What happened to globalization? – Global anarchy and militarization

globalizationFrom Raoul Pal*, “Globalization Is Turning In On Itself And It Is Each Man For Himself,” Zero Hedge, Nov. 2, 2014:

*Raoul Pal is the author of the Global Macro Investor and creator Of RealVision(financial)TV.

[…] at the margin, the world’s geopolitics is changing. Gone are the fluffy days of Putin shaking hands with George Bush agreeing to keep the world supplied with oil, gone are the days of China helping US firms make profits using their cheap labour, gone are open-for-business days of Europe, gone is the Japanese military neutrality, gone are the Saudis as an unshakeable ally, gone is Israel also a steadfast ally, etc.

What is happening is something deeply concerning. Globalisation is turning in on itself and it is each man for himself.

This was always going to be the outcome of an imbalanced, debt-drowning world. Everyone wants a cheap currency and since that doesn’t work then everyone wants to find some way to get the upper hand on their own terms.

I have had recent conversations with a long-term strategy group within the Pentagon about economic threats to the US and the risk of global collapse, and the potential for it to turn into a military outcome. It seems that the Department of Defence’s deep thinkers are mulling over the kinds of issues we all are – is the inevitable outcome a military one?

They don’t know either but they give it a probability and thus need to understand it and plan for it.

My issue has been for a long time that the true threat to the world is not the Muslim nations we so like to beat as a scapegoat (gotta have an enemy, right?) but China.

The Pentagon’s think-tank also agrees.

If China has an economic collapse, which again is a high probability event, then what are the odds of massive civil unrest? And would a military conflict put the people back on the side of the government (i.e. how the Nazis came to power)?

I agree. I think this is the risk somewhere down the road.

I also, along with this defence strategy group, think that there is a risk that the Western powers meddling in the time of bad economic crisis will form strong alliances between let’s say Russia and China.

In direct opposition to the [Obama] government, many people inside the Pentagon are saying, “Please don’t fuck with Russia, they are not threatening us militarily but securing their own borders, we cannot control the outcomes, and most of them are bad, probably not militarily but economically, and economic instability causes outcomes we can’t forecast – even seizing the assets of powerful Russians has unintended consequences”.

[…] Everyone is also looking carefully at the risk of Catalonia [Spain] now having a referendum that is deemed to be unconstitutional, and then trying to enforce it in the streets.

Europe is trying to hold itself together yet the member states themselves are in danger of splitting up. How does that manifest itself? What are the risks? We just don’t know.

I think the trend of each nation for itself, a move away from globalisation either in terms of global trade, or in terms of global finance and a move towards military build-ups, is well under way. I don’t know how far it will go but I do know that I am uncomfortable with it, and that it poses some considerable risk to the stable economic system that so many have enjoyed since the late 1980s.


7 responses to “What happened to globalization? – Global anarchy and militarization

  1. The promoters of the NWO are lead by a spiritual force that want the destruction of man, and that force has convinced the NWO promoters to create a chaos out of which the “elite” expect to build an earthly paradise for themselves. Earthly reason cannot explain what will be taking place if they continue, it will be madness. And living in a fog of lies is part of the plan.


  2. From CODA’s Jay Gaskill, Esq. (via email):

    The crisis exposes the hazards of indiscriminate globalization. The pertinent analogy – to me – the the incautious mixing of incompatible species, like the ecological chaos when invasive critters spill out of a ship’s hold in a foreign port. We cannot afford to be isolationists, but the boundaries between nations are like the boundaries between ecosystems or even cells in an organism.

    They sustain life.

    Each area has its own pace. China would have a better chance to contribute to the development of civilization as several sovereign regions. Honk Kong needs to achieve independence. Taiwan needs to retain independence. Shanghai Provence should be a country.


    • Part Two of Jay Gaskill’s commentary:

      For a host of reasons, philosophical, historical and situational, the USA is the last best hope of western civilization. The new paradigm is the unique American context: We are living in a post-Darwinian phase of evolution of the human condition, one in which natural selection is trumped and greatly accelerated by conscious selection. This is the meta-context that frames the ongoing war between competing models of civilization. The long-term survival prize will go to those civilizations (or nodes of civilization) that can effectively optimize their own survival, endurance and the efflorescence of creativity. These are the civilizations that honor creativity and creative freedom; that respect the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by their members by actually building and maintaining institutions that work for their protection. These civilizations are characterized by adaptive creativity and the resolve to defend their members against all predators, internal and external, natural or biological, human or inhuman. At his fragile time is history, The USA is virtually the only creative-adaptive model of modern civilization that still has the capacity to defend itself and, in selected instances, to defend key elements of modern civilization that are at threat elsewhere.


