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

 

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

 

May 1, 2016

Trump and Policies Simply a Train Wreck

 

Donald Trump gave his version of a foreign policy speech and we did not need even the transcript to be able to predict how it went. Before the Trump supporters start screaming and sending less than happy e-mails, Trump is still slightly preferable than either Democrat choice but only by the slimmest of margins and would be almost as amusing to cover than would Bernie Sanders. That out of the way, perhaps now we can discuss why Trump’s many and conflicting policy positions might be a good thing. First and foremost they show flexibility. Not many candidates can be so far afield so as to be on both sides of so many crucial issues. This allows the Donald to place a finger in the wind and change with the breezes. It also allows him to take advice from those who actually have a clue and read the teleprompter while still sounding bombastic to the frustrations and joys of the media. Donald’s problem is he is the best news possible to those that hate him and the worst possible candidate to those who actually support him. The real difficulty for both is to cobble together a core set of beliefs and mold a coherent set of policies to call them Trump. Instead, they should just revel in whatever one wishes to believe. Trump trumps the competition because somewhere in his policy statements, as varied as such may be, are those magic lines which each supporter can cling to like a life vest on the Titanic as his next sentence will be throwing you overboard as he crashes headlong into the iceberg everyone else saw coming.

 

So, if of the choices left of Trump, Hillary and a complete unknown have one leaning towards the Donald, what is it they can say and support about his policies? That actually may be easier than most think and still remain completely truthful. Donald Trump does not sound like he has any policies other than slogans and his unbounded love of self is actually a complete coverage of his current policy positions. Trump supports Trump as a policy and that may be the best of all possible positions as that is one he can really get behind. With Trump as Trump’s policy he can with certainty claim he supports such a policy wholeheartedly. Trump is the perfect answer to any and every question concerning policies and positions as Trump is the position nobody can argue against. What about immigration, he support’s Trump. Foreign policy, Trumps the game. The Economy, he’s wealthy, did you know that? And on taxes, he avoids them because that is Trump. Where does he stand on the Middle East, right here where he is standing at any moment, be it New York, Los Angeles or somewhere in between, let’s call it Kansas City. Hey, Trump’s the man and we all should realize that by now as he has told us so a thousand times just last week, or was that just yesterday, it is hard to keep track of the number of times Trump has touted the Donald as the answer to any question. That is what is so appealing about the man; he is his own best answer.

 

There is always a Steppenwolf song which describes most any situation and Hippo Stomp describes Trump. The particular refrain goes something like,

“If I should go astray and say “I lost my way”
Nobody would know me
But if I don’t believe I can and still say “Hear my plan”
Somebody would follow just because it’s free!

That is Donald as is the remainder of the song,

 

“If I should go astray and say “I lost my way”
Nobody would know me
But if I don’t believe I can and still say “Hear my plan”
Somebody would follow just because it’s free!

We’re all Hippos, rollin’ down the river
Sometimes we can’t touch the ground
Like Hippos slidin’ in the water
Somehow we’re stompin’ around

Now you can see me lyin’ down in my swamp
Any time I feel disgusted
You’ll see me do the hippo stomp
Hey, hey, you can try it when you’re feelin’ blue

If you should go astray and say “I lost my way”
Nobody will know you
But if you don’t believe you can and still say “I’m your man”
Somebody will follow just because it’s free

We’re all Hippos rollin’ down the river
Sometimes we can’t touch the ground
Like Hippos slidin’ in the water
Somehow we’re stompin’ around

You stop and watch me
While you’re out on your midnite romp
And I can feel the silent question
What the heck is the Hippo Stomp?

Let me answer you and let me tell ya true
Just how I feel when I’m down
Sometimes I wonder you’ll see me stumblin’ around
But you just point and stare

Come on, let me hear you
Somewhere there’s a voice down inside
And when you find it let it teach you
How to ask the question ‘Why’

Just because we live together, we don’t have to like each other
So please don’t fall asleep on me again
Nobody, nobody, nobody knows for sure
You just might never wake up from the dream

Hey, speak up, let me hear you, yeah
Let me show you ’round the reservation
I know my way around these parts, I’ve lived here long enough
Now you can have a taste, an indication of things and times to come

If you should go astray and say “I lost my way”
Nobody will know you
But if you don’t believe you can and still say “I’m your man”
Somebody will follow just because it’s free

Early in the morning, late at night
Somebody seems to know just how this thing work’s right
‘Cause every time I come around the corner
Somebody’s looking out my door
He’s been snoopin’ like a hound
I’ll grab his neck and shake him on down

We’re all Hippos rollin’ down the river
Sometimes we can’t touch the ground
Like Hippos, slidin’ in the water
Somehow we’re stompin’ around

We’re all Hippos rollin’ down the river
Sometimes we can’t touch the ground
Like Hippos, slidin’ in the water
Somehow we’re stompin’ around

We’re all Hippos rollin’ down the river
Sometimes we can’t touch the ground
Like Hippos, slidin’ in the water
Somehow we’re stompin’ around

I guess what we’re saying is when anybody asks you what you think Donald Trump’s answer or position is on any subject, you can simply answer, “His position is trumps (Trump’s) and as far as that goes, it’s the Hippo Stomp, man, the Hippo Stomp.” That will leave them scratching their heads and they’ll likely never ask you to explain a Trump position ever again and you can wear your Trump is trump button in peace. Granted, you will need to repeat this a lot, but only once per questioner, we promise. It explains Trump perfectly and is almost as straight forward, honest, forthright and as easy to understand as it is to discern actual policies from what Donald Trump states from one time to the next, which often comes as the next sentence, when queried on any subject. The only thing that we have found as a consistent theme from Donald is that Donald Trump is the answer we have been seeking. If that sounds eerily familiar, it should. There will be two main differences between a Trump Presidency and the Obama Presidency, advisors. President Obama honestly does believe he is always the smartest person-hood in the room and no other person matters quite as much. That is not to say he does not listen to those advisors closest to him, it is to say that his advisors share his wide visions just as ardently as does he and they are in complete agreement. Donald Trump, on the other hand, knows he knows little but also knows admitting such is poison to politicians and that he must tout himself as the smartest person in the room and hopefully he is finished goring other people’s hogs and will simply push Trump is trumps as the answer. The difference is Trump will be depending on those he places in positions around him for honest assessments and expertise and they will be setting the policy providing one thing, that they can explain it such that Trump understands the who, what, where, why and how of the position as then he can adopt it as his.

 

Odd as it will sound to many a Reagan enthusiast, that was mostly Ronald Reagan’s key to his success and had been the key to every successful President with very few exceptions. Nobody, outside a few egos around here, knows sufficient about almost everything to be able to be President and make it work. A good leader knows how to delegate, to whom to delegate and how to get the best possible people for every position. This does not mean you choose people with whom you know you will have difficulty agreeing, you choose at least three or four and no more than a half dozen people who care and are capable of taking the opposite side and playing devil’s advocate, or actually are the devil in the details, and then be capable of preparing you to take a position and defend it against all challenges. The secret is the team as a whole being more than just its individual parts. That is what one desires to keep them informed and on an even keel, or at least not capsizing constantly. Donald Trump has been all over the place on policies because he is avoiding being pinned to a particular position with a few core exceptions which are really as he believes. If Trump has been consistent on his position and not taken opposing views, and there have been a few more than those we have noted, then those are his core and his advisors will have a ‘huge’ (pronounced ‘Yuuchge’) job changing his position as they will need to both prove him wrong and then prove themselves right before he will budge.

 

