The United States of Earth

earth Blue Marble Review

Republicans go on and on about the evils of globalization as if liberals want to demolish nations and become the United States of Earth. I do not believe that the modern movement towards globalization is about anything of the kind.

The globalization of which we libtards speak has two parts. One is for the nations of the world to work together globally to be better caretakers of our planet. We have plundered our planet, trashed our planet, and moved harmful chemicals from places where they did no harm to places and in combinations where they threaten our clean water supplies and the layers of air above us that protect us so well from the airless space beyond. What will our planet be like without our ice caps? The very fact that they are melting is proof that earth is warming. As the earth warms our weather appears to grow more severe. Whether we caused this uptick in global heating or not, doesn’t it make sense to explore ways we could slow it down or reverse it? Climate deniers say earth is too big to be affected by human activities, but our planet seems smaller every day.

The other way that us liberal snowflakes use globalization relates to fighting poverty, illiteracy, disease, and lack of opportunity worldwide, especially in nations that may be challenged by harsh climate conditions or constant power struggles that savage land and people. The world has had to contend with at least two or three new diseases that seemed to emerge from these very same challenged areas. HIV had roots in Africa, Ebola virus did also, and West Nile virus, which holds horrors for pregnant mothers, seems to also have come from the tropics. In the past, when travel was difficult these diseases mostly stayed put (although previously some diseases were spread through shipping). Now they threaten everyone on the planet. Keeping people around our planet healthy may be altruistic, but it is also quite selfish. Although drugs can be and are developed to treat these new diseases, raising the standard of living for all people everywhere on earth will offer the best protection of all.

As I listened on this Tuesday, September 25, 2018, to Trump give his speech (Steven Miller’s speech) to the UN and tout the glories of the new nationalism, it did not escape me that the sense of barriers going up around states all over Europe arose from the very Pandora’s Box that the Republicans insisted on opening in Iraq (which they now blame on the Democrats because of Libya). The wave of war spread across the Middle East from Iraq until it arrived at Syria and sent migrants outward into Europe. People leaving a war torn nation where their leader used chemical weapons on his people; that’s a thing we should all comprehend. But the fear of people arriving in a settled nation in large numbers, the timing of these migrations after a long spate of terrorists activities in European nations, and the lack of a good plan for how to offer hospitality to traumatized families has set up new opportunities for power for those who give voice to anti-migrant speech.

Trump can sense fear in others because he feels it himself, hence his support for white supremacists. Trump can sympathize with the rise of dictators in Europe who promise to keep migrants out of their nations. By turning to policies of “our nation first” “earthlings” will lose the very important outcomes of the dual goals of globalization. As a result, Nationalism could destroy America as we know it, but it could also destroy our entire little planet out here in a lonely corner of space. Please keep the destruction down all you powerbrokers, until we find Earth B out there in the void.

Globalization, as us lefties define it, is not completely at odds with Nationalism, so stop making it look like we can only have one or the other. The New World Order is not a real thing. It is a made-up political construct, a conspiracy theory, to deliver a message that the left has extreme and diabolical plans for global domination. If anyone has such plans however, it is the right.

Photo Credit: From a Google Image Search – Blue Marble Review

Caught in the Dialectic

Nat.vGlob big The Last American Vagabond

The “dialectic” is not just some academic construct used as propaganda by Communist thinkers. It is seen fairly universally these days as a tool that is useful for describing seismic disturbances in cultures and even in individual lives when measured over time. Cultures experience tectonic movements, which because of the organic (living) content cannot be expressed in the formulas of physicists, which work better for more easily predictable phenomena (usually inorganic). If the dialectic can measure political change, it can be extrapolated to apply to almost all of humanity’s communal activities.

hegeldialectic big

This dialectic has human endeavors moving along like an inchworm.

inchworm big Dream Stop

Every so often there is a foreword movement which causes the center to rise, temporarily, and the “back” of the organism to move forward occupying new ground.

Thesis

It seems that some theorized that we were in a moment when we were poised to make a cultural leap. There was some momentum generated for eradicating poverty and disease, looking to problems that might crop up in the near future with 9 billion people on the planet, attempting to equalize wealth a bit, to create new markets that would “develop” seemingly more primitive cultures, (cultures that could suffer terribly in the future without some intervention), changing our extreme reliance on fossil fuels, and finding newer, cleaner, and renewable energy sources.

This “movement” advocated that we find ways to lighten the human footprint on our tiny planet in order to make sure that we did not continue to disturb the delicate balances on which we depend (the water cycle, clean potable water, clean soil, clean air, arable land). This world view suggested that the migration of factories to less developed nations was also “organic” and, while disruptive in the short term, would lead to a spread of prosperity, global in scope, which would eventually benefit all of earth’s people and keep us from social upheaval and war (at least until we learn to travel in space). We would be trading giant culture-destroying upheavals for smaller, more persistent upheavals, if we could look beyond our borders for more planet-wide ways to cooperate.

Antithesis

Lo and behold – not everyone was on board with globalism, globalization, planet-wide cooperation. Not everyone liked the agenda of get-everyone-on-the-same-page, equalize the distribution of wealth, save the planet. Perhaps it was too big a leap, too much too fast. It left the “front” leg of the inchworm up in the air, trembling, finding no firm footing for forward movement. Humanity in affluent societies just did not like the idea of living in curtailed circumstances in the present to ensure a livable future. They did not like the way a global perspective seemed to be weakening their nation and making them more uncertain about their finances. Capitalist societies were not the only ones that were unhappy with the disruptions of globalism.

Perhaps we have learned an important lesson, that it is dangerous to become so focused on the future that you forget to give equal consideration to the present and how the transitions are affecting people’s lives. Perhaps, since there is no one force overseeing cultural change, the dialectic is inescapable. (I have simplified the dialectic here, but it is often represented as a cyclical spiral that repeats and repeats.) In times of rapid change it is probably impossible to avoid little earthquakes in unexpected places. It may even be impossible to avoid some fairly large earthquakes.

But as we sit now in the peak of the current antithesis movement (nationalism), the-we-don’t-want-change movement, those who still hold to the original “global” thesis (agenda) find their forward movement blocked by policies that will make the world more divided, less global, less clean, less equal, and less free, but which will keep wealth fixed exactly where it is and allow wealth inequality to become more pronounced (even while these folks protest that they are doing the opposite).

Synthesis

When will we arrive at the time when we actually attempt to synthesize these two opposing movements? It could be decades or even centuries; or it could be as close as the next election. There is a certain urgency in the air. Perhaps the earth is near a breaking point and we do not have the luxury of lingering in the wasteful, greedy past for long. Perhaps those on the other side are correct and there is no danger that our planet will rebel against our treatment of it. Personally many don’t want to wait and see. These people like to be proactive.