Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Recommended Posts

I was only anti-Bush because we are a republic not a monarchy. I was pro-Rubio and then Pro-Cruz.

 

However, I do like Trump's tilt towards a RealPolitik foreign policy. I am a devotee of Saint Kissinger and brother Nixon. I have also done a lot of thinking and soul searching in the last few months about my support of 'Free Trade". I found that trade pacts for the sake of trade pacts is neither fundamentally pro-capitalism nor morally justifiable. I find that most of our trade pacts can only be supported on selfish personal interests or a deep hatred of the US and the west generally. So yes I have transformed in the last year or more correctly I studied certain topics and found that my knee jerk support for certain trade deals were unsupportable.

 

 

I also am not a Trump apologist. but on the whole he is a required laxative that must be used to clean out the corrupt system which has taken hold of US politics. I also see nothing that he has done or appointments he has made that go against my values or ideology thus I am quite happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

Saint Kissinger? Isn't he the heartless monster who tried to suppress genocide reports out of East Pakistan during the Bangladeshi Independence War because it didn't fit into the US foreign policy that East Pakistan was committing genocide? I mean god forbid telling them to cool it or stop it, better take the route of cozying up with raping murderers and trying to character assassinate any journalists who manage to publish the ongoings of the mass atrocities there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D.ragonSpawn:

 

That is why they call it REALPOLITIK, morality has nothing to do with it, it's all about power dynamics and what furthers your interests.

 

Also my use of  the terms Saint and Brother to describe Kissinger and Nixon might have given you a clue that I am aware of how moralists view them and that I really do not give a damn about your "Lieing, Timid Morality".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D.ragonSpawn:

 

That is why they call it REALPOLITIK, morality has nothing to do with it, it's all about power dynamics and what furthers your interests.

 

Also my use of  the terms Saint and Brother to describe Kissinger and Nixon might have given you a clue that I am aware of how moralists view them and that I really do not give a damn about your "Lieing, Timid Morality".

 

 

Not sure how I am a lying moralist. I suppose I am just saying they were spineless cowards and their house of cards exploded in their incompetent faces in the end. I mean we are all aware that East Pakistan collapsed and became Bangladesh, the world became aware of the mass atrocities that occurred and West Pakistans government collapsed whilst India´s regional dominance flared up. Pretty much everything that both Nixon and Kissinger were trying to keep under wraps. Wiser men know when to cut losses instead of double down on a losing bet. But then again Nixon and Kissinger weren´t exactly known for their shrewdness, albeit the latter a bit more than the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did not try to suppress genecide reports. There was no "genecide". There were targeted killings of leaders and indiscriminate killings of their supporters, that does not equal genecide. Further, they did not try to suppress the reports, no one outside the Indian Subcontinent cared at the time. Further the result of the Banglasdeshi rebellion is that Pakistan became an even closer client state of the US for the next 15 years (not exactly a failure). And both Kissinger and Nixon were world reknown for their shrewdness in international affairs. Nixon was brought down by a domestic scandal that involved petty political skugduggery that evolved into a cover up. It was the cover up that doomed the Nixon administration not in failures in international affairs.

 

Moreover, Nixon and Kissinger were quite capable of cutting their losses that is exactly what the "Vitetnam Peace Accords" were.  As to the  lieing timid morality quote that was not meant as a personal putdown that was an observation of all foreign policy that attempts to insert morality into the equation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I split these because there have been a series of artciles post election and post cabinet about what the Trump forieng policy will be.

 

I haven't quiet solidified my thoughts on the matter, well, more accurately, my reaction to what it will be, as it's quiet clear what he's going to do.

 

For reasons unknown to me, a lot of the commentators are wrapping their pieces in "we don't want to use the term 'decline of the americian empire'" then launch into discussions about just that. 

 

Basically the facts everyone agrees with are:

 

1. The post-WWII western economic system (and post-Cold war global economic system) was, in effect the American Empire, Pax Americana

2. That era, and the global order  that it created is at an end.

3. When polled, the majority of Americans do not believe that the empire/system has, in the long run benefited them

 

(note this is not a new finding, it's been simmering since the second gulf war, but Trump is the first candidate to fully campaign on it. Obama campaigned on a pull-back from the aggressive military policy, but still pursued the economic order)

 

So, with those givens, where does the world go from here?

