluding individuals as well as cooperations from entering our country - is the only way to face down globalisation?

I'm inclined to think than universal action across the world would be more effective - a union of all those oppressed by globalism. Why struggle alone when we can join other nations and fight as one?

Anonymous said...

"...why nationalism? ...Why struggle alone when we can join other nations and fight as one?"

Because rather than "fighting as one" for all our interests, we'll more likely be manipulated into a rival globalism, which benefits a faceless bureaucracy.

Globalism arises when when no effective opposition exists and faceless unaccountable bureaucrats at the top ensure that all power accrues to themselves. Why no opposition? Because we are all isolated and out of touch with one another. There is no loyalty or trust - the prerequisites for collective action (unless it is imposed and maintained by force). Where is the strongest loyalty and trust to be found? - In the family and extended family. Nation and race is none other than extended family.

A nationalism responsive to and driven by the basic, small, local community, (which nurtures loyaly and trust), is the safest and surest defence against tyranny. Of course nationalism can be misused (both Stalin and Hitler misused it), but it must be tied to the local community and not imposed from above. The Nationalist state reflects the nation, not an alien ideology such as Fascism or Communism. Against an alliance of such Nationalist states, globalism and globalist ideologies would stand no chance.

Keith_SA

Anonymous said...

I agree with the views expressed about the dangers of globalism. However, it is not true to say that Britain is the only EU country to retain its currency. There may be others, but there are certainly two - both Denmark and Sweden have kept the Danish and Swedish Krone respectively.

Anonymous said...

Supperb GA, your'e blog is truly an education, yes you are right countries like Japan, China, India, and Pakinstan are fiercly nationalist, so it isn't a NWO as such, i can't see how the Middle East will comply either to a NWO either, i hope the recession halts the progress of the EUSSR. Nationalist parties are on the rise all over Europe because the European's don't want to be part of a Federal Europe, that was probably one of the reasons behind Geerts barr from Britain because this Dhimmi Government knew it would give the BNP a boost. Your'e wise words are encouraging GA. politicalMIZZ

Bert Rustle said...

Comrades: a Lanternist's Account of the Tolpuddle Martyrs and What Became of Them

Wednesday 18 February
11:00pm - 2:45am
Film4

... this epic tribute to those pioneer trade unionists, the Tolpuddle Martyrs. Although set in Dorset in the 1830s, the story of the farm labourers who were deported to Australia for protesting against their harsh conditions and meagre wages had a contemporary resonance as, 150 years later, the Thatcher government sought to break union power. However, while Douglas is keen to highlight the continued existence of exploitation and social hypocrisy, his unforced realism and the superb performances keep it rooted in its period.