Timothy Birdnow

When George W. Bush was President of these United States he was often accused by the media and their Democrat allies of being stupid, of being dull, of lacking curiosity. At the time I and many others defended him; he had an MBA from Harvard, after all. But now I'm not so sure.

Recently the former President (a President who brought back many of the most idiotic policies of the Carter White House, such as solar panels and wind farms) recently took a swipe at the current President and, more to the point, at the voting public who elected him

Speaking at a George W. Bush Institute event in New York the former President had this to say:

"[W]e can’t wish globalization away,any mo
End quote.

sloppy and incorrect thinking. The agricultural and industrial revolutions were technological innovations, not political acts. The people who practiced these innovations succeeded where others failed, and that because they could do what their more backward cousins could not. Agriculture meant more people could be fed and as a result the open-range hunt for food was not needed. Smaller areas could feed larger populations more secuely, and so citeis were possible. More people meant more soldiers, thus armies were possible, as opposed to war parties. The Industrial Revolution of course meant more and better goods, meaning an industrialized country could produce products to trade abroad. They could buy raw materials and sell their finished products in return. This led to the development of better weapons and engines of war.

But the current internationalism is not such a critter. It was forged in the crucible of WWI and WWII, a political philosophy which sought to ban war by melding all countries together. Tie us up in an Anaconda embrace and we cannot wage war against each-other. It is, in a way, the afterbirth of the Industrial Revolution, as is the rising tide of socialism. Both came from a reactionary distatste for industry.

BuT AGAIN, IT IS PPOLITICAL AND NOT TECHNOLOGICAL OR TRULY ECONOMIC. oNE NEED ONLY LOOK AT SO MUCH OF WHAT IS BEING PROMOTED BY THE FANS OF INTERNATIONALISM; GLOBAL WARMING THEORY AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTALIST CONCEPTS DESIGNED TO DE-INDUSTRIALIZE aMERICA, ENERGY RESTRICTIONS, GETTING RID OF INDUSTRIAL POWER IN TEH fIRST wORLD SO IT MAY TAKE ROOT IN THE tHIRD, ANTI-cHRISTIAN PRO-iSLAMIC SENTIMENTS, ETC. aLL ARE ATTEMPTS TO FUNDAMENTALLY REORDER THE WORLD, BOTH ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY. iT IS AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTURN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, NOT FOSTER THE NEXT STAGE OF SOCIETAL GROWTH. iT IS INTENDED TO TAKE WHAT HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE wEST AND PIN THE WESTERN HANDS SO THE IMPOVERISHED IN THE tHIRD wORLD MAY RISE THROUGH ILL-GOTTEN GAIN, GAIN OBTAINED THROUGH POLITICAL MACHINATIONS RATHER THAN HONEST WROK AND DEVELOPMENT.

iN SHORT, INTERNATIONALISM IS THE TRIUMPH OF SOCIALISM, A REACTIONARY PHILOSOPHY AIMED AT COUNTER-REVOLUTION. tHEY WANT TO ROLL BACK THE INDUSTRIAL Revolution.

None of this registers with Mr. Bush, who seems to only partly understand the argument.

Now, had Mr. Bush argued that telecommunications and information technology constitutes a real revolution akin to the industrial he would have been on firmer ground, but that does not defacto argue for internationalism. The internet, for instance, has been revolutionary but it was purely an American invention and we largley dominate it. Westerners invented the telecommunicationn satellite (specifically science fiction writer Arthur C. Clark, see "how I lost a million dollars a day") While the information age has tendrils in almost every country on Earth it is still a Western critter, and the internationalists know it. That is why they promote such things as U.N. Agenda 21/30, the Paris Accord, and a plethora of other diplomatic schemes to weaknn America and the West. Without governmental mechanisms to shape the direction of the information revolution it will wind up being entirely American - and they know it.

Internationalism is the tool here, not the engine. Bush is putting the cart before the horse.

Bush also states uncategorically;

"We know that the desire for freedom is not confined to, or owned by, any culture; it is the inborn hope of our humanity.”

and

"the presidents of both parties believed that American security and prosperity were directly tied to the success of freedom in the world.”

End quote.

Oh, really?

Democracy and Republicanism go back to classical Greek times, and actually proceed it by a considerable bit. They never did fare well. Even the Romans lost their Republic in favor of an empire. Why? Because statism is the natural inclination of people, who prefer order imposed by an authority to chaos. Few peoples are equipped to handle self-governing. The line between freedom and license is thin, and in most societies the end result of taking the foot off the throat is civil war and societal chaos. This "yearning of people to be free" nonsense is precisely that; most, when given the opportunity, will choose more alluring prizes, like power and prestige and wealth. It is why we have found it inordinately difficult to build working Republics in the Third World and in the Islamic; without the fundamental dampening of the human appetite that the Christian religoon gave the West there is no yearniing except for power.

Doubt that? Look at our experiments in democracy in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Bush stupidly believed that these places would become like Indiana or Iowa, except the people wore funny clothes. He never could understand that most of the public just doesn't care about pluralism or democracy or civil society. They want different things, and believe they have a right to take it by force.


Oh, people will SAY they want freedom, but they rarely afford it to their fellows. Throughout much of the world freedom is only for the elite few.

