Thoughts on Globalisation

I’ve been thinking about globalisation. The BBC has a web page about it which defines it:

Globalisation is the process by which the world is becoming increasingly interconnected as a result of massively increased trade and cultural exchange. Globalisation has increased the production of goods and services.

It seems to me that this increasingly globalised world is one in which its inhabitants are also being ‘globalised’ into global uniformity. The globalists are people who think globally rather than locally. They are increasingly people who see themselves citizens of the world rather than citizens of any one country in the world. Many of them spend much of their time jetting around the world between cities which are almost entirely indistinguishable from each other. The world’s political elites, and many of its media and business elites, are almost all globalists, meeting regularly in G8 conferences in one exotic location or other, before meeting up again a few months later in a different one. And at these conferences, they often spend their time discussing global problems – like Global Warming or the Global Obesity Epidemic. The curious importance of Global Warming to them may not lie in any warming that may be taking place, but in the fact that it’s a global problem for globalists like them to address. Because for them the truly important problems are global problems, and everything else is really rather trivial and unimportant.

One might say that the EU ‘project’ is a globalist project, because as its leaders often describe it, it’s all about Europe creating (or rather re-creating) a global presence for itself ‘at the top table’. Equally the UN and the WHO are globalist organisations with global goals. Anything which has “World” in its name is almost certainly a globalist outfit, staffed with globalists.

The smoking bans spreading all over the world are also part of a global project – set out in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. For the globalists see it as their task to remake and re-order the whole world. At some point, when they asked themselves whether their new world was to permit smoking, they very rapidly (and probably unanimously) decided that it should be ‘smoke-free’. They may well have also decided that it should be alcohol-free, meat-free, fat-free, salt-free, and sugar-free as well. All these (and much more) are elements of a new, global culture that they are attempting to create.

I’d like to suggest that the deepest political divisions now opening up in the world are between the globalist political elites and the localists or ‘nativists’ (to use a term recently used by Barack Obama) they govern.

For example, for the globalists, the borders between countries are just obstructions to the free flow of goods and materials and labour, that only hamper trade and reduce profits. There is complete incompatibility between a globalist, citizen-of-the-world mentality and a localist or nativist, nationalist mentality in which people see themselves primarily as citizens of a particular country – like France or Spain. And so the current political issue of the UK referendum on EU membership is one that pits the globalists (the EU and much of the UK political elite) against the localists (the British people who actually live in Britain). A related political issue is the struggle in the EU between globalists like Angela Merkel (who welcomes refugees with open arms) and European localists (who don’t welcome them).

Exactly the same political issues are in play in the current US presidential election, in which Donald Trump has emerged as the localist, nationalist champion of the USA, and to whom the American globalist elites (both Democratic and Republican) are reacting in dismay bordering on panic.

After 20 or 30 years of globalism and globalisation in ascendancy, we may now be beginning to see localism and nativism beginning to push back against against the tide of globalisation.

I’d like to add that globalist thinking is deeply corrosive of any local sensibility. In the globalist view, sovereign states  should simply cease to exist, and their citizens should be re-educated to become globalist world citizens who no more have any love for their country or town than a tourist or conference attendee has for the hotel in which he’s currently staying. The same applies to all local customs, faiths, beliefs, cultures, and languages. And if more or less everything  – from religious faith to nationalism and even dietary habits – is now under intensive cultural attack, this attack is primarily coming from globalists who have engaged in a number of global social engineering projects, without actually asking any of the native ‘little people’ whether they want them.

I’d also like to suggest that the bland, non-smoking, globalist ‘culture’ is an entirely empty and artificial construct, in which an attempt is being  made to make people love the planet (why not the solar system, in which I’m just as interested?) more than they love their native countries or their home towns or their friends or families. If nothing else, it’s all the product of committee meetings. And I’d like to suggest that the systematic destruction  of local cultures in favour of a one-size-fits-all, global monoculture brings with it the death of all culture, because culture is always the product of particular places at particular times, whether these be Greek philosophy or Roman engineering or the blues music of the American South.

