If humans were largely moral and ethical beings, then globalization could be a workable proposition. Unfortunately, the dark behavioral narcissism expressed by compulsive greed and an infinite appetite for power seems to have become the guiding precept of our collective nightmare.
If only the desire to dominate others and have a lot more than them were not the prime motivations for the global elite on top of the human food chain, we could all have our respective modest slice of happiness on this planet. The Utopia of globalization through institutions such as the
United Nations (UN),
World Bank, and International Monetary Fund (IMF) was supposed to eradicate the universal pestilence of war,
extreme poverty, hunger and slavery using the might of the above supranational institutions to prevent the rise of so-called rogue nations usually ruled by dictators.
World order of chaos with misery for profitThe opportunity of this push for a supranational form of government has to be understood in the psychological context of a world traumatized by World War II. Many public servants, who had fought against the Nazis and their Japanese and Italian allies, had genuinely the best intentions at heart when institutions like the UN were set up.
If some of the original ideas were good and moral to some extent, a rot almost immediately contaminated and perverted most of the created institutions and quickly — using the pretext of the Cold War — allowed the birth of a monstrosity such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (
NATO). The globalists have controlled and ultimately Wall Street has financed, supranational government instances such as the UN, IMF, World Bank and a myriad of non-governmental organization (NGO) little helpers. Not only have these done nothing to curtail the man-made disasters of war,
climate change, slavery and poverty, but they have exacerbated them, all for the sake of profit.
Comment: At this point it looks unlikely that the coalition will take Mosul in time for the U.S. election. If that was the plan, it looks like they may have miscalculated. The Islamic State's structure is more complex than the mainstream and alternative give it credit for. It is neither a collection of pro-American mercenaries doing the Empire's work for it (although there are surely some such individuals who have "infiltrated" its ranks, even at the top who guide its actions in that direction), nor a strictly anti-American organ of global jihadism (although plenty of its members embody that view).
There are several levels of ideology and involvement, ranging from forced conscripts and mercenaries to brainwashed fanatics, spellbinders, and psychopathic agents of influence. Just like the individuals and groups that came to be known as al-Qaeda, its hardcore leadership is more than willing to make secret deals with the Americans. But from their perspective, it's a marriage of convenience - there's no love lost between them. The U.S. and its allies send weapons and supplies, and IS avoids certain targets, or goes after certain targets that are convenient for both sides. But not everyone is aware of such deals, nor would they support them if they were.
In the case of Mosul, these complexities seem to be manifesting. Probably a good portion of IS got the message and fled Mosul for Syria before the battle or in its first 2 weeks (prior to the Shia militias cutting off the western corridor). But others are refusing to budge and executing those trying to escape. That's the problem: the U.S. has created a monster it cannot fully control. As Lobaczewski wrote in Political Ponerology: The "self-suggestive activities of the other ideology" can just as easily swing the movement as a whole to adopt that ideology wholeheartedly to the point where its members act on its own, without approval of the "center".