Saturday, January 7, 2017

Globalism Versus Nationalism - Which Wins? Hacksaw Ridge - Reality! War Tracks? Alabama.

This from a special friend and fellow memo reader in response to my comment about Mail Chimp and my readership statistics: "Your readership is higher because you write so well and inform your readers about important facts and events. Thank you from your of most faithful readers. Cheers. M------"


Globalists versus nationalists. Which direction will nations take. Can the conflict be resolved?.(See 1 below.)


This is what reality is all about.  

I went to see Mel Gibson's movie (Hacksaw Ridge) yesterday about a conscientious objector who won the Medal of Honor for saving lives on Okinawa. Great movie though, I despise Gibson. 

Hitler, and perhaps others, said: 'to defeat me you have to become like me.'

War is hell but victory is sweet and justified.  We no longer seem willing to do what it takes to win because we are too civilized and PC driven so the Obama types cause even more tragedy. If in doubt ask a Syrian or even an Israeli. (See 2 below.)


This kind of action does not further peace but it is what The Palestinian leadership wants and  incites and Kerry ignores.

It is what you expect from wild beasts and radicals. Therefore, they either must be caged or killed. (See 3 below.)


Call me nuts, as many do and will, but I fear a war coming and Trump will be blamed for the train crash but the tracks were laid by Obama and the likes of Kerry etc.  However,  liberals and the mass media will never connect the dots. 

Weakness is the nourishment of bullies.

Also, tomorrow night, Alabama will become the national champions in what should be a great battle.


1) We Are Not the World

From Brexit to Trump to the rise of nationalist parties across Europe, the old division between left and right is giving way to a battle between self-styled patriots and confounded globalists

“Now, the dividing line is not between left and right but globalists and patriots,” she
declared, with a gigantic French flag draped behind her. Globalists, she charged, want
France to be subsumed in a vast, world-encircling “magma.” She and other patriots, by
contrast, were determined to retain the nation-state as the “protective space” for French

Ms. Le Pen’s remarks foreshadowed the tectonic forces that would shake the world in
2016. The British vote to leave the European Union in June and the election of Donald
Trump as U.S. president in November were not about whether government should be
smaller but whether the nation-state still mattered. Ms. Le Pen now has a shot at winning
France’s presidential elections this spring, which could imperil the already reeling EU
and its common currency.
The new nationalist surge has startled establishment parties in part because they don’t
see globalism as an ideology. How could it be, when it is shared across the traditional
left-right spectrum by the likes of Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, George W. Bush and
David Cameron?
But globalism is an ideology, and its struggle with nationalism will shape the coming era
much as the struggle between conservatives and liberals has shaped the last. That, at
least, is how the new nationalists see it. After successfully pressuring Carrier Corp. to
keep in Indiana about half of the 2,100 jobs that the firm had planned to move to Mexico
, Mr. Trump told a rally last month, “There is no global anthem, no global currency, no
certificate of global citizenship. From now on, it’s going to be ‘America First.’ ”
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump at a campaign rally featuring his ‘America First’ slogan, Warren, Mich., Oct. 31, 2016.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump at a campaign rally featuring his ‘America First’ 
slogan, Warren, Mich., Oct. 31, 2016. PHOTO: CARLO ALLEGRI/REUTERS
In the 1930s, nationalists were also expansionists who coveted other countries’ territory.
Today, Mr. Trump and his ideological allies mostly want to reassert control over their
own countries. Their targets are such global structures as the EU, the World Trade
Organization, NATO, the U.N. and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Little unites the new nationalists other than their shared antipathy toward globalism. Mr.
Trump’s economic program is as far to the right as Ms. Le Pen’s is to the left. Nor do
they have credible plans for replacing the institutions of globalization that they want to
tear down, as Britain’s confused exit from the EU demonstrates.
But globalists would be wise to face their own shortcomings. They have underestimated
the collateral damage that breakneck globalization has inflicted on ordinary workers,
placed too much weight on the strategic advantages of trade and dismissed too readily
the value that many ordinary citizens still attach to national borders and cultural cohesion.
Globalism’s early roots are found in basic economics: Just as two people are better off
specializing and then trading with each other, so are two cities and two countries. “All
trade, whether foreign or domestic, is beneficial,” the British economist David Ricardo
 wrote in 1817.
After World War II, the logic of globalism shifted beyond trade to grand strategy. By 
ceding modest amounts of sovereignty to international institutions, a country could make 
the world, and itself, far stronger than by pursuing its own narrowly defined interests. “If 
the nations can agree to observe a code of good conduct in international trade, they will 
cooperate more readily in other international affairs,” President Harry Truman said in
Truman and the other founders of the postwar order saw economic and geopolitical self-i
nterest as inseparable: The U.S. opened its wallet and its markets to its allies to hold
back Soviet communism. In 1957, six European countries signed the Treaty of Rome,
creating what would become the EU, hoping that economic and political integration
would make war unthinkable.
For decades, trade, industrialization and demographics produced a virtuous circle of
rising prosperity. By the 1990s, trade barriers had already dropped so much that the
gains from trade were now smaller and more concentrated. Between 1987 and 2008,
total U.S. wages adjusted for inflation rose by 53%, while the profits that U.S. companies
earned abroad soared by 347%. Still, the strategic benefits of trade remained alluring: President Bill Clinton signed Nafta in 1993 in part to embed a pro-American government
in Mexico, and the EU moved after the Cold War to admit former Soviet satellites to
solidify their democracies and draw them out of Russia’s orbit.

