As humanity advances further through the post-industrial revolution phase of history and ever closer to the following paradigm shift which is to surpass it, the question of scale is gaining unprecedented significance. Exponentially, populations rise, resources are consumed, technology is invented and information is disseminated and exchanged into what the social theorist Marshall McLuhan called “The Global Village.” Scales of human interaction continuously grow, as the world gets smaller.
Historically, it began with families and clans and then proceeded to consolidate into villages, city-states, nation-states and finally, a global community. Globalization began with the Age of Exploration in the late 15th Century in its first colonial incarnation, and continues to consolidate the world to this day. To many liberal minded individuals, the idea of being a “citizen of earth” is an attractive one and denotes a sense of unity for fellow humans, surpassing the antiquated and divisive concepts of race and nationality. Indeed it is a matter of common intuition for most idealists to imagine a unified earth eventually, should humanity survive and sufficiently culturally evolve by that point.
In the utopian future world envisaged by Star Trek, earth has united into a single global polity of rational leadership that has eradicated war, hunger and disease. Humanity, free from the throngs of irrationalism and tribalistic instincts, becomes free to explore the galaxy, teeming with life and full of many civilizations with less evolved cultures that provide a stark reminder to the crew of the Enterprise of earth’s divided and irrational past. Each advanced planet in the Star Trek universe are “nations” of unified polities.
This idea of a sufficiently advanced species developing a world government is expressed in much sci-fi and is a simply logical conclusion to the trajectory that began with small family units. Perhaps then, the next scale upwards beyond the unification of earth is the political unification of all life in the universe! And in a sense, is that not beautiful and natural? A world where all wars are civil wars, if there’s to be war at all. John Lennon’s idealistic “Imagine” envisions a world without countries and paints a beautiful utopian image of the “brotherhood of man.” Indeed, given the robust power and influence that identity has upon individuals, if all identified simply as earthlings, would we not all instantly have more in common, promoting greater empathy and tolerance for others in the world? The world will consolidate further to its logical conclusion: it is a matter of dialectical necessity, assuming the continual advancement of human culture and world affairs. The United Nations, Interpol and The Hague courts are proto-developments of this trajectory. All humans will eventually be citizens of earth.
Citizen Earth: The Shadow
This thesis of an idealistic unified planet of global citizens sounds utopian and like a significant advancement from the petty divisions that plague humanity today. It is entirely possible and indeed quite necessary to arrive at a true “end of history.” While we are surely marching towards such a scenario, it is fraught with dangers and pernicious possibilities that we must analyze. With the advancement towards a New World Order, there lies a deep antithesis, and this difference is quite literally the difference between dystopia and utopia in our planet’s future. Globalization has become a dirty word, and for good reason. When those who speak of the vast damages brought upon the world from this system, they are referring to economic globalization. As hyper-capitalism consolidates and grows, manifesting into greater and greater behemoths of industry, the masters of private wealth circumvent the sovereignty and interests nation-states. Globalization has led to “capital flight” in which production free-falls downward to the cheapest labor in the world.
With hyper-capitalism’s amoral stance towards the wellbeing of anything other than quarterly profits for shareholders, the economies of origin, nations of capitalists and their companies are gutted, leading to trade imbalances (and untaxable, hidden, overseas profits) while the people are forced to accept lower and lower wages to compete with their slave-labor counterparts across the world. In essence, national solidarity and the common good are obsolete, facile and naïve ideas that the globalist has no interest in. In this current scenario, the winners are the global capitalists themselves and the losers are everyone else.
Does this have anything to do with the “brotherhood of man” global unity envisaged by the global world ideal? We have been told “bigger is better.” Behemoth multinational corporations, vast environmentally destructive monoculture farming methods, global trade (of mostly useless junk whose demand is fueled by materialism and global consumerist culture) and organizations such as the World Trade Organization comprise the paradigm of globalization today. Tariffs are continuously lowered, factories move to ever cheaper labor, and the large middle classes that defined the great ascent of the prosperous American Empire have been gutted.
