The pseudonym "Philo Vaihinger" has been abandoned. All posts have been and are written by me, Joseph Auclair.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Agenda 21, is it?


I have no idea about Obama or those close to him, but a whole lot of liberals do want some of the things, and some of the sorts of things, these crazy conservatives are going on about.

Global redistribution of investment and economic opportunity is and was a good part of the point of the Kyoto deal, for example, and will no doubt play a role in any future international deal ostensibly about controlling global warming sponsored by liberals.

It is certainly a factor in Democratic support for free trade and broader liberal support for “fair trade” – that is, free trade with some protections built in for the foreigners who get our jobs because of it.

Obama’s constant refusal to accept, much less defend, the Kyoto deal or the viewpoint of its defenders argues that he, anyway, is less open to objection in that regard than many others.

All the same, some Democrats and many liberals, though maybe not most, have proudly abandoned nationalism for what they call "cosmopolitanism," and boldly say so when arguing against protectionism in America but for it in poor countries, for example.

And for relatively open immigration here but relatively closed immigration there.

Which does not make these conservatives any less a bunch of crackpots and phonies.

Mind control and black helicopters?

Communist dictatorship?

Really?

Nor does it mean that conservatives are not here exploiting what is, in its kernel, a valid concern to advantage the plutocracy against us ordinary folk in matters of US domestic policy.

Much as they exploit concerns about Islam and free speech and an accurate view of the inherent violence of Islam to support foreign policy commitments much in the interest of the military-industrial complex and in service to the Zionists but quite against the interests of the American people.

Oh, I, too, oppose any sort of global tax and would prefer the US leave the UN rather than give up a single jot of sovereignty to it, or tolerate what liberals usually think of as reform of it.

In a world of crazies and out of control, desperate, poor populations, I and others of my class – the American working class – do and will find relative safety in national independence and sovereignty.

To upper-class liberals, global governance is in fact a good way to try to “level the global playing field” at our, not their, expense, much as they have already done by refusing trade protection to the American people despite what everyone can see our current trade policies are doing.

And lower class liberals who support them are just dangerous fools.

Thanks, but I prefer not to be personally leveled into the likes of the worst Brazilian slums by the people who claim to be friends of the American working man, liberals and Democrats.

It’s bad enough when the Republicans, who make no claim to be my friends and in fact are openly my enemies, try to do it.

P.S. Bike lanes on city streets are stupid.

P. S. 2. So the Delphi technique is sort of like what happens when a US city government asks the voters to support a stadium, gets turned down, and builds it anyway?

Or when the EU loses a vote on another step in European integration and takes the step, anyway?

Is it sort of like that?

No comments:

Post a Comment