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....

Ike Farewell Address

As the current president readies to give a farewell address, here is video of the very famous and important address given by a former president, at least in part.

politics is done in the darkness #5

I hope I'm right about the number. I think this is the 5th audio-cast.

Sad but likely true report on Syria

There seems to be a few, at least, competing analyses of events in Syria. It also seems likely that any analysis of the war in Syria would include looking at events in Iraq and beyond.

Some of these reports seem to be a little optimistic, and indicate that the Russians and the Americans are coming to some understanding about what should happen next in Syria. Others, like the one I will post below, indicate that the Russians and Americans are far away from reaching any consensus, and perhaps there is great potential for a war between two superpowers. Let's hope not.

Perhaps, as some analysts have put forward, the problem is that the different agencies within American government do not agree on the outcome in Syria. For instance, one plausible scenario is that White House might be looking to come to an agreement with the Kremlin in order to fight IS.

I would hope that those who believe the US and Russia are working out differences and finalizing a plan for the end of the war are correct. I fear that the other analysts might be more correct though.

Article from WSWS 

politics is done in the darkness #4

This is the latest audio/YouTube video of my series of podcasts (audio-casts really) named after this blog.

Paul Craig Robets

As Pessimistic as ever. In audio form, but here is the link.

Voltairenet on US state of the Union

Really, a variation on George Carlin's observation that, "This country is finished."

Thierry Meyssan's article.

A few words from Paul Craig Roberts

This is sort of how I see it too. I generally like Paul Craig Roberts, but don't agree with everything he says. I'm not that enthralled by the idea of buying gold. That won't save us.

A report from x22

This was so good, I've decided
to post it here in its entirety.

Turkey War with Russia? - Joaquin

I don't think Russia is going to be as cautious about how it responds as this analysis suggests, but we'll see. I get the sense that the Turkish government sees itself as being more important than NATO thinks it is, but could be wrong. One thing I suspect: A country can't openly shoot down a Russian jet and think that is the end of it.

Classic Press Briefing on Russia and NATO

This is classic. I'm told this is from some time ago, but it makes the point clearly. I felt like I was watching a parody of some old 1960s movie, like "Dr. Strangelove" or something. The general (I believe he is a general) was like some stereotype of a fictitious general from some story book. He reminded me of something out of the book, The Little Prince , like when the Little Prince visits the planet where the militaristic leader is plotting out his territory.

Is Russia getting closer to NATO? Unbelievable. And this is how too many of our leaders think. No, the obvious answer is that NATO is getting closer to Russia. 

Kerry, Lavrov, and the Turkish Border with Syria.

Here is how Mike Whitney concludes this article from CounterPunch about the prospects for peace in Syria, and the duplicity being exercised by Mr. Kerry and company regarding the war in Syria: "Putin sees terrorism as a direct threat to Russia’s national security. He’s going to do whatever it takes to defeat the enemy and win the war. If that means he’s got to put Russian boots on the ground to get the job done, then that’s what he’ll do."

Can this article really be saying what it seems to?

This is from a site called South Front, that does sort of  a run down each day of military developments involving Russia (and others maybe), while also providing some insight into the strategy that might lie behind what information can be uncovered. This line stood out: "Iraqi security sources stated that the US-led coalition’s airstrikes killed 22 army and volunteer servicemen on Tuesday. The coalition warplanes targeted the Iraqi forces’ positions after they advanced the al-Jama and al-Davajen bridges near the city of Ramadi."

This seems to be saying that the US bombed Iraqi positions, not ISIS. That can't be what it is really saying? Can it?

Video Link Including Summary

Military Industrial Complex, US Proxies, and the Haves and Have Nots