Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

It is not just Islam that poses the greatest threat to modernity and civilisation. The silly general appreciation of socialism and ‘benign’ statism offers as serious as threat to our world, as pagans citing and implementing 7th century dogma. Social-liberalism along with oil-fueled fascisms are themselves as intractable as Islam and as dead set against the modern world and civilisation as the followers of the mad Mohammed. Conflict not just with Islam, but between states and regions with competing ideologies is a certainty. History teaches us that ideas do matter, and radically differing cultural and social constructs, not to mention emotional ties to blood and land, engender conflict.

Outside of the failed Islamic world there are three rough and rather incongruous groups or ‘models’ of development: an EU model, the Orthodox Liberal or Anglo Saxon model, and the ‘Non-Aligned’ states [fascisms and oil kleptocracies]. There will not be harmonious relationships during the 21rst century between these 3 groups. Ideas in history do matter and each group including its various sub groups and components all contain different ideologies, beliefs and strictures in how society should be organised. They also all believe that ‘they’ are right. These ideas on national social constructions will have a marked influence not only on domestic but international and foreign policy issues as well, including the war against militant Islam.

Nations built along the EU model will place far more faith in the benignity and effectiveness of socialism at home and supranational institutions abroad, than those built along the more orthodox Anglo-Saxon model. As such the 21rst century will be shaped by how the powers conform themselves in the battle between the freedom embedded in the general Anglo-Saxon model and government power or statism and internationalism as espoused the by EU model. Thrust between this general conflict will be the non-aligned and rogue powers, including a militant Islam, a destabilized but potent Russia and a surging China, adding confusion and complications to international affairs. As such there will not be a clash of civilisations but a clash of national and regional interests across civilisation’s boundaries.

These dichotomies will help delineate the great battle between competing models in their domestic construction and around the role of the nation state versus that of supra-national organisations. The aspect of internationalism is in many ways a crucial differentiating factor between the 3 groups. It is the battle over the role of the nation state in international affairs. Such a battle has always been ongoing in the modern world since the peace of Westphalia, between the ‘realists’ and the ‘internationalists’. Realists perceive that national security and state concerns are dominant and that states are selfish egotistical entities. Internationalists feel that power can be constrained through international agreements and fora, and that stability is best ensured through supra-national bodies.

The trend is currently in favour of the internationalists and their modern statism, as economies and societies ‘mature’ and pressure groups seek to eradicate differences between individuals. It is far easier for governments to extract taxation and buy votes, then to deal in the abstract ideals of freedom or market economics. However if one views the historical record of entrenched and all-powerful statism, in terms of longevity, peaceful coexistence and domestic market success, the record is entirely negative. In only the recent modern era, Hitler’s National Socialism an extreme forerunner of today’s EU nationalized welfare model, murdered about 21 million Jews, Gypsies, Balts, Czechs, Ukrainians, Russians, Slavs and other nationalities. Communist China in implementing socialist equality destroyed about 35 million. The FSU, through Stalinist gulag camps and other ‘purge instruments’, claimed another 60 million lives in its pursuit of socialism.

Importantly and thankfully today’s variant of statism is premised around some key principles that differentiate it from its forbears; namely, freedom to own private property, freedom of spiritual association, freedom of speech, the rule of law and the right to vote. The separation of powers is crucial to the maintenance of these freedoms. Yet it remains to be seen if the entrenched statism in today’s world, established in so many countries, will continue to grow and decrease these freedoms or if it will remain a powerful but watchful guardian of such principles. As governments continue to advance and control more and more of their socio-economic structures, the fear that freedom will be compromised in an Orwellian state complex is entirely justified. There is also a fear that such measures will be used to develop powerful but unaccountable ‘World Bodies’ or ‘World Governing Institutions’.