What is next for the AE/Pax Americana?

Will we still be the dominant country?

Who benifiets from the new order?

Who is hurt by it?

Will the world be more or less secure?

 

The last time the world powers (european empires) stopped cooperating and turned inwards, bad things happened, what will be the effect this time of independent transactional foriegn policy?

 

4. Throughout it's history, from the founding of the colonies, to the creation of the nation, through the civil war, westward expansion, manifest destiny, our entry onto, then quick domination of, the world stage, America has always billed itself as the City of the Hill/Beacon of Liberty/Defender of Freedom, etc

 

Do we still think of ourselves that way?

What does the TFP mean for that image?

How that image also died with the wane of the AE/Pax Americana?

What are the effects that change?

Edited by Tyzack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll post links to FA, FP articles in a bit..in fact the Jan/Feb FA is all about exactly this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pax Americana is not over and nothing that Trump has said argues for that. What is happening is that American foreign policy will (as it was prior to 1992) be focused on benefitting the US and its citizens instead of simply encouraging the "international system". Trump is not an isolationist nor is he saying that US dominance of the international stage is a bad thing he simply wishes that dominence to be used on our behalf instead of enhancing the living sandards of other nations. 

 

This is not a new development it was the policy under Eisenhower, NIxon and Reagan, all three rather aggressive internationalists. Morever, the "global system" is not some devine ordained concept all it is is a tool to enhance power and wealth. Further, the EU will not magicly disappear on January 20, 2017 (as much as many of us would like that to happen). What is happening around the world is a reassessment of the structures built after 1945 to determine if they actually meet the people's needs. No one in Europe would have had a problem with a loosely formed economic block, what many object to is a European State especially one that is wholly undemocratic and buruacratic. Franco-German interests will still dominate the european continent but it will do so without the cover of "pan-Europeanism" not a military umbrella almost totally paid for by the US. 

 

The Franco-French alliance will have to "group up" and stop feeding on the US military tit. Alliances are their for mutual benefits clearly the US -European alliance has long been a one sided thing.

 

As to winners and losers. The AMerican People wll be winners, and likely Russia will gain from the "New World Order", likely China will have no net effect, it will gain in some areas and lose in others. 

 

 

This will not be a worse world order it will simply be a new and more complex order. It will in fact develop into the multipolar world that was envisioned but never developed after the end of the Cold war. It will have its own advantages and challenges that does not mean that it will be a net lose for the world. Indeed, it will rationalize outmolded relationships that have lost their purpose and have only continued because of inerta.

 

"O, wonder!

How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll grant you that the uni-polar world envisioned by neo-cons post-cold war is not stable/balanced in the long term, by definition, and i never supported it either.

 

We get a brave new world every 8 years; the benifiet of the AE/Pax americana was that it was the one institution that outlasted the quadrenial election cycles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll grant you that the uni-polar world envisioned by neo-cons post-cold war is not stable/balanced in the long term, by definition, and i never supported it either.

 

We get a brave new world every 8 years; the benifiet of the AE/Pax americana was that it was the one institution that outlasted the quadrenial election cycles.

The neo-cons did not "envision" the unipolar world. They in fact were the same advisors that wanted the establishment of a multi-polar world (with Europe and Japan/Far East being the other two poles). It was the failure of the Europeans and to a lesser extent the Asians that drove the uni-polar world of 1990-2010.

 

There is no problem with Pax Americana only the relevance of certain of the structures that were created around it. NATO was a good thing. It may simply have served its purpose and must either change to meet he present needs or go the way of the DODO bird the same is true of other "global structures" that might have served a purpose but no longer serve the interests of those that created them. 

 

Global trading system and "globilization" is not a "Good" in and of itself, it is only a tool to enhance the benefits of the citizens of the countries that have "globolized". To the extent that these citizens are not benefiting from globilization it should be altered or abolished and replaced with a new system that has the possibility of accomplishing the underlying goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wh

 

I'm confused what this thread is about.

