We discuss the goals of MOVING FORWARD as flipping our WESTERN system of governance we have had for over a thousand years and installing what will be pre-Christian, DARK AGES, NERO, CATO, SENECA Eastern block Russian Catholic Orthodoxy societal structures. We mean the one that 99% of CATHOLIC citizens fought and died to be rid of ----so this is not about RELIGION----it is about a never-evolving OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS using religion to expand wealth and power.
We mock the global banking phrase FLAT EARTH because it means just that----returning to DARK AGES economic and government structures, NOT the people really think the EARTH IS FLAT. So, too is be global banking phrase MAGNETIC POLES COULD FLIP ------what is flipping is the EARTH'S POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC POLES------from Western dominance to Eastern dominance ----it is all PLANNED---the MASTER PLAN of Clinton/Bush/Obama working for foreign sovereignty of MALTA---KNIGHTS OF MALTA.
Below we see global banking 1% media outlet THE FUTURIST-----taking what is indeed a scientific theory that could happen sometime below centuries and millions of years-----but we KNOW that is not what FLIPPING POLES refers.
'Earth & Energy THE FUTURIST
Soon, Earth’s Magnetic Poles Could Flip
- Throughout Earth's history, the magnetic poles have consistently and gradually flipped. Scientists think that the next switch could be in our near future.
- While scientists agree that another pole reversal wouldn't be catastrophic for human life, it could certainly create some unique problems in this technological age'.
Why does the Earth's magnetic field flip over the course of history?
What attempts have been made to model this phenomenon mathematically?
Paleomagnetologist Michael Fuller is an emeritus professor from University of California, Santa Barbara and now a senior researcher at the University of Hawaii's School of Earth Science and Technology in its Institute of Geophysics and Planetology. His research has concentrated on polar shifts from the magnetic records trapped in Hawaiian lavas and on corings from the sea bed. Here is his explanation.We know from magnetic records locked in rocks that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed many times in the past. We don't really know why but we have some theories that are being borne out in mathematical models.
We also know that the magnetic field of the sun reverses as well-- every 11 years, whereas the Earth's reverses irregularly. The last geomagnetic reversal for Earth was about 780,000 years ago. The historic reversal rate for Earth seems to be once every few hundred thousand years, but it has varied widely; on at least two occasions, the field has maintained one polarity for tens of millions of years.
Image: National Geophysical Data Center
Motion in the Earth's liquid core generates the planet's magnetic field.Thus, the only two magnetic fields for which we have any significant historical record--those of the Earth and the sun--are bistable. They spend most of the time in a stable state with the magnetic field aligned roughly with the spin axis. The form of the stable geomagnetic field is like that of a bar magnet at the center of the Earth. It is what is called a dipole field--with a north and south pole. But occasionally this dipole field switches polarity--north and south reverse--and this process seems to take a few thousand years.
The Earth's field, like the sun's, is produced by dynamo action, which involves two processes. The first is the creation of new magnetic fields from the ambient geomagnetic field. This "field regeneration" takes place because magnetic field lines are trapped in good electrical conductors, such as the molten iron of the Earth's outer core. As Michael Faraday demonstrated, movement of a field line is impeded by an electrical current flowing to oppose that change. Because the molten iron in the core is a good electrical conductor, the field is trapped in the fluid--the frozen field effect. The field is carried along with the fluid as it moves in response to the forces imposed upon it. As the core moves, the field lines are stretched and twisted, and a new magnetic field is created.
Image: National Geophysical Data Center
DIPOLE MAGNET. The magnetic field resembles one that would be produced by a giant bar magnet in the core of the Earth.
The second process is the diffusion of the magnetic fields. In the same way that a drop of colored dye in a swimming pool will soon diffuse throughout the pool, a concentration of magnetic field lines diffuses throughout the planet's outer core. Yet this diffusion must take place against the frozen field effect.The balance between these two processes determines the evolution of the magnetic field--namely, whether the field decays away or is regenerated. On the large scale of stars and planets, the field lines are caught up in the fluid motion and distorted. They then generate a new magnetic field before they diffuse away.
