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.