The Globalist Agenda and the End of National Sovereignty 

What is generally referred to as "political" discourse today, always ends up in the mud.  It's always the same basic thing; rightie vs leftie, both tethered to their respective party lines, duking it out in the mud.  And as soon a it goes into the mud, the whole discussion becomes null and void, with an implicit message of futility.  Many transfer this sense of futility to all political discourse, which is just as detrimental as poor discourse.  Very little effort is made to prevent this because, at the moment, people are relatively comfortable.

But political discourse need not be futile, as it is made out to be.  The only thing that is futile is groveling in the media's partisan mire.  In allowing ourselves to be riled up by the media drama and partisan hacks (the Glenn Becks, Keith Olbermanns, Sean Hannitys ...) we become complicit in the problem.  Not only do we demonstrate our state of distraction, but we also demonstrate an implicit belief that the system itself is fine, and that the problem is only "a few bad apples".  It's always just "a few bad apples", which conceal the real problem - the system.  We should be a lot less concerned with those "bad apples", and a lot more concerned with how the they got there in the first place.  And how interesting that the President always seems to be surrounded by these bad apples, and even more interesting that he himself is usually the one who appointed them!  This has been true with previous administrations, and it is certainly true of the current one.  Whether we are looking at President Obama's appointments since winning the election, or who his advisors were in the run up to his election  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtuXd-yD2vI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEJyrrgUvFI) the conclusions we can rationally draw are essentially the same, and it's really, really ugly.  They all have close ties to the elite establishment, and are on the secret meeting rosters made up of heads of state and leaders of the corporate juggernauts in the world today, who convene privately and collude with one another regularly, with zero acountability or transparency to the public.  Here is the real problem.  The crony establishment operates quite efficiently under any administration, it simply changes its focus.  In fact, isn't it likely that administrations are installed to accommodate the current needs of the elite establishment?  And how does President Obama react when confronted with the elitist, secret meetings and their globalist agenda?  With sophistry and rhetoric.  The fact is, many politicians, especially those at key posts, are well trained in speech giving.  They are essentially trained speech givers, not representing the people, but big business interests.

Today's political discourse has been transformed by the mass media, so that the vast majority of folks do one of two things: they either adhere to prefabricated scripts which they regurgitate like wind-up toys, in an attempt to fire bomb what they perceive as the enemy, or they simply avoid political discourse altogether.  In other words, any real impetus for change today is essentially nonexistent, or has been neutralized, both very fortuitous developments for the elite establishment.  Movements orbiting within the political realm are put there, not to engage people in real politics, but to do the exact opposite; to disengage them by drawing them into the wrong arenas, appealing to their very natural need for group process, as well as their very natural need to feel involved in political progress.   Thus our political energies are not only misdirected, but we are simultaneously divided and crippled by yet another wedge, unable to organize and mobilize against tyranny and corruption.  

It's not just "a few bad apples".  It's the system.  Once we acknowledge this, we can get on with real solutions.  Until then, our efforts to bring forth political change are no more real than pro wrestling.   Both parties pay verbal homage to their ostensible objectives, and even legislative homage to a degree.  But these toothless concessions are just window dressing, enough to create the illusion that the players are who they are supposed to be: righties and lefties, cooperating to shape a decent, democratic reality.  But at the end of the day, they are just cronies, working together alright, but not towards democracy, but quite the contrary.

Currently, conservation is being framed up by the media as part of a leftist or progressive agenda.  But the fact is, the agenda is anything but progressive.  The prominent people behind it are much more concerned about making money than they are about conservation or reducing their carbon footprint.  But even this, as bad as it is, isn't the main concern.  There is a much broader agenda here. The left side of the political spectrum is now being used, by the corporate, bureaucratic elite, as a platform for putting globalization into hyperdrive.  The current trend involves the consolidation of power around global authorities.  I would also suggest that this is no better - in fact it may be worse - than power consolidation in multi-national corporations.  The fact is that the two are intimately intertwined, working together towards a global paradigm shift, one that will probably hinge upon an economic "crisis", which will itself probably be induced by another crisis (energy, disease outbreak, climate change, any combination thereof).  And if history is any guide, the underlying cause of the "crisis" will be real, but it will most definately be overinflated, and promulgated by elite industrial interests which have the power to control governing bodies, whether at the national or global level.

As global authorities gradually take on more power, national sovereignty around the world will be ceded in lockstep.  Under these circumstances, the "superpower" obviously has the most to lose.  We can only hope that the inevitable decline in the US will be an insidious one, as opposed to a more sudden, acute crisis.  Whether or not the decline in the US is insidious or acute remains to be seen, but it would be silly to think that the US will remain the "superpower" as globalization marches on.  The liklihood is that things will never be the same here.  At some point, the the US will probably merge with Mexico and Canada to form the NAU, which will join the EU and the Asian Union - http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=asian+union&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 - and African Union - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union -  to form global superstates, which will be managed through a global central authority, probably the UN, with its own constitution. 

In order to get this done the elite have endeavored, both on national levels and, more interestingly, on the global level, to circumvent due process, with means ranging from executive privilege and signing statements to fear mongering (threat of commies, terrorists, germs, calamitous weather, economic doomsday, martial law...)  The populace would never acquiesce to overreaching government intrusion under normal circumstances.  Thus abnormal circumstances must be concocted.  This is why we saw martial law being threatened to pass unpopular bailout legislation here in the US:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbheoKVx0hc     ...    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMQFnTOEl88&feature=related

So there a global trend which is an insidious process by design (though many of the events and sub-plots involved may be more acute ... ).  Efforts are continually made to gradually erode the sovereignty of countries to capitulate to unions.  The unions, in turn, capitulate to the central global authorities, "for the good of the whole" and in the spirit of "teamwork", of course.   But this is a power grab, pure and simple.  Whether anything but totalitarianism will come from it remains to be seen.  But I think the rampant use of deception might be instructive here.  The global warming issue will almost certainly play a pivotal role in this process going forward.  Here, too, we see rampant deception by leading figures who have obvious ties to big industry, who use a good cause towards a bad end.