The geomagnetic field varies continuously. The decay time for the main dipole part of the geomagnetic field, whose constancy and simple geometry permits navigation by magnetic compasses, is probably in the neighborhood of 15,000 years. The largest part of this variation involves smaller features in the non-dipole field, which have smaller time constants and more complicated geometries. The variation must presumably arise from small changes in either of the two processes which give the dynamo action, or both.
So the rare field reversals are most likely caused by larger changes in the flow in the outer core, or in the way in which the field lines are wound into the flow by diffusion. What causes such major changes is not known. Indeed, it may be that such fluctuations are simply extreme examples of the continuum of fluctuations in the dynamo processes--an El Nino in the weather of the outer core.
Several years ago, Gary A. Glatzmier of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Paul H. Roberts of the University of California, Los Angeles achieved a remarkable breakthrough in the mathematical modeling of the geomagnetic field. They solved the equations of electromagnetism and magnetohydrodynamics for the outer core and thereby obtained a computer simulation of the geomagnetic field.
The simulation yielded relatively long periods, when the field was roughly aligned with the rotation axis, that were separated by a rapid flipping of the poles. During this simulated reversal, the non-dipole field became dominant. Attempts are now underway to determine the morphology of the transitional fields during reversals. And it is hoped that these results will inspire still more realistic models and a better understanding of the working of the geodynamo.
Updated on April 13, 1998
Gary A. Glatzmaier of the Institute of Geophysics & Planetary Physics at Los Alamos National Laboratory explains the computer modeling of field reversals.
The first dynamically-consistent, three-dimensional computer simulation of the geodynamo (the mechanism in the Earth's fluid outer core that generates and maintains the geomagnetic field) was accomplished and published by Paul H. Roberts of the University of California at Los Angeles and myself in 1995. We programmed supercomputers to solve the large set of nonlinear equations that describe the physics of the fluid motions and magnetic field generation in the Earth's core.
Image: Gary A. Glatzmaier, Paul H. Roberts
COMPUTER SIMULATION shows a magnetic pole reversal taking place over a period of about 1,000 years. Magnetic field lines are blue where the field is directed inward and yellow where it is directed outward.The simulated geomagnetic field, which now spans the equivalent of over 300,000 years, has an intensity, a dipole-dominated structure and a westward drift at the surface that are all similar to the Earth's real field. Our model predicted that the solid inner core, being magnetically coupled to the eastward fluid flow above it, should rotate slightly faster than the surface of the Earth. This prediction was recently supported by studies of seismic waves passing through the core.
In addition, the computer model has produced three spontaneous reversals of the geomagnetic field during the 300,000-year simulation. So now, for the first time, we have three-dimensional, time-dependent simulated information about how magnetic reversals can occur. The process is not simple, even in our computer model. Fluid motions try to reverse the field on a few thousand-year timescale, but the solid, inner core tries to prevent reversals because the field cannot change (diffuse) within the inner core nearly as quickly as in the fluid, outer core.
Only on rare occasions do the thermodynamics, the fluid motions and the magnetic field all evolve in a compatible manner that allows for the original field to diffuse completely out of the inner core so the new dipole polarity can diffuse in and establish a reversed magnetic field. The stochastic (random) nature of the process probably explains why the time between reversals on the Earth varies so much.
Answer originally posted on April 6,1998.
We discussed in detail how the FALL OF VENETIAN EMPIRE in OLD WORLD was driven when OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING 1% KINGS AND QUEENS shifted global trade from MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND ASIAN SILK ROUTES to the AMERICAS. The public policy discussion of this WORLD HISTORY EVENT is called FLIPPING THE AXIS of the world economy. We have listened to global banking 1% here in US using these TALKING POINTS over these few decades----there is a FLIPPING OF EARTH'S AXIS in MOVING FORWARD. This is why we KNEW in 1980-90s that the MASTER PLAN for US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES was to take the US to colonial status and FLIPPING the world's economy to an ASIAN-EASTERN EUROPE axis. This is why the emphasis is now on RUSSIA AND EASTERN BLOCK AXIS VS CHINA AND ASIAN BLOCK axis-----and Western Europe, Canada, US, Latin America is being left to DIE as a TRIBUTE STATE COLONY being taken of natural resources and US citizens black, white, and brown as slaves and EX-PATS.