Meanwhile, its citizens gradually but surely move into more and more desperately low paying positions in the service sector or unemployment lines, as sovereign debts balloon to unsustainable levels. The Empire, in its twilight chapter right out of the textbook of the fall of all empires, scrapes on desperately through military overextension to entrench its fleeting economic security propped up by the global petrodollar. In Europe, the great experiment of the EU has led to disaster. The EU is a quintessential example of the theoretical consolidation of nations towards a more unified world. However, it was doomed from the start because in its very DNA was the precept of neoliberalism — in other words, hyper-global capitalism. What has this led to? The super rich — big business and big banking — gutting and raping formerly sovereign nations, skyrocketing debts, austerity, humiliation, and all for the consolidation of economic control of the Old World Order at the expense of the people. The EU could have been a great experiment. It could have sealed the deal to ensure a new geopolitical balance to prevent anything like the world wars happening within Europe again. Instead, Europe is in shambles, and Greece is on the verge of Revolution. Perhaps this abrasive, pompous over-extension of neoliberalism was precisely what will drive the people towards sufficient levels of despair to snap them out of the materialistic daze and become inspired and enraged enough to push back for real solutions for economic freedom.
NAFTA and the EU have exacerbated globalization, and now the TPP threatens to seal the deal to ghastly proportions. What we see is a pattern. This pattern is one where nations and sovereign people have less and less say, and global capitalists and bankers have more and more say in world economic affairs. Cui Bono? Follow the money! It surely isn’t leading into the hands of the people (quite the opposite), and it isn’t leading into the hands of governments either; it’s going into the hands of the global capitalists themselves. (So much for the libertarian theory that the problem is the government!) Make no mistake, whenever you hear conspiracy theories about the sinister “New World Order” of the global elite, what you are actually reading about is globalization and neoliberalism taken to its limit. Conversely, when you read about globalization, neoliberalism and “free-trade” agreements, you are reading about this “New World Order” being constructed. Forget about concerted global depopulation and FEMA camps. Why would the super rich want to decrease their consumer base? They want you to keep shopping! End of story. Who are these “New World Order” people? It’s Neoliberals, Big Business and Big Banking, aka, global capitalism. This is why it’s absolutely astonishing that people like Alex Jones can rally against the Globalists while simultaneously espousing total free-markets! He is either a victim of supreme cognitive dissonance or COINTELPRO to distract potential truth seekers from discovering the true enemy (and of course scare you into buying his latest product).
As you can see, a globalized world is extremely dangerous. In its limit, it can solidify the power of the elite to unfathomable degrees and truly create a new world feudal-aristocratic paradigm in which nation states totally submit to the will of the private super-rich interests, who will then use their influence to break down the state further and pass on their wealth to their heirs in perpetuity. In the final hour, there will be global lords, global peasants, and a faint memory of governments by the people, thanks in part to the non-elite libertarians who were duped into the ideology of their oppressors and so fought for the dismantling of the state — the only safeguard against such a scenario through the ability to regulate and tax wealth and reinvest into the public good. With all such pillars dismantled, the global feudal project will be complete.
Is that the world you want? No? Then we must preserve and improve the state for the people and by the people. It is the only counter measure. If the people play by the rules of the economic elite, the lack of capital and resources will mean that the game will be rigged against them, as it is now, and will more so be the case upon further Neoliberal consolidation. It is only the polity, the organized group of individuals with a central command, that acts in the name of its citizens — ALL its citizens — that has the wherewithal to stand up to the neo-aristocracy. Make no mistake: to dismantle borders and the state is to open the floodgates of external self-interested influence upon the makeup of a culture and people. In a paradigm where money rules, the winner of the game is invariably the rich, and the losers are everyone else. The only legitimate society is a rational, uncorrupt one with enlightened values that treats all citizens as ends unto themselves, acts in the general will and provides Equal Opportunity for Every Child. Surely these are standards that our rational, unsuperstitious descendants in the Star Trek future will take for granted as they judge our generation’s barbarity. If this is the case, to whom is the task set to provide the rational framework, if not the state? The alternative is anarchism. Right wing anarcho-libertarians would have it such a way (either because they are super-rich egotists and would be the benefactors to rule over society, or they have been intellectually programmed by the rich to hold irrational dogmas against their own interests).
