Wednesday, September 10, 2008
World Opinion be Damned
The UK Guardian Tries to Influence Our Elections
"The world's verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for"
The Guardian [UK], by Jonathan Freedland
It is time to take a look at this meme "world opinion" and America 's directions. Of course, the first thing to be said is that only American citizens can vote in the elections. The second thing to be said is that few Americans have the slightest desire to let foreign influences sway their opinions on voting.
The one segment that does seem to do so are Humanists, liberals, and their communist and socialist brethren who have an agenda to further internationalism for their own ends. This is an extremely elitist crowd that has a trivially small number of voters. They may well be quite influential in Democratic circles, but their ideas are not mainstream American by a long shot.
This is the fundamental reason that Obama will not be elected: Americans are basically conservative, both fiscally and socially, by over 65-70%. Being black does not have much to do with the decision process, but being conservative and not liberal does, and Mr. Obama is quite liberal indeed. Therefore, when all of the shouting is over, he loses. Some are predicting that it will be by a landslide.
So, if we believe the thesis that the world will be mad at the US for not electing Obama, it is obvious that the US will be even madder at the world for presuming to dictate to us who will run the nation against our majority set beliefs in a conservative government. Then, to attempt to punish us for our convictions will produce a backlash by us that many countries cannot afford to incur.
We are not in the service of other countries, although some nations think of us as "let the Americans do it (and pay for it!)" Their citizens are not of any significant influence inside America, except for those Americans that are struck silly and become bewildered by the hostile reactions of foreigners they encounter. In the heart of America today, there is far less UN or international support than in previous decades. Most Americans thoroughly resent much of the UN activities over the past 10 or 20 years as being quite contrary to our interests.
To do this retort justice, I would have to take up the idea of world opinion country by country, region by region, types of government, and the majority religions, plus a plethora of other factors--ad nauseam. To short circuit all of this, I believe that world opinion is not only fickle, but often bought and paid for, or ordered from on high. Much of it is, again, of elitist making, self-serving of the nation at hand, and not of the majority of the people. Then too, find the money trail. At the bottom of much unhappiness is a substantial lack of money. The US has money, even with the indebtedness we have foolishly incurred. Envy is a strong odor emanating from many, many nations and their people because of their impoverished state.
When envy turns to hate, it is difficult to be charitable.
Labels: Obama, World Opinion
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
A Cautionary Tale: Eugenics Redux
Tis is a little-remembered story of science and politics gone mad.
From “War Against the Weak”, by Ed Black
"In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else.
How? By identifying so-called “defective” family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.
The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior.
Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America’s most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
Perhaps we should be wary of scientists with power. I know that a basketful of initialed organizations, including the NSF, have come out saying that global warming/climate change is serious stuff. But, you see, the fever has risen to the point that a scientist cannot get research grants, and PhD candidates cannot get their degrees unless they sign up the the orthodoxy of a grave problem. It smacks of the eugenics thrust in spades, where everyone was convinced it was for the best to sterilize those 60,000 people. Since GW is a highly scientific area, and since we are relying on "prestigious scientists" for technical advice, and highly dubious leaders of the movement, such as Algore, I believe we should go very slowly and carefully into this issue.
Find the good scientists, one's that have no axe to grind, no carbon offsets to sell, and no accolades to garner from collegues.
Labels: Global Warming, hypocrisy, politics, Science, World Opinion
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Say Bye Bye to the UN
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
World Opinion
Turn a Deaf Ear!
Of the 193 countries in the world today, fully 65% of them are not democratic or moral societies. So if the media is polling the lot for their opinion of the US, guess what will happen? Right! The US is a bad nation! Quite a few of these nations are Islamic, so it isn't hard to see where they stand, either. Oh! You meant to poll only the "major opinion setters in the world?" Then you are misrepresenting the results. Now ask me if I care what the opinion setters think.
Right again! Nations, just as people, are fickle and easily swayed by mob psychology, fundamental unhappiness and envy of the US.
Finish the job in Iraq!
Labels: World Opinion
Who says we need the UN?
The world's nations are not democratic, by and large-- at least half have some form of dictatorship, or total control by way of adding religion to government. This means that at the government level we have antithetical, amoral or immoral voices working against the common good within the UN much of the time, and constantly focused on how to capture more money-- from the US--legally, or not.
To give up any part of our sovereignty to such a gang is playing the fool. To fund this mess is also foolish, in my opinion. Corruption in the UN has become an art form, it seems.
Of what good was the UN to us in the case of Iraq? Tell me what good it has served in the GWOT. Of what good has it been in the case of Iran and its thrust for nuclear weapons? Of what good would it be if China decided to invade Taiwan, or Russia went into one of its former nations? My take is that it would be zero. Huge discussions, votes and sanctions in the UN Security Council would not change the facts on the ground, even if they had a quorum on the issue.
We delude ourselves that UN approval of our actions conveys legitimacy, when the members themselves are not actually legitimate, in the sense of being rational, relatively altruistic players, and democratic in their very nature.
We delude ourselves that having such a forum prevents war. It didn't prevent the Korean War; it didn't prevent the Vietnam War, and it didn't prevent the first or second Gulf Wars. The UN most certainly does not prevent a nuclear war, if it comes to a major conflict between two nuclear powers. The power to halt such a conflict, by diplomacy and threats of retaliation, comes from each major nation acting in its own interest and banding together at the time. Normal diplomatic channels serve this end quite well, and they are not cluttered with tens and hundreds of pipsqueak diplomats from amoral nations that want a say, or want a delay for their own benefit.
The UN is a failure, and its participants are at fault, including the US, for giving their trust to gangsters and thieves for, among all the other problems, handling massive sums of money that simply disappear without adequate accounting.
The UN wants to extend its control over the US, if my reading of their proposed gun control measures and their LOST treaty are any indication.
I vote NO!