One of the most interesting aspects of the physical universe is its ability to "scale." Scale simply means that, as one looks more deeply at an object, its internal structure resembles its external structure; close up shots look similar to wider shots, the microcosm looks like the macrocosm. This phenomenon, as well as other empirical discoveries, can be applied to the humanities in order to study economic and political systems.
For instance, a film editor deals with "resources" in a similar way a country deals with resources. To the film editor, "resources" are computer files containing picture and sound. To a country, "resources" are such things as oil deposits, minerals and labor.
When an editor is cutting a film, he must access various resources and bring them together into a "completed motion picture." By the same token when the people of a country are going about their lives, they must access various resources and bring them together into their "gross national product."
As I was cutting a film one day, a logistics thought crossed my mind. I noticed that the ease of which I could cut a film was directly proportional to the ease with which I could access resources. If the resource files were all on one hard drive, neatly organized and labeled, it was easy to access them and quickly build motion picture products. But if they were spread across two, three or ten hard drives, as is often the case, I had to literally wander all over the computer system to access them. What made matters worse, when I was editing on drive-1, and my resources were on drives -2, -4, -7 and -11, if any of these hard drives failed, resources would fail to arrive on the edit drive and I would have missing picture and sound. In other words, the film product could not be delivered if even one resource in the chain of production failed to arrive. To solve this problem, I decided to change the "management philosophy" of my editing system from one of interdependence to one of independence. This meant, I would bring all of the resources I was using to edit onto the same hard drive that the project was originated on. If I was editing on drive-1, I would bring all of the resources from drive-2, -4, -7 and -11 to drive-1. Once I did this, my film project was totally INDEPENDENT of the problems caused by an INTERDEPENDENCE upon hard drives all over the map.
* * *
Later that day — after a great and productive day of editing under the "governance" of my new, independent editing system — I decided to kick back and relax with the May/June 2011 edition of Foreign Affairs magazine, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations. Immediately I noticed several articles advertised on the front cover: "Will the Liberal Global Order Outlast America" by G. John Ikenberry and "How Keynes Can Save Europe" by Henery Farrel & John Quiggin. Wow, I thought, two very interesting articles that are going to explicate the merits of independence, God-given rights and free-market economics.
Needless to say, I was overly optimistic, for it wasn't long before I encountered the following sentence in Mr. Ikenberry's article:
Intensifying economic and security interdependence are giving the United States and other powerful countries reason to seek new and more extensive forms of multilateral cooperation.
Wow, a strange thought crossed my mind. Wasn't I just wrestling with an editing system plagued by "interdependence" — the idea that I had my resources distributed over various drives; my product totally dependent upon each and every hard drive delivering the filmic resources I needed in the exact proper time and form the project required? Wasn't this system of "global resource governance" on my editing system slow, onerous and risky?
Well if such a system works poorly in the microcosm of an editing system, will it work poorly in the macrocosm of a "liberal world order" if scaled up? In short: is the microcosm of a non-linear editing system analogous to the macrocosm of a world economy? Is it a scalable function?
To answer this question, let's take a look at another sentence by Mr. Ikenberry which again uses the word "interdependence." In his article he states:
Growing interdependence in the realm of security is also creating a demand for multilateral rules and institutions.
This sentence got me wondering. How often is this word, "interdependence," used relative to the word "independence" in Foreign Affairs magazine, a publication that states that:
The articles in Foreign Affairs do not represent any consensus of beliefs. We do not expect that readers will sympathize with all the sentiments they find here, for some of our writers will flatly disagree with others, but we hold that while keeping clear of mere vagaries, Foreign Affairs can do more to inform American public opinion by a broad hospitality to divergent ideas than it can by identifying itself with one school. We do not accept responsibility for the views expressed in any article, signed or unsigned, that appears in these pages. What we do accept is the responsibility for giving them a chance to appear. — The Editors
Upon searching five years of past issues, I found that indeed the word "interdependence" was quite popular and the word "independence" quite unpopular. This made me wonder some more: do the articles in Foreign Affairs REALLY represent NO consensus of beliefs as the editors state in the front of each edition? I don't recall ever seeing an article by Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, Edwin Vieira, G. Edward Griffin or Gary Johnson in the pages of Foreign Affairs magazine. Do you?
Gee, could the magazine that claims to "inform American public opinion by a broad hospitality to divergent ideas" and "accept the responsibility for giving them a chance to appear" be over-estimating its value to American society?
Unfortunately, after giving this publication the benefit of the doubt for many years, I am afraid I am going to have to come to the conclusion that Foreign Affairs magazine is little more than a centrifuge for ringing out any and all "justifications" for an interdependent, one-world government — what contributors to the magazine often call a "rule-based, liberal world order." Unfortunately, the basic philosophy upon which apologists of a liberal world order (formerly called "new world order") is flawed. The philosophy of such a world "order" makes interdependence the cornerstone, when it should make independence the cornerstone. As we have seen from the resource management model of my editing system, interdependence has serious liabilities. If country A is manufacturing a product and it must get its resources from country B, D, G and K, it is totally dependent upon countries B, D, G and K. And if country B is manufacturing a product and it must get its resources from country A, D, G and K, it is totally dependent upon countries A, D, G and K. Further, if country K is manufacturing a product and it must get its resources from country D, G, X, Y and Z, it is totally dependent upon countries D, G, X, Y and Z.