Conversely, left-wing anarchists haven’t grasped the simple notion that power vacuums always fill up, and hierarchies naturally fall into place every time, per human nature. Sure, anarchist communities might have some semblance of utopian possibilities in small scales, but is that a tenable model for the world? Could these apply to billions of people, most of whom already live in cities of over 1 million? Even if a successful anarchist community were to be established, could it even prevent the naturally dominant from commanding the naturally submissive? Could it ensure the smart and the qualified had greater say in communal matters over the uneducated? The nation-state or city-state is the model that allows individuals the freedom to be led by constitutional law, by experts in a secure and stable polity that provides societal organization and education. Could the classical age of Athens or the Italian Renaissance have taken place in an anarchy? Furthermore, the nation-state provides something more: cultural protection and unity. Unless you are a relativist (in which case you would believe that equal rights and liberal values are equal to Sharia Law and misogyny, and therefore have no leg to stand on in terms of conviction), then it’s plain that in the course of the evolution of civilizations, some cultures have developed better standards than others.
If this were not the case, why fight for anything at all? If you are a relativist, you would have to argue that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s and the Women’s Suffrage movement of the 1920’s were total wastes of time: since all cultures are relative, whether or not there are equal opportunities for different people would not make any difference, since both stances are equal, so why waste the effort at all? All social movements for justice denote a cultural evolution towards higher standards for humanity (Star Trek thus represents humanity’s “end of history,” the completion of this dialectic).
Hence, some cultures are more evolved than others. In referring to a “more evolved culture” the implication is to justice, reason and anti-corruption, as opposed to tyranny, irrationality and corruption, while other cultural factors indeed are subjective and relative (such as food, language, dress and music). A many-cultured earth, beautiful in its provision of the polychromatic richness of the human experience (and sadly being washed away by western consumerist mass-celebrity culture) is not what needs criticizing. The parts of culture that ARE morally judge-worthy must be protected. Those cultures that are more advanced (ie, those with greater degrees of justice, reason, etc.) are not inherently better per se (the view of the alt-right/’identitarian’/’race realist’ movement); they just evolved at an earlier time in history than their unjust, unreasonable counterparts. This is not a free pass to relativism, though, and this is why cultures must defend themselves, lest they be overtaken by the forces of darkness.
A nation-state with a more evolved culture, if it does not defend this culture, will lose out to an inferior culture with greater will. This is the tragedy and grave danger of modern-day Europe, as demographic shifts devoted to global Sharia and an agenda of reversing secular humanism threaten to unravel the years of liberal progress made in those nations. It is truly a de-evolution of a culture borne of the Renaissance and Enlightenment which laboriously evolved out of its dark ages. It is only a unified state and culture that can sufficiently organize and enact the general will to protect the gains of its past freedom fighters in history, lest it all be unraveled by newcomers who don’t agree. Therein lies the great challenge to the positive, idealized version of the world-as-nation. There are simply too many variances between the most and least advanced of cultures, and to simply mix the two together will not, as the weak liberals believe, raise the standards of the lower. On the contrary, the greater will of the Abrahamic faiths in their rabid erratic and irrational zeal will unravel the delicate framework of human rights and rationalism.
Even in the United States today, the growing power of literalist fundamentalist Christianity threatens to move the nation further into a Christian Theocracy. It is only with equal or greater zeal that the humanists and rationalists can win the war of ideas, and so far they are on the way to losing. Between the consolidation of the neo-aristocracy through globalism and the erosion of liberalism through an Abrahamic resurgence, we are truly en route to dystopia, unless nations act with zeal. They could slay the double-headed dragon of the Old World Order on the one hand by enacting laws of economic fairness, and on the other by legally enforcing a humanist value system. It cannot be done any other way. Only a secure nation can set legal precedence and enforce economic fairness and humanist values.
Nationalism is controversial. Indeed, many enlightened individuals, in reaction to blind patriotism, pointless wars, bigotry and racism committed in its name have denounced nationalism outright as the psychological tool for elites to manipulate the masses, or as a vestige of our divisive tribalistic instincts. Images of the Third Reich’s “master race” or the United States’ slaughter of natives in the name of “manifest destiny” are burned into the minds of critics as stark reminders of nationalism’s martial nature. Through the benign lens of the “brotherhood of man” and borderless world free from racism, war and class domination, nationalism is denounced as the antithesis of such ideals. However, we have indicated the following: 1. There is a global “war of wills” between ideologies of variant levels of evolution. 2. Only an organized polity and rule of law can protect and guide rational secular culture. 3. Only such a polity can develop macro-economic frameworks that challenge hyper free-market neoliberalism.
