Globalism: An Opinion Piece

George W regarding globalism:

“We cannot wish globalism away”

 “recover our own identity”

“Our identity as a nation, unlike many other nations, is not determined by geography or ethnicity, by soil or blood,” he said. “Being American involves the embrace of high ideals and civic responsibility.”

Dear W,

No we can't wish globalism away. By the same token you cannot wish it into the heart and soul of the very nation you are encouraging to recover her own identity.

You can't have it both ways. 

On the one hand you're pushing an agenda that will take away our identity.
On the other hand you're telling us to recover it.

If that makes sense to anybody, I'd sure like to hear how.

ps: was that reference to soil and blood accidental?


The above are some thoughts shared by a past President, and a few of my thoughts on his words.


If you've read DANANN you likely picked up on some of my thoughts on issues related to globalism.

While I'm not overly fond of the concept and hope to not see it happen any time soon, part of me is sad to realize that we may well drive ourselves to it - and then have to cope with the consequences.

It will not work.

Which is neither here nor there because it will be forced upon us eventually regardless.

Anybody who thinks they're going to come out ahead during or after the process is wishful dreaming.

NOBODY is going to 'win' the war that will go along with it.

I, of course, have no idea what's going to happen. I write fiction for pete's sake.

But in the course of writing fiction I also take a good long hard look at what is real. What is real today and what has been real in the past (so far as we know it) of humanity.

The people who are pushing for world-wide communism, or at least socialism, are chock full of baloney. Neither one of them works. And democracy only works on a limited scale.

Yet, what is going to happen when finally we push ourselves over the edge, or are pushed there by forces beyond any human control?

Whoever survives with the most resources is likely to try to dominate all of the other survivors.

And they'll likely succeed for the most part.

Survival of the fittest ...

And the survivors aren't going to get along any better than anybody does now.

So ...

Not to give my story line away or anything, but someone will rise, try (for good or ill) to impose one form of government, fail utterly, and ultimately each survivor will choose, in the time between the crisis and that of DANANN the book, to which of four closed societies they will go. Closed as in CLOSED. Like sending kids to their separate rooms only on a very big scale, and permanently. For our purposes, those who will not choose are granted the Isles of Earth and can roam at will. Everyone else is happily ensconced in whichever closed culture their survivor ancestors chose at the time of choosing. Except, of course, those who have gone Hiving in the stars.

Yeh.

I write fiction.

I also don't see any great big hope for success in getting everybody in the whole wide world on the same page any time soon.

The kicker, the irony, as I see it is that the very folk who are pushing 'identity politics' are the self-same ones who are pushing a globalist government that would effectively erase any identity at all. How is that supposed to work? Can you not make up your mind, are you of two minds about it, have you lost both of said minds and are you trying to find them? Helpful hint: the stronger mind will survive, hide from you for eternity, and you will remain mindlessly questing for a utopia that does not exist forever and ever amen.

Honestly ... Zero Imagination

If you're going to spin lies about someone else, it shows a distinct lack of creativity when the only thing you can think of is something you don't want anyone to know about your own self.

Did I not say a while ago, but not all that long ago, that if you want to find out what some people have been up to all you have to do is pay attention to what they're accusing others of?

Not only is it non-creative, it's not all that smart.

Indeed.

Russian collusion, for example ...

That's but a symptom of a much larger, more widespread, mindset.

Mine own mindset being a mite peculiar compared to most, the pattern emerges and expands before my very eyes (not literally) to encompass a whole range of behaviors exhibited by a great number of folk. Most of those people likely haven't got the faintest idea in this world what they are saying about themselves ... but the rest of the world, if we've been paying attention at all, recognizes it for what it is.

Being accusatory and condemning others (who may or may not be guilty - more frequently turning out to be the latter) for this that and the other thing, on whatever scale and to whatever degree - might draw the attention of the general public to the targets of your vitriol. So momentarily it may appear that you're accomplishing your goal.

Unfortunately for you, once attention is drawn to a certain line of thought, it's not all that uncommon for said line of thought to extend beyond where you want it to stop - which would be on your target.

