Beyond the Cusp

September 27, 2016

Nation State or International Integration

Filed under: Amnesty,Assimilation,Baseline Budget,Bipartisan Support,Blood Libel,Border violence,Britain,Capitalism,China,Civilization,Clan,Congress,Coverup,Debt,Economic Fascism,Economic Independence,Economy,Education,Employment,Equal Opportunity,Equal Outcome,Eugenics,Euro,Euro Zone,Europe,European Governments,European Union,Executive Order,Failed State,Financial Crisis,Foreign Aid,Foreign Trade,France,General Assembly,Germany,Government,Government Control,Greece,Hate,Health Care,History,Humanitarian Aid,Hyper-Inflation,Illegal Immigration,Immigration,Inflated Spending,Inflation,International Court of Justice,International Criminal Court,International Politics,ISIS,Italy,Jobs,Keynesian Economics,Livable Wage,MENA,Middle East and North Africa,Minimum Wage,Nationalist Pressures,NATO,Organization of Islamic Cooperation,Panic Policies,Political Identity,Quantitative Easing,Regulations,Repatriation,Reserve Currency,Security Council,Sequestration,Shared Currency,Socialism,Spending Cuts,Standard of Living,Syria,Taxes,Threat of War,Trade,Tribe,Unemployment,Union Interests,United Nations,United Nations Presures,United States,World Opinion,World Pressures — qwertster @ 2:36 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

The election this fall is not about Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Taliban, or other security. It will not be about most of the items the media is talking about. What it is about is the economy, jobs, employment, wages, and everything about the economy but not in the obvious ways being discussed. Where will this next Presidency balance? The main item is which way does it benefit the United States most, continuing internationalism or returning to nationalism.

 

The media and most politicians are pushing this global economy, global integration, global cooperation, global solutions while hiding a dirty little secret, they are selling global as the solution while having the United States and the advanced nations pay for everything while equalizing the global playing field, whatever that means. We had a debate last night and we heard more of the same. Clinton claimed more globalism and taxes on the rich and Trump tried and may have meant to sound like Reagan. What they were not telling the people is that Clinton was using the same internationalism where the world matters more than the United States so in order to equalize the world the United States and the advanced world has to bleed to allow the rest of the world to catch up and then all will be well and how wonderful the world can be. Trump is actually claiming that every nation take their own and put them first and attempt to allow the nations who are leading the world to continue to be the leaders and then assist other nations in making gains and follow and give them access to advances as they are able to implement these advances. So, which way will work best. That depends on which nations one decides should be permitted to advance their own interests than to share with the world.

 

Internationalism is wonderful if your country is on the receiving end and not so wonderful if you are being bled to bring the other nations up to their level. The problem with that are many of these nations that are presumably being given advances in order to raise them to the same level are led by dictators who are enriching themselves and not making their nations any closer to the advanced world as that does not directly benefit them. What these dictators are not being intelligent about is that had they advanced their nation they would have enriched themselves in the process. They are not even thinking nationally rather than internationally. Internationally is a recipe for disaster as it inhibits the leaders from leading and demands that the least efficient be granted the largess while the leaders are placed in financial straight-jackets. Internationalists place a stop sign where all nations must park their own business and park their nation by the side of the highway and wait for the rest of the world to reach an equal position. The problem is that many of these nations, which they are waiting for to reach the same point, are themselves broken and not gaining and will never catch up as they are not even making any effort to reach the next level. Internationalism believes that making all nations equal will solve the world’s problems and inequalities, despite it not ever bringing the rest of the nations to first world status.

