There is no need for a United States any longer

[CoffeeCat]

If the corporatists, the elites, and they decision makers of this world are
united toward full globalization--what would stand in their way of achieving
that goal?

How about a burgeoning country full of trailblazing, intelligent
people who have untold freedom to speak out against their government, organize
against injustice and protest when government becomes abusive or corrupt?

What if that same prosperous country was filled with workers who were making decent wages with
health benefits, pensions and other perks--while people working those same jobs in
other countries weren't even making $5 a day? Globalization means that Chinese workers
making pennies a day--take notice of the worker in Seattle making $600 per day and
enjoying health benefits. Can't have that, now can we?

What if this incredible country was an empire--historically and currently--defined by its tremendous
power, its incredible wealth and its people who were strong, scrappy and prosperous because
they grew up and out of such amazing circumstances?

What would the corporatists, the elites and the kingmakers--who desire a global economy,
a global workforce and global control do with such a country?

They would dismantle it. They would destroy what makes it strong. Globalization means
homogenizing the world---down to the lowest common denominator--and that is exactly what is
happening to the United States.

We are being dismantled and torn down to the lowest common denominator--so we fit into the
global model. They've busted the unions. They've outsourced millions of jobs and hobbled the
labor force to permanent unemployment at or above 9 percent. They've cut our pay and benefits
while increasing our work hours. They terminated our pensions slashed our health-insurance benefits. Programs for the poor, the elderly who need heat in the winter, and families in
crisis have been eliminated and now they're going after Social Security and Medicaid.

It's nearly impossible for a very small elite group to maintain control of an entire globe with
an empire existing on that globe. You must systematically decimate it and break the people too.
Get them pumped up on horribly unhealthy food that leaves them lethargic and unable to fight back. Convince them that they need to dope themselves up on antidepressants and make it so easy to
do so--to further cloud their thinking. Use the media to saturate their brains with mindless
reality television and pro-corporate news--and you can further numb them out. De-fund and destroy
public education, to ensure compliance. Spy on them, humiliate them with government-sanctioned
molestations at airport checkpoints and put taser torture devices in the hands of police who
treat citizens like animals.

The things that are happening to our country--are not accidents. We don't continue to lose
our safety net, our democracy, our freedoms, our privacy, our jobs, our health benefits, our
unions, our Gulf of Mexico, our Social Security, our Medicaid/Medicare, our ability to go through
an airport without being molested, our Glass Stegall, our FDA that truly protects us from dangerous pharmaceuticals, our Supreme Court and our public schools--because the Democrats are so polite and weak and the Republicans are just so brazen and powerful.

Democrats and Republicans are aligned with the corporations and the elites who want a global
village, that truly is a village. No empires allowed.

A prosperous, free, healthy United States simply does not fit into the global paradigm. In
fact, one strong, powerful nation works could bring down globalization.

We are witnessing the tearing down of the United States by the powerbrokers--who are
constructing a United States 2.0--one that is easily broken, controlled and will dutifully
take its place with other nations and people who are willing to exist at the lowest
common denominator.

[HockeyMom]

1. One World Order

and the Illuminati are not sounded so far fetched anymore.

[villager]

2. already a sadly unsurprising unrec -- I guess some consider this the best of all possible worlds...

[pampango]

3. The right wing in Europe and our tea party are fighting globalization as hard as you are.

French right-wing populist Le Pen attracting voters by railing against immigration and globalization

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,772875,00.html

French politician Marine Le Pen is attracting new voters to the National Front, the right-wing populist party founded by her father, by railing against immigration and globalization. With France's elections a year away, Le Pen is already polling ahead of President Nicolas Sarkozy.

She warns against refugees from Tunisia, and against immigrants in general. She demands social welfare systems for the French instead of for immigrants. And then she finally gets to her central issue: the fight against globalization, which Le Pen says is destroying France. She wants to leave the euro, reintroduce customs borders and nationalize banks.