How then, in the name of virtue, justice and reason can these antithetical issues be reconciled? How can secular, rational culture be protected and the people protected from the economic elite, while striving for the idealistic unified world at the End of History?
Solution: The Synthesis
If we are to evoke the Hegelian “End of History” to define our successful end-game as a species and as a peaceful and abundant world guided by reason, we must dissect the process attributed to the force which leads to such a world — the dialectic. It is the dialectic that pits forces and ideologies against their inherent opposites, which then ideally shed the deficiencies of each, synthesizing them into a higher ideal, ad infinitum, until maximum freedom is ultimately reached. In the dichotomy between nationalism and globalism, we see a stark example of a thesis and antithesis in action — opposite ideals at odds with one another, yet each hosts an array of benefits and problems. Therefore, in the name of evolving the dialectic of human history towards its ideal, we must synthesize nationalism and globalism by combining their good elements and discarding the bad. The analysis goes as follows:
Good: Unification of the human race, wars obsolete, empathy between all people, final advancement of evolution
Bad: Higher cultures vulnerable to de-evolution by lower cultures, plutocrats power consolidated beyond the will of the people
On the one hand, we must have civic nationalism, which legally espouses and protects enlightened liberal values while establishing a macro-economic framework for social capitalism that works for the people and protects its economic interests, giving the state the wherewithal to re-invest in social programs and education systems to enhance the human capital of its own citizenry. This must all be done in non-imperialistic, non-racist ways. Now we have elevated nationalism to its ideals that allow the positive development of its citizenry and economic soundness through the levers of positive freedom afforded by a central state polity.
In order to stand up to international hyper-capitalism the state is responsible, as the unified entity acting in the name of the people, to stand up to plutocrats acting in the name of themselves, against the people. In order to secure the resources and power to invest in public works, education, science and other positive freedom projects, the state must gain a foothold over the macro-economy. The WTO must be dismantled, and all vestiges of neoliberalism with it.
On the other hand, we must have a continuously globalized world, made up of such nation-states, led by a United Nations and supported by international courts. This form of globalization, into which the current world-order is in its proto-stages of developing, is a civic globalization that fosters universal rights among all citizens and cooperation among nations. In 1947, the UN charter produced the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” — a grand milestone in the evolution of the human species. That today people can get tried for war crimes in international court regarding the affairs of their own nation and that nations are beholden to some level of standards for human rights is a testament that an enlightened world-culture indeed has the propensity to emerge.
Of course, this globalization must have nothing to do with economic globalization of neoliberalism. When it comes to economics, small is beautiful, and localism, small-scale enterprises and social capitalism must take precedence over internationalism, corporate behemoths and free-market capitalism.
In the “Realist” school of International Relations, which is the Machiavellian school of thought of Old World Order players such as Kissinger and Brzezinski, the global political arena of interacting states are in anarchy, i.e., there is no supernational entity in consideration when nation states deal with each other, making international relations anarchic so far as international law and order is concerned. In this world, might is right: an imperial powerhouse can steamroll its way onto a militarily inferior people with no outside consequences other than a counterbalancing via matchup by sufficiently powerful allies. This dynamic is what led to great consolidating alliances and ultimately the bipolar tinderboxes of the World Wars. After the 2nd World War, a great dialectical shift took place in the founding of the United Nations, built upon the earlier failed model of the League of Nations. Finally, the world became a little less anarchic. But make no mistake, the UN as it stands today is weak and ineffectual, a fetus of what it could be. Clearly it is not capable of ensuring universal human rights across the world or preventing a possible 3rd World War.
With or without the UN, the United States has thrown its military and economic weight around the world. As it’s currently structured, the five permanent assembly states — France, Russia, US, China and the UK — sit across opposing geopolitical interests and therefore any idealistic changes are unlikely. Just as anarchy is untenable within nations as the strong invariably dominate the weak militarily or economically without sufficient outside rule of law, so too is anarchy untenable on the next scale up in the human dynamic — that of nations. As above, so below.