By the 2000s, globalism  was triumphant. The World Economic Forum had evolved from 
a cozy management-oriented workshop in the Swiss town of Davos to an extravagant 
summit for elites. The late political scientist Samuel Huntington applied the caustic label
 “Davos man” to those who see “national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are 
vanishing.” For globalists, this was a badge of honor, symbolizing not just an outlook 
but a lifestyle of first-class departure lounges, smartphones and stock options.
This is also when globalists overreached. In 2000, Mr. Clinton blessed China’s entry into
the WTO. Echoing Truman, he predicted China’s membership was “likely to have a
profound impact on human rights and political liberty.”
It didn’t. China adhered to the letter of its WTO obligations while systematically
violating their spirit with discrimination against foreign investors and products and an
artificially cheap currency. A wave of Chinese imports wiped out 2 million American
jobs, according to one widely cited 2016 study, with no equivalent boom in U.S. jobs
linked to exports to China. Meanwhile, China became more repressive at home and
antagonistic abroad. By behaving quite differently from other members of the global
trading club, China has undermined support for it.
Globalists in Europe also overreached. In 1999, 11 EU members joined the euro, the
crowning achievement of European unity. Economists warned that Italy, Spain and
Greece couldn’t compete with Germany without the safety valve of letting national
currencies periodically devalue to offset their faster-rising costs. Sure enough, their trade
deficits ballooned, but low-cost euro loans at first made them easy to finance. The loans
proved unsustainable, and the resulting crisis has still not run its course. One result: In
Italy, the populist 5 Star Movement, which is jostling for first place in the polls, has
 promised a nonbinding referendum on membership in the euro.
Chinese and German trade surpluses could wreak havoc thanks to expanding cross-
border finance. To globalists, its growth was as inexorable as that of trade. In early 2008,
President George W. Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, put out a report arguing
that globalization had made much of U.S. financial regulation obsolete. The priority was
to maintain “American preeminence in the global capital markets.” Those same capital
markets soon tipped the world into its worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
Globalists were blind to the nationalist backlash in part because their world—
entrepreneurial, university-educated, ethnically diverse, urban and coastal—has thrived
as whiter, less-educated hinterlands have stagnated. Similar splits separate London from
the rest of England and the EU’s capital cities from the countryside of continental Europe.That crisis has woken up globalists to the flaws of globalization. Yet their faith in open
borders remains unshaken. President Barack Obama entered office as a free-trade
skeptic, but he soon threw his energy into negotiating the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The pact’s anticipated economic benefits for the U.S. were modest, but its strategic aims
were sweeping: The U.S. would forge a pro-America, pro-trade order in Asia rather than
let a rising China dominate the region. With Mr. Trump’s win, the accord is now
presumed to be dead.
Many globalists now assume that the discontent is largely driven by stagnant wages and inequality. If people are upset about immigration, they reason, it is largely because they
 fear competition with low-wage workers.
In fact, much of the backlash against immigration (and globalism) is not economic but
cultural: Many people still care about their own versions of national identity and mistrust
global institutions such as the EU. A 2016 study by Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan and Pippa Norris of Harvard University analyzed party manifestos in 13
Western democracies and found that in the 1980s, economic issues such as taxes and
welfare became less important than noneconomic issues such as immigration, terrorism,
 abortion and gay rights.
In July 2016, two scholars at the London School of Economicsfound that rising
unemployment didn’t make British regions more likely to vote to leave the EU, but a
 growing migrant population did. These voters were bothered less by competition from
immigrants than by their perceived effect on the country’s linguistic, religious and
cultural norms.
Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, Brachay, France, Sept. 3, 2016.
Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, Brachay, France, Sept. 3, 2016. PHOTO: PANORAMIC/ZUMA PRESS
