    Fighting the Behemoth

    Or

    The Alternatives to a Tired Mantra of Democracy

    By Joh Domingo

    This list has long been a clearinghouse for innovative strategy to fight
    the neo-liberal behemoth and its creeping interventionist global spread.
    We have many names for it, and each of us express it differently in
    accordance with individual background and ideological bent: ZOG, NWO,
    the Illuminati, Globalization, One-World Government … etc. I prefer to
    call it simply neo-liberalism. Neo-Liberalism has many guises, in the
    form of the secular liberalism of Europe, the Conservative liberalism
    (AKA Libertarianism) of the United States, to the neo-fascist secular
    movements of the Middle East and Israel. It includes offshoots like ‘new
    Labour’ of Britain with its Thatcherite policies and Clinton’s
    interventionist ideologies that mirrored those of Ronald Reagan. It
    continues to swallow up entire territories in Eastern Europe and most
    European Parliaments are today ruled by neo-liberals. It has long been a
    dominant global ideology, subscribed to by the ruling global elite. Even
    the official opposition in many places is neo-liberal. If you are not
    neo-liberal, in most countries you are marginal – even if you are the
    majority.

    This neo-liberal design to integrate World governance extends to all
    facets of societies and incorporates a regimented hierarchical framework
    that is implemented consistently wherever it finds a foothold. It does
    not require the mass conversion of the population, nor does it seek
    consensus about its implementation. It simply invades the space and
    installs its structure. In doing so it concentrates its energies on core
    constituencies depending on the framework under which it is working.

    On a transnational scale, in the economic sphere, it embeds itself
    within multinational corporations - ensuring the capital mobility vital to
    the international business elite. At the political level it institutes a
    global regulatory framework through the World Trade Organization,
    International Monetary Fund, The World Bank and the United Nations that
    is designed to overcome national resistance to unfavorable trade
    circumstances. Culturally, it concentrates on transforming national
    populations into consumer citizens, with rights dependent on ones
    ability to partake in the market. It equalizes the rights of an
    individual consumer citizen in a First World country and a Third World
    one, provided they have an equal capacity to feed the market.

    Within the national framework, on an economic level, it concentrates on
    facilitating competition between local economic sectors – each competing
    to win favorable trade terms against the other. On a political level it
    strives to limit national political entities to the global periphery
    while simultaneously promoting individuals within the local political
    sphere to its core global elite network, thereby promoting internal
    competition between local political players to aspire towards membership
    of the core global elite. To regulate this sector, a quasi requirement
    of national citizenship is imposed, which is discarded once membership
    to the global elite is achieved.

    It is within Nation-States that localized grassroots movements pose the
    most difficult challenge to globalization and neo-liberalism. Within
    this sphere originates the most vocal and organized structures opposing
    capital hegemony. Most of these resistance groups are associated with
    Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s). In order to influence these
    groups, neo-liberal discourse assumes a ‘liberal’ facade; seeking to
    exploit differences in race, class and religion, co-opt ‘progressive’
    causes and marginalize groups that fall between the cracks of a
    political discourse that is accurately described as ‘political
    correctness’.

    Increasingly, efforts are underway to establish a global hegemonic
    resistance to global capitalism, often dominated by first world consumer
    citizens of countries that contribute the bulk of the membership of the
    global elite. This essay questions the requirement for a hegemonic
    global resistance, bound by rigid ideological constraints, that excludes
    major components of the grass roots resistance to global neo-liberal
    colonialism.

    Neo-liberal global hegemony is ascendant and proving able to innovate
    and bypass any attempt at curtailing its implementation, yet we delude
    ourselves that the alternative is to impose a global hegemony of our
    own, and organize under the rubric of a ‘progressive’ dialectic.
    Substance in resistance terms is the ability to thwart neo-liberal
    goals. Since neo-liberalism utilizes strategies that circumvent
    traditional restraints, promoting traditionalism constructs roadblocks
    in the path of implementing neo-liberal structures and policy. Yet, many
    traditionalist movements have all but been banished from the global
    hegemonic construct of resistance to neo-liberalism. They are not
    represented at forums that organize against global neo-Liberalism, nor
    does it seem that they are welcome there.

    Part of the reason for this is a perceived requirement for a victim
    class, beyond challenge, in the discourse. Almost by definition, the
    victim class should be non-white, supine, and helpless in the face of
    aggression. Preferably, they should be indigenous, non-adherents of a
    troublesome religion, or better yet, pagans. Even within the secular
    humanist framework that most western NGO’s operate within, pagans
    deserve salvation.

    But this has also been a double-edged strategy that positions the victim
    class as victims of progress, rather than victims of global hegemony. It
    lacks clarity and fails to create a sense of solidarity within
    communities that essentially face similar, but not the same, threat.
    Nobody in their right mind opposes ‘progress’, even if it’s processes
    along the way unfortunately creates a few victims. It is the surrender
    of the attribute ‘progress’ that more or less defines the failure of the
    anti-neo-liberal resistance.