The term NEW WORLD ORDER coined during late 1800s and central to FDR NEW DEAL ----was always defined just as above---the US would be allowed to decline and the EMPIRE-BUILDING of these several decades was simply a draining of all our US economic and financial wealth.
This THE GUARDIAN article written by raging global banking 5% media players pretends it was a US MILITARY doing the EMPIRE-BUILDING when as we stated from EISENHOWER ACT----it was foreign sovereignty of MALTA KNIGHTS OF MALTA having a global private mercenary military built with our US revenue driven by illegal in US continuous wars. THE US IS NO LONGER 'FIT' FOR BEING AN IDEOLOGICAL POWER----what THE GUARDIAN means----is that OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS have NEVER been 'FIT' to govern because they have not EVOLVED since thousands of years of ancient looting and sacking of civilized nations.
So, this is the FLIPPING OF EARTH'S AXIS we constantly hear today and what is real scientific data is being corrupted to make it appear a natural disaster is at hand -----remember lots of fear-mongering and making our 99% WE THE PEOPLE not understand ordinary natural phenomena.
Who is central is not being FIT to be an economic power? UK GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS for one----only one set of those OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
This is why global banking 1% has all those ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT civil unrest/civil war freemason/Greeks building up in our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones---and of course same in UK and Europe......all planned and deliberate societal unrest, chaos, and destruction MOVING FORWARD by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---now TRUMP.
The US will not be at the heart of a new world order after this election
The ‘free world’ was built on US military, economic and ideological power. But it is no longer fit to bear that burden – and nor does it want to
Sat 12 Nov 2016 17.00 EST Last modified on Fri 9 Feb 2018 14.01 EST
When it became clear in the early hours of Wednesday that Donald Trump was going to be the next president of the US, Florian Philippot, chief strategist of France’s far-right Front National, tweeted: “Their world is collapsing. Ours is being built.” Amid the euphoria and self-aggrandisement, there is a scarily credible proposition.
Who are “they” whose world is collapsing? Arguably, the whole American-centred order created from the ruins of the second world war. And who are the new forces that Philippot is so confident will build on its ruins? They are in fact rather old forces: the ethnic nationalists whose logic brought the world to such a state by 1945 that a whole new order had to be built.
In Flann O’Brien’s parodic novel The Poor Mouth there is a map of the world as seen by poor Gaelic peasants. It comes with a compass marking the four directions: west, west, west and west. This compass might also serve for the map of the world that most Europeans have had in their heads. For all the attempts of the EU to become an independent superpower, we have continued to look west for leadership. There has been an assumption that the US is the defining power, the one whose actions, good and bad, give the world its essential shape. Now that assumption has been pulled from under us. Trump’s victory was forged in part by his stated desire that the US should no longer be the world’s policeman and arbiter – and that victory in itself shows us that, whatever the new president’s intentions, the US is in no shape to play those roles.
Early on Wednesday morning, the TV anchors rolled out the cliched phrase that comes unbidden to the lips on these occasions: “Donald Trump is the next president of the United States and leader of the free world.” A line from Elbow’s song came to mind: “The leaders of the free world are just little boys throwing stones.” For two things are clear: there is no free world any more and, if there were, Trump would certainly not be its leader.
That very phrase, in all its pomposity, once delineated not just a place but an idea. The free world in the cold war was the US, the anglophone countries, Japan and western Europe, and the American president got the title of its leader in much the same way that a new pope automatically becomes bishop of Rome. It came with the job, and it was not just an honorific. It had content. The western world order was built on US military, economic and ideological power. The US was the essential member, and de facto leader, not just of Nato but of multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation. And this free world seemed to be dramatically expanding. After the fall of the Berlin Wall it even looked like a world, stretching as it did around the planet.
The EU has a short time in which to grow up and realise that it no longer has a benign big brother to the west
And now? The title “leader of the free world” being bestowed on Trump is like British monarchs styling themselves kings of France until the early 19th century, or one of Trump’s own beauty queens being named Miss Universe. It is an absurdity. To be fair to Trump, he doesn’t want it. His “America First” slogan is, among other things, a disavowal of any ambition to lead the world. But even if Trump did want to see himself this way, nobody else would. For in the American crisis that Trump embodies, the whole concept of a US-centred world order has imploded. There may be no “western world” any more, and if there is it is not at all clear in what sense many of its citizens are going to be “free”.