One of the first to exploit such cultural resentments was Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder
of the National Front, who frequently decried mondialisme in xenophobic terms. After
his daughter Marine took over the party in 2011, she threw him out because his anti-
Semitic outbursts were repelling mainstream French voters.
In 2014, Steve Bannon—Mr. Trump’s top strategist and the former leader of Breitbart
News, a fiery conservative site that is fiercely opposed to immigration and
multiculturalism—acknowledged that Ms. Le Pen’s National Front and its British
counterpart, the UK Independence Party, “bring a lot of baggage, both ethnically and
racially.” Nonetheless, Mr. Bannon saw them as fellow travelers. He said, “The working
men and women in the world…are just tired of being dictated to by what we call the
party of Davos.”
Indeed, one 2012 study found that Europeans’ opposition to immigration was driven less
by pocketbook concerns than by worries about how changes to “the composition of the
local population” would affect “their neighborhoods, schools and workplaces.” The last
big U.S. backlash against immigration came during the Roaring Twenties, the last time
that the foreign-born share of the population stood as high as it is today, at 13%.
Which raises the most troubling question of the emerging globalist-nationalist divide: Is
the new nationalism a cloak for ethnic and religious exclusion? Nationalist leaders insist
that it isn’t. Ms. Le Pen, for example, says that she is merely defending France’s secular
character when she criticizes overt displays of Islamic observance, distancing herself
from her plainly xenophobic father. Mr. Trump says that struggling Latino and African-
American workers are victims of cheap foreign labor just as much as Rust Belt whites
Yet the new nationalism often thrives on xenophobia. Mr. Trump has been criticizing
free trade since the 1980s, but his candidacy took off when he started attacking Mexican immigrants and Muslims. American Jewish groups heard unsettling echoes of anti-
Semitic conspiracy theories when Mr. Trump accused Mrs. Clinton of meeting “in secret
with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty.” Germany’s
Alternative for Germany started as an anti-euro party, but as an influx of Middle Eastern
refugees and migrants has stoked worries about crime and terrorism, the party’s focus on
Islam (which its manifesto declared “not a part of Germany”) and its popular support
have both jumped.
In short, there is ample reason for skepticism about whether the new nationalists can
prove themselves a genuinely secular, democratic alternative to globalism.
If globalists are to regain the public’s trust, they will need to re-examine their own
policies. The dislocation caused by past globalization casts doubt on the wisdom of
prescribing more. That globalization’s winners can compensate its losers makes
impeccable economic logic, but it rings hollow among those too old to retrain or move.
 Political capital might be better invested in preserving existing trade pacts, not passing
new ones. And trade pacts may be a less effective bulwark against China than military
cooperation with those worried about Chinese aggression.
Many European globalists blame the euro’s crisis on too little integration, not too much.
But pressing for a more federal Europe could further alienate voters who “do not share
our Euro-enthusiasm,” warned Donald Tusk, the former prime minister of Poland who is
now president of the European Council, last May. “Disillusioned with the great visions
of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality.”
Above all, globalists should not equate concern for cultural norms and national borders
with xenophobia. Large majorities of Americans, for example, welcome immigrants so
long as they adopt American values, learn English, bring useful skills and wait their turn. Australia’s low tolerance for illegal immigration helps to maintain public support for
high levels of legal entrants.
“We’ve created this false dichotomy that if you’re not for open borders, you’re racist,”
says Avik Roy, president of the conservative Foundation for Research on Equal
Opportunity and a former adviser to Republican presidential candidates. “There is some
sort of middle ground between a nationalist and globalist approach,” Mr. Roy argues.
Even as committed a globalist as Mr. Obama has come to acknowledge this. Democrats,
 he told Rolling Stone the day after the election, must recognize that “for the majority of
the American people, borders mean something.”
2) Let Us All Pray, Trump has the same attitude.