  3. The globalization program has been promoted in a strong way from the first part of the last century, and the Rockefeller interests have been part of it in ways very destructive to us. Think Rockefeller, see our major problems, petroleum (Standard Oil). and banking (J.P. Morgan/Chase). From the beginning, ongoing deceptions, including the theory of peak oil (because its source was dead dinosaurs!), and holding cartel monopoly power over its availability and price have weakened our country. Tie that with Rockefeller promotion of the League of Nations, then the Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, open door policy with China (for cheap labor), export of our great industrial base with NAFTA/GATT, and replacing the gold standard with the petrodollar, and we have some major causes of our problems. The petrodollar presents the needless possibility of great wars and unhealthy alliances, and its time is coming to an end. Of course, loss of peacetime manufacturing tied with great increase in military spending was followed by an enormous debt burden obvious to anyone not desirous to ignore it or mentally deficient or both. And we dragged China into great military power status working towards destruction of our own country through it all. Whatever it takes to promote a New World Order. There are many obvious things we must do to restore our nation, and getting our industrial base back with well-thought tariffs is an essential part of it. By the way, when that is proposed, panic takes over those promoting the NWO, and we will be fed an abundance of lies. “We are in a global world now!” (We always have been, but until now, we have not taken on a self-destructive Kevorkian economic and political attitude about it.) “Tariffs, protectionism, Smoot-Hawley caused the depression!”) No, the depression started before Smoot-Hawley, and, since when did “protectionism”, protecting our nation and values, sound dirty to anyone but those desiring to destroy them? Just askin’.


  4. Pingback: What happened to globalization? – Global anarchy and militarization | necltr

  5. Whatever “globalization” was understood to mean, it always was a pie-in-the-sky aspiration that inspired good intentions but never found expression in coherent public strategy. This has become increasingly clear under the present administration.

    What has happened is the consequence of timidity, uncertainty, and misdirection on the part of Washington. It inspired “Arab Spring” which has proved to be an unmitigated disaster in terms of American foreign policy. We conspired to remove Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad from power — and opened the path for ISIL, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their cohorts. much to our own and the dismay of everyone else.

    We vacillated in our relationship with Putin, and remained unresponsive in the face of Beijing’s military buildup and attendant threats to our current and potential allies in Asia. We have allowed Moscow and Beijing to enter into security and economic cooperation that threatens peace and economic security. We have provoked Moscow and silently dismissed its readiness to assist us in dealing with ISIL. There is good reason to believe that Putin would have favored improved relations with the Western nations. The fact is that beneath the surface, Russia has long standing grievances with China. Russia has a long and porous border with China along the vast territory of the Russian Far East — territories that China claims as its own — lost in the bad old days of the unequal treaties. There is no reason why Moscow should want to improve China’s military capabilities or its economic prowess. As it has before, at the first opportunity, Beijing can be expected to seek, as Russia’s expense, return of this vast territory to the “Motherland.” Russia has every reason to seek friendship and security from the West. If that is denied it will attempt to secure its own periphery (i.e., Ukraine and Crimea) and neutralize China through friendship postures.

    In the meanwhile China is left free to pressure its neighbors (our real and potential allies). China has announced that its security perimeter extends to Guam and includes all of the South and East China seas — all “lost territories” on Beijing’s irredentist agenda.

    In effect, if globalization was ever understood as an effort to achiever political stability and security in a complex world, the present administration in Washington has done everything calculated to make any of that impossible.


  6. AJG, our differences seem to be based on our opinions of the globalizers motivation I don’t think that it is “pie in the sky,” I think it is “pie in your face.” I hope you are right. I don’t know who said this first, and I hope I have it correct, “They are too stupid to be stupid.” Out of a priviledged class of people who are generally honorable, some sociopathic crazies have come to power.


Leave a Reply

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s