When Jean-Marie Le Pen founded the National Front in the 1970s, he also invented European right-wing populism. With his slicked-back hair, horn-rimmed glasses and the eye patch he wore in the early years, he was the caricature of the ugly right-winger, notorious for his efforts to downplay the Holocaust. Le Pen came across as a tyrant, a monster from another time, a man who did not hesitate to shout at and even physically assault his adversaries. His supporters included deeply conservative Catholics, right-wing extremists and Vichy diehards -- but the majority were disappointed protest voters.

Like her father, Le Pen is critical of immigration, but unlike him, and similar to other European right-wing populists, she focuses on attacking Islam. She speaks of the disintegration of society into ethnic groups, and criticizes prayers in the streets and fast food chains advertising halal meat. But she speaks even more about social issues and the fight against the international financial world, and about "intelligent protectionism," ...

The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67455/walter-russell-mead/the-tea-party-and-american-foreign-policy

... some trends seem clear. The first is that the contest in the Tea Party between what might be called its Palinite and its Paulite wings will likely end in a victory for the Palinites. Ron Paul represents an inward-looking, neo-isolationist approach to foreign policy that has more in common with classic Jeffersonian ideas than with assertive Jacksonian nationalism. Although both wings share, for example, a visceral hostility to anything that smacks of "world government," Paul and his followers look for ways to avoid contact with the world, whereas such contemporary Jacksonians as Sarah Palin and the Fox News host Bill O'Reilly would rather win than withdraw. "We don't need to be the world's policeman," says Paul. Palin might say something similar, but she would be quick to add that we also do not want to give the bad guys any room.

On other issues, Paulites and Palinites are united in their dislike for liberal internationalism -- the attempt to conduct international relations through multilateral institutions under an ever-tightening web of international laws and treaties. From climate change to the International Criminal Court to the treatment of enemy combatants captured in unconventional conflicts, both wings of the Tea Party reject liberal internationalist ideas and will continue to do so. The U.S. Senate, in which each state is allotted two senators regardless of the state's population, heavily favors the less populated states, where Jacksonian sentiment is often strongest. The United States is unlikely to ratify many new treaties written in the spirit of liberal internationalism for some time to come.

[Romulox]

5. You *promised* to stop with the "you're against globalization? So are NEO NAZIS!" type smears.

Your word isn't worth much, is it? :eyes:

[pampango]

6. You should recheck. I said I would continue to post examples where the right wing

does things that I don't agree with. The National Front in France and our tea party are taking a position that I don't agree with.

I posted links to positions of conservatives and an opinion piece regarding what they stand for. We both know that just because someone we despise happens to agree with us on a particular issue doesn't make our position wrong. Which is why I'm not calling anyone anything (which is what I *promised* to do).

There are liberals who think that globalization is a good thing (though most of them seem to be in Europe rather than here) and conservatives who think that globalization is a bad thing (again moreso in Europe than here with the exception of our teabaggers). You can disagree with that (and often do ;) ) or say that it doesn't matter (the other times ;) ).

So don't expect me to stop posting what I believe in (though I will continue to try to avoid labeling people or assigning evil motives to them). Most DUers post according to their beliefs. I suspect that you and I do the same.

[Romulox]

17. It's disgusting, pampango. But you know what? KEEP doing it!

You out yourself with every post.

[Xithras]

7. Antiglobalization is one of those rare things embraced by both political wings.

The only people who are actually FOR it are the corporatists and bankers, who's only political ideology is "profit".

[pampango]

11. Hardly. The left in Europe is fighting the right trying to keep borders and trade open. n/t

[Xithras]

16. European neoliberals aren't on the left.

And the European left (who would be off-the-chart left in American politics) have been demonstrating against globalization since the 80's. The anti-trade riots in Genoa, which wounded hundreds of police officers, is as clear a demonstration of that as any.

Some of the so-called "left-wing" politicians in Europe fight for globalization the same way some of our so-called "left-wing" Democratic politicians do, and largely for the same reason...because they're the bought and paid for toadies of the corporations. That's doesn't make them leftists, and sure as hell doesn't make globalization a leftist belief.