Unless you are willing to be as unreasonable
and as brutal, as your enemy,
do not engage him in a conflict
because he will win!  

This old leatherneck says it better. 
Quote from a WWII veteran overhearing someone in the 
Obama administration say: "You can't bomb an ideology."
"BS, the hell you can't, because we did it.
These radical Muslims are no different than the [Imperial] 
The Japs had their suicide bombers too.
And we stopped them.
What it takes is the resolve and will to use a level of
brutality and violence that your generation can't seem to 
 And until you can, this shit won't stop. It took us on the beaches 
with bullets, clearing out caves with flame throwers, and men 
like General LeMay burning down their cities, killing people by 
the tens of thousands. And then it took 2 atom bombs on top 
of it. Plus we had to bomb the living shit out of German cities to 
get them to quit fighting. But, if that was what it took to win, we 
were willing and able to do it. Until you are willing to do the 
Well I hope you enjoy this shit, because it ain't going to stop!
Back then, we had leadership, resolve, resources and
Today we're afraid to hurt people's feelings....
and worry about which bathroom to piss in!"

Jerusalem ramming attack: Four killed as truck slams into crowd
Police confirm that the perpetrator has been neutralized; police chief
identifies driver as east Jerusalem resident.
Four people were killed and several others wounded after a truck rammed into several pedestrians
adjacent to the Armon Hanatziv promenade in Jerusalem on Sunday, according to Magen David
Adom. Among the fatalities were three women and one man in their 20s. 

MDA reported that it was treating 13 additional wounded people, of them, three in serious condition,
one in moderate-to-serious condition and 9 in light condition. Emergency workers were evacuating
the wounded to nearby hospitals.

Police confirmed that the perpetrator has been neutralized. Authorities suspected terror motives in
the incident.

Speaking to the press minutes after the attack, General Commissioner of the Israel Police, Major
Roni Alsheich, identified the attacker as a resident of east Jerusalem, explaining how the apparently
Arab perpetrator had an Israeli driver's license and was driving a car with an Israeli license plate.

Alsheich said that there was no prior warning to the attack, but that police are intensely preparing to
react quickly to threats and to thwart attacks as often as possible. 

MDA paramedic Landy Sharon who arrived at the scene said that he "saw a truck that hit a group of
young people that got off a bus near the Armon Hanatziv observation post."

"About 10 people were lying on the ground near the street. Some of the were trapped under the
truck," he added.

According to police, the motorist increased speed and rammed the truck into a group of people
while they were descending from a bus.

No comments: