Globalism Vs. Survival of The Concept of the Nation-State
The Biggest Issue of Our Time Is The Issue of Globalism or The Survival of the Concept of the Nation-State.
Globalism made tremendous progress after 9/11. It was the shock that the U.S. was vulnerable to foreign attack that changed the country forever.
The Neocons held the reins of power during the Bush/Cheney Administration. They used the excuse of 9/11 to push a Globalist Agenda. It was then that our Intelligence-Industrial Complex grew to mammoth proportions. Our intelligence agencies started to cooperate with other intelligence agencies around the world and the idea of an independent Nation-State began to be replaced by a Global New World Order.
The ingredients of this Global New World order was based on the Alliance System – alliances like NATO where countries would cooperate to achieve Foreign Policy ends. They could use economic pressure through sanctions to do the same.
Trade and communications were shrinking the world and making it more interconnected. Players like Henry Kissinger were using words like New World Order to describe a new Globalist world that would bring peace, that that would bring peace, that would be less diverse.
This new more interconnected world was coming at a price. The price was the Enlightenment idea of the individual endowed by their creator with certain rights.
As Government of Elites – in the know – took the place of Government of the people, by the people, for the people – the Bill of Rights was shredded. In the United States – Watch Lists – without due process or a way to challenge them were developed. The idea of Pre-crime rose up where just being suspected, have someone point the finger at you with Suspicious Activity Reports – could result in your being MOBBED/Gang Stalked for life through secret programs like U.S. Government Gang Stalking – http://www.StopGangStalkingPolice.com.
Technology along with a system of Fusion Centers and shared intelligence meant that being accused of something in New York – all without due process – could result in your MOBBING wherever you moved – in California or even in any NATO country.
Trump’s Election was, in part, a rejection of Globalization. It championed Nationalism – which to me was a poor choice of words. What Trump should have said was the choice was now between Globalism or a Rededication to the Nation-State.
The idea of the Nation-State means borders. It means individual countries protecting their national interests with new policies – on trade, on borders, on foreign policy. It championed Capitalism above Globalist Corporatism where Multi-National Corporations put their interests above National Interests, where they exerted undue influence, especially, on Foreign Policy.
The Election of 2020 needs to be framed as a choice between Globalist Proponents and the Proponents of the Nation-State.
Democrats today embody the Globalist position. Republicans under Trump embody more the Nation-State position.
The Democrats have allied themselves with Deep State, the Administrative State, our now Globalist Intelligence Agencies.
The Republicans have put themselves in the column of shrinking the Administrative State, making our Intelligence Agencies more Accountable.
The Globalist New World Order is an undifferentiated world. The Democrats have come out against the First Amendment, for instance, on our campuses and stand for Group Think, Politically Correct Thought stamping people – Racists, Extremists, White Nationalists, if you don’t share their Globalist values.
The Republican party stands for our Constitution, the Enlightenment values of our forefathers, the competition of Capitalism as the cornerstone of American values.
Personally, I shutter to think of what will happen if the Democrats win in 2020. It will mean reviving the Globalist Agenda, turning America into a more tyrannical place with our Intelligence Agencies imposing a Secret Police State on the population with today’s technology making it more total than any we have ever seen before.
A Democrat victory will mean more Group Think, more emphasis on politically correct behavior, less individualism, less free speech, more government control over every aspect of our life.
That’s why I support Trump. I want a revival of the Nation-State. I want a smaller, more manageable Administrative State. I want a Foreign Policy based on our country’s interests. I want a Dialogical World where there are endless talks with countries like Iran and North Korea and not the Continuous War of the Globalists who think it is possible to create a New World Order. I reject their New World Order with their secret Police Gang Stalking Citizens, with their Corporatism replacing Government of the people, with their open borders, with their primacy of the economic at the expense of the Individual living life according to his/her own individual choices.
An I-Thou World Is Possible
How I view things:
One of the authors who influenced me the most is Martin Buber. One of the great insights he gave me is that “Being” is in-the-between. In other words we have Ego/Narcissism. And the only way we get beyond that is through I-Thou or the dialogical life. You can have dialogue with other people, a work of art, nature etc.
World peace, I think, is in-the-between. Hence it can only be achieved in this ever changing world through Ongoing Dialogue.
I-Thou requires a strong I (when applied to Nation-States/a strong Nation State) – for it is only a strong “I” that can say “Thou”/that can go over to the other side in real listening without fearing losing itself.
How does one acquire a strong I? Through long thinking about what you really believe, what your values are.
I believe in an educational system (reform) that helps the child to develop a Strong "I." It would be an educational system that helps the child to unfold their nature, to make choices about the direction of their own life, who because they had a strong "I" could say "Thou."
I believe in reform of our medical system to move it in the direction of Functional Medicine which treats causes and not just symptoms, that doesn't exist for the sole purpose of making Big Pharma richer.
I-It relating is totally subjective. The I looks at everything in relation to their self. Their desires and concerns are a barrier to real meeting. There is contrivance and hypocrisy. Imposition characterizes I-It Relating as the I tries to impose their views, their wants on the other.