 

 

World Map with Borders Deemphasized

World Map with Borders Deemphasized

 

Nationalism is the opposite view which allows each nation to advance at their own rate and still demands that the first world assist the developing nation but does not demand they try to make equal those nations so dysfunctional that they are the closest thing to an economic black hole as can be found. Nationalism rewards each nation for their efforts and allows each nation to gain at their own speed. Allowing the leaders to lead gives other nations a target and proven path they can emulate but without national gain by the wealthiest nations to blaze the trail for the others to follow. The basis for nationalism is it allows each nation to set their own monetary policies and is against unifying monetary policies as such a system is flawed and destroys the lesser productive nations which has been proven by the European Union Euro which has benefited Germany while leaving Greece behind. Nationalism allows each country to do the best for their own people and society. That does not mean that nations which are developing should not be aided and it is in the interest of the most advanced nations to assist those nations who are developing and making the right choices and allowing them to benefit from the experiences of those nations who have traveled those roads before them. But those nations which are completely dysfunctional cannot be assisted as long as their governance is broken and until the nation decides to change their dysfunctions there is no reason to throw good money after bad.

 

Internationalism is a wonderful, feel-good policy filled of kind words and low on actual results. Internationalism demands that all nations be made to give according to their ability and the funds are granted to countries according to their needs. Internationalism demands open borders allowing free immigration with no limits or criminal and other background checks or other limits or restrictions. The policies sound as if they will allow all nations equal opportunities in word while defining this policy as bringing all nations up to the same level and making things fair for all nations. The truth is that this is accomplished by tearing down the greater nations while benefitting some of the least deserving nations who are corrupt criminal enterprises more than they are actual functional nations. Rewarding the worst while impeding the best prevents progress and will constantly restrict progress and the discoveries of new technologies and new systems which would result in assisting those nations seeking a better future to implement the proven methods. To get an idea on the difficulties caused by internationalism there is a perfect example which we can observe, the European Union. How has that equal currency been working for over half of Europe who are not Germany or Britain but are Greece, Spain, Italy and even France and many of the former Warsaw Nations. The common currency has taken the small differences of economic production where the agrarian economies which work on a different production level having to survive with the same policies of the industrial and other highly developed nations.

 

World Map and Relative Wealth of Nations

World Map and Relative Wealth of Nations

 

Permitting each nation to perform at their highest level and to their full potential will set target paths for other nation to follow along the proven road set by the highest performing nations. Progress is the fuel that raises all nations in turn. Progress provides the test paths and allows developing nations to benefit from their more advanced nations but only when they decide to advance. No nation could be forced to grow their economy and advance their national infrastructure and when a nation refuses to advance itself then forcing the rest of the world to wait for such a nation to reach an equative level is ridiculous and counterproductive. Internationalism is wonderful idea if it could function as promised. Nationalism is the dirty sounding word which is accused of being selfish because it benefits the wealthy nations and prevents developing nations from ever reaching the top level. The obvious fault is that accusation is completely false. If nationalism prevented up and coming nations from ever becoming the top nations were true then China would have ruled the world, Spain would be a leading nation, Greece would be the top nation in Europe, Egypt would be the most advanced nation in construction and engineering, Persia would still control East-West trade routes, Portugal would be a great power with colonies throughout the world, and the Hittites would be the great power in the norther worlds of Europe through to Turkey. Top nations change and have changed throughout the history of the world while nationalism was the rule of the world. Internationalism has caused massive stagnation as the world as a whole is not permitted to advance because the leading nations are held back presumably for the benefit of the lesser nations. This will always be a supported philosophy as there will always be more developing and undeveloped nations than leading nations as only a few nations will be in the top ten percent, which is why it is referred to as the top ten percent. Internationalism has been working so well over the past twenty to thirty years since 1979 while the rest of history was pathetic and without economic advancement advances by all nations and we are still using salt as a currency, aren’t we? The progress from salt as money to salt as something on almost every dinner table was a result from nationalism, not internationalism.

