It is no longer the case that the foreign politics of Western nations is geared towards acquiring colonies. Securing business opportunities, too, is no longer the driving force. The ultimate objective is the export of cultural standards.
European countries pursue this aim less vigorously than the world's primary power, the US.
I certainly am no Islamist. But I grant Osama Bin Laden that in characterizing US foreign politic as Christian crusade, he has more deeply understood the motives behind the moves and decisions of the American government and its NGOs than many of the people in the US, or the West in general, whom the US foreign politics machinery presumes to represent.
It's all about bringing the US brand of salvation to the rest of the world, whether those others like it or not. The pretext may be US security, or the right to free trade. But the real score is the spread of US-style Christianity, US-style democracy, and US sexual morals.
No, US style democracy is not an absolute quality. The ultimate legitimization of a government is not that it has been chosen by a direct vote. The ultimate legitimization of a government is that it acts in the benefit of the people it governs.
In societies that encompass different ethnicities, a direct vote all too easily just functions as a vent for ethnic hatred. In societies in which a large number of people are religiously misguided, a direct vote tends to cement structures that keep people enslaved in ridiculous believes that deny them fulfillment in accordance with their biological design.
The idea may not be fashionable at the time of this writing, but in my opinion, a Leninist style of government must not be discarded as one of the options.
No, I do not advocate that a government, on a large scale, manages the economy of a country. It is not sensible that the means of production are primarily state-owned. My philosophy may draw on Marxism, and my political thought on Leninism, but I am definitely not a Communist.
But I don't just believe that a government shouldn't involve itself too much in the economy of a country. The government also should keep, as much as possible, out of the private lives of the citizens it rules. The primary function of a government should be conflict avoidance and conflict resolution. And where there is no conflict, the government should let people live their lives as they want, not as the government wants.
I am against big government, and against globalization. I want the world diverse, and people should have a choice between different places, where different life styles, different rules, and different laws apply.
The proliferation of extraterritorial law is a clear indication of cultural imperialism. It used to be that one just had to obey the law of the land. Now, that's no longer enough. If you are in a foreign land, you have to obey the law of the land, and also those laws of your homeland that were designed especially for those citizens that are in foreign lands.
It used to be that if the laws of your homeland were not to your liking, you could go to another land, with other laws, and live there without being in conflict with the law.
But now, if your government makes laws, they increasingly make them applicable to all of their citizens, whether they are in their country or abroad.
This is cultural imperialism in a blatant form, on one level with Islamic governments that rule it a capital offence when Muslims leave their faith.
All extraterritorial laws in all countries ought to be abolished. All laws in all countries ought to apply to those who live on the territory over which a government has jurisdiction. From a perspective of legal philosophy, laws that apply to persons who do not conform to the law when outside of the territory over which a government has jurisdiction, are an obscenity.
