You are a very bad sifter of information. It's probably because you use some sites (algorithms) for all your news that reinforces your already ridiculous biases to the point where you don't believe that actual current events are actually happening, but everything is part of some vast conspiracy. Really it's only the Iluminati who control everything completely, and only a small handful (including you) who understand what's going on. The rest of us are all in the dark and ignorant.
What's more, you can't seem to tell the difference from an institution and the people who inhabit it who misuse and abuse it for their own ends, or their perceived noble ends that in practice end up undermining the very thing they tried to stand for. While I agree that is evidence certain that the institution itself is fundamentally flawed and lacks the checks to keep it focused and on task, you attack the whole endeavor and ignore the reason it was put in place originally. Really,
@Edsel is the only infallible and without sin person on planet earth, so only he can sit in judgement of the universe. Historically that's really easy to prove, as you have easy answers for very complex things like it's all at your fingertips. Your arrogance is not just off-putting, but ridiculous on a farcical level.
"Rules Based International Order", as a euphemism for the post WWII order or Pax Americana, which came forth at a time where the civilized world was largely lying in smoking ruins except for the single real victor (The United States of America) that, except for loosing the flower of it's young men, was actually in a much stronger position than any nation before it ever. While I don't disagree that the international institutions it brought forth have largely failed, the ideas behind them and what they were established to accomplish are needed now more than ever.
From the part of the Wiki :
Definition of Rules-Based International Order
The rules-based international order (RBO) refers to a global system established after World War II, characterized by structured relationships among countries based on rules, norms, and decision-making procedures. It promotes political and economic liberalism, human rights, and multilateral cooperation through institutions like the
United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund.
Key Features
- Political Liberalism: Emphasizes the rule of law and human rights.
- Economic Liberalism: Supports free markets and open trade.
- Multilateral Cooperation: Encourages collaboration among nations to address global issues.
These "Key Features", as the leftist leaning Wikipedia enumerates, are entirely valid as aspirations, though I would agree in practice the big international institutions have failed utterly (for the most part). You ignore all the small things that are unambiguous successes. COLREGS, for example, are a big part of that international order that actually worked, making blanket statements as you have is like saying there should be no traffic rules on American roads and because people have "accidents" that shit doesn't work. ABsurd.
"Liberalism" in the Wiki, clearly based on their definition, is of the classical American variety, and not the leftism masquerading as liberalism embodied in the Democrats. However, allowing communist and authoritarian governments a seat at these international tables for these aims ensured they contained a poison pill that doomed the institutions from their establishment. Being a part of the imaginary United Democratic Nations, with strict requirements based on those aspirations, that a nation had to maintain in order to keep a seat at the table and a vote (Great Britain would be on double secret probation today), would have probably led to better outcomes IMO.
You have not seen a Republican embrace any of that for a very long time. I would argue that even George W. Bush only used them in so far as it was in what he believed was our interest and security, and where it diverged he was willing to proceed without them. Clearly Trump doesn't GAF about them, and has concentrated on all the ancillary and direct diplomacy solutions like NATO and direct treaties with countries that share our interests, but from an America First perspective, which as you've argued earlier was put in place to advance those "Key Features", I would hope you agree with all of them... If you don't then you are hardly someone who believes in the Republican form of government and big "L" Liberalism. If not then you're just in the bag of totalitarian fucks and really have no worthy principals at all, in which bag I completely include Democrats who may reject the aspirations, but find utility in siding with our enemies at all those international institutions. This is esentially how Obama left our international relations in tatters by opposing our natural allies, and trying to befriend our worst enemies. How was his cynicism any different that yours or even the way the UN acts in fact? It really isn't. The fact is that there are way more bad actors and evil leaders who do not believe in the aspirational goals of the RBIO or Pax Americana than there are who do, and that they essentially are given equal footing, or even veto power in these institutions is why those goals are never even approached much less met.
