|
The cacophony of globalism and globalization is becoming more confusing by the day. Both globalism and globalization are all too often defined in strictly economic terms as if the world economy as such defined globalism. But other forms are equally important. There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic, military, environmental, and social. Within these dimensions, if you are a person who believes in limited government, and that government is done better the closer it is to your home & social environment, then globalism just adds another layer of people who want to tell you how to live. Edward Ring offers us here an interesting perspective on this subject. |
If globalization is the economic integration of nations in a world where technology has all but erased once formidable barriers to long-distance communication and transportation, globalism is its cultural and ideological counterpart. In theory, the same dynamics might apply. As economies merge, cultures merge as well.
As we move deeper into the 21st century, a global melting pot blends everything and everyone together. A planetary civilization marches united into a future of peaceful coexistence, ecological restoration, human life extension, and galactic exploration.
If people were saints and reality utopia, this idealized version of globalism could be embraced without reservation. Globalism, like communism or neoliberalism, is beautiful when described in these abstract terms and not rooted in the real world. And there is a legitimate moral imperative for us to try to come to terms with what civilization will look like as technology continues to shrink the world. Technology makes globalization, in some ways, inevitable. But what ideology regulates globalization is a choice.
This is the lens through which to view the identity struggle that currently grips the United States and other Western nations. It clarifies what is at stake and points to the consequences of getting it wrong. Unfortunately, for reasons that are not hard to explain, people are not saints and reality is not utopian. Thus, the institutions currently defining policy in America are doing almost everything wrong. Their malpractice is pushing America into decline at the same time as it is alienating allies and empowering malevolent regimes. It must be corrected.
In two fundamental areas, the consensus of America’s elites, relentlessly escalated in policies imposed both by unelected administrators and elected officials, is horrifically wrong.
- Hits: 975
In 1831, a French aristocrat named Alexis de Tocqueville was commissioned to travel to the United States of America and report back on its prison systems. Once he arrived, however, Tocqueville became broadly fascinated with the upstart nation. Spending nine months in the U.S., Tocqueville richly observed the American people and America’s political system. His observations were published in two volumes, in 1835 and 1840, titled Democracy in America. Many things intrigued Tocqueville about America, and one of those was the practice of the Catholic faith in early America. Tocqueville’s insights ring true even today.
Muchas universidades están ejerciendo una notable presión ideológica de tendencias socialistas sobre su profesorado en Estados Unidos y en otras partes, hasta el punto de bloquear la carrera académica de muchos que se atreven a expresar ideas distintas de las que son consideradas "políticamente correctas" y también sobre los estudiantes amenazados con reprobar por manifestar posturas críticas al discurso oficial.
El nivel de consagración y de concentración del poder en manos de Xi solo es comparable con el que tuvo el Gran Timonel Mao Zedong durante el período del «culto a la personalidad» o el de los grandes emperadores de la milenaria Historia china. Razón por la cual el calificativo de emperador no es exagerado ni peyorativo en el caso del camarada Xi.
general del Comité Central del Partido Comunista chino desde el 15 de noviembre de 2012, presidente de la Comisión Militar Central desde el 15 de marzo de 2013 y presidente de la República Popular de China desde 2013.
A June 8 article in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that the communist regimes of Cuba and China had reached an agreement on a cash-for-spying scheme. Beijing would pay Havana billions to install a state-of-the-art electronic eavesdropping facility on the island. The WSJ credited the information to an intelligence source. CNN also claimed to validate the WSJ report from its intelligence information pool. Both media outlets imply that the Cuban dictatorship has granted China permission to do this. Would this be a novel occurrence?
overarching symbiotic affair with the USSR. The fall of Soviet communism and the subsequent 8-year hiatus of the short-lived Russian democratic experiment (1991-1999) which died with Vladimir Putin’s post-Soviet authoritarianism, brought Castroism closer to Mao’s heirs. Excluding Venezuela, which is a virtual Cuban colony, China has become Cuba’s most important trading partner. The bond has not just been commercial.