nationalism vs globalism (was Re: "not national butsupranationalpowers that rule"

[Otto]

I think Phil has understood me better and you know too that I'm not talking
about keeping the present, truly injustice structures. But the friends of
Mr. Bush aren't the ones I trust.

What are "voices from the Third World"? Which of them can I take serious? Do
you claim that the majority of Third World-nations has human rights, the
freedom of speech and free media?
How many have of them have you heard supporting the undemocratic and illegal
George Bush, the unbearable Schröder and all the others. This is the power
cartell that makes the rules and they're not gonna change it to better.

How can you take Kyoto, which is strongly opposed by the US, as an argument
against the Genoa-protestors?
The way you present globalization it has been going on since 1602. Then
colonialism is globalization too.

I'm not talking for nationalism, but for globalization that deserves the
name. The borders won't open for the people and democratic ideas.

So why are no Arabian nations involved if the next meeting will be in
Quatar? First, of course the Opec is involved because of the oil-power.
Second, no demos there, no democratic structures, no open political
opposition. Choosing such a meeting place is a message I have understood.

Luckily our courts are (still) independent and the Italian government will
have to pay (in money) for beating up innocent people in that nightly
assault.

Otto