International Politics can be a complicated and daunting topic. There's like ... too much at play for any
analysis to not be ignorant of the one or the other thing. It could be simple however; And to start off simple,
I want to make the case that ambivalence aside, there are two types of people. There are those mindful of
national conditions and those mindful of global conditions. And while the two could complement one another,
the two can however also be at terrible odds.
And these odds are one thing I mean to focus on.
Thereto I want to start with a simple ... thought experiment of sorts. The foundation is going to be, that for
a modern democracy to thrive, it needs a multitude of political parties. That, because the less parties there
are, there more will political issues be divided between fewer and fewer, more and more monolithic compounds;
Which in turn could lead to increasingly devastating political polarization that then becomes fertile grounds
for fascistic ideation. (-> Fascistic Ideation in this sense is a matter of "political brotherhood". A kind
of brotherhood that a highly polarized political landscape 'prepares' in a sense. One that is thereby further
prone to adhering to political ideals that are meant to resist the perceived political ineptitude of a present.
A political ineptitude that arises from the nuance of political matters being divided by too few ideological
outlets. Thus, in other words, it is a political cycle of doom - as is further discussed ...)
So ... with that on mind - the goal within a democracy should be to produce or maintain a diversity of options -
as a diversity of options also stimulates the need for political discourse. Conversely, nationalistic parties
that highlight the shortcomings of the current system - will thereby try to inspire a form of patriotism that
benefits their political influence. What emerges therefrom is what I'd here like to call a political 'non-party'
or 'anti-party'. That because as they grow and lean further into "rule by iron fist" politics - an undoing of
political diversity becomes 'the point' of voting for them.
It may at first not seem like this is the strong point I thought it would be - though the point is that if your
desire were for your nation to do well - voting in style of "one to rule them all" is extremely counter intuitive.
But, they might say, there usually only is one option for you if you don't like foreigners and immigrants. Yes,
but if you were to ignore the idea that immigrants were the problem - or what else? "the LGBTQ" - you most likely
will find only more and more actual non-issues. Like gun control in the USA. If the position of your party is to
cater to people who think that private people/entities should be allowed to own NUKES ... you make it incredibly
difficult for there to be any kind of sane political discourse around the topic, proportional to the amount of
influence you hand over to that party.
Something worth highlighting thereby - as the 'international' part to this - is, that these binary political
systems do NOT in fact tend to be between a left and right. They tend to polarize into a far right and a confused
center. Something that further more directly correlates to my initial assertion of the two types of people that
there are; And global-mindedness, politically speaking, is not at first about immigration and other "far left"
politics - but about economy.
This should highlight once more, how these binaries are essentially self-defeating. So would "the right" try to
more and more grow around things that inspire national unity - such as a sense of purity or religion, things that
furthermore are implied to be "taken" somehow - perhaps by some "radical left" - and since there are also only
two sides it's easy for either to call the other Fascistic. So does this create a "political opposition" compounded
by a loud insistence on some set of "national value" - but rather than preserving those things that do exist,
they merely swallow up political air - while "the globalists" are somehow left to struggle maintaining and running
an economy.
Well - there may be some issues with this simplified take. So ...
let's take a look at the issue with China and it's border disputes in the ... uhm, what is it ... "the South China Sea".
What we have here are political tensions between various parties - and as these tensions rise, at least so in the
idea (already) - we're once again left with only two parties. Now, from a perspective of China, the USA are a problem.
As the video narrates, this perceived problem further informs an amount of decision making - part of which is to try
and expand their border to ascertain control. This however further intensifies tensions - that are what little reason
the USA had for being there in the first place.
At least so the idea, because - I'm not sure how highly we want to really think of the USA's international presence.
I think there are upsides and downsides to that. And that also has to be regarded as a product of the USA's binary
political structure.
It is thereby also worth highlighting - that nationalistic ideation and military fortification are usually closely
related. Which is ... also just another delusion. I mean, it made sense some time ago that Germany would be defenseless
against a Russian invasion. But what came to be seen is that the raw numbers alone don't make a victory. We did adapt
and have since been hoping for the best - and yea, somehow that has to work out.
