Your 'Scatter-in-Chief' has been recently suffering what could only be referred to as 'writer's block'. A general lack of inspiration has contributed to this, along with the fact that I'm beginning to think that everything that needs to be said has already been said, or, more accurately, what I often think needs to be said can be better said by somebody else.
With that second concept in mind, I present what I believe is only the second guest-blogger post here on Tiger Scat. The writer shall remain anonymous because he's the sort of guy that likes to exist under the radar and he makes quite the effort to do so. But he's one guy that, since I've known him, has never suffered from writer's block. He is a tireless watchdog on world events, the press, politics, economics, you name it, this fella has a thought (or ten) about it. In addition to being a world-class thinker, his writing skills are pretty damn good as well, I think you will agree upon reading this piece, which he entitled "Celebrity Apprentice III" (don't ask, its a long story).
As with most of his writing, this article is provocative, intelligent and will most likely piss off a lot of folks, especially those who don't think that much. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did.
“(T)hat the two parties should represent opposed ideas and policies, one of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea…the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy”. (Professor Caroll Quigley, 1966)
Many of what are considered to be Liberal policy objectives on the one hand, or Conservative ones on the other, are actually Globalist policy objectives identifying as one or the other.
That policy undeterred by the throwing in or out of red or blue rascals is essentially Globalist policy.
The Globalists work with both parties and through both parties, in fact own both parties, but depending on the rhetorical requirements of the specific goal at hand will favor one or the other.
For instance, if they ever wanted to make abortion illegal – they do not by any means, but if they did – they’d work through a Conservative-oriented legislative body.
The Liberals could never be seen openly denying a woman her right to choose.
(The possibility of a balanced view on this issue is seldom vetted. Most Americans, one would think, do not want to see abortion elevated to the status of a ritual or turned into some macabre organ-harvesting industry but at the same time would never presume to make it illegal).
If the Globalists ever wanted to restrict or eliminate the right to own firearms – and they very much do, with the U.S. clearly headed toward ceding its authority in this matter to International bodies, albeit ‘under the radar,’ as the President has said, or by way of Executive Order – they’d work through the Liberals.
Conservatives could never be seen openly denying their trigger-happy base its right to bear arms.
(As it happens many Liberals own and support the right to own firearms).
Herein lies the strength of the Left/Right paradigm:
If a particular policy were openly identified as a Globalist policy, and proved unpopular or disastrous, the Globalists alone would take the blame.
If however that very same policy is proffered under the guise of a Conservative agenda on the one hand or Liberal one on the other, it can be easily dismissed as an ‘unfortunate mistake’ and blamed on the other side, even though it’s just what the Globalists ordered.
The Iraq war provides a good illustration of this phenomenon at work.
The Left attributes the unending mess to Bush’s bumbling, and to this day, even though Bush left office nearly seven years ago.
The Right blames said mess on the Left for ‘pulling out too early,’ even though 1) the mess is more the result of the invasion than the withdrawal 2) the withdrawal was fairly consistent with Republican timelines and 3) no one ever really withdrew.
Though the war ‘ended,’ possibly for the second time, in 2011, U.S. forces resumed air operations in Iraq in June of last year. By November of last year, Obama said that the air strikes, while effective, were insufficient, and that ‘now what we need is ground troops’. In June of this year ground troops were sent.
The wars in Iraq and elsewhere including new ones launched under the current administration are ultimately attributable to neither the Left nor the Right but to the decidedly non-partisan Military Industrial Complex operating under the aegis of the ‘supranational elites’.
The dissolving of borders between the United States and Mexico, the facilitating of immigration and granting of amnesty, these are typically identified as Liberal imperatives, but which again are more aligned with a Globalist than partisan mindset.
The Globalists welcome waves of ‘illegals,’ a term on the verge of being banned in favor of the more politically correct but less technically accurate ‘undocumented immigrants’.
They want the labor force, ‘to do the jobs Americans won’t do’ such as ‘picking fruit’ and ‘mowing lawns’ – the voting bloc, to ensure continuing support of the government which so graciously granted them their freedom, and, in a larger context – a North American Union to be combined with a European Union and Asian Union to form a trilateral world.
Other than for these and other reasons (including the procurement of a global multicultural society, which in reality is more akin to a uni-cultural and eventually non-cultural one) the Globalists don’t care one whit about the welfare of immigrants.
And while it makes perfect sense to Americans across the political spectrum – including those who entered the country legally – to protect the border – with ISIS exploiting easy crossing into Texas, according to official sources – opposition to wide open borders is reflexively characterized as xenophobic, racist, or worst of all, Republican.
(This is one way in which Trump, perhaps unwittingly, is doing the Globalists a good turn: not in giving open border policy a bad name, but in giving opposition to open border policy a bad name, making sealing the border seem a racist endeavor. That said his proposal to build a literal wall between the U.S. and Mexico borders on the farcical).
The argument in favor of removing any and all filters, meanwhile, that, ‘Unless you’re Native American you came from someplace else,’ while a legitimate point, is disingenuously applied.
For one thing, actually, even the Native Americans came from someplace else.
For another, in regard to both Mexico and now war-torn regions overseas, there’s a critical distinction between conducting immigration processes in a secure and organized fashion and simply throwing open the floodgates to any and all comers in an age of widespread animosity toward the U.S.
The Globalists are fully aware of this distinction. They’re just using immigration policy and immigrants themselves – moving them round like pawns on a chessboard – in the service of their aforementioned goals which, upon even cursory examination, are anything but Liberal or even non-racist for that matter, in nature.