The Corona Effect

03/04/2020

With so many things happening in the world right now, a growing trend that will eventually reshape the world can go unnoticed.  I’m talking about the death of globalism.

Many people have probably heard that there is a trend in the recent national elections in various countries which has resulted in countries becoming more nationalistic.  It’s generally referred to as “populism.”  However, that is just the tip of the iceberg.  The bigger shift which is occurring right in front of our eyes is the changes in the world economic system.

Interestingly enough, the coronavirus which is grabbing all the headlines (for obvious reasons) is also going to produce a seismic event in the world economy.  Naturally, there are going to be short-term dislocations in the world economy.  However, the long-term trend is going to change everything. Think about the side-effects of a global pandemic, which is how the coronavirus is being labeled. People will come to understand the consequences of such a global pandemic. For example, pandemics quickly shut down the world economy because governments have to take precautions to protect their citizens. Such precautions include restrictions on the movements of people between nations, which includes the closing of borders. 

The world’s economic system is built on free trade and globalist policies, like centralized manufacturing.  Supply chains stretch out across the world in order to provide goods to consumers which in some cases are a half-a-world away.  As a result, this kind of system cannot survive a pandemic.  The upshot is that countries are already moving their supply chains with companies leaving, particularly China, for other destinations.

The next shoe will fall eventually, though.  That is, the combination of nationalism and the fear of pandemics will force countries to become as self-sufficient as possible and will also force companies to decentralize their operations.  The result will be the biggest change in the world economy…ever.

There will be winners and losers from these changes.  However, when the dust settles, the old world order of centralization will have to give way to a decentralized model. Decentralization will be the only way that countries can be nationalistic and provide protection from potential global pandemics. Countries will become even more nationalistic and focus on local issues and culture. Diversity will be much less important and immigration will be restricted both because of increased nationalism and the fear of global pandemics.

We’re not yet there, of course.  This is only a vision of the future.  It’s the outgrowth of an unintended consequence brought on by the butterfly effect from a little virus.  I’d like to call it The Corona Effect. All we can do is watch.  The rest, as they say, will be history.

The Mueller Fallout

07/30/2019

 

 

My favorite liberal political pundit is Caitlin Johnstone who is oft quoted by various media outlets.  I like her mostly because she is fearless and is not afraid to openly confront the political establishment.

Here is what she said recently in an article entitled “What Progressives Hopefully Learned From Russiagate:”

 “…I hope progressives have learned that we’re never going to manipulate our way into progressive reform. Truth is the one and only weapon we have…If there’s any strength left in what remains of America’s progressive movement to effect real change, that change will come solely from grassroots populism….”

I agree with Johnstone that real change has to originate with grassroots populism.  The problem is that populism is the platform that Trump is running on (and winning).

In the last couple of years, however, the progressive movement has been hijacked by the radical left-wing of the Democratic Party.  They claim to represent the people and that Trump is “challenging America’s core values”. Well, in reality, the opposite is actually true. What AOC is talking about is that Trump is challenging the core values of her political ideology which are at odds with mainstream America. This explains why AOC has such poor polling numbers. 

Most of the elites and the political pundits live in places like New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles, completely out of touch with the pulse of America. Real Americans lead pretty mundane lives and call places like Keokuk, Iowa, Peoria, Illinois and Birmingham, Alabama home.  In order to understand their core values, you have to live where they live, work where they work and perhaps pray where they pray.  It would be a real wake-up call for most progressives to understand these people and to learn what America is really all about.

The problem in America is that the political establishment does not represent mainstream America (the people of Keokuk, Iowa), or their core values. So, how are they ever going to have a real “grassroots” movement?  It was none other than Rahm Emauel, former Chief of Staff for Barack Obama, who recently had to warn progressives that open borders and free healthcare for illegals is crazy and stupid (politically speaking).  Unfortunately, no one was listening as blind ideology still rules the day. As usual, Caitlin was right…but her solution, unfortunately, is not attainable.

 

 My skepticism of the official Russia narrative remains so completely unsatisfied that if mainstream media were my husband I would already be cheating on it with my yoga instructor.” – Caitlin Johnstone

 

In a recent article in the New York Times entitled “Joe Biden and the Party of Davos,” the Times gave their take on the upcoming 2020 presidential election and the chances of Joe Biden. The Times noted that, “Trump is … the face… of a revolution against the Party of Davos, the network of elites whose economic and cultural prescriptions came to be seen by myriad voters across the United States and Europe as camouflage for a self-serving heist….This revolution is not an American phenomenon. It is much wider. Its first clear-cut expression was not Trump’s victory but Britain’s Brexit vote…. It is political, economic and cultural, driven by a resurgence of those unhappy twins: fear and nationalism.”

What is happening in the U.S. is simply a reflection of the world-wide war between globalism and nationalism. This war has produced a chasm that has torn the country politically, a literal civil war.  The differences between the two factions are being played out on a playing field of economics, environmental matters and social issues, all under the guise of political correctness.

Yes, there are some ideological differences to be sure, but it’s mostly optics.  The overriding issue is control, and who gets to have it. That’s why nationalism/populism has become such a driving force in global politics.  It’s a clear rejection of the elite’s Party of Davos, and that’s why the Times says that Joe Biden’s campaign will inevitably have serious problems.  Of course, they forgot to mention the real dirt on Biden.  That is, the brewing Ukraine scandal or Biden’s  connections to the Russia-collusion narrative.  It’s funny how that was left out of the Mueller report.

Then there’s the whole #MeToo mess and the legacy of Al Franken.  When will the next woman come forward?  It’s inevitable, isn’t it? However, Biden apparently still has the support of the Party of Davos despite the fact that many on the left think that he is not electable because he is old, white and a man. However, this is simply a reflection of the fact that the far left has become so polarized that it basically now represents only the young, women and minorities.

Memories of past political failures do tend to be very short in Washington.  Have they already forgotten the debacles of George McGovern and Barry Goldwater? Don’t they realize that centrist presidential candidates are usually the only ones that are electable? In truth, that’s the only reason that Joe Biden may yet get the Democratic Party nomination.

An article by Kris Kobach in Breibart made this observation about the recent SOTU address. Kobach said, ”But the most revealing moment occurred after President Trump described the staggering failure of socialist policies in Venezuela, when he said, ‘Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.’” And none of the Democrats clapped. Of course, their action will be dissected from both sides but I wanted to give you the real answer why the Democrats didn’t clap.

Yes, many people are by now aware of a new socialist movement in the U.S. The poster children for this movement in the 2018 mid-term elections were Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and Beto O’Rourke. Ocasio-Cortez has proposed a socialist Green New Deal which has been embraced by a number of high-profile members of the Democratic party, like Kamala Harris who is a 2020 presidential candidate for the Democratic Party nomination. One could easily then make the leap from Democrats favoring Venezuela over Trump (i.e. by not clapping) to Democrats taking on the socialist mantle of the Green New Deal as their party’s new platform.

In a way, that is quite understandable when viewed through the lens of the Democratic Party’s loss in the 2016 presidential election.  That is, Hillary Clinton, a moderate Democrat, lost to Trump, who had previously been a Democrat himself.  Clinton lost because she didn’t oppose Trump’s campaign agenda. Instead, she ran on her record.  So, the new thinking in the Democratic Party is that they need a platform which will stand in stark contrast to Trump; thus socialism. Or could there be something else in play? After all, billionaire donors now finance the Democratic Party and he who has the gold rules, as they say.

In that regard, the larger context in which American politics can be viewed is the world-wide conflict between globalism and populism. In that context, the Green New Deal represents socialism/globalism and Trump represents capitalism/populism.  Here’s the tie-in. Christiana Figueres, who then headed up the United Nations global warming program said this at a news conference a couple of years ago:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

So, the United Nations goal is to destroy capitalism in the name of globalism.  If you need to know the history of the United Nations, it is instructive that the United Nations was really founded to govern the world under the banner of a one-world government and it is an agent for the globalist agenda.  If you don’t believe me, check out Agenda 21.

This dynamic of globalism vs. populism is playing out in every country of the industrialized world, including the U.S. It doesn’t matter that communism destroyed the Soviet Union; it doesn’t matter that communism destroyed Cuba; and it doesn’t matter that socialism has destroyed Venezuela and is bankrupting the European Union.  It doesn’t matter. It’s not about economic philosophy, only political ideology.  You see, the globalists perspective is that nation-states are expendable.

You need to realize that Barack Obama intended to hand the reins of the presidency over to Hillary Clinton. It was at the 2016 White House Correspondents’ Dinner that Obama said,“This time next year, someone else will be standing here in this very spot. And it’s anybody’s guess who she will be…You all look great. The end of the republic has never looked better.” However, the globalists’ plans to deep-six the Republic got derailed.  Hillary lost – and populism then started to sweep the world.

The reason that the Democrats didn’t clap is because they have embraced the socialist agenda and are the agents of globalism in this country.  This is why they insist on open borders and this is why they promote the Green New Deal. In short, they didn’t clap because they oppose the constitutional form of government of the United States of America.  Many wore white as a show of solidarity in opposing the President. Welcome to civil war in America.

 

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.  Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

 

 

So, some people didn’t believe me when I said in my last post that globalism and populism cannot co-exist.  Enter Emmanuel Macron.

As world leaders gathered in Paris to pay homage to the heroes of World War I, Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, stepped front and center and turned the event into a political football game by saying, “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.”  What exactly did he mean by that anyway?

Well, first let’s check out the definitions of those two terms. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines patriotism as love for or devotion to one’s country and nationalism as loyalty and devotion to a nation.  So, the two definitions are virtually identical, although usage of the two words can be slightly different.  For example, Charles de Gaulle once said that,“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate of people other than your own comes first.”

Why the wordplay or is this just another example of political correctness?  Well, to know that you have to first understand the worldview of the speaker and the audience he is speaking to. The speaker, in this case, was Emmanuel Macron and his country had previously abdicated its sovereignty to the European Union, not unlike how the French abdicated to Nazi Germany during World War II. Of course, President Trump was also in the audience as well and Macron’s remarks were certainly a rebuke of Trump’s “America First” policies which have been undercutting France, and, for that matter, the entire European Union.

Aside: As Macron told his audience, mostly European leaders, they have a responsibility to defend the legacy of world peace. More wordplay, as he actually meant world order, as in their world order.

The backdrop behind Macron’s remarks is the rise in populism, especially in Europe, and it has been upsetting the established order as populist countries turn to protecting their own interests first before the interests of the European Union.  Now, that’s patriotism to me.  As for Macron, himself, he is losing in the French polls to the populists similar to what’s already happened in Hungary, Poland and Italy, to name a few.

Accordingly, nation-states have become the enemy of globalism, simply because they put their own country first.  They are rejecting Macron’s call for open borders and the mass immigration that would follow it and destroy them all.  While there are certainly other political differences between globalism and populism, open borders really illustrates why the two sides cannot co-exist. Simply put, nation-states cease to exist without borders. The globalists are hell-bent on getting open borders, both here and abroad as open borders spells the end of nation-states (that is, they would lose their sovereignty).

Now you know why nation-states are the enemy… at least as far as the globalists are concerned.

 

Epilogue

In any event, it appears that after the upcoming French elections Macron will be out of a job unless, of course, the globalists let him run the United Nations. Some people have even gone so far as to suggest that we can save the world by letting the United Nations be in charge. In that case, Macron would even run our country as well.  Maybe, then he would just invite in another 600 million immigrants or so.  It would be the humanitarian thing to do according to him.  Nancy Pelosi would love that, no doubt, and she could still be Speaker of the House (albeit for a country which no longer has any sovereignty).

 

“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”  – Zbigniew Brzezinski

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just Like Germany

10/24/2018

In sports, they used to say, “Just like Mike.” In politics it’s about to become, “Just like Germany.” That is, politically, America is about to go down the same road as Germany.  Recent elections in Germany reflect a growing disenchantment of the German people with their government, especially when it comes to the immigration issue.  Angela Merkel may soon have to give way to a new government, one which may have a mandate to address Germany’s ever-growing immigration issue.

Similarly, here in this country, one of the major issues for the mid-term elections is immigration, especially in light of the hype surrounding the migrant-caravan crisis. The stage has been set for a showdown on this issue.

However, the immigration issue goes beyond the polarization of politics as highlighted by the deepening chasm between left-wing and right-wing ideologies. Much more is at stake. The conflict is an extension of what is playing out in Germany and across the globe, a conflict between globalism and populism.

In this country, the conflict can best be described as between those espousing “open borders” and those who support the MAGA movement.  There are a number of arguments for and against “open borders”, but there is one argument that I think overrides all others and yet almost never gets mentioned. That is, “open borders” requires that we ultimately get rid of our nation-state.  It would be the end of the Republic as we know it.

If you want to know how other countries feel about “open borders” just go ask China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia.  They all have much stricter immigration policies than we do.  And why is that, exactly?  It’s simple.  Their nations would cease to exist without borders.

 

All Americans…are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.  The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.  The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.  That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders….”  – President Bill Clinton

 

Political rhetoric has really gotten to the point where no one is listening anymore, if in fact they ever were.  Everyone seems to have an opinion about why things have deteriorated so much in just the last two years.  Some blame the activists while others blame the rich, white men.  Everybody blames somebody else (never themselves) and compromise is strictly a thing of the past.

Traditionally, the political groups were generally split into two camps, liberals and conservatives. Of course, some people were liberal, on say social issues, and conservative on economic issues.  Thus, the lines were often blurred. However, these labels have become increasingly meaningless in today’s political landscape.  What could have caused such a sea change?

In just the last two years, there has been a growing trend in the election of populist world leaders including Giuseppe Conte (Italy), Viktor Orban (Hungary) and Roumen Radev (Bulgaria).  In addition, there was the Brexit vote in England to leave the EU.

What has been playing out on the world stage is an awakening of the masses against being governed by unelected bureaucrats (globalists).  The result has been the election of populists (nationalists) who put their countries first. A version of that has taken place in this country with the election of Donald Trump (a nationalist) over Hillary Clinton (essentially, a globalist).

Over time, empires rise and fall and ideologies come and go. Elections do have consequences, after all.  However, the transition from one ideology to another is often chaotic.  In this case, populism and globalism are mutually exclusive ideas. That is, they cannot co-exist.  Hang on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

 

“If supranational forms of sovereignty are to be real, they can’t tolerate the ongoing existence of national sovereignty.” –  Dr. Samuel Gregg, author