I could add more. I’m sure that much more could be said. But that will have to do for now.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Thoughts on Globalisation

  1. waltc says:

    Amen. But it’s not all and only top-down government elites that are trying to make this happen, though they certainly are; It’s also corporate (most corporations are global and feel no attachment to the country of their birth) and organic. At least 20 yrs ago, I began to notice the homogenization of the American landscape. Suddenly, every downtown looked alike, from Virginia to Arizona. The Walmart, Gap, Home Depot, McDonalds, etc might be adobe in New Mexico and red brick in Vermont, but there they were, ubiquitous, unavoidable. As was the McDonalds on the left bank in Paris and (wherever it is) in Rome.

    In a way, that’s organic. These co’s grow and spread because they can afford to buy out and build and, then, to an extent, because, as giants, they can buy in quantity and therefore buy the mass-produced stuff a lot cheaper and sell it a lot cheaper. And the people in Delaware and Oregon and Wherever want and need cheaper more than they want and need quaint, local, hand-crafted and personal. And so we collaborate and help to create our own boring and indistinguishable environment. And obsolesce the craftsmen and, in fact, the individual with his individual talents and his individual taste. Replaced by a robot at an 800 number somewhere in Bangladesh.

    I too could go on about the “giant sucking sound” of exported jobs and the mass production of ideas but it’s 3AM and I’m aware that I’m randomly rambling as is.

    • petesquiz says:

      In terms of globalisation, the multinational corporations are way ahead of the political establishments who have been trying to catch up for many years. The global businesses have become, somewhat, immune to local rules – if the local government in a smallish country doesn’t like the way a corporation does business that corporation can always threaten to withdraw because it is only a small part of their business. So the corporations tend to get their own way.

      The role the EU plays in trying to regulate this is one of the few good things about the EU. The world could probably do with having some mechanism for restraining the excesses of global corporations. Unfortunately, the political classes see this as an opportunity to exert global control on all of us, whilst failing to actually control the multinational corporations! (It seems to me that all of the ‘anti’ groups are all in the pay of one global corporate faction to destroy another that they can’t control! e.g Phamaceuticals vs Tobacco or Green/Environmental vs Fossil Fuels)

      Ultimately, we all lose out as the politicians exert more control over us it will produce (as Frank says) a one-size-fits-all culture which is just what the global corporations want as well.

  2. Rose says:

    Car smoking ban farce as Met nets no prosecutions
    07 Mar 2016

    “Not a single fine since the law came into force five months ago.

    “Police failure to take action is a blow to ministers who brought in the law under strict guidance from health experts who said it was necessary to protect children from the harm caused by adults smoking in cars. ”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/12185533/Car-smoking-ban-farce-as-Met-nets-no-prosecutions.html

    After all the fuss they made,you would have expected that ASH and it’s politicians would be delighted that everyone appears to be obeying their trivial law.
    It was the principle of being told what to do on their own private property that made people so angry at the time.

    • junican says:

      You’ve hit the nail on the head, Rose. Why should there be any prosecutions if everyone is obeying the law? Where is the ‘massive success’ claim?
      That is how ASH ET AL are beginning to trip themselves up. Where is their evidence that anyone is smoking in a car with children present these days?

    • smokingscot says:

      @ Rose

      Actually they’ve admitted it. So their solution is contained in this pdf.

      http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_963.pdf

      “The case for extending existing legislation on smoking in cars carrying children to all cars should also be considered, given the impact of smoking in cars on the health of vulnerable adults, the road safety risks, and the likely challenges of enforcing a law limited to cars carrying children.”

      So it’s to protect vulnerable adults and road safety now. How thoughtful.

      There’s lots more and I sort of gave it my usual considered, acerbic, scarification.

      http://www.mullingscot.com/what-ash-want.html

      • waltc says:

        What about protecting upholstery? Why should an innocent bolt of nylon have to take the chance that it might be assigned to the car seat of a smoker? And what about a vulnerable child, adult, Labrador Retriever or bag of groceries forced to sit on that eternally toxic seat even months or years after the smoke has cleared the air and will absorb the carcinogens directly through their assholes (or plastic bottoms)? Surely we can’t be too careful, can we?