Which is, of course, Bush's problem. He comes out of the elites, a man fully imbueld with Nobless Oblige and lots of money from international markets. Bush has dealt profitably with international tycoons, sheiks, plutocrats, and others and in his mind there really is no difference between himself and them. They are all members of teh same club. Why Americans would want to retain their sovereignty and culture is puzzling to Bush, who has always been chums with the self-anointed. And

Another point; the policy of America until Woodrow Wilson was to stay out of foreign entanglements, as George Washington advised. America largely minded her own business unti the Spanish American War, and even then that was as much about the Monroe Doctrine as anything (and it was the first time America was in the wrong in any of our wars.) Bush, like so many modern miseducated people, thinks history began with his own birth.

And even then, one must ask; did we invade China when Chiang Kai Shek was driven out by the Communists? Did we invade Cuba to kick Castro out? In point of fact we have tolerated tyrants and dictators around the world because it was understood there was little we could do - or should do. It was often understood that a nation made it's bed and now had to lie in it. Yes, we did occasionally intervene - as in Chile, or in Iran, but we were frequently quite circumspect about it. When the U.S. maintained a policy of neutrality the world was full of dictators. Now, after hundred years of "making the world safe for democracy" the world is full of dictators. Our handing over money and our national sovereignty is not going to change that, despite what Bush thinks.

Bush also states:

"It means that bigotry and white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed, and it means the very identity of our nation depends on passing along civic ideals.”

Whose bigotry? Hillary Clinton called Middle America a "baket of deplorables" because we aren't part of the beautiful people set. Mitt Romney did much the same when he ran for President. There is clearly bigotry on the part of the Ivy League educated set, those pushing internationalism and subsidizaed trade (a term more fitting than free trade, as America subsidizes these Third World countries through asymmetric economic policies). The brotherhood of the blue blood set transcends American values. And it is this group that promotes shockingly unAmerican ideas, like gay marriage, transgenderimsm, unrestrained immigration, support for Islam, socialism, etc. The average joe at a VFW Hall has a very different idea of American civic values than does mr. Bush or the other internationalists.

Another idiocy from Bush:

The founders of the Munich conference "would be alarmed by an increasing turn away from universal values and toward old ties of blood and race and sectarianism.”

Well, duh! Those "Universal Values" come out of our Western Judeo-Christian heritage. The elites - especially in the United Nations and other multi-national organizations - have vociferously disavowed Western culture and both Judaism and Christianity. In the moral and spiritual vacuum left in the wake of this strange, often evil values take their place. Islam, a warrior cult, is rising around the world because of the destruction of our Western values and the subsequent moral and spiritual hole that is left. Neo-paganism and Scientism have done likewise. The unifying forces that acted to create these "universal values" were not universal at all but a function of moral and spiritual beliefs endemic to the West and reaching a zenith in the United States. It is, in short, a function of "blood and race and sectarianism" in a constructive sense. Bush sees these things are purely destructive and evil. They are not. God created nations and peoples, after all, and He separated out Israel from the rest for a purpose. It is only the post-modernist elites who have declared these things evil in and of themselves.

Granted, they CAN become evil, or used for evil. But the reality is they are fundamental human things, just as the family is the fundamental human society. People cleave to their own. The Progressive project has been for a century and a half to dissolve the bonds of family, of nation and to replace it with an internationalist vision of Man as some sort of abstraction. But Mankind is not a concret thing, but an amalgamation of people. In the end family is first, followed by community, then province, then nation, then overall civilization. The last bit of fealty goes to Mankind because it is the most abstract and least present. In point of fact, fealty to one's tribe or sectarianism are rooted in biology and as such are probably immutable.

Immutable except for civilizing influences. It required the rise of Judeo-Christian spirituality to provide those restraints. Where tribealism and sectarianism were once the heart of animosity they could become strengths. With the creation of Spain the Europeans devised the nation-state, a leveraging of this tendency to a more productive end. Had the universalism of the Middle Ages continued the world would likely still be in an agrarian, barbaric age. The Dark Ages were precisely that because of a spirit almost identical to the modern age, that is a universalist view. Everyone wanted to build their own Roman Empire with themselves as Emperor. There were peoples thrown together with little in common soley because of the fortunes of war and those peoples didn't want to be part of that. So Europe remained stuck in the mud, unable to make any political headway, until the union of Castille and Aragon led to the creation of a new concept - the nation state. Once Europe adopted that it rose to rule the world. Why? Because a nation-state has people with common backgrounds and beliefs acting together rather than pulling apart, as in traditional empires.

And with the tempering influence of Christianity the concept of indivisible rights was born. The Magna Carta could never have come in an Islamic country, for instance, because Islam is not about rights but punishment. The end result was that "international values" are udeo-Christian values, and those values ultimately were established in no small part thanks to the very thing Bush derides.

Not that there haven't been abuses, mind you, nor that the road has been easy. Men are sinners and we all fall short of the Glory of God. The point is, though, that the West managed to take the ancient tribalism and turn it into something new by tempering it. Universal love for all as a spiritual good was instilled to take the hard edge off of the tribal animosities. Of course, this wasn't a conscious process, and there were many terrible things done while this was shaking out. But in the end people from different tribes could coexist rather harmoniously, as in England which is an amalgamation of Germanic and Celtic Peoples.

So what Bush is advocating is a return to the ancient ways of Empire and universalism. Theyy have never worked and will never work, for Man is not made that way. But like the transgender issue, the Progressives believe they can change human nature.

Bush is a professing Christian and should remember the Tower of Babel story. The modern elites are trying to rebuild Nimrod's folly.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 2198 words, total size 14 kb.