As the instances of 'coincidence' increase, the pattern is likely to show itself to a whole lot of other people besides folks like me whose minds have already been noticing it for quite a while.

It makes a person wonder, it surely does, why people can't be more imaginative about stuff. If you consistently use your own experience as a guide to making accusations about others, it will inevitably draw attention to your own sphere of interest in the 'issue' at hand.

And it doesn't really take the larger population all that long to figure it out.

It applies to lots of things besides Russia, and significantly impacts more people than a person would think possible.

Who's racist?

Who's intolerant?

Who's misogynous?

Who's war-mongering?

Who's been lying to everyone?

All things considered, it might be easiest to identify such folk by simply watching and listening to the ones who are raising issues, bringing stuff up in the first place, starting the accusatory narrative. No wonder some people are still touchy about the unexpected results of November 2016, huh? What else is going to be exposed? At least we know where to begin looking - all we have to do is take them at their word, so to speak.

Don't Shoot The Messenger

Some or none.

This is what I've been picking up on for a while now.

On the one hand, the folks who deeply want our nation completely cleared of all illegals, and not let any more in from anywhere for quite a while, are willing to meet somewhere in the middle.

On the other hand, the folks who want all illegals to remain and to automatically and immediately become full citizens are not the least bit willing to even talk about it.

The irony is that if it were put to the current American citizens as a whole in a nation-wide referendum the folks on the one hand would allow the DACA folk, and likely the rest too, to remain so long as they aren't felons or some such, get them started on the citizenship path that already exists, and go with border control and some guidelines for application and quotas (already existing) for any new immigrant applications.

If the folks on the other hand block it out of spite, we're all stuck with a situation nobody at ALL wants. With compromise out the window, it will be not some illegals being allowed to stay, but none. Because that's our current law. Illegals are ... well ... here illegally - and subject to deportation.


Here's a bit from a legal site:

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 defines an alien as a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. In other words, an alien is anyone born in a country other than the United States to parents who are not United States citizens.

An illegal alien is someone who is living in the United States illegally; either without the correct legal documentation or by violating the terms of documentation, such as overstaying the time period specified on a tourist or student visa. Illegal aliens have no legal status in the United States. Among other things, illegal immigrants cannot vote, receive social services from federally funded programs, social security benefits, or hold United States passports.

Illegal aliens are subject to detainment and deportation at any time, as are legal aliens if they commit and are convicted of a crime. In many cases however, unless an illegal alien has committed a crime and been convicted, most are not detained or removed from the U.S. simply because they cannot be identified as illegal aliens.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/becoming-american-understanding-legal-and-illegal-immigration


Here's an excerpt from an Allen B West article:

71 percent call on companies to offer jobs to Americans before foreign workers.
82 percent of voters support a law that would strengthen sentencing penalties for illegals who had previously been deported and strengthens laws against illegal immigrants who commit crimes in the U.S.
76 percent want more ICE officers.
75 percent support Trump’s focus on jailing MS-13 members
73 percent believe immigrants must be able to support themselves financially.
By a 2-to-1 margin, voters support limiting the number of immigrants who are seeking to live here just because their relatives do, so-called “chain migration.”
59 percent said new immigrants should be required to speak English.
64 percent back legislation that would create a point system based on factors such as English-speaking ability, education levels and job skills to rank applicants for the 140,000 employment-based green cards that are granted annually by the United States.


If the nation is (hypothetically) evenly divided among democrat, republican, and independent folk there are more people represented by some of the above numbers than all of the republicans and independents combined. The democrats have some of their own siding with the compromise.

As it stands right now, from my perspective, if the democrats alone block compromise, yes they can do it, but it will cost them voters from their own ranks likely getting almighty sore at them - because if there is no compromise, guess what.

If democrats want to protect the Dreamers, that's fine by the other side - but if they attach a caveat that includes ALL illegals to the wagon of the Dreamers, it flat will not fly. It will not even roll along a flat road.

DACA expires in March of next year (2018), in just a few months, and all 800,000 of the Dreamers will have to go to the homelands of the parents who brought them here.

