Skip to comments.Celebrating the 10th anniversary of the anti-globalization movement collapse
Posted on 06/09/2011 1:13:28 PM PDT by WesternCulture
In the city of Gothenburg, Sweden (where I happen to live), a combined EU-summit (which proved to be of major importance as it, among other things, resulted in the union expanding eastwards into former Soviet territory) and US presidential visit to Europe back in 2001 lead to street riots and massive vandalism.
This outburst of mindless Socialist violence was organized by people claiming to "counteract globalization".
Since then, no one has heard much from this silly movement, even though so called resistence to global trade, exchange, development and investments for some reason lives on.
However, lately, the pro-Capitalist Swedish think tank of Timbro have been celebrating the tenth anniversary of this last outburst of ridiculous behavior originating from the least of political movements across the Globe.
These scum (not Timbro, the rioters) have been trying to hinder similar international events later on, but have not come close to succes even in areas of like smashing windows of shops to any extent.
One good example of their inability to disturb the process of building Capitalism and true Democracy was their failure back in Strasbourg in relation to the G20-/NATO-/EU- summit of 2009.
I happened to be travelling through the proud historical capital of Alsace, France, on the first day of it all and could witness how effective the police forces were. (I didn't pay Alsace a visit because of that international meeting though - my dear mother and I were on our way to a holiday in La belle Alsace on a glorious wine, food and art holiday!).
Back to vodka- & Volvoland.
The riots in Gothenburg ten years ago resulted in three things:
1. Smashed windows of bank offices, restaurants and shops (that were fixed the day after).
2. A rioter shot down by police forces after having been throwing stones for a minute or so, targeting an unconscious police officer knocked down to the ground by comrades of this hooligan.
3. Leftists from all over Scandinavia and elsewhere expressing attitudes like "Never again shall I call myself a Socialist, I feel so ashamed". (If the things Stalin and Mao did not make you think, maybe you'll begin to do so when your own family and friends get bombarded by cobblestone just because of wishing to enjoy a little of sunshine at an "evil" capitalist café establishment run by self supporting people working their *sses off 24-7 earning 50% of a Swedish assembly line worker.)
Is Socialism becoming stupider?
I fear it is, but the positive aspect of this is that Socialism, in many corners of the Globe, actually is losing support from the masses as more and more people are receiving proper education.
In Sweden, where I live, a third of the population between 25 and 65 have university education.
We Scandinavians are fortunate enough to being able to travel anywhere in the World. By doing so, we also are able to compare the benefits of Capitalism to the horrors of totalitarianism, oppression, censorship, injustice, Socialism, Chavezism and Obamaism.
Sweden and more or less all of Europe still is a place where political correctness rears its ugly head daily, but in many respects the northern part of Europe (excluding UK and Ireland perhaps) are in fact developing in the right direction. The economy is on track and Multiculturalism is met with resistance.
Obama might be popular in the US and elsewhere today because of having got rid of (the person of) Osama Bin Ladin, but sooner of later I'm sure Americans will get tired of his Socialist experiments just like USA got tired of Carter and the populations of Greece, Spain, France and Italy one day probably will realize there is no government on Earth that could support a people who do not wish to support themselves.
The road to prosperity and true independence lays open to any nation willing to enter that path.
Please view the Timbro clip linked to below dealing with the issue of what globalization and Capitalism have done to fight mass poverty.
In defense of Capitalism:
That’s a bad thing?
too many double negatives there.
what exactly are you talking about?
Hej hej. Timbro clip? Very good to get a genuine local perspective on this. Britain’s Thatcher once said something like, ‘the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money’, because to the uninitiated (like the students much of socialism is aimed at) it all sounds like a grand idea, as long as it’s not independently thought about too much.
I think in Britain, Ireland, and now here in America, that point has been reached. Other people’s money isn’t really available anymore, even if it seems to be for a little while longer. The current White House resident lacks the base now that elected him only a couple of years ago, and which enjoyed the free beer and parties that immediately followed it. Even a generic Republican candidate has been projected as winning here in 2012.
Thats a bad thing?”
- My opinion is this:
Globalization/Globalism in the sense of a World government, like UN governing the World is not a good solution.
Likewise, I oppose ideas like Multiculturalism as long as it means patriotism being something evil and Muslim invasion of Europe being something benign. Europe will definitely not profit from even more Islam invaders.
On the other hand, global trade, cultural exchange and competition between countries is benign as long as it is fair and characterized by mutual respect.
But is a nation like China acting like a good friend towards the rest of the World? This is highly discussable, but without a doubt, the MAJOR reason why over a billion of people in India, China, Africa and elsewhere lately have been lifted out of poverty is Capitalism and Globalization.
