Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Land Destroyer: US Media Sells Disorder in Eastern Syria
Land Destroyer: US Media Sells Disorder in Eastern Syria: US "progress" in eastern Syria is a prelude to protracted conflict, not peace and prosperity. July 2, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - ...
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Rethinking "Globalism"
With the attack on Syria, the sending of ships to DPRK waters, and the recent upsurge in the success of "nationalist" parties, I have perhaps done my own 180 (or perhaps not, being a Gemini, and thus capable of holding opposing opinions at the same time). Globalism likely could serve sinister purposes, but it doesn't have to.
It seems that in many ways, the nation-state is too strong, and the money wasted on military"defense" of these states in some cases is astronomical. Some commentators claim we are headed for a "New World Order" of "Global Government." Perhaps a case is to be made for such. However, simply in the case of the supposed "North American Union" flaws in logic can be detected.
How is it that this "North American Union" is being created, yet it is actually more difficult (since the 9/11 attacks) to cross borders in North America? Surely, that would be a sign of less integration rather than more. When I was young, no passport was needed to cross from the US into Canada. Now, for the most part, one is required.
At any rate, yes, a "Global Government" could be a tyranny upon every resident of planet earth. But it doesn't have to be. And more to the point, it could end war once and for all. Revolution, being a different matter, might not be ended - unless this government was designed well. I wouldn't have all the answers on how to design it, nor would I presume that should.
But this is part of my point. This government would have to not be a government of the corporations only, would have to take into consideration the concerns of the many over the few, and would certainly have to be very democratic. It would have to be stronger than the UN, but weaker than most national governments. Perhaps the US Articles of Confederation could serve as a guide. Or, perhaps some other system that allows for local-ism, but insists on the unity of the human race, as well as peace and security (including economic security) for all.
Or, perhaps it is just another one of my bad ideas....
It seems that in many ways, the nation-state is too strong, and the money wasted on military"defense" of these states in some cases is astronomical. Some commentators claim we are headed for a "New World Order" of "Global Government." Perhaps a case is to be made for such. However, simply in the case of the supposed "North American Union" flaws in logic can be detected.
How is it that this "North American Union" is being created, yet it is actually more difficult (since the 9/11 attacks) to cross borders in North America? Surely, that would be a sign of less integration rather than more. When I was young, no passport was needed to cross from the US into Canada. Now, for the most part, one is required.
At any rate, yes, a "Global Government" could be a tyranny upon every resident of planet earth. But it doesn't have to be. And more to the point, it could end war once and for all. Revolution, being a different matter, might not be ended - unless this government was designed well. I wouldn't have all the answers on how to design it, nor would I presume that should.
But this is part of my point. This government would have to not be a government of the corporations only, would have to take into consideration the concerns of the many over the few, and would certainly have to be very democratic. It would have to be stronger than the UN, but weaker than most national governments. Perhaps the US Articles of Confederation could serve as a guide. Or, perhaps some other system that allows for local-ism, but insists on the unity of the human race, as well as peace and security (including economic security) for all.
Or, perhaps it is just another one of my bad ideas....
Monday, February 27, 2017
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Sunday, February 5, 2017
Good analysis from CounterPunch on the "Resistance"
The "resistance" is really the neo-liberal establishment. They were clever to pose as a "resistance" when the ones resisting are the "deplorables" resisting impoverishment due to the neo-liberal agenda. But, in the end, as Kurt Vonnegut once wrote, I am "a man without a country." Neither side in this two-sided debate represents my interests correctly, and if truth be told, the nationalist anti-globalization Trumpsters have a better argument than the faux neo-liberal left. Still, we must continue to point out neither of the two really represents the interests of the majority of people.
Link
Link
Friday, February 3, 2017
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)