Consider, by way of example, the observation of George Kennan, the architect of the “Cold War”, when he made this observation during the post World War 11 era:-

“We have about 60 per cent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 per cent of its population. Our real task in the coming period (will be) to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction … the day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered then by idealistic slogans the better.”
George Kennan, head of U.S. State Department Planning, Feb 24, 1948.

“We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction…”

The world needs, despite Kennan’s policy dictates, benefaction and sustainable development processes.

Now, let’s consider this. One nation by reason of its professed and declared “manifest destiny” is supposed to dominate the world’s resources in a disproportionate manner while literally the majority of humanity starves. That in clear terms and declared and enacted policies is what Kennan said.

Then we might advance ( regress) to the more recent declarations of the PNAC and its desire for “full spectrum dominance”.

Add the two sets of polices together and you will find lunacy declared as sensible national policies. How is the US to continue in perpetuity to dominate the world’s resources and actually expect the rest of the world to accept the disparity? How is the US in any effective way to dictate the political architecture when the economic system is dysfunctional and unsustainable on a global scale? The Chinese and/or Indians cannot continue in the footprint of the US pattern of economic development upon the use of oil and other global resources, which are finite and do need to be applied in the best interest of all humanity. It is either the utilitarian application of resources or it is the use of global resources in such a heavily skewed manner that global mass starvation is the “order” of the day. The war machine that is the US economy in this era of nuclear weaponry is playing a very dangerous game, in convincing its population as it does, that somehow the overproduction of arms can on a rational basis be justified.

Having made those observations, the challenge, not because I have put it, but the manifest dysfunctional nature of the economic and militarilistic production processes direct that a new global architect is urgently needed for homo sapiens and our planet.

Do you think that as the former Soviet Union imploded because, in part of the internal dysfunctional nature of its system coupled and propelled on by the armaments expenditures when the US successfully outspent the Soviet system. Now the same processes have revolved full circle and the US system’s own contradictions and unsustainably has caught up with it.

That is how I see it and remain open to hearing what the specific alternatives can be when the system itself is showing that a new order is needed both for the American people and the wider world with which the US has most definitely interacted with and is dependant upon.

The global process for all of us is symbiotic.

Taking your points in adumbrated form:-

1. ” The is no global human rights military or law enforcement agency. ”

Reply: A polictical observation revolving around a pivotal point of who controls global power.

For now I reserve further comments, to take time to give respectful response.

Peace!

1. The is no global human rights military or law enforcement agency. If you don’t have enforcers you don’t have rights, and this is why human rights do not yet exist nor does the concept of the global citizen.

A. This influences my stance on issues because I cannot get beyond the fact that the globalisation crowd are all talk and rhetoric with no practical means of operation. You can believe in globalisation but if you don’t have the means to go to war for these ideas and visions you cannot manifest your destiny. So we are still nationalists even if merely because of the fact that governments around the world deciding to be against international laws and international law enforcement.

B. If you are a globalisation or human rights defender there is no army to defend you. So even before you can begin to fight for justice or human rights, the people who are against your ideals can just kill you and get away with it because they control all the armies, all the law enforcement to such an extent that you wont have anywhere to go. You see this all the time when human rights supporters are simply kidnapped and beheaded, or just killed by the dictator. So once again because it’s like that some countries and locations provide more protection for human rights supporters and others and once again you don’t have a global embrace of humanity. Even in the USA they aren’t fighting for human rights, but for pet issues like “gay marriage” or rights for women, or for black people, when if they would just unite and fight for rights for humanity they’d actually be fighting for all of that and then some.

2. If we did somehow have a way to implement a global legal system with a global military force, we still don’t have a global currency. Without a global currency, money would simply corrupt the global government through bribes and over time we could end up with a world dictator or President of the world. There is already talk about there being a President of EU, and once again these nationalist groups probably wont play fair and give every country representation, so once again you’ll have some economies doing horribly bad and these people will be underrepresented in the global government. Once again these poor countries will be forced to become nationalist, and embrace war as a means to advance themselves.

A. This is why I say globalisation is before its time, most humans still believe in race rather than genetics. Most humans are not concerned about what happens to the other races, but only their own. As a result it sets all of humanity back in the human rights battle. This has altered my stances because you see different people from difference races/cultures who fundamentally believe in human rights but who wont work together because of barriers like language and culture, as a result of divide and conquer nobody has human rights anywhere and I don’t see that changing in my lifetime even if its getting better.

B. While a lot of the poorest people do want human rights, many of the richest people don’t want human rights, so of course workers don’t have rights, and so of course theres no quality standards or protocols for dealing with pollution control. You have many rich and powerful people fighting against human rights and these people wont go away in our lifetime.

These are just two examples of practical realities which change my positions on certain issues. I see the problem as something systematic, the way society is structured it’s systematically against human rights and many of these problems are institutonalized. Many people who support human rights will refuse to get rid of these institutions out of some loyalty to traditions, even if these traditions are clearly wrong and outdated. Their grand parents did it that way, their parents did it that way, and they plan on doing it the same way which will of course lead to the same results. So the only way I see human rights ever becoming reality is if people around the world of every class fight for it, and I think it will be people at the top who create the institutions to organize the people at the bottom. Since the people at the top haven’t even created any enforcement institutions it doesn’t look to me like we will have human rights and a global citizen in our lifetime.

But even if they did decide to do it, it would cost lives to implement. People are going to die if nothing is done, and people are going to die if something is being done. But if human rights are ever implemented it would protect future generations from the horrors of our generation and generations previous.

“Globalisation” is not a new concept, only a modern version of an old phenomenon. May I suggest that when Columbus arrived in 1492 he was engaged in a process of European discovery, conquest and “globalisation”.

If you are smart enough to say what you just have, it is not impossible for you to embrace humanity and reject the greed and hate that serves well the process of destruction of our world.

Having visted 43 countries, “my people”,in my lexicon, includes you.

Peace!

While I do agree with globalisation I think its an idea that is before its time in that the people who believe in it are in the same position as the people who believe in human rights and international law. There are no human rights, or international laws except on paper because there is no army to enforce them. There are no global citizens because the USA is still the superpower, not the UN. Since my people cannot leave the USA, even if somehow I could live somewhere else I’d still be loyal to the USA.

“Actually – where the people are – all of us – is planet Earth – so try being a patriot for humanity and then maybe your world views will really start changing.”

to be changed to…

“Actually – where the people are – all of us – is planet Earth – so try being a patriot for humanity and then maybe your world views will really start changing for the general good of humanity in this era of ‘globalisation’.”