    Led by staunchly western liberal activists and abetted by a core of
    indigenous western educated leaders, the anti-globalization movement is
    firmly entrenched in secular humanist dialectics with its contradictory
    discourse that defines the struggle within liberal humanitarian
    essentialism, with its emphasis upon legalistic, state-centered
    democratic procedure. Such processes bind them to western secular
    humanistic standards – best described as a neo-civilizing mission. To
    qualify for solidarity and global assistance, victims are judged by
    whether or not they pose a threat to secular standards or the ‘cause’ as
    defined by secular humanitarian ideologues, and whether such assistance
    enables the victim to ‘progress’ within a carefully constructed ladder
    of civilized standards. Victims are then classified using a yardstick
    that is weighted, and takes into account the standard of ‘civilization’
    achieved to date. Using such standards, it is possible to mark down
    victims because of a perceived failure to conform to societal norms that
    are thus subjectively configured. Disaffected White American rural
    farmers and radical religious Muslims, Hindus, Christians and Jews
    therefore find themselves beyond the framework imposed for assistance
    from the global anti-colonial movement. There are quite a few problems
    with such an approach.

    Chief amongst them is a failure to recognize the economic resistance
    that underpins many such marginal movements. Of concern to the
    anti-globalization movement is a perceived reactionary element in
    marginal religious, nationalist and cultural movements. Because social
    activists are themselves seeking a ‘New World Order’, based on a social
    democratic ideals, they often associate traditionalism as inimical with
    those goals. This is especially true when traditional societies have a
    substantial, well-developed, and diverse heritage that can legitimately
    be described as ‘civilizations’. Tribal indigenous traditions pose no
    such threat to the imposition of the humanitarian liberalism that
    permeates western anti-colonial activism.

    One such movement, bearing all the perceived hallmarks of a reactionary
    movement, is the American mid-western militia movement. Because Militias
    are attached to their firearms, and because a minute element has been
    involved in violence, it is used as evidence of a goal that is separate
    from any economic context – in the case of the Militias, it is assumed
    that they project a white supremacist ideology. But a consciousness
    about an unfortunate social condition that afflicts most societies
    today, is a far cry from a declaration of superior genetic
    characteristics. On Noel Ignatiev's left-leaning website
    www.racetraitor.org, are many references to the militia in the mid-west.
    An article published on the site by James Murray entitled ‘Chiapas and
    Montana’ (http://www.racetraitor.org/chiapas.html), provides excellent
    correlation between the spontaneous Zapatistas in Mexico, which had
    become the darling of leftist western movements, and the militia
    movement, despised by the left. In another article it declares:

    “From its first issue, Race Traitor has insisted that only the vision of
    a new world can compete with the fascists for the loyalty of those angry
    whites who think that nothing less than a total change is worth fighting
    for. Abolitionists must draw a line between themselves and the 'loyal
    opposition'. If they fail to do so, they will not be heard.”

    http://www.racetraitor.org/auxarmes.html

    It is estimated that almost 15% of the US population are members of a
    militia. It is a large movement, and like any large movement is far from
    homogenous. Most eschew any notions of Racism, and many have a
    significant Jewish constituency and prohibit anti-Semitic rhetoric. The
    vast majority is multiracial. Yet the focus is on a few that express
    White supremacist ideology in order to delegitimize the whole. The
    movement has a number of legitimate political economic concerns that
    revolve around the right of local sovereignty, imposition of taxes, and
    economic policy that favors multinationals at the expense of the local
    economy.

    Because they are perceived to be relatively well off compared to most
    victims of Global economic hegemony, they are dismissed by the
    neo-colonial resistance because of these perceived peripheral issues
    mentioned, that are at odds with a multicultural global
    anti-neo-colonial movement. When Christian/Patriots demand their culture
    and moral order back, they are saying precisely the same thing that
    people everywhere are saying: their world has been invaded by voracious
    multinational corporate capital. They are saying that theirs is an
    economic struggle against the same forces that is at war with humanity.
    By failing to recognize the economic dimension to religious national
    movements, anti-neo-liberals de facto deny its utilization, and allow a
    false picture to be presented about some serious economic resistance
    activity.

    By monopolizing economic motive, it is then easy to separate religious
    movements (e.g. Muslim radicals) from its declared goal: to prevent the
    economic exploitation of their resources and the necessary domination of
    their societies this entails. Their means are therefore substituted for
    their goals. The unifying strategy of emphasizing traditional solidarity
    in order to resist neo-colonial exploitation is misrepresented as the
    goal. Echoing neo-liberalism, that posits that radical Muslims seek to
    convert your children and colonize your societies, anti-globalism forces
    shun Muslim radicals for much the same reasons.