 

Compare the two with eyes open and the preferable form, open competition or controlled advancement, the choice could provide opportunity or a slow decadence and eventual decimation. Internationalism is welfare on an international scale much in the form of the Soviet Union and the initial Plymouth Rock Colony which would have starved if not for the Native Americans who grew and hunted for surplus for the winter and had sufficient to teach and feed the Pilgrims. After that experience of all get all they need, while most gave nothing in effort, they introduced a new program where each family kept a percentage of what they grew and the remainder was shared, the amounts of food skyrocketed. That is the balance which nationalism can produce, the most advanced achieve at their highest level and those developing nations learn from those leaders and in time some will replace them as they eventually falter. That is the secret of effort based economies, the people or nations at the top changes with time when another makes decisions which make them even more profitable as the other sinks under likely bureaucratic waste. You decide.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

July 1, 2016

Brexit Opposition Proves There is but One Side

 

Both progressives and conservatives are ridiculing the British for voting to leave the European Union (EU) and reestablish their borders, control of their economy and implementing their own independent immigration law as well as seeking their own trade deals. All of these and more were denied Britain while mired in the EU. There should have been less surprise as the British have for all their history been an independent sort and always a bit apart from the rest of Europe. But there was another item which has become very evident since the Brexit vote, almost everybody was piling on the scorn all claiming that the British had gone absolutely and madly insane voting to leave the bureaucracy that is the EU because the cold and moderating decision making by the overlords in Brussels simply was and always would be superior than anything any elected government can produce because elected governments often change between conservative and progressive thus often working against themselves alternating directions as the governing coalitions change back and forth. This had, for reasons that escape us, brought out condemnations from progressive leftists and right wing conservatives which are an unusual occurrence as these two sides never seem to agree on anything. So, what is at work here to get these presumably opposing sides of the political arena to agree?

 

There has been a theory which is often relegated to the perpetually discontented that there is little difference between the two opposing parties in the United States, the Republicans and the Democrats. The only difference is the speed in which they are driving off the cliff. They claim the left is Thelma and Louise at the end of the movie driving off the cliff with the foot to the floor going as fast as the vehicle will go while the right are driving in a Model A Ford which is only capable of going 35 MPH thus creeps over the cliff, but over the cliff both sides are taking us. We are somewhat less familiar with the particulars of European politics but are willing to bet that Europe too had its perpetual malcontents who feel the same way, just with more parties to blame. Then there is the Israeli politics where if you are happy with the government, just wait a few minutes and it will pass. But the editorial cartoons, editorial articles and even what today passes for news reports all questioned the sanity of the British body politic, or at least those voting on Brexit favorably. No matter what newspaper or news broadcast and the vast majority of talking heads all were scratching their heads and completely gob-smacked over the yay vote on the Brexit referendum. Some even went so far as to question the sanity of David Cameron in keeping his promise to hold a public referendum over remaining in the EU as promised during the campaign. One must respect David Cameron for holding himself to keep what he promised after his party won an outright majority thus not requiring their forming a coalition with another party on who they could claim demanded no referendum as a condition for joining the coalition. Sometimes winning is losing and the Brexit vote was exactly that because the Conservative Party won an outright majority making Cameron Prime Minister and leading to Brexit, forcing Cameron’s resignation.

 

EU Flag

 

All the immediate ramifications aside, the reality is the reactions to Brexit passing has revealed that there are things that the left and the right can come together on, even if they did so independently with their shock, amazement and disapproval of the British decision to leave the EU. Some who came out a little upset had previously denounced the EU bureaucracy as a dictatorial menace threatening all of Europe with its edicts and such and now they were lamenting that Brexit could signal the end of the EU many guessing who would be the next to leave the sinking ship which was obviously the EU. We have our reservations on this automatically leading to the death of the EU as there will always be a remaining core even if France were to depart. Brussels can always count on Germany remaining along with Belgium along with Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Italy, Greece and likely others as other than Britain the other nations mostly retired their currencies in favor of the Euro so leaving the EU would leave them facing a potentially cost prohibitive task of recreating the national currency. The previous paper currency would probably need updating or face an untenable threat of counterfeiting as their older bills probably lack the newer intricacies newer paper money use to prevent easy counterfeiting of their money. Still, if a nation planned their leaving of the EU, plus the fact that exiting the EU can take at least two years, an exit could be managed providing the government was stable enough that they would not need fear too many challenges. But what would possibly be the promise the EU proffered that would be so tempting to both ends of the political spectrum that there would be such agreement?

