Friday, July 18, 2003

From My Late Reading

I'm going to try to start posting interesting passages from whatever books I'm reading at the moment.

This is from William Appleman Williams's "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy".

"The crucial point, however, is this: the idea that other people ought to copy America contradicts the humanitarian urge to help them and the idea that they have the right to make such key decisions for themselves. In some cases, the American way of doing things simply does not work for other people. In another instance it may be satisfactory, but the other society may prefer to do it in a different way that produces equally good results. But even if the American way is the *only* effective approach, the fact remains that the act of forcing it upon the other society -- and economic and political pressure are forms of force -- violates the idea of self-determination. It also angers the other society and makes it even less apt to accept the American Way on its own merits. Hence it is neither very effective nor very idealistic to try to help other people by insisting that they become carbon copies of the United States."

Ahh, so much for the "moral" argument of the globalistas' forcible exportation of ideology. Indeed, Appleman wrote this in 1959 but its point is similar to Jurgen Habermas's recent admonition that "[i]t is precisely the universalistic core of democracy and human rights that forbids their unilateral realisation at gunpoint." The gist is the same, though Williams reasons in the classic American "gosh, you know" plain-spoken tone, whereas Habermas's humanitarian lecture is in the tone of structured continental gravitas. Both together should be considered not as a left-right combination punch but rather as an uppercut-straight jab attack; the Marquess of Queensbury school with a dose of impromptu streetfighting, and such a pugilism of moral argument makes for a TKO of not only doctrinaire Trotskyite Internationalists, but also, and most importantly, American Ethnocentrists and Imperialists whose cynical use of moral argument ably demonstrates their actual ethical decrepitude.

Also notice how Williams demonstrates that American meddling overseas by nature INSPIRES the forces of reaction. This simple observation of human nature, so true, is carefully denied or perverted by the Imperialists who should know that in any situation an individual or a group comes to resent what is forcibly pushed upon them, merits or demerits of what's being pushed only having an incidental bearing on this factor at best. Independent conversion always results in an honest adherent whereas a coerced conversion does not.

"[...] Most Americans would reply that the answer is trade. But trade is defined as the exchange of goods and services between independent producers dealing with each other in as open a market as it is possible to create. Here is the source of America's troubles in its economic relations with the rest of the world. For in expanding its own economic system throughout much of the world, America has made it very difficult for other nations to retain any economic independence. This is especially true in connection with raw materials."

Put that in your bong and smoke it, IMF-WTO Globalistas. Your "free market" isn't, in fact, free because freedom implies consent, something you've never deigned to consider. And no, consent is not given via coups in Venezuela or bribes in Africa. But globalism IS centralisation; it therefore means for any second or third way to be necessarily destroyed as all centrifugal reactions to unholy centripedal forces MUST be crushed. Globalisation is by nature intolerant of what it cannot assimilate and by nature a devouring maw.