      • nisakiman says:

        Good post, SS. Well researched and very telling. Tobacco Control are really beyond the pale. The funds they command worldwide are quite staggering. You point out the meningitis juxtaposition, but when looked at globally, the amount of money that TC piss up against the wall could have far reaching effects in many third-world nations.

        It’s a sin of the first order that these charlatans use that money to line their pockets.

      • Cecily Collingridge says:

        The lack of prosecutions does not mean the car ban isn’t being flouted. The police had no intention of enforcing it to begin with.

        At the time the law was about to come into effect, Jayne Willetts of the Police Federation said: “Making this an offence that officers are expected to enforce just creates an unnecessary extra layer of bureaucracy.

        “With resources being cut, no force can prioritise their hard-pressed police officers’ time for this.

        “It brings us back to the whole problem of police being ‘everything for everyone’ and, now, health workers.

        “Meanwhile, we are struggling to find resources to stop crimes that have a much more dramatic impact on victims.’”

        • Scot says:

          At the time of the announcement of the UK guinea pig experiment (Scotland natch – 2006), our top Jock cop announced to the Scottish Executive that his officers wouldn’t be wasting their time in any kind of “enforcement” whatsoever…

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    More proof that the antismoking crusade is a globally coordinated movement involving governments at all levels, corporations and false front charities. This totalitarian machine needs to be stopped.

  4. Some French bloke says:

    the deepest political divisions now opening up in the world are between the globalist political elites and the localists or ‘nativists’

    I feel the real problem runs on an even deeper level than is implied by the above dichotomy; dismantling the EU or any other global outfit would only leave us with a set of “smaller cans of worms” — the number and size of the worms would remain unchanged. Some of the cans may turn out marginally better as a result, some significantly worse, but none, IMHO, significantly better.
    That this globalisation business is going more pear-shaped than globe-shaped doesn’t mean there are no global problems that it would be foolhardy or even suicidal to refuse to address, it only illustrates what happens when the influences of vested interests and powerful pressure groups never meet anything more dissuasive than a general apathy, fueled by disinformation on an industrial scale (as exemplified by the engineered success of the never-ending global anti-tobacco hysteria). For instance, active smokers still remain generally apathetic (sure they would not keep on smoking if they had wholly “bought” the propaganda, but a lingering half-belief tells them it is basically justified), while a significant section of ex-smokers have become full-on ANTZ. Which doesn’t mean that no intelligent non-smoker has sussed out what is going on.
    When the charade is *really*, thoroughly, over, social and political upheaval on an unprecedented scale is to be expected, but – considering abstention rates, among other things – no surprise election result at national level can lead to its demise.

    • Frank Davis says:

      what happens when the influences of vested interests and powerful pressure groups never meet anything more dissuasive than a general apathy, fueled by disinformation on an industrial scale

      We’re still living in the Industrial Revolution, which started circa 1700, and never stopped. Its latest accomplishments include satellites and space probes, ubiquitous computers and mobile phones, and last and not least the Internet. The rich moguls these days are to be found in computing and the internet, where once they were found in steel and oil. Bloomberg and Gates and co form a new oligarchy, or perhaps additions to an old industrial oligarchy. And they are all as antismoking as Henry Ford before them. It seems to come with the job description. As also does a globalist outlook on the world.

      In fact, the Industrial Revolution very arguably began centuries earlier, when the Portuguese started building caravels and sailing all over the world, triggering a European global land grab, as first Portugal and then Spain and finally nearly every other European state set out to carve out their own empires. The resulting trade in gold and silver and sugar and tobacco and spices vastly enriched the imperial seats in Europe – something that manifested itself not least in the form of vast and sumptuous palaces in Spain and France. But this vast wealth sowed the seeds of its own destruction, as first in the English Civil War and then the French Revolution, these sumptuously rich aristocracies were overthrown by popular revolts. The grand finale began in 1914 when the fleets and armies that had sailed and marched all over the globe collided with each other in a colossal conflict that devastated Europe and left all its participants broken and bankrupt.

