Hey Reg:

> I think I've said in the past, Greenie that the nature of things at this point in our history is such that we have no choice but to be, one and all, internationalists. I think I've said in the past, Greenie that the nature of things at this point in our history is such that we have no choice but to be, one and all, internationalists. I think I've said in the past, Greenie that the nature of things at this point in our history is such that we have no choice but to be, one and all, internationalists.

That reasoning requires we relinquish our national sovereignty. Which I do not support as it means our Constitution and Bill of Rights will be effectively abrogated(in fact, if not in the promises to the contrary that are already being offered). Real ID and international precedents being cited in our Supreme Court are current examples, and should be warning enough.

> Technology has shrunk our planet and economically nations are more entwined than ever. Technology has shrunk our planet and economically nations are more entwined than ever. Technology has shrunk our planet and economically nations are more entwined than ever.

What a bunch of rubbish Reg, I am surprised you repeat such specious language. Technology has improved transportation and communications which has improved the efficiency of money transference for commerce's purposes along with speeding delivery of goods somewhat, but the planet being smaller?!? Nor does that reasoning require, or justify, our meddling in other nations internal affairs for an elite fews enrichment at the expense of the human resources of this, or any nation.

> I understand what you are saying and how that idea of internationalism has a negative connotation but the reality is...that's where we are at. I understand what you are saying and how that idea of internationalism has a negative connotation but the reality is...that's where we are at. I understand what you are saying and how that idea of internationalism has a negative connotation but the reality is...that's where we are at.

Only because of machinations and the continuing concerted sophist arguments that have twisted Washington', Jefferson' and any average mans true desire not to interfere with, or be interfered with, another unnecessarily.

> There's no shutting it off now, it's a global economy. There is no way of pulling back now, from my perspective. There's no shutting it off now, it's a global economy. There is no way of pulling back now, from my perspective. There's no shutting it off now, it's a global economy. There is no way of pulling back now, from my perspective.

Global Economy is a relatively new catch-phrase for something that has existed for centuries. In fact, for millennia, in terms of worldwide trade.

> My question to you would be, how do we move away from being internationalists? My question to you would be, how do we move away from being internationalists? My question to you would be, how do we move away from being internationalists?

#1 We get new leaders who are demonstratably loyal to American principles. Naturally this would require real education and governmental transparency -which our founders said would be necessary, if order to remain freemen- neither of which are widely available, or encouraged today. And that would be just the beginning of what would be necessary to right this nation;

#2, we quit inserting ourselves in other nations internal affairs. Which would necessarily include bringing our troops home immediately;

#3, we, as individuals, and as a nation, should return to America's historical roots and quit falling for the fear-mongering that -with much propaganda, beginning in the late nineteenth/early 20th century- came to, and continues to, wrongly surround the term, 'isolationism'.

George Washington's farewell speech was largely about avoiding political alliances:

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

"There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation." --George Washington

Thomas Jefferson spoke of having, 'entangling alliances with none' in his first inaugural address in 1801.

Isolationism in their day, was not to be taken as economic or cultural independence but as abstention from political or military obligations, from alliances or from purposeful entanglement in the European balance of power. It would be wise, in our day, to expand that to the entirety of the world as George Washington originally suggested. Then perhaps we would become internationally honored as that shining city on the hill which Reagan often spoke of.

> It was you that posted our situation with China and how important a part they play in our domestic economy, wasn't it? It was you that posted our situation with China and how important a part they play in our domestic economy, wasn't it? It was you that posted our situation with China and how important a part they play in our domestic economy, wasn't it?

Yep, at least once. It's a problem that could have been avoided if our leaders had been looking out for us as they are paid to do after swearing to uphold our Constitution, and then warned the citizenry before the danger was uncontrollable. But like so many other situations I could point to, our national government has repeatedly failed the American people for other than the profit of the people they swear to serve.

> Also, how would you equate a fascist and an internationalist? Also, how would you equate a fascist and an internationalist? Also, how would you equate a fascist and an internationalist?

That's easy. Hilter was a National Socialist(people forget that while fixating on the evils of the Nazi Party). Stalin was a Socialist(communism being the intermediate stage until true socialism flowered after the regrettable but necessary oppression of the masses). FDR was a Socialist, if not in name, certainly in deed. Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all interchangeable tyrannical international movements intent on a single governing body for the entire world.

Do consider too David's remarks posted today in another thread regarding who supported who & what leading up to WWII. While searching to verify his position, a great deal more accurate conclusions, regarding our present situation, could not be reasonably avoided.

BTW, I was wanting you to explain Hegel’s Dialectic: Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. Not that Leo Strauss, whom way too many in the present administration admire, would have any objection to employing Hegel's Dialectic upon Americans. The ends justifying the means and all that rot....

Good to read you Reg and thanks for the fascist piece.