Socialism leads nowhere - and that is the bottom line in my article above. Increased global trade and the expansion of Capitalism is the best cure for World poverty.
Among the mouth-breathing leftist slugs in this country, he's popular because he's perceived as the guy that got rid of - not so much Bin Laden, but that much more evil villian - George W. Bush.
- A classic.
Earlier today, I was listening to a radio program featuring an interview with a so called “expert” giving her analysis of the Greek economic disaster.
I reacted to a certain expression of hers going “The government of Greece is close to bankruptcy” by wondering “isn't it really the people of Greece that are in this situation?”. Governments come and go, it is nations that live on and have to face the bitter realities of history.
The problem in many parts of the World is people don't wish to accept these harsh realities.
In the end, there are no scapegoats. It is up to the people to decide in what manner they wish their land to be run.
USA truly is a great nation in the sense its constitution is written in that spirit and expresses such an insight. But America perhaps has a lot to learn when it comes to national budget discipline from countries like Denmark and Switzerland etc - just like all of us Europeans should visit Free Republic and learn more of solid resistance to stupid politicians, government officials and Socialists a bit more often!
I’ve no support for socialism.
I’ve no support for globalism either.
I’ll go so far and state I’m becoming an unabashed pro-America protectionist.
In my opinion, we’ve already exhausted every other solution.
“I reacted to a certain expression of hers going The government of Greece is close to bankruptcy by wondering isn’t it really the people of Greece that are in this situation?. Governments come and go, it is nations that live on and have to face the bitter realities of history.”
That’s a good point. I think part of the anarcho-communist Greek rioters’ popularity there is a perversion of the responsibility that debt puts on the nation - ‘since everyone’s responsible for the national debt, no one is’. The anti-globalist crowd would have been in line with Irish tax-hypocrite Bono (Paul Hewson of U2) calling for canceling the national debts of nations in places like Africa, to some success - but when European countries incur the same kinds of debts? Reality is a hard anvil for hypocrisy.
“In the end, there are no scapegoats. It is up to the people to decide in what manner they wish their land to be run.”
True. We put the fox in charge of the hen-house. So who do we have to blame but ourselves? Another English expression: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
The left here loves pointing out that the national debt began its enormous growth under Reagan, and it hurts to hear, because it’s mostly right. I wish he had retained his capability long enough after his time in office, because he was aware of this risk in out-spending the Soviets, but his influence faded too quickly because of his incapacity. We have people here calling for fiscal responsibility even the Swiss would be proud of, but as you mentioned above, it’s up to us who to listen to, who to put into office.
Maybe you could have Delaware back for a while if we continue to be stuck with Joe Biden, if we don’t pull out of this and start acting soon again like we have responsibility for the resources we still do have, and what we do with them.
In my opinion, weve already exhausted every other solution.”
- I respect the way you view things, but if America was successful in selling her products worldwide some decades ago (and still is in many branches of trade today) and leading the World economy (something USA still does in many important areas), who is justified in saying it could not be done again?
Germany recently was crushed, annihilated and massacred beyond belief by the Allied forces last century. Today, it is the leading exporter of the World together with China.
My Sweden recently was close to financial collapse because of Socialism and irresponsible, incompetent governments ruining the country from around 1970-1990.
Today, Swedish GDP growth levels are at an “Asian” level - around 7% - taxes are lowered year by year while national debt is shrinking substantially at the same time.
The United States of America, like all nations, disposes of unique qualities. I'm convinced you could make use of them on the global business scene to a greater extent than you presently are doing today.
Let's do business!
Globalization and internationalism are destructive follies. This is because of the good value found in nationalism and economic regionalism.
A principle of globalism is that someone has calculated that a product they want to sell locally can be made cheaper elsewhere, then imported back for sale. In the short term, this makes them more money, and saves money locally because the product is cheaper. However, in the mid-term, it hurts local production, and in the long term, impoverishes those who bought bargains earlier.
It is far better to try and produce locally with better efficiency, to keep the price down. And this is the principal of economic regionalism. If you can produce something in your region, it is better to do so there than from some other region.
Wanting to help those in other regions, while charitable, should not be done by starving your family.
Internationalists deplore the very idea of nations. They imagine them as arbitrary and capricious, prejudiced and unfair, and counterproductive to trade and prosperity. They are mistaken in this notion.
Nations evolved for very good reasons, and they are both enlarged and limited by these reasons. The people within are justifiably patriotic, because they have a reason to appreciate their country and countrymen.
Internationalists blame nations for war, inequality, and poverty. They seek to strip away national pride and uniqueness, and substitute gray mediocrity and proletarian anonymity in its place. Their ideal is reducing humanity to a herd of sheep. Life as meaningless and empty.
