I've just been thinking a lot about how in the past in the 90s people were excited about a possible peace dividend that would happen as a result of
the Cold War. A peace dividend is a term that is used to describe how people thought that you could cut back on war and focus more on social programs
since the Cold War was over.
We were all thinking that we were really great. Our government overlooked what happened in Afghanistan during the whole peace dividend and they
ignored the Middle-East. They just thought that things would work themselves out, and, they didn't realize the consequences of their actions that
they took by radicalizing the population in the Middle-East and supporting extremely radical groups with money and weapons would do to us.
Peace dividends is considered old think by many. It comes from an archaic past where people believed that peace was actually *gasp* possible. Now,
peace is impossible not because of the very forces that are believed to be out to get us, but because of the way our government and many nations
governments react towards everything and the way it thinks that everyone is out to get us, or, does it? Maybe it just wants to perpetuate the
military industrial scam and continue these phony wars and intervention even though now the public finally knows that Osama's dead.
If you're against the war in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or the war in Libya and you want to not intervene in other nations, that's considered old-think
by most. The new ideology supports Wilsonian idealism. Don't be fooled. Just because these people have been quiet when the neoconservatives of the
Bush administration were in power doesn't mean that they have gone away completely. They were always criticizing the Bush administration not because
they didn't believe in the war, but, because he misused humanitarian intervention labels to justify the war in Iraq. They want to show the rest of
the world that their way of thinking is right. It doesn't matter to them how many people die, or, are killed, or, how much intervention is taking
place-- just if they are right or not.
nk finds that Wilson from his earliest days had imbibed the beliefs of his denomination - in the omnipotence of God, the morality of the
Universe, a system of rewards and punishments and the notion that nations, as well as man, transgressed the laws of God at their peril. Blum (1956)
argues that he learned from William Ewart Gladstone a mystic conviction in the superiority of Anglo-Saxons, in their righteous duty to make the world
over in their image. Moral principle, constitutionalism, and faith in God were among the prerequisites for alleviating human strife. While he
interpreted international law within such a brittle, moral cast, Wilson remained remarkably insensitive to new and changing social forces and
conditions of the 20th century. He expected too much justice in a morally brutal world which disregarded the self-righteous resolutions of parliaments
and statesmen like himself. Wilson's triumph was as a teacher of international morality to generations yet unborn. Daniel Patrick Moynihan sees
Wilson's vision of world order anticipated humanity prevailing through the "Holy Ghost of Reason," a vision which rested on religious faith.
Wilson's diplomatic policies had a profound influence on shaping the world. Diplomatic historian Walter Russell Mead has explained:
Wilson's principles survived the eclipse of the Versailles system and they still guide European politics today: self-determination, democratic
government, collective security, international law, and a league of nations. Wilson may not have gotten everything he wanted at Versailles, and his
treaty was never ratified by the Senate, but his vision and his diplomacy, for better or worse, set the tone for the twentieth century. France,
Germany, Italy, and Britain may have sneered at Wilson, but every one of these powers today conducts its European policy along Wilsonian lines. What
was once dismissed as visionary is now accepted as fundamental. This was no mean achievement, and no European statesman of the twentieth century has
had as lasting, as benign, or as widespread an influence.
If you are against military spending, or, if you are against interventions, you are engaged in "old-speak". Personally I am a non-interventionist
myself, and I notice how everyone around me almost seems to be in favor of one war or another. When I argue with people they just call me an
isolationist, for not wanting to get involved in conflicts and they say if we just revert back to isolationism it won't really solve any problems.
Same thing with balancing the budget. If you are for balancing the budget now people will consider you a Republican, but, balancing the budget was
something that both political parties wanted to do in the 1990s. Republicans in congress worked with Bill Clinton and were able to pass a balanced
budget amendment. Imagine something like that happening right now. Democrats would be calling it a bill that would destroy social programs that are
meant to help everyone (which by the way are grossly inefficient, but, that's another story). Because Republicans would be supporting the balanced
budget amendments hegelian dialectics would predict that the Democrats would rise up in opposition to the balanced budget, since, they have to do it
as more of a political thing.
So things aren't about what is right or wrong anymore. You can't have your own opinions. Back in the older days people used to have their own
opinions. Now society thinks either that Republicans are bad, so, whatever Democrats do is right, that we must have interventionism and suggesting
otherwise is crazy.
The world is getting more authoritarian than it once was and people are more okay with programs that are half-baked free-market ideas (we've never
had a free-market) but they think that corporate subsidies are a part of the free-market, but they're not. There has also been more of a false
tolerance about the way of Islamofascists and their way of life and how they oppress modern Muslims (I am not a neocon, just getting that out of the
way). People's authoritarianism has seemed to make them feel less inclined to criticize the authoritarianism of others. You see less people being
critical of China than there used to be about their civil rights abuses and more about their economic abuses. National banks around the world are
working more closely together and on top of this, yes as you all know due to 9-11 the executive branch has acquired a lot more power than it once had,
and it is violating the principles of checks and balances with illegal checks and balances. Governments around the world have passed laws similar to
the Patriot Act or worse. Torture is approved by certain people and certain groups.
It would seem that the ideological shift of the rest of the world has shifted more upward over the past 20 years... and it doesn't seem like it's
been by accident. The same players have been involved this whole time and they've been pushing their agenda down our throats. We used to just think
that the religious right were bad. Now we know they're all bad. Just who is pulling the strings behind these people?