Humankind’s emergence from anarchy into rule of law resulted in the replacement of pure might-is-right with a court system to address grievances structured around centrally enforced laws and rights, granting individuals greater positive freedom in the process). Likewise, on the next scale up, that of interaction among earth’s nations, anarchy should be left behind for a world court system for national grievances based on rational laws to protect nations from undue dominance by other nations. Nations themselves have various governing roles for different scales of government. There are town halls and municipalities for the local scale, state and provincial governments for regional scales, and centralized national governments for entire nations. The United States is an explicitly federalist nation each state with its own legislators, governors and laws in tandem with national laws. The federalism dynamic can also be scaled globally: it is the rational synthesis of nationalism and globalism.
For local and economic matters, smaller is better. Universal matters must be handled at the world level. Human rights is a non-negotiable aspect of the civilized world, and a true United Nations should lay the foundation for a polychromatic world of cultures rich and diverse, each compatible with reason, altruism and basic rights. A global federation allows nations to retain their pride, their cultures and their citizen development, and the world can move towards a unified future. War can and should become obsolete. Should one nation transgress another, military action will be seen as a barbaric vestige of humanity’s unsavory past. Instead, just as a neighbor transgressing another neighbor in a civilized society can be heard in court by an impartial tribunal based on laws, so too can representatives of nations plead their case to a meritocratic impartial tribunal in the World Court. Hence, the solution of “peace on earth” can be a truly achievable one rather than pie-in-the sky idealism.
Once more, the earth’s inhabitants and nations are evolving at different paces. We have enlightened, civilized humans and barbaric cretins, and we have civilized, secular nations and barbaric theocracies. While all humans at birth are inherently precious and full of potential, the tainting is real: lower cultures cater to the animal in man. Not a single example of humankind’s potential on earth yet exists, but we can at least look to the nations with the highest degrees of civility and interdynamics to gain a hint as to what the entire world is capable of achieving.
For example, Europe has a notoriously bloody and imperialistic past. Today, however, many formerly barbaric and bloodlustful nations have come full swing. Look at the nations of former Vikings! What are the international relations between Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland? Do their citizens and governments beat the war drums against their Nordic neighbors? Are the Norwegians on alert for an imminent Swedish invasion? If the nations that produced some of history’s most savage warriors can evolve into the pinnacle of secularism and human rights yet seen in the modern world, are not all peoples and nations capable of such progress? Of course, experiencing an Enlightenment is a prerequisite to dispel the shackles of darkness that reign in the minds of people of Abrahamic faiths. Had the Nordic countries rejected secular humanism and retained their deeply Christian beliefs, they hardly would have attained the cultural accomplishments they did. But if, in the idealized world of the future, all nations in the world can come together under an enlightened World Government in a federal system that respects sovereign governments and settles disputes by court, we will finally see the End of History come into focus beyond the horizon.
In such a world, the international relations of nations of the Middle East and Africa will emulate those of Northern Europe. Economics will vary greatly from locale to locale, with empowered small-scale entrepreneurs using resources sustainably and locally. Environmental degradation, corporate behemoths, monoculture agriculture and free-market capitalism will be obsolete. Instead, individuals will be cultivated to their maximum potential under the guidance of each nation; they will be empowered to engage in their local economies, resources locally sourced; and small-scale social capitalism will be protected under the macro-economic policies of national banks, sovereign money systems, public works projects and social programs invested in by national states.
These states will interact with each other as allies, and if there are transgressions, a meritocratic world court will settle the disputes according to rational and impartial law. Plutocrats will no longer exist. Vast inheritances will no longer exist. Every individual will be born into a system that encourages their inner potential to flourish, rendering familial dynasties obsolete. Scientific advancement will be heavily invested in. The scientific and philosophical establishments will base their worldviews on ontological mathematics. Education will be the number one priority of every state. Resource consumption will be fully sustainable. Judaism, Christianity and Islam will be studied in history books as relics of our barbaric and irrational past. With such a New World Order, humanity will finally be FREE.
Next: Onward and upward to the stars…