    It is repeated with other religious groups, Hindu traditionalist, and
    Jewish religious nationalist. Rather than work on strategies that co-opt
    these movements, the global anti-colonial forces work to curtail their
    activities and marginalize them. At the root of such a knee-jerk
    response, is a fear that such movements embody elements of fascism, and
    employ sensational violence. Ignoring that organized violence is one of
    the primary diplomatic means of communication, such an outlook requires
    a set of assumptions: that traditionalism makes fine distinctions about
    what belongs to traditional societies and what is foreign. It assumes
    that they are static, unable to identify beneficial progression, and are
    rooted in space and time.

    Such assumptions derive from a worldview that presumes that pre-modern
    societies were mono-cultural and exclusive, whereas the evidence is that
    they were more multi-cultural and fluid than is commonly imagined. Many
    societies that are considered to be particularly mono-cultural today
    have proved to be highly heterogeneous upon closer examination. Ashis
    Nady makes the startling observation that inter-communal violence in
    India between Hindus and Muslims is a manifestation of modern secular
    culture rather than a traditional communal norm. He states that less than
    4% of the victims of inter-communal violence were from rural areas and
    that the vast bulk of them occurred in urban areas. What he is saying is
    that Indian traditionalism is extremely heterogeneous and is expressed
    in terms of authentic indigenous multiplicity. It is when secular
    leaders sought political power that they rejected multiplicity, and
    inter-communal violence was activated. He argues that it was precisely
    this move towards modernity that generated the need for a schism. He
    provides evidence that Hindus worshiped Muslim Spiritual leaders and
    that Muslims visited Hindu temples and celebrated the religious
    holidays. He also points out that 5% of India’s Muslims were official
    members of the BJP, the party that is accused of fermenting
    inter-religious violence, and that the BJP never had a cabinet that did
    not include Muslims, as well as Christians and Jews.
    http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1911/19110710.htm

    Shiva Vandana http://www.vshiva.net/, relates many episodes that
    reinforce the heterogeneous nature of Indian religious nationalism.
    Echoing Mahatma Gandhi’s observation that religion contributed to
    pre-modern Indian social cohesion because of the religious requirement
    for pilgrimage to geographically widespread cultural/religious sites
    that required long periods of travel (and an opportunity to meet a
    diverse range of people), Vandana relates the story of the litigants in
    the decades-old battle for the Ayodhya Mosque site. They travel to court
    in the same car. Why? Because it saves petrol.
    http://www.trabal.org/texts/panic.html

    Democratic political structure requires division – rulers and
    opposition. Traditional societies are arranged to reduce conflict and
    produce consensus. When ‘parties’ are formed to resemble a democratic
    structure, ethnic and religious cultures are often the only visible
    means of differentiation. Imposing democracies on heterogeneous
    traditional societies invites schism, which is then represented as a
    failure of traditional societies - when it is the opposite that is the
    case.

    It is quite possible that sectarianism in Lebanon is a product of
    democracy when juxtaposed against the non-sectarian nature of Syrian
    politics. If we consider that Lebanon was traditionally a part of Syria,
    which has produced a stable minority government. It is telling that the
    more democratic modern nation is beset by sectarian divisions, while
    the supposedly traditional one is characterized by national unity,
    despite a widely diverse population that consists of sizeable Christian,
    Shi’ite, Druze, and Sunni Muslim communities ruled by an Allawite
    minority. What is important in the traditional Syrian context, is that
    the ruling elite demonstrate that they have the security and interests
    of the entire community in mind when they make decisions. The focus is
    on unity in the national interest, while the focus in democratic
    societies is to produce strong opposition as a means of safeguarding the
    national interests. The former is traditionally and systematically
    implemented at the local level, while the latter requires a top-down
    imposition that is intrinsically unstable.

    Similar examples can be found elsewhere. The former Yugoslavia,
    consisting of Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and Albania managed to maintain
    social stability while under the supposed authoritarian rule of Serbs.
    This was at odds with western secular democratic standards, despite
    evidence that the various ethnic communities managed quite friendly
    relations and co-existed peacefully for decades. With the demand for
    democratic reform came a struggle for dominance, and formerly peaceful
    neighbors began slaughtering each other. It is doubtful whether any of
    it benefited anyone, but sectarianism was blamed. The arrival of
    democracy has not produced a single day of peaceful co-existence, yet
    traditionalism, which produced decades of peace, is blamed.

    It is time that alternatives to a tired mantra are examined. Democracy,
    as championed by its protagonist, represents an alien construct to many
    of the world’s people. Imposed from the top, it stimulates
    inter-communal violence and undermines unity. Far from producing a
    rational consensus, it assumes an imperious force that divides, and
    produces that which it seeks to prevent. It has become a tool of empire.
    Far more fruitful, would be an endeavor to mine the democratic impulses
    of traditional societies. If the push of Globalism is to undermine and
    dismantle local sovereignty, then anti-globalism must endeavor to
    support it, and grow its consensus from within. There is nothing more
    democratic than the exercise of local sovereignty, for the good of local
    people. Anti-traditionalism undermines local sovereignty, and breaks the
    cohesion of heterogeneous local communities.

    JohD