 

Many people probably have long forgotten one of the selling points originally given for the establishing of the precursor and then finally the making of the EU. The theory was that this was going to be the making of a “United States of Europe” which could rival the United States in economic force and be able to hold their own against the United States and also China on the world market. This was probably wishful thinking but there was a secondary reason spoken of in whispers and hushed tones as if it were some taboo subject, one which must not be permitted the light of day. The EU was to be another unifying economic and governance organization. The United States already represented one of the “great blocs” and the EU would be the next such bloc and it was thought that Russia and China with a few satellites would be a third and this would leave Africa, the Middle East and South America to form one or two other blocs. The oil cartel OPEC came to be seen as one and the South America trading bloc which to a limited extent included India made another loosely grouped bloc. The aim behind the EU was for them to challenge the United States in the coming unifying of these blocs going forward in the next stages where these trading blocs would also begin to take on governing as the EU had with bureaucrats smoothing out any differences allowing for unifications of currencies, trading and governance. Eventually these separate blocs would start to merge into one world-wide trading bloc leading to a unified governing bloc and soon thereafter a world body of bureaucrats who arranged trading formalities and mechanisms which also controlled a unified currency and would supersede the individual government through holding a veto power over legislations and the first task the bureaucrats would face would be unifying the legal systems and laws beginning with trade laws, tariffs and expand from there. The eventual aim was to be that new world order which would be called anything other than new world order, but it would be a world government which would be made up of experts and specialists who would be given the powers and other needful supervisory roles which would grow until the system was inescapable and all national borders would slowly be erased and the world would be unified into one super-governance.

 

There would be a few nations who would require additional pressures in order to force them into the mold of a singular ruling bureaucracy. The United States, Canada and originally, and once again, Britain would be the potential standouts whose strong self-defining histories would make incorporating them into such a system would present special problems. The idea that the Islamic world was not also viewed as a potential set of difficulties is another overlooked problem. Then there was one other nation that from all the lists and presumed alliances and the institutions which were to be formed and slowly merged all left out one nation. They were most definitely refused an alliance in the Middle East, Europe would not offer them a hand, they were nowhere near Asia and the United States had more often than not been in an adversarial role despite accusations of the United States being all but controlled by this nation and Africa and South America likely have no intention of including them. That troublesome country would be Israel. Europe has admitted Israel into projects if Israel adds far more than anyone could argue that they were not an asset to the aims, and thus Israel is accepted in order to advance European interests. With Brexit the world has thankfully taken a giant step back from bureaucratic Gehenna and potential liberty and freedom have taken a step towards safekeeping into the future.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

June 19, 2016

Ill Placed Anger

 

President Obama made it so very clear, Omar Mateen was a ‘homegrown’ and a ‘lone-wolf’ from some unidentifiable deep well of violence which had ‘nothing to do with Islam, the religion of peace.’ The President was quite guarded of what we have come to identify as his precious ideological visions as to what exactly makes up Islam. Of course the President was far less coddling and defensive when it came to those who are not on his team. Here President Obama had pointed and viciously delivered vindictive over their audacity in criticizing his reluctance to tie Omar Mateen’s violent murderous spree naming it as ‘radical Islamist’ sharply attacking with precise words, President Obama shot forth, “For a while now the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ That’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?”

 

If this sounds vaguely familiar, then perhaps we can be of some assistance in identifying the similar phrase and where it came to be used. The culprit was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responding to Republican questions and sniping at her by their insistence to getting what she saw as an statement about Benghazi they could use against her in her coming predicted run for the White House when an exasperated Hillary Clinton lost her temper and let loose a storm brewing, her lips spitting out, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.” (emphasis ours)

 

Both seeming temper tantrums had something similar, they were both triggered by a refusal to actually name Islam as being at the root of the terrorism and that Islam has a radicalization problem which many on the left wish to refuse recognition and instead would prefer to protect Islam from its own radical elements than anger a growing constituency. These defenders of Islam refuse to allow the recognition that there exists Imams who are radicalizing Islamic believers in frightening numbers. They refute any ties between the Islamic State and Islam which are why they prefer to refer to the Islamic State as ISIS or ISIL without identifying what the first ‘I’ in each set of initials refers. Both were lashing out at political adversaries attempting to deflect their pointed accusations which were presumably attempts to viciously attack all Muslims and those who defend them. These attacks are almost universally aimed at Republicans and Donald Trump specifically. What would be amusing, if it were not for the mounting death toll, have been the opposing claims that those who claim a link between Islam and terrorism are needlessly generalizing thus potentially alienating peaceful Muslims while the other side claims they are refusing any relationship between radical Islam and the majority of peaceful Muslims.