What Trump's foreign policy is likely to look like and what will be its philosophical underpinnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Global trading system and "globilization" is not a "Good" in and of itself, it is only a tool to enhance the benefits of the citizens of the countries that have "globolized". To the extent that these citizens are not benefiting from globilization it should be altered or abolished and replaced with a new system that has the possibility of accomplishing the underlying goals.

 

 

That's ignoring the ideas that along with increasing the economic standing of the citizen of globalised countries, part of the moral justification of globalism is that a side effect of a tightly knit global economy is that open war is less likely. The US "securtiy umbrella" was the emobdiment of that part of the idea. 

 

Tribes, cities, countries, empires fight each other over resources (the expansion of the germans and japanese before wwII were continuations of their attempts to establish self-sustaining empires), creating a global system in which resources are ... owned ... managed ... controlled ... by non-nation state global corporations, is a way to check the impluse to go to war. This was the threat underling the formation of OPEC, a threat which has been weakened by domestic production, non-OPEC production, and a shift away from carbon-based engery.

 

The philisophical worry is that if you abandon the belief that globalism/the network of treaties then you will be creating a situation in which the appeal to form adversarial geopolitical resource controlling group, could, potentially, lead to war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. Little point in speculating imo. 

 

There's little point in people speculating about baseball in the winter, but people do it because it's fun.

 

Trump promises the first major shake up of the global order since WWII, and weither you think it's needed or not, it will be a breaking change, and there are always consequences (good and bad, intended and unintended) of breaking changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

", creating a global system in which resources are ... owned ... managed ... controlled ... by non-nation state global corporations, is a way to check the impluse to go to war"

 

First, its been argued that the control of resources by powerful corporations has only meant that wars are fought on behalf of their interests. More importantly, no one is arguing for the dismantling of "globalism" only its redirection to insure that it actually serves the interests of  the citizendry instead of the corporations and the elites who serve them. Trump does not wish to simply end Treaties his stated intent is to restructure them so that they actually benefit the mass of Americans instead of the corporations and the Quislings who benefit from the current system. 

 

Further, I believe it is you who argues that growth is not sustainable and sense "globalsim" as a system is based on the idea of the pie being increased so that their is on need for warfare I would think that to be consistent you would have to join Taltos in totally rejecting Globalsim. i remind you that "globalism has led us into several wars in the middle east in the last two decades and will continue to do so since there are forces there that oppose "globalism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

", creating a global system in which resources are ... owned ... managed ... controlled ... by non-nation state global corporations, is a way to check the impluse to go to war"

 

First, its been argued that the control of resources by powerful corporations has only meant that wars are fought on behalf of their interests. More importantly, no one is arguing for the dismantling of "globalism" only its redirection to insure that it actually serves the interests of  the citizendry instead of the corporations and the elites who serve them. Trump does not wish to simply end Treaties his stated intent is to restructure them so that they actually benefit the mass of Americans instead of the corporations and the Quislings who benefit from the current system. 

 

Further, I believe it is you who argues that growth is not sustainable and sense "globalsim" as a system is based on the idea of the pie being increased so that their is on need for warfare I would think that to be consistent you would have to join Taltos in totally rejecting Globalsim. i remind you that "globalism has led us into several wars in the middle east in the last two decades and will continue to do so since there are forces there that oppose "globalism".

 

Are you arguing for nationalizing industry? I'm pretty sure that goes against conservative dogma.

 

Globalism leads us into wars against people who are outside the "globalist" bubble, and, since they cannot/do not pose an exestential threat to the order, they attack it using asymetric means to try to facture the order and turn it against itself (something they are doing quiet well).

 

Or, said differently, in a global system, battlalions of tanks or fleet of ships of aircraft will not face off against eachother. No matter how many gunmen, suicide bombers, or suicide truck drivers ISIL recruits they do not pose a threat to overthrow the US, or any western government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Trumps common themes is that American corporations are not sufficently "patriotic" like their Russian or Chinese counterparts, but that is because we are a laize-faire capitalist society; the state does not engage in foreign policy through corporate or (direct) market means (as a general rule), and allows US corporations to persue their own goals, though will occasionally work on behalf of policies that benifiet "the american people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:Are you arguing for nationalizing industry? I'm pretty sure that goes against conservative dogma."

