Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Culture, Economics, Education, Foreign Policy, Governance, Representation, Trump

HATE TRUMPS REALITY

Leave a comment

Two world-changing events occurred in 2016: the U. K. vote to leave the European Union… and the election of Donald Trump to the U. S. presidency.  There are many parallels, both in the respective happenings and in their aftermaths.  Both events have exposed flaws in the collectivist trends both nations were in the midst of.  Both nations have experienced hate-filled political discourse ever since.

The “UK” – Britain – had taken an economic step away from sovereignty when it joined the “European Community” in1973, and reinforced the decision by referendum two years later.  After the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, Britain took a political step away from sovereignty, as well.  Now the European Union, The “EU” placed controls and limitations on member “states” regarding citizenship, borders, immigration and judicial decisions, with the avowed intention of forming a “United States of Europe” and subverting cultural distinctions and national rights.  Britain has always been restive about the changes to its sovereignty, and public pressure and petitioning finally caused Parliament to create the referendum, yes or no, on leaving  the EU: the so-called “Brexit.”

What is interesting is the emergence of hatred as a dominant British political tool, more than even during existential threats of war over Britain’s lengthy warring history.  Per usual, all of what Brits call “hooliganism” is laid at the feet of “ultra-right-wingers,” who, apparently, are too stupid to recognize the wonderful future that’s possible with globalization.  If anyone objects vociferously to the slippery amalgamation into an ephemeral United States of Europe, he or she is pigeon-holed as a “right-winger” and not worthy of considered attention.

In other words, “nationalism” may be viewed only through the lens of Nazism and racism and all the other “isms” leftists use to end debates.  The benefits of national competitiveness in the elevation of living standards of every sort, is carelessly conflated with government’s benign intentions and centralized economic control.  Individual liberty is the first victim of centralization. The unholy alliance of history-ignorant education and a leftist press have proven useful in the imposition of this theory.

A similar effect has clearly been evidenced in the rise of Donald Trump.  With calls for his impeachment even before his inauguration, there is no surprise that his political opponents are clamoring ever louder for impeachment, now.  The only thing missing is an impeachable offense, but they’ll construct one or hire a contractor to create one for them.  Why not win at the ballot box by putting the efforts at impeachment to work building an electoral coalition?  That’s a good but separate question.

Why the hate across academia and liberal-leftist “communities?”  From Antifa on up, the degree of hatred for Mr. Trump and his supporters is indicative of tremendous fear: fear of losing something so dearly held that nothing is too extreme to defend it… even if that means disrupting democratic republicanism and the Constitution, itself.  What could that be?  That is the question, and a larger question in the U. S. than in the U. K.

Do leftists simply hate all non-leftists?  Maybe… they don’t like us, certainly, and think we are stupid for not appreciating their view of history’s inevitable direction.  But, hatred?  Takes a lot of energy to hate, maybe that’s why they aren’t very cheerful.  It could be that they have plans to facilitate the supposedly inevitable direction of human activity (and serfdom) and that those plans are so important that they must destroy everyone who opposes – even by disagreeing with – the idea of a universally socialist future.

Is it as simple as just hating Trump, the man?  He has lived a very exposed life and, until deciding to run for president, he enjoyed the benefits of wealth and acceptance in the elite circles of power and influence open to those who appear to not oppose the leftist vision.  You might say he exploited those benefits.  While not a perfect husband, he has been a good father by all measures, and treats his ex-wives gently.  Evidently he married more of his female affair partners than John F. Kennedy did his.  He has never had any questionable deaths connected to him or his companies, and no one has had to “take the rap” for him.  Is he a sweetheart?  No.  He’s rather ruthless in business… a requirement in the kinds of businesses he has worked in.  He’s a scrapper, willing to fight back when politically punched.  He seems quite patriotic.  What’s to actually hate so vehemently?

Trump must be a threat to something held very dear by all of those who have reared up to stop his presidency.  The measure of his enemies helps us size up the President, no longer simply Mr. Trump.  Trump’s life and past business successes and failures, did not include diplomatic niceties, euphemistic half-truths and pretend alliances.  Trump, himself, has never tried to present himself very differently than he actually is: brash, defensive, crude and vulgar at times.