- J K Galbraith, one of the prime Keynesian economists of all times (guess you know him), claimed Reagan actually implemented Keynisian ideas, under-balancing the national budget and stimulating national projects in order to (among other things) create jobs and consumer demand.
He sure had a point.
Reagan is often seen as a right wing politician, but his methods could, from certain angles, well be criticized for echoing big government Socialist solutions of the past that proved inadequate, even disastrous in the 1970s (- according to Keynes, such a phenomena as stagflation was more or less out ruled by the inner laws governing macro economy, yet it struck the Western World hard, without any trace of mercy, during that period).
Still, I would say Reagan did the right thing.
There is a cost to the things the Western World achieved during his days in power and as a European, I feel the average American tax payer has paid a higher price which ever way you look at it than we have.
We Europeans ought to express our gratitude towards America more often.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we are completely ignorant or passive.
We participate in the WOT and learn about the World Wars in school. Europeans who bother to reflect upon recent World history are very aware of the role America has played, but unfortunately, it seems like many Europeans, especially politicians, don't wish to acknowledge what America really has meant to Europe.
Sweden is a good example.
I was born in 1969. Through all my life I've been hearing about how the Social Democratic Party laid ground to our prosperity. BS.
If Hitler, alternatively, Stalin never had got stopped, Sweden today probably would be just another feeder of iron ore and lumber to a neighboring, monstrous, totalitarian superpower.
More Europeans than Americans might have lost their lives in WWII, yes, but that havoc was something of our own creation and you aided us overcoming it, not only out your own interests but also out of heart and a well developed sense of being able of distinguishing between “right” and “wrong”.
That certain ability is something large parts of Humanity seem to lack.
Why must it be so hard?
The same goes for critical judgment and plain common sense in the area of economics.
No nation could ever hope to prosper without disposing of a productive population supporting a stable government in its turn promoting a sound business life.
Again, why must it be so hard?
What Reagan did might have been costly and it might not have been as much an expression of classic Conservative teachings as we wish to portray it, but it was a brave and moral action, one that paved way for the liberation of millions as well as Western economic expansion.
We are only halfway through.
After having lived for (nearly) 42 years, seeing good as well as evil in life and having read much of which is worth reading, I have arrived at this belief:
The World never will become perfect, but evil always can be challenged and will get defeated as long as there are free men owning untamed heart yearning for liberty, justice and rule of law.
It's up to us to build Civilization.
How hard can it be?
Salutations from Vikings, Romans and the Ancient Greeks!
If the North Koreans were exposed to what we have here in the West for one day of their miserable lives, they wouldn't wish to return back to eating rice unfit for fodder in the South Korean agricultural sector for a minute.
Globalization does not mean we Westerners should give up on everything we know is right or that we should open up our borders to mass immigration.
It means this: Competition.
It's time to see who's who.
I don't hesitate nor apologize for being a Lutheran Swede.
Instead, I welcome anyone, on a global scale, who would like to confront my Western notions of liberty, equality and freedom of thought.
If you challenge Vikings, you are in for severe sh*t:) Just have a look at were Russia, a nation which so “bravely” challenged Sweden in military terms throughout the ages finds itself today. We broke the backbone of their empire 300 years ago. Then, they conquered Finland in 1809. Finland ridiculed Stalin in WWII. Stalin and Hitler tore each other apart. Russia gained nothing while Sweden and Finland (as well as the rest of the Nordic countries) today belong to the most prosperous on Earth.
Behind these Nordic success stories lies a culture of wishing to encounter “the bull”, whatever the cost might be.
One of the greatest Western spiritual leaders ever, Ronald Reagan, wasn't afraid of confronting evil - or expressing how he felt about it.
Before explaining to the American public what had been accomplished after having visited Berlin while it still was a city divided by a gray, inhuman wall and having had to face accusations from American journalists, politicians and debaters for not “achieving” anything during his encounter with the leaders of Communist Eastern Europe, Ronald Reagan quoted a certain poem;
“Bullfight critics ranked in rows
Crowd the enormous Plaza full;
But he's the only one who knows
And he's the man who fights the bull.”
Then he went on explaining to America and the World what really had been “accomplished” during that summit:
He had told Gorbachev to “tear down that wall”.
At that particular moment of World history, Reagan did not launch a cunning, sophisticated idea of how to proceed with diplomatic nonsense between nations, he spoke from a billion of hearts and laid down the bull.
To me, that is being a true globalist.
That sort of engagement in global affairs is necessary if the West is to survive.
We must honor our heritage and foster our offspring in the belief that Christianity, Enlightenment and Classical Education actually mean something.
If necessary, we must die for what is true and just, because surrendering to lies and evil is opposite to everything we are.