Throwing it all out, including it's aspirational raison d'etre, absolutely proves my point about hiding behind cynicism in every single one of your posts and opinions. It not the kind of jaundiced view I am used to hearing from those who serve and fight overseas, or even from first hand experience of our own State Department, manned by overeducated, foppish children, undermining our interests and those of our supposed allies mostly through ignorance and incompetence rather than malice. Of course, when you get a truly evil cunt like HRC as the SecState you are going to have catastrophe, but even when running as designed it undermines us rather than preforming the tasks it was created to do.
It's really that you think it's all going according to someone's plan that is ridiculous. It speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition that is every bit as intellectually crippling as the Democrat's misunderstanding. It was this understanding by our Founding Fathers that made them stand out in all of history as truly deserving the mythic status that many, if not most people, who love this country feel about them. Do those truths about the human condition as it relates to power and man's inherent failings even enter into your conspiracy theories and skepticism about any event that does not conform to your preconceptions? I don't think so. You seem completely unmoored to me, and just have the same reaction and opinion about any event in the context that it is all calculated and preplanned. That is much more a religious line of thought that one that is based in any kind of discernable political science. As I've pointed out, I don't see how it's any different than it's converse of someone who gets all their opinions from CNN. Believing everything happens as it is reported and as pundits tell you what it means, isn't markedly worse than dismissing everything that happens and believing it is all a carefully orchestrated plot by a few people running everything.
If there were such people there would be no such thing as hedge funds, and they certainly would not be as effective as they are. Unpredictability and the inevitability of unforeseen events are the primary supposition of a hedge fund. It is an admission that no one is in control, and emotion plays at least as large a role as reasoning. This is exactly the reason why our Republic is established as it is with divided power, and rule of law. It's like a political hedge fund that hedges against the ambition, avarice, and human failing of those who would lead it. I don't see any of this evident in your absolute proclamations at all, and that's why they're bullshit and no better than getting all your opinions from CNN.
You don't see mistakes and failures. To you it's all going according to nefarious plan and you don't care how ridiculous your qui bono gets. That is more a level of insanity than a coherent sifting of information and events to predict outcomes or see trends.
The idea of the RBIO is absolutely valid and very American. It has worked at home better than anything ever devised by man. It's just that it only works for a good and just people who will enforce the rules and norms of society without the need for force, and almost unique to Western Civilization in terms of avoiding totalitarianism and use of force. We see it doesn't work in many cultures, and they simply should not have a say in international issues till they can meet certain requirements.
The institutions in pursuit of the original goals have become so corrupt they need a complete overhaul, and their fundamental flaws removed in the next iteration, or those will largely fail too. That said, all those institutions have never been in control, and they've never been anything but noise and a fig leaf over the real problems. I have been for kicking the UN out of New York, probably, since before you were born.
You have such simple answers because you see incredible complexity within all these conspiracy theories, but most of the time things are exactly as they seem and what common sense would dictate. Where they go and have gone wrong was entirely predictable. Maybe you just don't like the idea of so much chaos, and so men making so many repeated mistakes, but that's what history is in it triumphs and defeats.
If you want to get into grand plans you are into the realm of religion, not political science and current events. The only criminal geniuses that exist are openly in government, not in secret bases in volcanos, and they attack the system that checks their power in full view. Also something the founders predicted and mostly planned against, but they did not think the people would be so stupid as to kick out central pillars of our Consitution and central checks on power, like allowing an income tax, or destroying federalism with the direct election of Senators.
There are systemic problems. A conspiracy by definition is secret, and while conspiracies involving multiple people can stay secret for a short time, ultimately they are all exposed. Thinking you are a genius by calling everything a conspiracy, and then dancing in the end zone when a few come to light isn't a good look, and exposes you as a kook. So does believing that these things span years, decades, or centuries. They don't last, and they usually don't work.
Only one person can keep a secret. As soon as someone else knows it isn't a secret anymore, and in this information age while there is certainly more fuel for conspiracy theories, but the time the real ones stay secret is shorter and shorter.