 

No I was pointing out that your side is always saying that the US is getting into wars because of corporate interests. I was not advocating that view only pointing out that your side often uses it.

 

 

 

 

"Globalism leads us into wars against people who are outside the "globalist" bubble, and, since they cannot/do not pose an exestential threat to the order, they attack it using asymetric means to try to facture the order and turn it against itself (something they are doing quiet well)."

 

 

Actually in a world where the economic pie is not going to grow (which is I believe what you have previously stated, Globalism will lead to wars as the different nations involved in :globalism; will be involved in a zero-sum game that will lead from cooperation, to competion to open warfare over limited resources. 

 

 

 

"Or, said differently, in a global system, battlalions of tanks or fleet of ships of aircraft will not face off against eachother. No matter how many gunmen, suicide bombers, or suicide truck drivers ISIL recruits they do not pose a threat to overthrow the US, or any western government."

 

 The mass migration of millions of people with contrary cultural values will lead to the destruction of both western civilization and "globalsim".  They pose an existential threat to the survival of western civilization, the Age of Reason and liberalism. Further as I said before globalism does not lead to war only if you believe that the economic pie will be ever increasing once you say that their is a cieling to economic expansion you set up the conditions where globalism will be an even more aggressive engine to war then other modes of economic structures.

 

 

 

"though will occasionally work on behalf of policies that benifiet "the american people."

 
 
And our policies sholuld encourage corporations to invest in the US. Trade policies and deals should make sure that we are not disadvantaged as our present polices do. For instance the US permits Japanese and German cars into the US without limitationj. Germany and Japan impose a 19% and a 20% import tarrif on cars imported from the US.  Moreover, our present trade deals with these countries allow for such an inequality of trade. Thus we should demand that Germany and Japan end their terrifs on US goods or threaten relalitory tarrifs.
Edited by CUBAREY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 The mass migration of millions of people with contrary cultural values will lead to the destruction of both western civilization and "globalsim".  They pose an existential threat to the survival of western civilization, the Age of Reason and liberalism. Further as I said before globalism does not lead to war only if you believe that the economic pie will be ever increasing once you say that their is a cieling to economic expansion you set up the conditions where globalism will be an even more aggressive engine to war then other modes of economic structures.

 

 

Your fear of non-western cultures is illogical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 The mass migration of millions of people with contrary cultural values will lead to the destruction of both western civilization and "globalsim".  They pose an existential threat to the survival of western civilization, the Age of Reason and liberalism. Further as I said before globalism does not lead to war only if you believe that the economic pie will be ever increasing once you say that their is a cieling to economic expansion you set up the conditions where globalism will be an even more aggressive engine to war then other modes of economic structures.

 

 

Your fear of non-western cultures is illogical.

 

Nope, if you look at Germany and much of Europe, the increased crime rate and measures that will have to be passed to safeguard the populace you can see the reality of mass migration. As importantly mass migration in the US is paid for by a social welfare state that is nothing more then Bread and Cirucs which destroys both our culture and the very people that are intended to be helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Europe might be a bit of a different matter as they are traditionally defined homogenious societies, the US is not, we are a country made of immigrants. Successive waves of immigrants - Irish, Italian, Scandanian, Asian, Mexician - have not fundimentally altered our culture; they have adapted to us, and, in return, we have adapted to them. There is no one "race" that is "American" to be "American" is simply to live here, work here, etc.

 

However, even that is overly alarmist because while there are radicials in Europe - just like there are radicals of all races here - the majority of immigrant there (and here), chose to go there because they like the idea of open, democratic societies where they are not constantly worrying about death from one tribal or governmental faction or another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Europe might be a bit of a different matter as they are traditionally defined homogenious societies, the US is not, we are a country made of immigrants. Successive waves of immigrants - Irish, Italian, Scandanian, Asian, Mexician - have not fundimentally altered our culture; they have adapted to us, and, in return, we have adapted to them. There is no one "race" that is "American" to be "American" is simply to live here, work here, etc.

 

However, even that is overly alarmist because while there are radicials in Europe - just like there are radicals of all races here - the majority of immigrant there (and here), chose to go there because they like the idea of open, democratic societies where they are not constantly worrying about death from one tribal or governmental faction or another. 