[Romulox]

18. You are not of "the Left". Other than cheap labor, you share NONE of the "the Left's" goals

or values.

[hifiguy]

10. It doesn't surprise me that an enterprising politician

would combine nativism/xenophobia and resistance to globalism. What surprises me is that it hasn't been done more effectively here. Our nativists/know-nothings are the most vocal supporters of global corporatism. Which means that they are even dumber than they look, if that is possible.

[pampango]

14. Actually our "nativists/know-nothings" aren't the "most vocal supporters of global corporatism"

though most of the politicians they elect are.

Most Tea Partiers Think Free Trade Agreements That Tea Party Candidates Support Are Bad

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/30/tea-partiers-trade-bad

Interestingly, the poll also found that opposition to free trade agreements is particularly strong among Americans who define themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement. 61 percent of self-described tea party supporters said they thought free trade has harmed the United States, just four percent less than union members:

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 69 percent of Americans believe free trade agreements with other countries have cost jobs in the United States, while just 18 percent believe they have created jobs. A 53 percent majority—up from 46 percent three years ago and 30 percent in 1999—believes that trade agreements have hurt the nation overall. <...>

While 65 percent of union members say free trade has hurt the U.S., so do 61 percent of Tea Party sympathizers. Democratic pollster Peter Hart and his Republican counterpart Bill McInturff, who conduct the NBC/WSJ poll, say the greatest shift against free trade has come among relatively affluent Americans, or those earning more than $75,000 a year.

What’s ironic about most tea partiers opposing free trade is that numerous high-profile tea party-endorsed candidates are ardent backers of the policy. From sitting U.S. senators to relatively unknown individuals who have become serious candidates for higher office, politicians who have co-opted the tea party movement do not share its view on free trade:

And we all know how much teabaggers rail against bailouts and immigration.

[hifiguy]

15. Maybe so

but they are the strongest supporters of politicians who do the most to destroy this country's economy and reduce it to third-world status. And those politicians are nearly all repukes or DINOs. Racism, xenophobia, religulous insanity and just plain old insanity will always trump economic issues for those dingbats.

[mmonk]

4. The purpose of the shock doctrine is to erase and replace.

[Taverner]

8. Viva California

[Erose999]

9. I stopped reading at: "A prosperous, free, healthy United States simply does not fit into the global

paradigm".

Maybe a strong US doesn't fit into the global paradigm envisioned by the corporate elite. Also, I think its the Multinational Corporations who are the ones building empires. Imperialism these days is not about the political control of land, its more about the control of resources and the ability to manipulate markets.

In the days before corporations were legally people, power was manifested in this way by the state. But given the new technology in transportation and communications, traditional limitations concerning distance, borders, and soverignty are giving way and the corporations can tighten their grip on power.

[WinkyDink]

12. Don't forget: the Constitution is merely a "G**d****d piece of paper."

[Rex]

13. This is what happens when you have a POTUS for 8 years

wiping his ass with the U.S. Constitution and telling the rest of America to 'Fuck Off'! We end up being knee deep in shit.

[dissidentboomer]

19. THIS is what I think. Your post makes

more sense than most things I've read during the last decade, other than Naomi Klein or Kevin Phillips. The "socialists" in France, for example, are anything but socialists. Like most conservatives in France, they are hard core corporatists and as corrupt as U.S. republicans and democrats.

I would only add that the attack includes making a college education unobtainable for all but the very wealthy and controlling the entire educational system - i.e, a "dumbing down" of the working class and the upper middle class. Narrow, technical training is empahsized and history, in particular, is de-emphasized and even discouraged, unless it is conservative, revisionist history.

It seems clear to me. The elites are already able to easily manipulate history, etc., and spread fear and panic by distorting facts and dividing people by race, religion, gender, and generation (i.e., boomers and millenials versus generation x). When folks don't have a decent, broad knowledge base and you've got large portions of the news, tv, and movie industries under control, it's SO easy.... and FUN, too!