He is vulnerable, politically, mainly from being a braggart, from which he slides in and out of embellishing the truth, even small truths.  Unlike people in ordinary life, many of whom have the same bad habit of embellishing stories, but for whom it doesn’t make much difference, Trump’s overstatements are described only as lies.  Others’ families and acquaintances recognize the habit and live – or work – around it.  It may even be a source of humor.

In the position of U. S. President there is no room for it… none, we’re told.

People want to hear the lies they expect.  They want to hear about “diplomacy” and “budget cuts” and “working-class” families like Teamsters, and about “working families” with indefinable careers, and the great favorite, “investments” in the future or in our children.  Another whopper we like to hear is “religious freedom.”  While more liberal leaders are expected to purvey “white” lies that keep America happy and keep secret the daunting business of the executive branch, Trump is pilloried for overstating, he is the worst liar in American history, after all.

Trump’s election, though, has interfered with our worldwide economic position, our military standing, the sanctity of our national borders, our ability to complete or repair relations with many nations, and with our ability to conduct domestic business.  Why?  Because of something Trump has done?  Some action that has hurt our standing everywhere?  That doesn’t seem like the Prudent answer.

Hatred of Trump, the man, is the damaging cause.  Hatred, stirred by certain leaders in the Democrat party, and continuously stirred up by them, to a degree pushed by international socialists, is the hammer that has been pounding the U. S. domestically and internationally since before he was elected!  Hatred.  Political action founded on hatred.  Trump has awakened and exposed the essential fraud of the socialist, administrative, “deep” state – the statist monster of socialist dreams and the ultimate threat to our constitutional form of government.

When has this phenomenon ever been seen in the United States?
Leading up to and during the second Civil War. Now we are entering the fourth. 

Widespread hatred, particularly violent hatred like that exercised by so-called “antifa” gangs, is a symptom of civic breakdown.  Political leaders are the very people whom we hire to subdue these effects of social dissatisfaction, or hopelessness, yet many are foregoing their responsibilities or actually encouraging the breakdown.

There are many threats to freedom, the greatest of which from outside, is China.  They have permanent interests from which they do not deviate.  One of those is to achieve dominance over the United States – everything else is secondary.  Yet we, U. S. citizens  AND our so-called representatives, are allowing Chinese interests to dominate us internally! Who voted for Nike?  Politicians on both sides are profiting mightily – and in cash – from connections to Chinese companies.  We keep re-electing them.  Trump is trying to stand up to the Chinese and receives bitter domestic resistance for trying.  You just can’t gore a single ox, anymore.

Meanwhile, we are doing our best to ignore history, these past few decades, and many seem determined to undermine the American idea from within.  A world that is still fundamentally not-free, and dominated by soulless international bankers, is in no way the place for the end of national identities, to be replaced with global socialism – for “climate” reasons or any other.  It seems more than Prudent, now – today, to defend and strengthen our Constitutional, democratically-elected republican form of government.

Foreign Policy, Politics 2017, Trump

RUMORS OF WAR

Leave a comment

There are wars and rumors of war. How pleasant the last year of Ronald Reagan’s term appears, looking back. The Soviet Union was falling apart, the economy was in good shape, there was no ISIS, the Middle East was relatively calm, commodity markets were “under control,” so to speak, Syria, Libya, Venezuela and even the East Coast of Africa, Iraq and Iran were comparatively un-troublesome. Nicaragua was yanked back from Communism, Chile restored free elections, casting off Pinochet’s military police state (CIA -created), and American ships were still welcome in the Philippines. Thankfully, the senior George Bush defeated Michael Dukakis for president. Desert Storm and Bill and Hillary Clinton were yet to burden the polity.

Read the history of the ‘80s and things were anything but calm and peaceful. Nelson Mandela was still in jail, Robert Mugabe was firmly installed as “president” of Zimbabwe, and Hosni Mubarak was in his first decade of his never-untroubled leadership of Egypt and rough alliance with the U. S. Africa was in turmoil and many were starving, there, while tribal racism threatened millions. Argentina barely functioned with double digit inflation, yet decided to invade the “Falklands/Malvinas” to “reclaim” its sovereignty, based as much on proximity as on history. The U. K. decided under Thatcher, to re-take them. Ronald Reagan easily subverted the Monroe Doctrine to help his friend, Maggie, sink the General Belgrano.

Typically we try to believe that politics creates war and the conditions for war, but we can’t quite succeed at that. While war may be a political tool, it rarely rewards the party or leader in power in the intended way. On the other side of the mirror, however, it can be observed that war often creates politics – in fact, not just often, but generally – in that militarism is easily equated with patriotism and tends to divide the body politic along patriotic lines. One cannot hide from the truth that neither the body politic nor the nations at war are generally benefited. Individual politicians or their party… maybe.

Now, what? A supposedly “America first” presidential candidate (meaning to a degree: America only) has been turned in the span of 5 months to a president willing to view the world like a so-called “neo-Con.” Abruptly, acts of war – missiles into Syria, super-bomb into Afghanistan, threats of hot responses to North Korean “provocations” – are deemed useful internationally. Supposedly, this turn-about and its apparent unpredictability of the new president, will move China to change its policies toward North Korea; will cause Russia to pull back from its prior stance in Syria, and possibly in Ukraine and Georgia. Even Iran’s theocrats will quake at the threats of Donald Trump since we have been willing to take some actions against people or things that have almost no chance of retaliation.

Perhaps we should bomb Venezuela because the government there is starving its people and being mean.

Sudan and Zimbabwe are worth at least some cruise missiles, aren’t they? How demeaning it is to choose Syria… Syria! Sudan has at least as crappy a government as Syria! We live in a strange nation growing stranger.

Americans think, many of us, that the U. S. is pure and well-intentioned and very misunderstood by all the nations or groups that distrust us and wish to kill us. Our global deployment of military activities: 156 countries in a recent estimate, is for humanitarian aid and economic development. Well, that’s right – economic development of somebody.

Maybe it’s necessary. Multiple administrations have thought so. The “Truman Doctrine” of containing Communism has morphed into the unspoken – dare we say, secret – doctrine of containing everybody. The World’s policeman, indeed.

Well, say the thoughtful ones, if not us, then who? China? Russia? God forbid! Believe us, they thoughtfully pronounce, you don’t want to live in a world that’s not “led” by the United States. Perhaps not.

Money talks. Our beneficial “Petro-dollar” scheme buttressed by Saudi Arabia has permitted the U. S. to borrow and spend in astronomical quantities, to the degree that our worldwide military adventures have been “free,” sort-of. We have outspent our income – the largest income in the world to boot – for 50 years, by creating unlimited debt. Maybe it is completely fair that we “protect” the world with its own money. After all, it costs us only the interest – and a few thousand of our very best men and women. At least during this election cycle.

So, Mr. President, what are we going to stir up? It’s one thing to risk your own people, quite another to risk most of South Korea. Or Japan. Attacking the North Koreans can never be done with clear knowledge of all of their capabilities. What if they have pre-positioned a couple of nukes next to the DMZ? Or just offshore of South Korea? How many “South” Koreans are really “North” Koreans? Some, for sure.

And, then, there ARE the 30,000 or so Americans watching the DMZ from the South who are some sort of “trip wire” in the event North Korea starts an invasion. That must be a comfort. Most likely, if the North does decide to make a move, it won’t start at the DMZ, it will start well behind it, in Seoul. Then what shall the 30,000 do? Invade the North? That’s not a plan, either. The North has many, many more troops and artillery arrayed on their side.

If the North moves it will be all or nothing – do or die. They must know that Hell will shortly find them if they start anything. By the same token, if the U. S. starts something, the North must either fold its tent and retreat or, again, go all out with everything they have – they’ve sort-of talked themselves into it.

Oh, Mr. Trump, what are you going to do? You risk the South at the very least. Recent endeavors show that there are not enough bombs to deliver victory without protracted ground action. Do you really think China will allow the decimation of its handy cat’s paw? Or will Russia, for that matter? Who will overnight become whose friend if things “go hot?”

Finally, like abused children, North Koreans will not abandon their homeland or their dear leader. I think you have not contemplated the potential of a new Asian war long enough, Mr. T. You’ve not been in office long enough: and there can be only two terms.

Foreign Policy

The UN, or something better?

Leave a comment


We’ve been part of the United Nations for 72 years, nearly a third of our national history. At the end of World War II the U. S. stood astride the globe, stronger than any other nation or even groups of nations. We were so rich that we financed several countries’ rebuilding after dramatic devastation, both militarily and politically. The globalists, led by Averell Harriman, David Rockefeller, Henry Luce, Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, himself, and a host of left-leaning FDR advisers and academics, saw a unique opportunity to dilute American sovereignty and independence.

The UN’s purpose was to “end” war and provide “prosperity” and the ability for everyone to “live free.” Grand, grand ideas that never would have been the topic of worldwide planning had it not been for the external and internal success of the British and American empires. Like most benign, centralized efforts, the “UN” attracted – and still attracts – many globally-minded Unitarian types. These are they who believe the words of Pope John Lennon: “…no Hell below us; above us only sky…” because “Love is all you need, love is all you need, love is all you need…,” songs best appreciated with a toke.

Free sex, seed-free weed and the UN and to Hell …oops, to oblivion, then, with the United States, Christianity and the requirements of citizenship. “Nothing to kill or die for; the brotherhood of man…”

One of the first, and greatest acts of the U. N. was to create the nation of Israel in 1948. Hitler’s allies, the hard-rock Muslims who have been fighting the Hebrews for millennia, were not happy with this tiny piece of land’s becoming a home for the most oppressed of oppressed people, and they caused two things to happen: first, the “Palestinians” separated themselves from “Israel,” and then Arab League militias and mercenaries attacked cities in the Israeli portion of the Resolution 181-partitioned land. Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq attacked the fledgling nation, including with air strikes and even forces from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. By 1949 the Israeli’s had defeated the uncoordinated forces arrayed against them. In the process they gained the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. More wars followed and still Israel stands.

Israel made the desert bloom and planted, as well, a democratic republic amidst a dozen dictatorial, theocratic, tribal and royal countries, sworn to it’s destruction. In the Muslim view, once land is possessed by Muslims it becomes sacred, never to be stained by the presence of infidels. Their habit is to erect mosques on “conquered” land, often directly upon infidels’ religious sites. For such land and sites there can be no future negotiation – only discussions about how to remove all other infidels.

Since the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel has been a target of hatred in the UN, the high-minded body that had created it 22 years earlier. As the United States became more intimately connected with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Iran, attempting to eliminate Soviet influence and build however shaky alliances in tolerance of Israel, the hatred of fundamental Islamists, particularly since the installation of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as the Supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has been concentrated on the “Great Satan,” America at least as much as on the “Little Satan,” Israel. And so it continues.

Aside from the near-total corruption of the UN Secretariat and its multiple “missions,” the UN has become a forum of hatred and opposition for the United States, reinforcing the self-hatred, fifth-column actions of many Americans, themselves, and interfering with foreign policies of the U. S., England and most of the industrialized “First” World.

Things are changing. The European Union has shown its inability to resolve its finances as sovereign countries fail to adhere to dictates of the Über bureaucrats serving the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Europe is a “nation” of rules… rules that require the steady erosion of sovereignty from its member states. Britain voted to withdraw, not to form a competing “nation,” but to reform itself. The United States elected Donald Trump for much the same reason.

I believe we should take the next, logical step: form, with the U. K. and others, an international Association of Representative Republics. And have it stand for some things. Things like honest government, honest courts and honest contracting and trade; things like democratic elections, representative legislatures, parliaments and councils; things like free speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Except for a handful of charitable works, the U. S. could divest itself of U.N. influence and interference. Membership in the A. R. R. would be open to every sovereign nation that governs itself according to principles that we believe in, including religious tolerance and non-theocratic governance.

As I perceive it, member-states of the Association of Representative Republics would maintain their treaty relationships, including trade agreements, but agree to somewhat better terms with other A. R. R. members. Military treaties should remain bilateral, but with a general agreement to continue working toward non-aggression toward every other member. But there is no reason to subject ourselves to constant attack and calumny while we erode our own sovereignty at the U. N. Better to expend our efforts and treasure among nations that have roughly equal goals of freedom, prosperity and security for every member nation, and in helping other nations to qualify under those principles.

Funding various terrorist nations and sub-groups who wish to destroy us and our allies, is not foreign policy – it is foreign folly.