Our history is one of large migrations followed by periods of little migration in which the the new migrants are integrated and assimulated into the culture. Problem is that since the mid 1960's we had an unending wave of new migrants without any time for integration or assimulation. Thus we know have millions of people entering our country and lived here for decades and have not learned English, have not assimulated our values (and I am hispanic and I know for a fact that most hispanics have not assimulated our values or culture). They in fact depend greatly on the Bread and Circus provided by our welfare system.  

 

The large migrations to Europe have been because of their highly developed welfare system not because of a love of "open democratic societies" which poll after poll show they do not approve of. Moreover, those same polls show that a very large percentage of those migrants hold "radical' illiberal and anti-western beliefs. Its not a coincidence that in the two countries that have been most open to middle eastern migrants (Sweden and Germany) the number of rapes and assualts against women and gays have skyrocketed. While their are radicals in all cultures the percentage of people who reject liberal western values is much greater in the Arab/Muslim world, thus the problem with admitting large numbers of these people into societies that are ill equipped to handle them.

 

Also the migrants to Europe are mostly young men of military age they should be training and fighting for the freedom of their own countries instead of being on the dole in western societies. Further, These same people would kill and persecute those in their own countries if given a chance. They are hardly persecuted innocents they have committed similar atrocities as those visited on their communities. In Syria and Iraq particularly you are talking about warring factions that have shown no limit to the cruelties or crimes they are willing to inflict on those they see as different. And these are the people you wish to inflict on our own society. Thus, please excuse my rejection of your plea for understanding, I understand too well to permit monsters into the society in which my wife and daughters live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Net immigration (from south and central america) is down over the last 8 years, and deportations are up, but, whatever.

 

That refugees are prominently males has more to do with demographics and basic family structure than a sinister effort to overthrow the western world.

Edited by Tyzack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Net immigration (from south and central america) is down over the last 8 years, and deportations are up, but, whatever.

 

That refugees are prominently males has more to do with demographics and basic family structure than a sinister effort to overthrow the western world.

It has to do with young men seeking western style welfare benefits and little or nothing to do with their fear of the Assad regime.

 

 

As for US immigration deportations are up only because Obama changed the definition of deportation to include those that are caught and turned away at or near the borders which were not previously included in the definition for the very practical reason that to be deported implies that the person was already in the country and eligible to receive judicial review of their case. As for the Net immigration it should be down up to another 12 million or so the number of people who are here illegally and should be thrown out on their ass for having violated the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resource scarcity has led to conflict throughout human history.  The world economy is not a zero-sum game over the long run.  Neither of those things are being changed by globalism.

Edited by WWWwombat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Posts

    • Yes but there is opening yourself to channel and then there is a quick unintentional use.  If you notice before Rand became a channeler, fully aware of what he was doing and willing try to embrace the power, all you get are the side effects from channeling (the taking chances etc,,) but not the filth feeling.  After book 1, when the using the power and the side effects happened near the same time, all he gets is the filth.  The difference is he knows he can channel and needs to embrace the source to channel.  Just like the women who are starting to channel never seem to notice the warmth of touching the female half until they survive the side effects and become aware what they are doing.  A wilder like Nyn, had she stayed in the Two Rivers, never would of felt the feeling of opening herself to the source since she had built up a block, so it might have to do with you have to open yourself up to the power to feel the good or bad.     In one of Rand's lives in book 2 I believe he was a member of the Queen's guards and was lucky, he thought later he understood why but he didn't care.  He was suffering from touching the male half but was basicly a wilder and it was never said he was feeling the filth.  So I think a lot has to do with someone who channels but doesn't really know it or is never trained how to do it aren't fully opening themselves up enough to feel the filth or warmth.  They are incapable of doing anything more then a quick touch of the surface.   It's possible Rand would of started to feel nausea when he accidently channeled and not probably not understand why.  But there seems to be a difference between inadvertently channeling and intentionally channeling.
    • You can make it by heating sweetened condensed milk for a long time, or substitute another caramel sauce
    • https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/20/pew-research-1-in-10-u-s-voters-in-2020-election-will-be-foreign-born/   Muh Russian influence. LOL! We are giving out country away and not enough people care. I suppose one thing follows the other though doesn't it?
×