Terrorists or traitors?

What should we call the liberal internationalists? Are they terrorists because of the damage they do?  That is a difficult label because the proponents of the ideology have not come power through force. Instead, they have got their hands on the levers of power though a long process of  infiltrating the elite until they became the elite and their ideology became the elite ideology.

Traitor is a much more promising term. An ideology which asks for  loyalty to something other than  the nation state, which has as one of its ends the  transfer of sovereign power from the nation state to foreign authority,  which  requires its adherents to removes democratic control from the population which they are meant to serves definition treasonous.  Liberal internationalism does all that and more, for it permits mass immigration,  which is a form of conquest, and pursues  economic policies which both disadvantage its own people and leaves the country dangerously exposed to changes in economic conditions and political circumstances. 

Why are the  liberal internationalists not called what they objectively are, traitors?  The answer lies in is Sir John Harrington’s seventeenth century words:

Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason?

For if  it prosper, none dare call it treason.

The best way of judging the purpose of any political ideology is to ask cui bono? (who benefits?) The obvious answer in the case of  “free markets”  and “free trade”   are those who believe (with good reason) that they  nor  their dependants will never be amongst those who will suffer the  ill-effects of laissez faire.   These people are and will continue to be overwhelmingly drawn from the middle and upper classes for the same reasons that  such classes  have  always maintained their superiority,  namely  that  such people  will have inherited wealth,  social connections  and   superior opportunities for education which are denied to the majority.

Both the traditional Left and  Right have been duped by globalisation. The Left initially welcomed  globalisation as  a dissolver of  national sovereignty, but  they  are discovering by the day just how restrictive international treaties and membership of supra national groups can  be.

As things stand,  through our membership of the EU and the World  Trade Organisation  treaties,  no  British  government  could  introduce  new socialist  or nationalist measures because they cannot nationalise companies,  protect their  own commerce and industry or  even ensure that taxpayers’  money is spent in Britain with British firms.  A British government can  have any economic system they like provided it is largely  free trade,  free enterprise.

The Right are suffering the same sickness with different symptoms. They find  that  they are no longer masters in their own house  and   cannot meaningfully appeal to traditional national interests because  treaties make that impossible.

But  there is a significant difference between the position of the  two sides.   The traditional Right have simply been usurped by neo-Liberals in  blue  clothes:  the  traditional Left  have   been  betrayed  by  a confusion  in  their ideology which has allowed  their  main  political vehicles to be surreptitiously by the likes of Blair.

The  left have  historically objected to “free-trade”  on  the  grounds that it destroys jobs and reduces wages.  But what they (and especially the British Left) have rarely if ever  done is walk upon  the other two necessary  planks in the anti-“free trade”  platform:  the  maintenance of (1) national sovereignty and (2) a sense of national cohesion.   The consequence  is that the  Left has been and are still  struggling  with two  competing and mutually exclusive ends:  internationalism  and  the material improvement of the mass of the people.

The  new international elite  is neither left nor right.  Its  ideology is  simply   designed  to promote the interests of the  elite.  It  has aspects  of  right and left,  but  they are merely the  policies  which allow  the  elite to both disguise their true intention and to  give  a pseudo-moral   camouflage   to  their  ends.    They  speak   of    the internationalist   equivalent  of  “motherhood  and  apple  pie”   with exhortations  to  “end  world poverty”  and fund  a   “war  on  disease worldwide”.  If I had to find a term to describe  this elite I think  I would  settle for neo-Fascist because  so much of what is  proposed  is reminiscent of fascism.

Opposition to globalisation with its underpinning creed of laissez faire should not be a Left or Right issue.   The socialist and the Conservative should both resist it because it removes the  ability  of the electorate to control those with  power  and   the power of their  political movements to realise their ends.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Ed Darrell  On October 31, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    Why should we label them at all? Perhaps we could have a serious discussion of policy.

    Or, we could ask: “What should we call the conservative isolationists? Are they terrorists because of the damage they do? Or are them merely traitors because they hand victories to our enemies and competitors, crippling our national interests and abilities, but without understanding their animus does the damage?”

  • prayerwarriorpsychicnot  On March 27, 2015 at 3:42 am

    Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs.

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

%d bloggers like this: