Keeping in mind that the fellow who wrote this is a psuedo-intellectual twit, and seem unable to actually define several of the core terms in his argument (hence, his promise to define globalization later), and keeping in mind that I think this fellow may very well be mildly insane, it seems to me the answer to your question is this:



I think, when the author says "Globalization," he is not (he thinks) referring to classically Western notions like representative democracy, per se
, or free market activity. Rather -- bear with me, I'm trying to peel apart a deranged onion here -- I think he's saying that globalization means: The participation in each and every human citizen of Earth in the governance and society of the same. Necessarily, this means an interconnected market structure, though that appears to either be an antecedent or unimportant part of this harangue, and I get the feeling that he doesn't mean free market capitalism (although he hauntingly refrains from explaining what he means). Paradoxically, he implies that globalization is the establishment of a more rigidified and effective international system of laws and norms by which civilized behavior is recognized and regulated -- and that, therefore, the world was "globalizing" in the sense that everyone, everywhere, was (1) becoming a part of a larger community, and (2) being forcibly conscripted into being part of that identity.



Thus, when he launches salvos like:

Let me attempt to sketch how this may have been be(sic) working out. Those who died on 11 September were ‘ordinary people’, identified with as such by (we must assume) a majority of the world’s population. One common reaction to was to feel it was ‘like being in a disaster movie’ made over into the real thing. However, what this film also reflected was ‘real’ in a sense that no epic adventure had ever been: individuals ‘just like us’ were indeed being put through it, and not in their or our dreams. Viewers entered Hell by direct empathy, not via Harrison Ford.

However, ordinary mixed-up people dwell by definition in an ordinary society – in this case a society, it turned out, visibly unprotected by either the CIA or Divine Providence. They do not dwell in a (or the) City on a Hill, beacon to and leader of all Mankind, Home of the Free and the Cato Institute (and so on) but in, well, … just another country. ... But these are problems of a recognisable, historically ordinary, kind.

In other words, the global meaning of the accident was contagiously greater than America itself. The very thing so many commentators and anchorpersons so volubly expressed, ‘a universal tragedy’ touching everyone, meant that it would never be completely recuperable or possessed by the United States. The mental explosion had already encompassed the globe.




What he seems to be saying is that by globalization, he means "global community," or arguably "global awareness." Thus, America is a threat to "globalization" because no matter how it acts as a market participant, its belief in its own sovereignty (or hegemony, if you prefer) stands outside the growing consensus that We Are The World.



I think.



I might come back to this.

He seems to be saying that America, and our freedom and democracy, is exceptional, and the rest of the world is sunk in fascism. Moreover, we are in the midst of a clash of civilizations - America/freedom vs. world/fascism. 'Globalization' means the ultimate conquest of Neoliberalism over fascism. And people have thought that the Iraq war would be a further step in the triumph of America/freedom over the fascists, but in reality the war is triggering a backlash against America, and furriners are uniting against us to prevent us from acting as "judge and gendarme of the international order." Schroder, Lula and Roh electoral triumphs show our allies are turning against us. This backlash means that in prosecuting the war on terrorism, we are ourselves the enemies of globalization, as we are undermining world support for Neoliberalism.

If he thinks "nationalism is the most potent

of social forces" he hasn't been paying

attention.



Osama bin Laden is not a nationalist.

I'm afraid that "globalization," like "democracy" and "fascism," is one of those words that through overuse has lost any specific meaning.

Keeping in mind my ridiculously long comment before, I'd like to add an addendum:



The analogy is imperfect, but if you've ever read the Foundation books after the Trilogy, I think what he's shooting for is the pre-Gaia consciousness, or some similar hobgoblin. Thus, people come to see themselves as part of an interconnected whole, or at the very least, as components of larger components to an equilateral sovereign system. America is at odds with this because America refuses to just be another body part in the organic whole that is The World.



So do I get a book?

Christopher:



So globalization is the movement towards some kind of worldmind?

He is talking about transnational progressivism. Surrender of national sovereignty, and dissolution into the wide green body politic of the world.



In other words, he wants control of most of the world's military power, to make the sweeping changes he feels must be made in creating a global village of multicultural diversity. It really irritates him that Bush is using that military for other purposes.

OJ: No. Maybe I wasn't clear. Globalization is exactly what you described. But what I think this fellow "thinks globalisation is" is some sort of eschatological event, one at which, at the very least, everyone sees themselves as part of "one world" and communes appropriately.

Christopher:



Very well, I'll add another book to the package I have sitting here for you. How about de Tocqueville's Memoir on Pauperism, which we'll all be if this guy's vision comes true.

Only if you think I'm right. The game is more fun than the prize. (Not that the prize is bad or anything...)

I honestly had no idea what the guy was talking about. There were a couple sentences I couldn't even understand. Your explanation sounds as good as any. :)