Wednesday, September 21, 2016

OBAMA: WE MUST GIVE UP FREEDOM TO GLOBALISM

In the United States and all over Europe Nationalism is on the rise. But it isn't the virulent, ethnic version that pitted nation against nation in previous centuries. Rather, it's much more based on shared Western values. But what does Nationalism 2.0 have to offer that Globalism does not?  



Sep 19, 2016 While unveiling the new Info Wars Live app Alex Jones goes ballistic on the globalists.

UPDATE: How bad things are is confirmed by none other than Obama himself. Realizing that John Kerry's "world without borders" gaffe was a trifle too much in your face, while taking a victory lap at the UN Obama launched the term "global integration". And if you believe we are talking conspiracy theory, here he confirms that economic globalism is already a fact (video). An illustration of the phantom economy is on today's Zero Hedge.

As proof that population integration is also proceeding just nicely, Obama garnered pledges from dozens of countries to resettle some 360,000 refugees, doubling the number of slots that were available last year. (Source) During his final dissing of the US at the UNGA Obama explained he doesn't care for our highest values: in order to realize the promise of the UN, the US must give up its freedoms. You can't make the aim of globalism much clearer. We must sacrifice our human rights on the altar of global tyranny. Let's remind ourselves here why democracy can't work on a global level for a very simple reason: democracy is a grassroots up process emanating from the individual people. Globalism is the domain of autocratic Governments: it's process is top down!




Sep. 18, 2016


WHAT'S A GLOBALIST? 




Sep 16, 2016 Lauren Southern of TheRebel.media @TheRebelMedia explains Globalism versus Nationalism. 

Globalists love to paint Nationalists as racists, Hitlerites or worse (if they could just find an even more demonizing analogy). But the fact of the matter is, it is the Globalists that are the enemies of liberty and democratic values. They are the feudalists that aim to reduce the people to cattle, to exploit them to buy their worthless products, to spend their valueless money and cheer their vacuous "good intentions". In recent years we have first seen Classical Liberalism morphing into collectivist Leftism, and then from democratic to straight up autoritarian and autocratic The Nationalists 2.0 or Trumpists, far from being the harbingers of the new Nazi party, are the custodians of what Liberalism used to be: the defenders of Freedom, Self Determination and Democracy.




Aug. 18, 2016


LIBERTY & DEMOCRACY NEEDS A NATIONAL STATE



Patriotism 2.0 based on Western Enlightenment values. 

As the forces of Nationalism are gaining strength in the fight against the false song of globalism, the question must be answered why a global world Government wouldn't work. After all, all you do is expand the territory, in the case of the EU from the individual state to a supra national level. The United Nations is developing international jurisprudence and provides protection in wars and disasters. The US, Germany and Russia are successful examples of federal states. So why would a world Government on a global scale not work?

It all depends on your principles and on what makes a Government fit for intelligent human beings. To answer that question we have to get back to the source, to the prime unit, to the smallest, self-sustaining minority: the individual. For the survival of an individual the global world is the worst possible environment. Man is vulnerable. But at the same time he is a free spirit that survives on brain power. That requires a careful balance between freedom and security.

History and experience has taught us that the liberal democracy is the optimal model which offers potentially the maximum amount of liberty, while also providing the basic amount of security, including the protection of moral and legal rights.

How is an average Western country organized? Individual citizens go to the polls to elect their representative Government and an opposition. The result is a balance of powers ensuring no one majority or plurality rides roughshod over the rights of any minority.

Globalism breaks with this grassroots-up model rooted in the individual citizen. And not just that. It's top down rule. Supra nationalism is therefore a form of tyranny by definition. The EU for example is not an organization based on the individual voter. It is an organisation of Governments. 

That is not what self rule (which is what democracy actually is) is supposed to be. You can ad a Parliament of sorts as Brussels has done, but that doesn't make the EU an organization of citizens. It's top down, instead of bottom up.

Unbeknownst to himself the Dutch PM explained it well, when the Netherlands recently voted in a popular referendum against the association treaty with Ukraine. He complained that the voters in one single country can't (morally) hold all other member states hostage. This is precisely the problem with supra national, top down Government.

It can't possibly work in any democratic sense because there is an inherent contradiction. The distance between the individual voter and the surpra national Government has become far too great to be experienced by the voter as self rule.

A limited distance -- of say an electoral college -- is no problem. But once a Government is 2-3 tiers removed from the voter, the tie between the government and the governed is severed because it serves the interests of a larger collective.

Unlike the EU, the United States has not come into existence organically, but was founded by the most brilliant men of all time in the history of state building. This is not the place to go into the intricacies, but the division of powers in the USA is extraordinarily fine tuned and a strong tie between the People and their representatives is maintained on a local level. But even so, power and human nature being what it is, even the USA has become corrupted.

Human Rights are a property of the individual. Rights require laws. Laws require a jurisdiction. Protection of laws (and thus of Rights) requires territorial law enforcement. 

Of course we could organize a supra supra national organization of federal states, a global police force and an international Court of law. But how would these come about? Not through self rule (grassroots democracy) by the individual citizen. It would necessarily have to be multi tiered and therefore top down.

What's even worse, there would be no place left to hide from the long tentacles of global law enforcement, should such world wide tyranny -- God forbid -- ever come to pass.


Dutch edition.


Related