What happens when country Z has a tsunami and its resources are covered by the water?
What happens when country G has a war and its resources are suddenly in the hands of people hostile to country A?
What happens when country Y goes so deeply into debt its economy crashes?
What happens when country D runs out of the liquid resources needed by country A's military?
Well, when these things happen, the exact same thing happens in the WORLD that happens on my EDITING SYSTEM: everything crashes. This means I have to go into crises management mode. I have to spend more hours GOVERNING the various hard drives on my system, looking for the missing resources on OTHER hard drives or importing them from other sources. Yes, we literally call it "importing resources" in the world of non-linear editing.
The exact same thing will, and does, happen with countries when their resources crash. They have to spend more time importing or discovering new resources and/or coping with alternative work flows. But since the country may not be able to do this quickly or easily, it will require the assistance from some sort of extra-governance above. In other words, "Growing interdependence . . . is also creating a demand for multilateral rules and institutions" and . . . " interdependence are giving the United States and other powerful countries REASON to seek new and more extensive forms of multilateral cooperation." (emphasis added)
"Multilateral rules and institutions" are code for such things as NAFTA treaties, GATT rules, UN resolutions and World Trade Organization rules. In short, the apparatus of a global government that imposes endless rules upon the nations of Earth so that they can, and WILL, better-cooperate with each other.
This is the very essence of top-down management, also known as totalitarianism or total-government.
Yes, the contributors to Foreign Affairs magazine want all you film editors out there to keep your data strewn all over various hard drives so that you can have the privilege GOVERNING the import of resources from many interdependent hard drives and additional data sources.
Unfortunately this mentality — the mentality that operates upon the smokestack-philosophy of top-down management as opposed to distributed management — is the same mentality that calls for interdependence instead of independence; collectivism instead of individualism; rules-based order from the state instead of morality-based order from religion; socialism instead of capitalism; regulation instead of free-markets; Keynes instead of von Misses; gold-backed money instead of debt-backed money; Rousseau instead of Locke; Hume instead of Smith.
So what's wrong with every country being able to supply resources and sub-products to every other country? Philosophically nothing, but unless it's done correctly, one of the primary tenets of the physical universe will be violated. That tenet is the tenet of redundancy.
The Law of Redundancy is as important to the biological universe as the Law of Entropy is to the inanimate universe. This means that all systems, being subject to entropy, will eventually fail. Entropy can be thought of as disorder or erosion. Everything in the physical universe is subject to erosion: it becomes more disorganized over time. Entropy is a word that means "the degree of disorder in a given system." For a system to stay orderly, intelligence must be applied to that system. Intelligence is the ability to recognize similarities, differences and identities. Such recognition is the essence of organization. If you cannot recognize similarities, differences and identities it is impossible for you to organize, hence govern.
But organization, like intelligence, takes time to develop. THIS is why the universe has given us the technology of redundancy and its attendant laws. While developing organized, intelligent systems, the universe has provided human-kind the stop-gap measure of redundancy, the ability to reproduce similar or identical systems, or, as known in biology, fecundity, the ability to reproduce. Afterall, human intelligence is distributed over the plethora of 6.7 billion brains, not just one brain, or some oligarchy of brains.
When you have only one system (hard-drive, country or world) supplying all the resources that are needed by some other system (hard-drive, country or world) you have an oligarchy that is subject to great jeopardy. If the system fails, you have no back-up, you have no redundancy.(1) Until Humanity has developed AI systems that possess massively-parallel processing, super-intelligent computers to manufacture and transport resources and products from one system (hard-drive, country or world) with little or no malfunctions, the entire production line will fail until "management" provides the superintelligent "governance" to re-establish the broken elements of the system. A one-world government is thus not only desirable for an interdependent world, it becomes a requirement; but unfortunately, the management ability is not yet available to the world.
Pat Buchanan states that "free trade is the Trojan horse to world government." In this sense, free-trade, a euphemism for "interdependence," requires a government to rise above the trading partners so that their trade can be managed. Thus, so-called free trade treaties such as NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT are not really free trade agreements, but managed trade agreements. But managed by who? Managed, obviously by the folks that are trying to establish the NEW WORLD ORDER — the United Nations, and its various divisions, such as the World Trade Organization, World Court and World Bank. In other words free trade is the precursor to one-world government and that's why the global plutocracy is pushing free trade on all of their overtly and covertly owned media (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, etc.).
This is all great, but one-world government violates the tenet of redundancy. It means that an interdependent world not only requires a dominating, "rules-based" government from above, but places the world's citizens at grave risk. A fire, disease or economic collapse in an interdependent world quickly engulfs the entire world since there are no redundant, or independent systems, to provide the necessary fire-walls.