You can bet your bottom dollar that ICE will up the ante and, together with every other agency, will become a lot more aggressive in locating and deporting (first) every violent offender they can.

Unless the democrats cooperate in changing existing laws, enforcing said existing laws rather than ignoring them is going to become 'the way it is'. No exceptions for anybody. If you're here illegally, home you go immediately as you are in violation of our current immigration laws and subject to immediate deportation. Say there are 20 million illegals currently within our borders. That's a whole lot of deportations taking place all of a sudden.

So ... what will happen?

There will be a compromise; the illegals will understand that the democrats sold them out for political purposes; those who remain will NOT be happy about it, and they'll switch their allegiance to the folks who worked to get them the compromise - as opposed to those who resisted it and put all 20 million of them at risk for immediate deportation.

The same will go for a hefty hunk of democrats who would be in favor of a compromise. Down the hatch go the democrats - and for what? It's like throwing a game by carrying a weapon onto the field to sack and shoot the other team's quarterback - and the sack totally fails anyway because your own team-mates block you from committing murder, the very attempt being more than plenty to get the whole team pulled for all eternity.

The democrats have already lost this particular hand. If they're willing gamble everything on a hand that ain't got a chance, that's all on them. At this point the republicans/independents are holding all the aces, and tag-teaming the democrats.

As the democrat party 'leadership' balks at compromises that their own constituents want, those constituents know where to turn.

It almost kind of reminds me of when Honorius had the families of 30,000 of his Getae soldiers slaughtered, just to make a pointless political point. Did he REALLY expect his soldiers to stick with him after that? They went straight to Alaric is what they did, and that was the end of Honorius' empire. (short version)

That seems to be exactly the direction the democrats are heading. I doubt they'll be any more successful than Honorius was. If they're willing to sacrifice the Dreamers, not to mention 20 million (or so) others, on the altar of making a pointless political point, what does that say about them? That they will not be allowed to do any such thing is moot - that they are willing to, and will try to, is the message that's going to stick like cockle-burrs in your socks.

At least those are the impressions coming to me from all directions.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Also, Canada get ready because come spring of 2018 they'll be heading your way to get out of having to go south.

You know what really irks me about this whole thing?

Millions of folks in our nation are on tenterhooks because the democrats have been using them as a population of pawns and will not tend to what has to be done to give them some peace and security. That, in my opinion, is just plain hateful meanness. Pretend you're doing somebody a favor and then leave them holding the bag out of spite because somebody else ticks you off ... it's a really mean thing to do.

It's like saying, 'Here, leave your poor home to help me rob this bank and you'll get most of the loot.' And then run out the back door as the law comes in the front to arrest your recruits - who not only don't get any of the loot but have to go to jail before they go back to their poor homes. That's a dirty trick to pull, I have to say.

SHAME.

SHAME.

SHAME.

MELODY OF PHI ... COMING RIGHT UP ... THE QUEST BEGINS

For now I'm just pleased as punch to have gotten myself a little toy keyboard ... what I wouldn't give to have that old piano back that I had so very long ago!

Even so, just getting the melody planted into my head, at least the order of the notes, is a step in the right direction.

It's been a long time since I've done anything musical (it's not my forte) except sing along when there's a song playing that I know and like, so it's a change of pace for me. Will I even remember full, half, quarter, eighth notes? Hopefully it will all come back to me as I go along.

At any rate, lest I lose my train of thought, and the sequence of the notes, here are the introductory 'notes' of PHI, with 1 being middle C just because it's easiest for me ... they're also arranged, for the moment, into sets of four, for the same reason.

1618

0339 8874

9894

8482 0458

6834

3656 3811

*laughing* 

I found a site and copied the sequence as far as said site took it - 37 pages solid of random numbers, barely a drop in the bucket of the infinity of PHI.

I'll be doing good just to get these first 36 memorized, along with the notes I've assigned to them. 

Then will come the fun part - arranging them in a melody with variations in tempo and note lengths and all that stuff I don't have the right language for but will recognize the combination/s when I hear it/them.

Trust me on that.

Rather, trust our Characters because this after all THEIR SONG. They might be MY song, but even that isn't a given as the Mother has first claim always. Either way, the Song of PHI is the Song of our Characters, and of our world  when it comes right down to it.