Now these positions do not mean he knows how he will actually make actual policy out of his position and that is where his advisors will have their work cut out for them as he will insist that those items be executed faithfully. The Donald will also have a standing order that nobody correct him publically and instead allow him to disagree and correct himself as only he can and otherwise back him and make him look ‘Good,’ very good. The real Donald will become known by the people he chooses for his Cabinet and other advisors. Probably the most important advisors he will choose will be his foreign policy chief, his defense advisor and once he gets to it, the General he appoints as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Generals who will serve under that person as these will be the tactical advisors responsible for executing and advising on all things military as well as providing additional information on which foreign policies will rest. These Generals will likely be chosen in close concert with the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State, two people who will be indispensable for the success of Trump as President. Until these people are in place and the new civilians have been briefed on the realities in the world, the threats, promises, promises of threats, threatening promises, adversaries and whether each is sane, rational, irrational, insane, predictable, or a loose cannon, then all intended policies can be adjusted to fit the reality and everything can proceed forward from there. Examples, Russia’s Putin is sane, cold, calculating and fairly conservative and very risk adverse and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is irrational, irreverent, dangerously unstable, unpredictable and possibly the greatest threat to pop up at the worst possible moment and finally the leadership of Iran is a group of religious fanatics led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei (سید علی خامنه‌ای) who are calculating, unpredictable, self-serving, fanatical, supremacist and believe themselves directly guided by Allah and as such infallible.

 

Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Sayyed Ali Khamenei

Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Sayyed Ali Khamenei

 

Of the three, Putin is the least dangerous and should be kept in regular communication such that he feels confident he will not be double crossed or ignored in those things he has a vested interest. The next least dangerous is probably Kim Jong Un as his resources are limited and he has desperate problems at home as his people are literally starving which does not bode well for extravagance, which is unfortunately how Kim Jong Un lives and this could eventually lead to a revolt especially as he has proven to be capable of turning even against his own family at the drop of a hat. The Iranians are likely the largest threat as they very likely already have nuclear weapons and are adding to their numbers as quickly as they can assemble additional and more powerful warheads. Their nuclear arsenal will likely soon outstrip those of the United States European allies and soon surpass Israel’s undeclared weapons and Iran is very likely to use their nuclear weapons as a first strike option and not as a deterrence and nuclear security weapon allowing their freedom of action unencumbered allowing them complete hegemony in the Middle East.

 

Iran has a discernible intent to want to supplant Saudi Arabia as leader of the Arab world despite they’re not being Arabs themselves and to then move to lead the entirety of the Muslim world converting all under their thumb to Shia Islam placing the Shiites over and above the Sunni who have held the predominant position in Islam since the split between the two main sects between the years 630AD and 650AD. After unifying all of Islam the Iranians will then proceed to unifying the world under the rule of Islam and eventually forcing all to convert or face the sword of Allah. Their war to convert and conquer the world may not wait until all of Islam has been mastered and converted to the Shiite banner, though the lion’s share of that will be required to facilitate the final conflict. This conflict can be initiated in the most violent and broad a front as imaginable and very easily could have the general use of nuclear weapons to decapitate the leadership of the strongest of forces which would stand in opposition. In the time leading up to such and in parallel to the conquest of all Islam, there will be measures taken to subjugate and take steps to assume power throughout as much of the world as possible using infiltration, much as Europe is currently facing.

 

Iran will be one of the main, if not the main, challenges for the foreseeable future and the most dangerous. They will also offer the greatest of opportunities to ally forces which currently appear to be in conflict even if mostly through economics (China) or through spreading influence (Russia and Iran). Whoever the Americans choose to be their next President, once again the biggest and most crucial threats and challenges will be in foreign policy. This was true during President Obama’s terms and he fell dreadfully short as many, ourselves included, feared he was destined to do. The world is that much more dire a situation as President Obama strengthened the most dangerous of regimes directly and did little if anything to discourage the rest of the threats allowing all threats to the Western World and culture to fester and grow more threatening. It may come to pass that history will lay the subjugation of Europe to Islam as directly attributable to President Obama and his petty policies executed apparently to spite the United States for perceived sins, some real and others imaginary. The reestablishing of the United States a predominantly a forced for good and an empowering ally more than a domineering imposition will be the greatest challenge going forward. It will be in this theater by which Presidents will be rated by history going forward as it has been since President Truman first chose to actually save the lives of countless Japanese military and civilians as well as probably approaching a million or two American and allied servicemen which would have been lost if Japan would have needed to be invaded on her home islands not to mention the strong likelihood that the Russians would have helped themselves to the Japanese northern most island. There has been temptations by revisionist historians to paint the use of the atom bombs by Truman as the greatest war crime ever perpetrated, but in reality it saved millions of lives as the Japanese would have fought to the last individual had the Emperor and military commanders not been shown the impossibility of their position.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.