this post is a mess. it’s a hodge podge of ideas. i wrote it on my phone and emailed it to myself. this is a fine example of how what you compose on (or with) can determine your style.  perhaps it also is an example of how our devices, by their nature, may inhibit creativity or clear thought itself:

why do people think that the iowa caucus means anything?  just because it’s first?  how many people who have won iowa get the nomination or become president?  and, except for perhaps ron paul, why do people really think there is a difference between any of them, be they republican or democrat?

i was wondering about the GOP field today.  they are a curious bunch.

i can’t tell if they love america as it is.  rather, it seems like they want to remake america in their ideological image and only then will it be perfect. they’d love us only if we weren’t so fat or if we made more money.  they seem only interested in representing the dreams and ideas of those who agree with them politically and morally

if they ceased solely playing up to their base, if they could politically represent those they morally disagree with they might be a lock to win.

then again, a lot of their talk about lowering taxes and cutting spending is just paying fiscal lip service.  it’s rhetoric that their base wants to hear.  they buy the ideal of financial responsibility except when it comes to war or global monetary policy.

i was listening to a right wing radio guy.  i found myself observing the commercials during the break:  food storage, buy gold as a hedge against inflation and tyranny, a water ionizer to purify water after an unnamed (but referenced) ‘disaster’.  there was also a smoking cessation tool called the ‘vapriot’ because it’s a vapor and because it, like you, loves america,.  it occurred to me that almost all the ads were based on fear or playing off of it.  that’s who they think is listening, I guess.  just an observation.

so the right bases it’s approach on fear.  the left seems to as well.

meanwhile both sides seem to be shameless in their one world approach to monetary and foreign policy.  i can’t imagine a single thing besides obamacare (which will likely get struck down and was only a potential boon to health insurance companies) that could distinguish an obama administration from romney (or bush).  there really is no difference.   this got me wondering.

think of every movie you’ve ever seen.  they go to a distant planet.  they are greeted by the leader.  it’s never the leader of a country.  almost always it’s the leader of the whole planet.  one planet, one ruler.  sometimes the galaxy itself has just a single ruler.  this is just fiction but fiction comes from the minds of creative people.  they design a universe that makes sense.  one world rule seems hardwired into people, is my point.

perhaps this is just human nature and the way it will inevitably evolve.  throughout history, once a nation becomes powerful enough, they start to colonize.  they try to expand.  this is true for nations just as it is for people.   watch anyone in business.  you make 5 dollars, now you want 7.  sell them some add ons.

any kid who gets paid to mow a lawn looks down the street and imagines all those yards and all that money if he mows all those lawns.

any bum who gets $5 from someone thinks there might be another $5 from the next person.  it all seems the same instinct to me.

i use the world ‘globalist’ a lot when discussing politics because it seems to be the steady course we’ve been on.  i don’t know how deliberate it was, but it seems to be tacitly agreed upon by all sides now, since about 1984.

why does it feel like they try to hide their globalist agenda from us, then?  if it’s a part of our makeup, why would the selling of this shiny future be so difficult?  why does it seem to happen incrementally, in secret?  is it all just a giant accident?  do the people helping to bring it about not know that this is where their actions are leading?  it would seem they must know.

it seems like it started rolling in earnest with unregulated corporate growth.  now there are corporations with more money and power than the governments that ought to be policing them.

and unlike politics, where you can impeach a leader or throw out a government, with big business you will always have your money.  even if they knock you down, tear apart your company and send you to jail, you can still emerge wealthy and powerful.

in my lifetime it feels like corporate hegemony has become the norm.    and as a business wants to expand as much as possible without conscience, so too do the governments they now partner with.  i think all the gamesmanship is now just about which nation will be the one to encompass all the others.   perhaps some of them haven’t gotten on board yet, and so there is struggle.  and there is deception.

people in positions of responsibility and authority lie all the time.  parents constantly lie to children.  religions seem to lie to people, too.

and much the same way parents lie to children, perhaps so too does government think it has to lie to us to give us what is probably best for us?  i’m speaking here of globalism.

except for the authoritarian possibilities (which are many), maybe globalism is the natural order of things.

so why don’t the GOP, or obama, run on a globalist platform?  just put it all out there.  it’s how they comport themselves, so why not run on it?  the time has come for responsible and honest globalism.

the age of fiddling about, acting like ‘us’ is better than ‘them’, that their policies are damaging, immoral and insane and ours are beneficial, godly and correct is over.  or should be.