There is no doubt that internationalism or even ‘utopianism’ has a certain appeal. War, conflict, social inequality, poverty, ecological devastation, hardship, and sundry other socio-economic issues must be dealt with. A main and important question is why do so many peoples and nations view internationalism as the most expedient, effective and moral alternative? While internationalism serves certain purposes, and while many topics are cross border in nature, there is no point in pretending that inter-national groupings are somehow superior, elevated and more benign in comparison to regional, national and local political structures. They might aid in some areas of socio-economic relief but surely they are part of the solution and not the whole answer? They are, much like taxes and government regulation, a necessary constraint to help deliver public goods. Yet their supposed impact and the general belief in their powers is as exaggerated as is the belief in the crushing power of market globalisation. It is necessary to demythologize the efficacy of multi-lateral institutions and instil a more pragmatic approach to international problem solving.

First, even though the power of globalisation is a myth, the embedded processes within such global movements in capital, technology and communications are quite real. These processes are necessary to develop wealthy, clean and stable societies. However such global processes at any level and area only serve to further strengthen the receiving state, providing that the state is mature and strong enough to withstand such pressures. Climate change [if it does exist], environmental destruction, trade ties, human migration flows, AIDS, space exploration, resource control, water supply and peace are just some of the many issues that cross border’s, faiths and political lines. They are however, only properly solutioned at the local and national levels. What most experts miss is the singular perversity that has global and international commitments increase, the power of the national state is further enhanced, not diminished.

Second, multi-lateralism is a decaying artefact of the Cold War era. Though the depth and penetration of inter-national groups is astonishing, [as is the activity of the main multi-lateral actors such as the UNO, the World Bank and the IMF], their relevance and power in total is being reformed. They are suffering from what every organisational consultant would easily identify as the lethargy of bureaucracy, politics and lack of focus. The UNO for instance thinks it must be all things to all people. This is neither technically possible nor desirable. Many experts have been questioning the efficacy and relevancy of many of these institutions and their accountability to tax payers who often, even in the case of non-governmental groups, support such organisations, without knowledge or consent.

In this regard globalisation and multi-lateralism both compete and complement each other to shape the international political economy. Multi-lateralism for many people seems to express the best hopes of mankind - peace, harmony and fairness. These governmental and non-governmental multi-lateral collectivities contain lofty rhetoric and noble aims and easily capture widespread citizen sympathy and media support. Yet there has been a lack of concrete investigation and evidence as to what the majority of inter-national groupings actually do, how they function and what results they actually achieve. Without a solid understanding of their merits and demerits it is rather hard to fathom why most people and the media view these groups with such sympathy. Despite this lack of transparency and accountability most citizens feel comfortable with inter-national processes if one is to believe opinion polls and media reports, and less comfortable with the vaguely defined but darkly ominous process of ‘globalisation’.

Nevertheless in the post 9-11-01 world the USA and other nation states will now start to reassert themselves and their national power, as the intensive ‘trial period’ of inter-national cooperation which has taken place since 1945, begins to wind down and stall. Projects involving close international cooperation historically have lasted for a finite period, until the balance of power changes, or the current regime is challenged. Various examples can be lifted from history of such cooperative measures, dating from the early modern period of cooperative medieval Europe city-states, sundry empires such as the Hapsburg dominions, the Congress of Vienna, the ‘Holy Alliance’, and the League of Nations. They all failed due to national ambitions and rivalries.

In the modern world such a vast change in international affairs has occurred with the formation of the EU and concomitantly the rise of a militant Islam, both of which are challenging and disturbing the American led international system. An irrevocable assertion of national rights is now in train as security and national objectives come to the fore, and institutions such as the UNO become entangled by their own inefficient structures and lack of clarity. Such national power will be emphasised in two methods -- through more unilateral action and through regional groupings and associations of like-minded nations such as the ‘coalition of the willing’. Regions and ideologies will force a realignment of the international system. Conflict between competing groups – militarily, economically and strategically is inevitable.

It only remains to be seen how statist the former Anglo-Saxon powers become. If that domestic battle is lost and the former Anglo-allies disappear in a maelstrom of socialist and Marxist nonsense, than the freedoms currently enjoyed will be at risk of perishing. If the Anglo-Saxon nations recover their culture, heritage and strength, reject socialism and embrace orthodox liberalism, then they will not only survive but thrive. This accrued strength and prestige will force the Anglo nations to intervene internationally to protect their self-interests and nations from military, terrorist, and cultural destruction. It is debateable however, how the Anglo nations will respond to immigration, cultural destruction, and the allure of cheap statism.