      It might be argued that Socialism and Communism were both egalitarian reactions against this past luxurious European imperial era. Both Russian and Chinese communists overthrew their imperial dynasties as decisively as Europe dismantled its imperial order. There are now no emperors anywhere. And if communism has lost much of its force, it is perhaps because once the imperial yoke had been overthrown, there was little else to fight against.

      We are currently living in a post-imperial Europe in which an attempt is being made to re-create – guess what – a new empire: a single European empire that extends from the Atlantic ocean to the Black sea (and perhaps beyond). That is essentially what the current European ‘project’ is all about. We have no empire, but we are all still imperialists.

      The European navigators were the first globalists, whether they came from Portugal or Spain or England or Holland. The localists were the English puritans and the French sans culottes and the Russian Bolsheviks who had not benefited from empire like their aristocratic overlords. The same is true in our shaky post-imperial European empire, from which a new European aristocracy, resident in the imperial capital city of Brussels, has benefited largely at the expense of the local native populations

    • Frank Davis says:

      Continuing the above theme, when the European empires imploded between 1914 and 1945, they were immediately absorbed by an American empire whose military power extended over both the New World and the Old (European) World and much more (e.g. Japan). And the imperial rivalries continued with the Russian (aka Soviet) and Chinese (People’s Republic) empires just as before. And the wars are now fought on the borders of the empire, in Korea, Vietnam, and more recently Afghanistan and Iraq. The American empire is the old European imperial system under benign new management, but without governors, viceroys, and all the rest of the imperial order.

  5. Some French bloke says:

    On the globalist vs. localist theme: the following may have been written in 1939, but it’s certainly as stimulating as ever to reflect on this passage, taken from pp. 44 and 45 of Henry Miller’s “The Colossus of Maroussi”:

    “One would have to be a toad, a snail, or a slug not to be affected by this radiance which emanates from the human heart as well as from the heavens. Wherever you go in Greece the people open up like flowers. Cynical-minded people will say that it is because Greece is a small country, because they are eager to have visitors, and so on. I don’t believe it. I have been in a few small countries which left quite the opposite impression upon me. And as I said once before, Greece is not a small country—it is impressively vast. No country I have visited has given me such a sense of grandeur. Size is not created by mileage always. In a way which it is beyond the comprehension of my fellow countrymen to grasp, Greece is infinitely larger than the United States. Greece could swallow both the United States and Europe. Greece is a little like China or India. It is a world of illusion. And the Greek himself is everywhere, like the Chinaman again. What is Greek in him does not rub off with his ceaseless voyaging. He does not leave little particles of himself distributed all over the lot, as the American does, for example. When the Greek leaves a place he leaves a hole. The American leaves behind him a litter of junk—shoe laces, collar buttons, razor blades, petroleum tins, vaseline jars and so on. The Chinese coolies, as I also said somewhere before, actually feed on the garbage which the Americans throw overboard when they are in port. The poor Greek walks around in the remnants dropped by rich visitors from all parts of the world; he is a true internationalist, disdaining nothing which is made by human hands, not even the leaky tubs discarded by the British mercantile marine. To try to instill in him a sense of national pride, to ask him to become chauvinistic about national industries, fisheries and so forth seems to be a piece of absurdity. What difference does it make to a man whose heart is filled with light whose clothes he is wearing or whether these clothes be of the latest model or pre-war in design? I have seen Greeks walking about in the most ludicrous and abominable garb imaginable—straw hat from the year 1900, billiard cloth vest with pearl buttons, discarded British ulster, pale dungarees, busted umbrella, hair shirt, bare feet, hair matted and twisted—a make-up which even a Kaffir would disdain, and yet, I say it sincerely and deliberately, I would a thousand times rather be that poor Greek than an American millionaire.”

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s