My sister reminded me that according to archaeological and historic records the musical instruments of 'back in the day' would not have had our eight note musical scale ... but for our purposes that doesn't matter. For one thing it's fiction and our Characters are clever souls. Plus the only instrument we ever have involved in the Song is the Queen Harp whose strings can produce any sound she wants. And vocals have always had a huge range. So there you have it. The Song of Phi is timeless.

We're going to do our best to weave it into something that's hauntingly beautiful, and dangerous.

The only thing that's not negotiable is the order of the notes - because that's like the most immutable Law of our world.

For the rest, we shall see what we shall see.

For the SONG itself, the arrangement has to lend itself to being a repeated melody suitable for being sung in rounds by eight different Voices.

Mamm's Voice begins with her Song of Choice. She is a soprano.

Next comes Danann with the Spiral. He is a bass.

Sidhelagh Sings of Peace. Her Voice is second soprano.

Alianora and Drustann Sing of Faith - first soprano and tenor.

Sass Sings of Healing - she is a contralto. When Thann comes into the Story Line, he's a bass.

Caileen and Talorc Sing of Hope - alto and whatever's between tenor and bass.

Aine and Kalann sing of Love - they are second soprano and tenor.

Ullin of Iona Sings of Unity with the Queen Harp - his Voice is bass; hers is whatever she wants it to be.

So we've got all these Voices coming into the round as the SONG progresses.

That there are no words helps. All we have to do is make sure the notes don't clash.

AND we can range the Voices per part by octave. Mamm will go an octave above middle C while Danann will be an octave below. Hypothetically. Once I get my hands on a full piano keyboard I can at least do some fiddling and see if it's going to even be possible. Because the notes repeat randomly, it might be *difficult* to find a place for the Voices to come into the melody without causing discord.

Ah well. 

The quest is on for a Theme Song for SONG.

FOLLOWING THE NEWS

Once upon a time in a life now long past I worked for a charitable gaming organization, dealing blackjack in the local bars (pubs) of Small Town USA. It was one of the best jobs I've ever had for people watching, I tell you true. People are maybe 'more themselves' when they've tucked a couple under their belts, so to speak.

At any rate, during my night shifts I've taken to having the television news on.

As it turns out, doing my work with the news channels in the background kind of reminds me of that job I had once upon a time.

On the one hand there's a group of people who tend to do nothing but whine and complain and gossip about other people in a nasty way, often at the tops of their lungs and always with a hateful twist to everything.

On the other hand are a whole different group who only get far enough into their cups to be able to vociferously voice their opinions in sometimes loud discussions. They've had enough to drink to be open and honest, but not enough to come to blows about anything.This group will argue anything until the cows come home, never convince each other to change their minds, agree to disagree until the next time, and head for home still friends.

Not surprisingly, I'm finding the dynamics of the media group on the one hand to be just as annoying and disgusting as I did their counterparts back in the day.

The folks on the other hand just make me smile (even when the topics are deadly serious) because ... well ... because it just reminds me of Small Town USA, the way it's supposed to be.

On the one hand I'm not going to name names, because I don't have to. Small Town USA always knows who's who.

On the other hand, I will name one : FOX NEWS.

I'm still adept at tuning out the folks on the one hand as best I can (although their obnoxious voices still penetrate now and then) while tuning in to the folks on the other hand who can present their points of view without being hateful about it.

Some MUCH Better Research on Gun Control Laws

READ THIS

Some great research done here, just looking for the facts.

If restrictive gun laws were going to be effective, we'd know it by now.

The gun control horse is dead. We can stop beating it any time now.

Cited in the article are three 'populations' at risk:

Potential Suicides
Young Males
Women with Violent Partners

Instead of continuing to beat a dead horse, maybe we ought to walk away from the carcass and put our time, energy, and money into some  preventive/protective measures instead.

It's wishful thinking on my part, most likely.

These are much more difficult issues to address.

INDEPENDENT VOTERS

ONE ARTICLE ABOUT INDEPENDENT VOTERS

Independent