Opposite to our lives.
A couple of things that I've taken away from thinking about him, and from other people's recollections: that he once said something about being an actor when someone pointed out how unusual it was to have someone with that earlier career become president - he couldn't imagine how anyone could do the job without having been an actor; and also something about his past as leader of the Screen Actor's Guild, a union that's still around today, and which was suffering through a communist takeover attempt at the time. You'll see a couple of people on here use something he said about that as their tagline: "I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood". Reagan also talked about how he had to carry a gun, and that a turning point was when communists began threatening to throw acid in his face. He used to be a Democrat, but became more and more conservative as he was confronted by what the left was really about. I hope I'm not telling you things you already know in their entirety.
I didn't fully appreciate him when he was around, and I'm sorry for that. I'm about your age, and I was first paying attention to politics during his presidency. It seemed like it was all just a question of a 'good president', like him, versus presidents like Jimmy Carter and downright bad presidents like Bill Clinton. George H.W. Bush was a bit of a quandary.
It was actually this Bush who called Reagan's economic policies 'voodoo economics' and who represented the more mainstream Republicans. In large part because of this, he was on the ticket as Reagan's vice president. As you mentioned, some of Reagan's policies could be called into question from a conservative, small government perspective, but I think he worked with what he was given. He's been described as a 'pragmatic idealist', with reference to his conservative idealism. We'd do well to have someone like that in power here again.
It has sometimes been said that 'the best is the enemy of the good', which is particularly relevant in online, generally anonymous message boards like this one, where sometimes criticisms go off on what are basically flights of fancy. None of the candidates that have been proposed are perfect, though some are favored far more than others. There's often much back-and-forth between various supporters here, which is sometimes difficult to see as really helpful to our ostensible cause. One contender's heretic is another contender's orthodox priest, I guess.
I'm not as familiar with Swedish politics - I begin by imagining that it's somewhat like other European countries, with a moderate Christian conservative party; a moderate democratic left party, one which often carries, or carried, water for socialism as a kind of 'gentleman's communism'; a full-on socialist party that basked in the notoriety; a communist party that was necessarily small and inverse to that in loudness; and on the other end of the spectrum a mixture of right-wing old aristocratic and monarchist support in a not always comfortable relationship with the local people who would be loudly derided by communists as 'fascists', and whom the other parties would avoid, in direct proportion to how similar they were to these rightists, combined with how afraid they were of being also called 'fascist', or worse.
Of the Swedish Social Democrats, I'd heard something disturbing about their wanting to ban satellite dishes, when they first became available, because they didn't trust Swedes to watch programs not approved by the state TV they controlled. I don't know how true this is. But is it something that sounds like them?
Sweden is in many ways lucky geographically. Of the Scandinavian peninsula, the best, or at least most agriculturally useful, land is in Sweden, even if Norway might have some spectacular views, and of course this means that you're close, but somewhat separated from, the European continent, which historically has been more or less one battleground for contention. Also, Finland has the border with Russia, and the scars to prove it (not to mention the distinction of being the only country competing in both Eurovision and the somewhat short-lived communist, eastern bloc version of it).
As much as America has done for Europe, America has gotten the benefits it's requested from Europe, sometimes in not so nice ways. France is kind of implicated in the punchline of jokes here, often deservedly, but, for instance, not every interaction between American troops occupying places like Paris made the papers, here or there, and the French have long memories, even if we don't. Chocolate bars were only a novel currency for so long. And we stayed in Germany so long, that we are in fact still there, last time I checked. I'm sure this has influenced the European view of us, particularly from these two countries, France and Germany, who are at the core of the EU.
We're used to Canada though, which we sometimes joke about as Soviet Canuckistan (from slang term Canuck for a Canadian). When we had to defend ourselves from a possible Soviet strike through the Arctic or across the Pacific, Canada also benefited from these defenses, but seemed to use the money and energy they saved in thinking up ways to characterize us as crazy war-mongers, and the Soviets as horribly misunderstood pacifists.
Such is life.
"Why must it be so hard?"
It doesn't have to be. The structures of civilization have been worked out, in many places, by many peoples, often more than once. You've alluded to it with the Greeks, Romans, Vikings. We all make the choice whether we learn from the past, and we tend to get what we give, all of us. If we ever have pity for people, it should maybe be for those who have consistently preferred fantasy systems, fantasy theories, fantasy perceptions, over what is sometimes an unflattering, and initially hard, reality.
I don't know the etymologies for the Swedish words, but our words for reality and for royalty, are related, since they used to be actually the same word. One of Reagan's most popular movies was one called 'Kings Row' (row is sometimes used like road, like in this instance), which was literal as well as metaphorical.