 

Both sides actually agree on one particular item, that it will take the assistance of the majority of Muslims who are peace loving to save Islam. Where they differ is naming the challenge. The conservatives have no difficulty naming the enemy as the radicalized Islamists while the liberals blame misguided individual who uses their Islam as their excuse and there are select Imams who do a disservice to Islam with their radical message. The main differences come down to a single question, is the presumed numbers of innocent and peaceful Muslims really the vast percentage or are they an insignificant minority mostly found in the Western World. Then there are the precious Imams whose ‘sermons’ like those of the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was targeted for death by the CIA in 2011, are capable of reaching disaffected youths in their native language and turn them into weaponized Muslims in the next killing fields. Orlando was the most recent of these and the most deadly. Before Orlando, Florida there were others including San Bernardino, California on December 2, 2015; Chattanooga, Tennessee on July 16, 20125; Morganton, North Carolina on December 18, 2014; Moore, Oklahoma on September 25, 2014; West Orange, New Jersey, on June 25, 2014; Seattle, Washington, on June 1, 2014 and Skyway, Washington, on April 27, 2014. These places and dates were from “What Makes Islam so Different?” The fact that most, if not all, of us cannot or do not remember these events even had we heard of them, is more a reflection on the media and their attempt to cover up Islamist terrorism as it does not fit their worldview and reflects poorly on President Obama the nation while under his and the Democrats handling of the narrative. By even simply listing these attacks on American citizens makes me guilty of feeding the too pervasive Islamophobia. The insanity becomes all the more perverse when one finds out that Islamophobia is not a fear, rational or irrational, of Muslims but rather the thought crime of implying that Islam could contain a radical and violent faction and that is just plain racist.

 

This is where the United States, almost every square millimeter of Europe and all too many segments of Israeli society have sunk. The leftists have so perverted the waters of communication that relating truths is a social misstep and going there may make you a social pariah which would mean not being invited to the next ten million Brie Cheese and Chianti parties. Oh my, how will we ever survive?

 

Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton

 

One thing we have been berated with is that in the upcoming American Presidential race there are two choices; one is sensitive, humane, understanding, loving, caring and simply wonderful while Donald Trump is boorish, impolite, hateful, vindictive and an all-around evil individual, but the media is trying to not be judgmental, simply reporting the facts. The choice is being presented as if one candidate will bring to the world peace and tranquility through intelligent and thoughtful beneficial rule while the other guarantees brash, America first the world be damned and taking the world to war and back to nationalistic barbarity. We see the choice somewhat different. We see one candidate bringing defenseless European socialist madness where the nation will go bankrupt, but not until our grandchildren will be in charge, so live it up while the charade lasts; or nationalist let’s see how much of what was once a great nation can be salvaged and turned away from following the European Union down the rabbit hole into a debt ridden death spiral. It is getting very close to too late and another four years of Obamanomics, and especially eight more years, will take the once great nation which reached from shore to shore with shires of golden wheat in between will fall to a point where feeding her own people may prove difficult as the creditors will take the entirety of our food production as it will be the last morsel with which to repay for the senseless spending. Yes, when it comes to socialism there is too much of what appears to be a good thing because, as Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The United States long ago ran out of other people’s money and has been living on monopoly money for quite some time as they found a new source; they electronically just kept adding money to the supply. This works for as long as interest rates remain near, at or below zero but once interest falls below zero the entire house of cards and fiat money crashes and the people resort to burning the money come winter as that is cheaper than paying the utility bill.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.