Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Major Powers Versus Small Nations: Globalization And The Issue Of National Sovereignty

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 15, 2012, 12:24 p.m. EST by Renneye (3874)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Another option?

I've said, that no 'one individual', small group of ruling elite, or one country should ever hold too much power. It is dangerous, for a many obvious reasons, most of which have been discussed on this forum.

We do not need to lose our sovereignty to this out of control, collectivist, forceful bulldozing of globalization we are witnessing. We can be a "co-operative global community" and still keep our individual cultures from the invariable erosion that 'corporate globalization' seeks to destroy.

This article speaks on the subject of smaller national localization.


A Community of Small Nations

"What is called for is nothing less than the radicalization of the small, nonviolent, sustainable, socially responsible countries of the world. Countries like Bhutan, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland must face up to the fact that they share nothing in common with meganations such as the United States, China, Russia, and India. They should not only stop sucking up to them but they should avoid emulating them at all cost.

The small enlightened nations of the world should begin organizing themselves into what might be called the Small Nations’ Alliance (SNA) to encourage (1) the nonviolent breakup of meganations such as the United States, China, Russia, and India; (2) the peaceful coexistence of a community of small, sustainable, cooperative, democratic, socially responsible, egalitarian, nonviolent, ecofriendly nations; and (3) the independence of small breakaway states such as Quebec, Scotland, Tibet, and Vermont.

One thing is for sure, if there are to be any solutions to global megaproblems such as poverty, peak oil and climate change, they will not originate with either the United States, China, or Russia, each of which is obsessed with protecting its own respective self interest. So long as New York, London, and Tokyo maintain hammerlock control over international financial markets, international finance and banking reform will remain an illusive fantasy. What the world could use effectively is a dozen or so financial centers, not just three megacenters."

Full Article....




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by gsw (3359) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 8 years ago

Have you heard of "zeitgeist movement"

They have a movie "owned and operated".

Talks of getting beyond state governments, somehow, in future. It is kind of a techno-utopia, but they do have, I understand a plan, and a home-site, Venus, Florida. It is a social-sustainable, non-money movement.

At some point we're going to have to get away from fossil fuel dependence.

the cool thing about this group, is they have a plan of not-for-profit business where they make 50 of the most-useful machines at 15 percent of the cost, such as tractors.

They do have an image of being a bit "indoctrinated", but the video is well done. Here is a link if interested. http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/blog/dave-coykendall/owned-operated-full-documentary

Initially, I though it was OWS produced. NO. It seems like a European thing. It is an interesting movie. They do come across as a bit overly idealistic, maybe.

they want to move past traditional nation-states, and get rid of money.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

OK. . . . But who will stand up to the mega mega corporations? Who will stand up to that mutating virus the British empire? Who will stand up to the NWO's NATO terrorist armies?

Sorry, FAIL.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

The terrorist armies need people.

Fighting to make a few people very wealthy is not patriotism.

Soldiers are starting to realise how badly they've been duped.

[-] 3 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

I hope so. I think the fact that the 1%ers are militarizing the police is because they don't trust soldiers and vets.