Tag Archives: Saudi Arabia

20-20 Vision

Wither Freedom?

What shall we do, we American people, holders of the temporary promises of freedom and individual sovereignty, with our new gift, the year of our Lord, 2020?  What will be our direction?  Toward greater wisdom and enlightenment, growing nearer to God as we know Him… or Her?  Or, as this millennium has presented, toward firmer rejection of God, morality, purpose and humanity; toward greater animalism and destruction of the Constitution?  Big choices, either way.

We err terribly if we devote ourselves to any politician, thinking, dreaming, hoping or wishing that that one person will “fix” our own lives, our uncomfortable feelings or our deep concerns about the future of America.  A terrible mistake, that.  The only true value of a political leader is that he or she might cause large segments of the constituent population to develop a new sense of hope, of good expectations and of a belief in their social abilities to solve problems.  Unified purpose – not coordinated, necessarily, but unified – is the most powerful force on Earth.

Unified purpose can ignore the pain of sacrifice, as it has during times of war, for example, or during the 8 years that created the Apollo space program.  Tyrants create a form of unity by instilling fear.  Dominated subjects believe they will suffer if they act on contrary thoughts.  Free people, unified in purpose and hope, will overturn the dominator every time.  Nothing can resist the power of free people who believe in freedom.

The only way a free and sovereign people can be defeated is to render them less and less free over time – even it takes 4 – or 20 – generations.  Those who are threatened by freedom, who fear it, never stop trying to destroy it.  They, too, have a unified purpose.  When they are the only unity on the playing field, freedom cannot survive.  When young citizens are at an intellectual point where socialism appears preferable to “capitalism,” several of the methods of rendering a free people less free are revealed.

First is re-education.  Naturally conservative people, enjoying freedom and responsible for themselves, have to be taught to rely on “the government” when ill fortune finds them.  That purchase of philosophy might not have worked if the “government” hadn’t created a misfortune, like the Great Depression, that seemed too difficult and complex for individuals to withstand on their own.  Social Security easily became law and was tiny, a mere minimum for old widows.  Today Republicans defend it as if part of the granite of Mount Rushmore.  Older former conservatives speak up for “their” Medicare, now that the government has made health care so costly and complex that individuals cannot contend with it on their own.  A little socialism goes a long way.

Second is education, itself.  The best plan would be to populate the education licensing bureaucracy with unified liberals/leftists who could guide education degree programs such that new teachers would tend toward socialist ideals of equality, fairness, anti-racism, anti-discrimination of all sorts, feminism, bi-lingualism and multi-culturalism.  Pretty soon they’ll be teaching youth that our Constitution fails to defend these important principles and needs to be changed or supplanted with new thinking.  Pretty soon a proto-communist can be elected president, and the long march to the end of this democratic republic will be underway.

Thirdly, enough rope, in the form of creature comforts, new cars, easy credit and wide-screen TVs, must be provided for erstwhile Americans to hang themselves while their heritage is forgotten and their freedoms swept away.  Let illegal entrants have the country – we don’t seem to want it any longer.

Lastly, promote new “rights” that no one ever heard of, but the lack of which can be made to appear oppressive.  Link the denial of such rights to the constantly re-boiled slavery-guilt/systemic racism civil rights struggle, and soon these new rights gain the power of civil rights that once nearly split the nation… politicians must respond.  Shortly after, laws are proposed, agitated for and passed to, perhaps, force boys and girls to bathe or perform their toilet together.  What, “never,” you say?  Or, as a fantastic example, licensed, educated teachers could actually lose their jobs for failing to call a boy a girl.  “Impossible.”

We have contributed mightily to our “mis”-education and “mal”-economics.  The worst of our economics has two parts: Unconstrained debt creation, and incredible inflation.  You’re objecting, now, that “inflation” is only at 2%, or some such low number.  You’re talking about price increases, which are not what inflation is.  Prices go up and down for reasons of supply of goods, demands (desires) of consumers, including competitive products, and availability of spendable cash (or credit, nowadays).  “Inflation” affects only the last factor: spendable, or “excess” cash and credit.  “Inflation” is inflation of, or artificial expansion of, the money supply, something individuals cannot control.  Politicians do that or allow it to happen by government agents.

Don’t confuse inflation with a rise in the cost of goods.  Inflation is tolerated or actively promoted when government needs more money and is politically unwilling to raise taxes.  Foolishly, we have converted our money system to a debt-based system whereby the federal government borrows every new dollar it wants to balance the federal budget with.  As it does so, it infuses added dollars into the economy as a whole.  This will increase sales of thousands of products as companies that do business with the government get new contracts and, presumably, hire more people or raise wages.  Increasingly, more of those products are imported, sending a lot of those “excess,” “new” dollars to other countries.  This increases domestic profits, but not domestic, widespread, individual wealth.  Consumer prices don’t experience much upward pressure because the actual inflation of the money supply is siphoned into the hands of multi-billion dollar companies, or concentrated in the hands of external multi-billion dollar companies or government-run companies, which is to say, in the hands of foreign governments.  What does this mud puddle of excessive profits and concentrations of wealth have to do with most people?

It diverts their freedom and personal sovereignty, and… it so corrupts free enterprise that socialism, despite its total history of failure – history little known by today’s youth – can be made to appear attractive.  Step by step, the never-ending plan to destroy freedom and independence (non-globalism) is being carried out.  Our government education systems, including “private” universities and colleges made wealthy by government-promoted student loans, are almost the last places to depend upon to correct this historic ignorance.

And all of those inflated dollars?  Since our prices haven’t risen too, too badly, can we pretend they are no concern of ours?  Every dollar “bill” is a bill America must eventually pay.  If the rest of the world no longer wanted (thank you, Saudi Arabia) U. S. dollars, our economy, and those of several other countries, would collapse.  Along the way every dollar, printed or electronic, would drop in value like a stone.  How’s $50 or $80 gas sound? At those prices the “national debt” will be manageable, won’t it?

Meanwhile, we, who should be totally pissed-off, are comfortable enough that we worry about climate change, UFOs and the NFL standings, rather than what should be job-one for American citizens.

RUMORS OF WAR

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.