Beau said:
Mal7 said:
On one issue, the USA's southern border with Mexico, I think a strongly controlled border correlates well with ideas of nationalism and national sovereignty; while an open, uncontrolled border correlates with globalist plans for world government or the new world order.
Nationalism is just a means to keep people divided. It is not a good thing. The above is rather black and white to me. There is a more nuanced understanding that we can control our borders without turning into some kind of walled-off country like Israel. Whatever happened to "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore"? It's that mindset that once made America great, wasn't it? And isn't that what Trump wants to do, make America great again? Seems rather contradictory to me. Frankly, I don't know how anyone could think someone who wants to kick out every Muslim from the country and bring back waterboarding "and more" is a good choice for someone to be president. Unfortunately, I think you'll end up getting what you want anyway, he's likely to be selected president.
I know there are problems with nationalism. I think the biggest problem would be that nationalism can lead to irrational patriotic fervor, and from this to wars of one nation with another. In an ideal utopia, perhaps there would be no nation states or national borders. In practice in the world as it is today, I think doing away with nation states and national borders would lead to control by an authoritarian World Government, with globally-applied laws relating to trade, corporate rights, and carbon taxes. Also I don't know if any nation states today would be interested in willingly ceding their national sovereignty. Generally I would think national governments would like to maintain that status. Also most people would like to maintain their nation's status, e.g. Russians like being part of Russia, French like being part of France. In practical reality, I think the forces agitating to end nationalism are those of a One World Government. . . these forces might use other groups like the radical far left to help them.
I will say I totally disagree with Trump about his waterboarding "and more" comments. He should know better. Waterboarding is inhumane, it results in the loss of the moral high ground to anyone who uses it, it, and, along with other forms of torture, it has also been proved useless as a way of getting any kind of useful information.
I don't know that Trump has ever said he wants to kick out all Muslims
from the USA, but only that he wants to halt all Muslims from coming into the country, temporarily, until they are vetted or can be proven not to include any ISIS terrorists. Similarly he has never said he wants to expel all Latinos from the country, but only those here illegally. Migrants to the USA in earlier periods also arrived legally, and had to pass through immigration procedures, so having controlled borders is not something new for the USA originating with Trump.
I have read the article "The Mystic vs. Hitler" and watched footage of Hitler rallies. I still think not all the ingredients are there to convince me Trump is anything close to as bad as Hitler. Knowing what we know today of Hitler, I personally think if someone had assassinated Hitler in the early 1930s it would have been a good thing. I do not at all think it obvious that it would be a good thing to assassinate Trump.
With Hillary Clinton, we have someone who has played a key role in the present US government during the period of increasing chaos the US has brought to Iraq, Libya, and Syria, with blood on her hands for the deaths of thousands of people of those countries. With Donald Trump we have someone who has spent the last few decades employing thousands of people, building golf courses, and turning several huge old buildings no-one knew quite what to do with into some of the world's most iconic hotels. In the traditionally male-dominated construction business, Trump was ahead of his time in employing women in high-level management positions.
Much of the media OSIT are going into overdrive to make Trump out to be as racist and sexist and crazy as they can, despite the fact that more recently Trump has started talking in a more moderate, less violent tone. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times have all been playing their part in demonizing Trump. One thing about the Cassiopaea material I like is the research into how extensive the corruption of the media world is, and how extensive the hands of COINTELPRO are within the media. The CIA has a long history of funding media talking-heads, publications, and propaganda outlets for the Deep State. Propaganda will have something for everyone, something for every disposition, memes to confuse people whether they are on the political left, the right, or the middle. Yet now when Trump is running for President, I feel like some of the circumspection and critical suspicions that should be applied towards media sources are being abandoned. When Project for a New American Century co-founder Robert Kagan write an article on Trump for the Washington Post titled "How fascism is coming to America", the SOTT editorial comments on Kagan on the re-posting of the article were more-or-less limited to saying how ironic that a pathological type like Kagan was writing about the pathological Trump, psychopaths being good at spotting their own.
What bothers me is that maybe there is another level of irony here - the SOTT website, "World for People Who Think", presenting essentially in its entirety and without objection to its essential content a hit-piece on Trump from a Project for a New American Century author - the very organization that outlined plans for introducing fascism to the USA through a 9/11 type event.
Trump spends a lot more time talking about jobs, trade and economics than he does about talking about waterboarding or about banning Muslims. Over the past decades, the USA's foreign debt has grown to 19 trillion dollars, the USA has lost its manufacturing base, and annual trade deficits between the USA and other countries are in the hundreds of billions of dollars. I think Trump's followers are not hystericized hate-filled wanna-be Nazis, but people who are fed up with the system, and are looking for a real, outsider, non-establishment, non-politician candidate. I think Trump is likely to attract significant support from the supporters of Bernie Sanders, who is also seen as an outsider, if Hillary Clinton does manage to win/steals the Democratic nominee position from Sanders. If I am right about this characterization of Trump's followers, then I don't see how continuing to characterize Trump supporters as hate-filled bigots, walking, either willingly or blindly, down the path to fascism is going to help win any hearts and minds.