And sure - Americans want to claim all the success for themselves - but every nation that chipped in gets to hear
stories of what their nation did chip in - and yea, so ... that.
So, how is it a delusion? Well, uhm ... [sigh] ... Americans and Guns. How to ... ? Explain? I mean, so and so many
Americans would say that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun ... and so it's best to have
all the guns - which I guess is US conservative politics in a nutshell. To say, the example may have worked while it
was China that did the wrong - now that the USA isn't Universally the best ... we might have some issues there.
Anyhow ... I digress.
Where was I?
So, when nationalistic ideation and military fortification come together - the political structure becomes even more
nonsensical. Because now are not only political resources swallowed up by nonsense, but also national and economic
resources.
Althewhile ... well ... Europe has so far been doing really well - even beyond European territory - on a matter of
cooperation. Sure, in as far as money is in play that may have its ugly sides too ... and maybe that is therefore
a topic I as a German should only speak carefully about - but the point is that it works. Or can work.
I mean, Germany barely has a military - and yet I do in fact not feel unsafe here. A sentiment not everyone shares
I think - but has thus far been justified.
A case to be made
So, I think at first I want to claim the acronym: G.E.A.. Green Earth Alliance - though the G is thereby interchangeable
with 'Gnostic'. And though at the moment it might just be a pipe-dream. As, around some angles it's not really doing anything
that isn't already attempted.
But ... if we so want to speak ... as globally minded people ... hmm. Well - no. So: Talking of healthy international
cooperation - as in terms of economy - is also talking of the wealth of one's individual nation. We're all in this together
- and if we can invest into a global common wealth - we can also produce a global common sense.
So, for the globally minded, the problems of our time require change that we cannot produce because the challenges exceed
national interests. And in as far as the two dominant global influences are "centrist" and nationalistic - there's a certain
... dominance of greed politics.
Like so, when it comes to climate change, it is often communicated that the individual is to do their part. Sure. Cool. But
- the last graph I've seen on the matter is how Germany managed to somehow flatten the curve of CO2 production - while the
USA and China have entered a phase of exponential growth. And that is something I highlighted as my personal grievance with
the |individual responsibility| angle on the matter; Though more so in terms of corporate behavior. As the individual saves
in CO2 - so it would seem - corporations might think that they can therefore get away with more - and in consequence end
up doubling down too much. And if we cannot curb that development - we can start dreaming of the many ways in which we might
want to make hell an even more terrifying place for them.
Now, a hidden aspect to this is what I'd for now call "Entity Control". To say, that apart from nations, other entities
play a part in these things. Corporations, mostly, that eventually do have enough wealth to influence national politics.
But more to the point is there a fortification aspect to it. Greed and a successful accumulation of wealth thereby
produces these entities that fortify as they further mean to grow. And growth is eventually all one hears - as it also
happens to be a way to collect for the dire times.
In this sense do National politics become a tool for the various Entities - that do however also operate internationally.
And a case can be made, that the nation that is willing to bend to the interests of their local enterprises - contributes
to its own national and international interests. Well, that was basically the idea behind Colonialism we might say.
The thing with those is, that they almost act with impunity. That, because every nation so has an interest in protecting
their local corporate neighborhood conglomerate - and those in turn have some co-dependency with other entities of that
manner. What follows is a weird kind of hypocrisy - where nations will rattle the sabers at each other while however yet
happily engaging in commercial intercourse with one another.
A bit like a Bond movie.
Thus, once again, a case for Socialism is made.
However - thinking now of the matter of "political diversity" ... there's the issue ... that, well - global cooperation
is basically not supposed to be a choice. It's like in a democracy ... cooperation is basically implied. I mean, you can
try to create a political party that tries to operate outside of the established government - but ... thereby you couldn't
even really vote for it. That means, that our understanding of politics has to evolve - to make room for global cooperation
... with one main goal, or challenge, being that of combating climate change. That so would be a measurement for what this
new understanding has to be capable of.
And here the problem or paranoia with Entities is, that ... electoral layer after electoral layer ... things become more
murky for the voter; And it is a legitimate fear, that corporate interests would seep into that process at some point; And
with it come legitimate reservations from even speaking of it.
And so, maybe it is inevitable ... to start operating outside of the established political structures.