International House

The non-enlightened self-seeking I described in my post, “The God Who Failed”, could have a silver lining, in the sense that it might constitute a natural limit on what is called “internationalism”. Think about it for a moment. Your typical self-seeking corporate warrior, as described in the post, is looking exclusively to his own bottom line, and apparently for these people money is more important than power, i.e. they will more readily give up power to get (or keep) money than they will give up money to gain power. (In this, they clearly differ from many government officials, who give up extremely lucrative jobs in order to take government positions – although, let's admit, they sooner or later return to the private sector and merely pick up where they left off.) The true internationalist, on the other hand, if he belongs to the “old school”, is less concerned with money, or with power in the short run, than with having a lasting impact on whatever facet of the world's existence he fancies. For some, it's economic; for others, the form of government. For still others, it's social policy. It may even have to do with religious institutions. Also, the internationalist of old is not particularly concerned with fame – in fact, he tends to shun it since too much exposure could carry with it the risk of compromising his self-assigned mission. In short, there is a sacrificial (not to say altruistic) attitude in the true internationalist – the man with a “cause”. And he does not mind laboring for years in total obscurity in order to further that cause; one only has to think of Lenin. He will give up any number of short-term gains and comforts for a program which might not even be realized in his lifetime; he is, in this sense, a “true believer”. And it's this attitude that seems essential to success in any sort of long-range internationalist scheme or program; the temptation to “skim off the top”, to take dividends and “perks” along the way must be studiously avoided. Of course, rewards may come and they will not be scorned; but they cannot be the primary motive.

Now, based on this description, how many of our present-day CEOs would be considered fit to take on an internationalist role? Precious few, I'd say. When you look at how invincibly short-sighted and selfish they are, and how soon they bail out in order to enjoy their ill-gotten gains, you have to conclude that any sort of “cause”, with any sort of idealistic or utopian slant, would be lost on them. And this is not to say that CEOs of the internationalist stripe do not reap great material benefits from their positions – but again, this may only happen after a lifetime of laboring in obscurity and working their way up the ladder – whatever that might consist of. And fame is the least of their concerns. How many of us know the name of even one Swiss bank CEO, for example? Fewer than know the names of any number of Swiss Winter Olympics medalists, I'd say. And to the true internationalist, it's never just about money, or even temporal power in the usual sense. Their goal is to remake the world in their image – to look at the world and see a reflection of themselves, as in some sort of magic mirror. This cannot be accomplished by keeping one's nose to the usual grindstone. Ideas have to take precedence over short-term considerations, and money and power are more apt to be used as tools – as a means – than to be ends in themselves.

So let's say – just as a “for instance” -- that you're on the recruiting team for the next cohort of internationalist power players – you know, for the people who will be put in charge. (I have no idea that this is how it actually works, by the way. There's also evidence that it's largely hereditary. But allow me to pursue the point, remembering that every hereditary ruler needs at least a prime minister.) You scan the globe in a sort of top-level “headhunting” operation, and your gaze falls on a group of fast-talking, larcenous American CEOs. Do you consider them prime candidates? Do you call them in for interviews? I doubt it. You're not going to be interested in the white-haired, pink-skinned dude who can't stay away from the country club, the yacht club, or the opera for more than a day at a time. You're going to look for the one who, basically, couldn't care less – but who has ideas... ideas of his own, but which he's perfectly willing to share with the right people, who are in turn willing to share their ideas with him. This is the guy who you want to bring in at entry level (which is still above any elected official on earth) and groom to join the high priesthood of secularism, and offer up sacrifices in the unholy of unholies. Problem is, people of this mettle may be getting increasingly hard to find, not only in the U.S. but elsewhere as well, I suspect, and no one wants to leave the farm to anyone who is clearly not up to the task. This is why internationalism may -- “may” -- start to run into diminishing returns, if it has not already done so.