On the other hand, if each country endeavors to produce products that develop and use its own resources — without the necessity of getting resources from other countries — then a series of independent countries can supply finished products to a global economy with less risk. Any resources that are left over after a country has produced all the valuable final products it can produce, can and should be shared with the rest of the world. This would be free trade, where the country decides to share its resources and products as it sees fit, not some higher authority sees fit. This is also a federated world, federated much the same as "these united states" before Hamilton's central government in Washington ran amok starting in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act and later the New Deal.
For a Japanese auto manufacturer to locate a plant in the U.S. and then buy steel from China so that such steel can be sent to Germany for the manufacture of a carburetor to be sent to Australia for wiring and then assembly in Mexico is totally ridiculous. This is the current new world "order" — a network of interdependent countries that resemble a string of Christmas lights: when one light goes out the whole string goes out. This is the ultimate end-game of interdependence — a world that functions in a crippled manner because their are no redundant systems other than endless bureaucracies of arrogant global dictators.
Multinational corporations, by following the globalist philosophies of apologists for interdependence, are placing THEIR very existence at risk, for they have entered into packs with the devil. They are overly-reliant on government partnerships and upon fiat money. Not only have they gone traitor on their home governments and indigenous people, they increasingly must rely on the hope that their home governments will internationalize and be able to maintain the fiat Ponzi that has engulfed the world. If either government or fiat money fail, their interdependency on these things will cause their painful demise. Interdependence, which is totally reliant on a central global authority (bank and government) is a very risky management philosophy.
Such a management philosophy has proven to NOT work in the microcosm of file management (editing and enterprise-wide servers) and it has proven to NOT work in the so-called, global economy (as witness the recent global financial meltdown, a meltdown only postponed by fiat money). But when the ability of government-partners to print up all the money the multinational banks and corporations need to satisfy the next round of the ponzi finally plays itself out, one will beg for redundancy, independence and specie-backed currency.
But make no mistake about it, the next round of the Ponzi WILL come because this is the nature of the game the globalists have devised in the dim light of their greed-based delusions of an altruistic, liberal world order.
In the quest for global "governance" probably no more than 7,000 psychopaths in government, academia, media and the military-industrial-banking complex have bet the entire world's resources on THEIR "file" system".
Their "file system" is to get everyone so entangled that war is impossible. True, this system might actually make war impossible, but it will also make production impossible. Eventually the world will be strangled by expensive, oil-reliant, long-distance trade routes that create a web of delay, errors and omissions so messy, civilization itself will stagnate on a global scale, as predicted by rocket scientist Robert Zubrin. Already civilization is stagnating from the top-down management of rules-based, CFR-infested globalists that have suppressed so much freedom (with laws, taxes, debt-service and insurance premiums) it's becoming impossible for products to get produced (except under slave labor or by computerized robots).
Compare the "rules-based, liberal world order of interdependence" with the market-based limited republic of independence envisioned by the Founders of the U.S. Constitution and it's easy to see that the calculus of one Order means a stagnate and dying world, whereas the libertarian-conservative Order opens the door to a Class II Civilization that expands into the Solar System and beyond.
Yes, the curmudgeons are trying to take control of this world. They spew their lies and indoctrination from every mainstream TV channel day and night. They have infested academia and the clergy with their cultural Marxist assaults on free markets, individual initiative and independence. They sue for ever-more oppressive laws (again, what Foreign Affairs mag writers call "a rules-based, liberal world order) so that they can justify their elitist desire for world domination. They take the law into their own hands or disobey the highest laws of the land by forming illegal agencies, passing illegal acts, illegally invading sovereign countries, declaring illegal wars and assassinating anyone they feel compelled to label an "enemy combatant." The real war is between interdependence and independence.
Strong independent countries coming together to trade with each other on a voluntary basis, using a common gold standard to value their products, are vastly desirable to interdependent vassal states of a global dictatorship. So whenever you hear that word "interdependence" — know it's a similar word to the word co-dependence, a word used to describe two people that have a drug or alcohol problem. Neither addict is independent of the other, because both need each other in order to maintain the illusion that all is well.
(1) Of course one could argue that if you place all your files (resources) on one hard-drive you have failed to provide redundancy, for if that drive crashes, you are screwed. And this is quite true, therefore the hard drive MUST be backed up to another INDEPENDENT hard drive. In this case you have provided both redundancy AND independence. You have avoided a system that is interdependent on many hard drives (what might SEEM redundant, but is not) such that if any hard drive fails to provide resources the entire production chain is shut down AND you have provided a backup of the independent drive. As the world should be, you are thus bullet-proof, unless, of course, a comet comes in and takes out your entire system AND the planet. In this case, the answer is again redundancy. We need to develop humanity as a multi-planetary species. People that are worried about an over-crowded world and running out of resources are what you call, small-minded, one-worlders. They can't imagine a separate branch of Humanity exploring and colonizing some of the Solar System's many planets and moons, over 200 of them.