In this great disruption, Trump is as much an effect as a cause. The final act may be dramatic, but the play has been on for a while. There have been two successive models of a US-led world order – one ended in triumph, one in disarray. The first was of course the cold war, with its binary division of the world into competing hegemonies. There was no other possible leader for the western hemisphere – as Britain discovered in the Suez crisis, the US alone could dictate the terms on which other countries, even those with delusions of grandeur, operated their foreign policies and military engagements. This should not be seen, in rosy retrospect, as a golden era. It had its horrors and its follies. Europeans were often uneasy under the American umbrella, during the Vietnam war, for example, or Ronald Reagan’s nuclear buildup. But the perceived Soviet threat meant that US leadership was never itself threatened.
The second version was the era of imperial hubris when the US thought of itself not only as the sole superpower but (in the typical imperial manner) as the universal civilisation. It is increasingly hard to remember, but there was a period in which even Russia seemed to be a nascent eastern America, taking its burgers from McDonald’s, its economics from Chicago, its loans from the US-led World Bank, and its political direction from Washington. Ideologically, the US formula (liberal democracy + deregulated markets + free trade = the end of history) was unstoppably ascendant. American prestige was so high that no one thought twice about, for example, having Bill Clinton as the final arbiter of the Northern Ireland peace process. Something that was technically an internal UK problem. It was what the leader of the free world did.
We know, of course, that this hubris was followed by the Iraq war and its brutal exposure of the belief that anywhere in the world could be transformed (with the help of a quick, clean invasion) into a little America. We know, too, that George W Bush’s follies created huge fissures in the facade of American leadership. But it should be borne in mind that the Europeans remained almost desperate to restore the status quo. The rapture that greeted the then presidential candidate Barack Obama in Berlin in July 2008, with more than 100,000 people gathering to adore him at the Victory Column, suggested that much of the free world was still dreaming of another JFK to whom fealty could be offered. The reign of the neocons was seen as an unfortunate episode in an enduring marriage.
But Obama (and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton) could never fully restore American leadership. The ability of the US to project its power has never recovered from the Iraq disaster. The hesitations and confusions that characterised the US responses to the Arab spring were not merely a function of weak leadership. They reflected the new realities of the inability of the US to shape a messy world to its desires and the unwillingness of Americans to let their sons and daughters die trying.
Behind all the bluster about restoring America’s standing as the global alpha male, Donald Trump seems to understand these realities. His response is typically incoherent, a strange mix of anti-militarist isolationism and militarist unilateralism. But his confusion is not unique: George W Bush also won the presidency as an isolationist and we know how that worked out.
What’s different about Trump is that he wants to follow his “America First” logic in every direction, specifically into trade policy and the destruction of the Paris climate change accord. And he will bring to this a mindset that cannot be appeased, even if other leaders are minded to try to do so. He simultaneously imagines the US as pathetically weak, kicked around by its trade partners and robbed blind by its military allies, and as immensely strong, able to dictate the terms of all of its engagements with the rest of the world. That’s a formula not for deal-making, but for a toxic cocktail of paranoia and petulance that no one is going to drink.
The world can’t wait around this time and hope for a new Obama to ride in and restore the natural order of American leadership. The old Obama couldn’t even do that, and after a minimum of four years of President Trump the world will be a much more anarchic place. With Trump’s election, the US has lost for a generation the claim that underlay its supremacy: the claim to be the shining light of democracy and tolerance. If there is a world that the US leads now, it is the increasingly unfree world of the new “managed democracies”, in which ethnic nationalism and media control fuel elected dictatorships.
Who can now take up that banner of open democracy thrown aside by the US? Perhaps the spectre of Donald Trump, and of the Donald Trumps within its own borders, will scare the European Union into the realisation that it is the only large bloc left in which a revived social contract can offer the hope of real equality without which democracy cannot survive.
The EU has a short time in which to grow up and realise that it no longer has a benign big brother to the west. All it can look to is itself and the lesson it learned in its darkest days. It is the lesson the Americans are now teaching themselves: that absolute hopelessness corrupts absolutely.
'Margaret MacMillan is a former Warden of St Antony’s College, Oxford University and a professor of History at the University of Toronto'
America was founded on one singular premise---US 99% WE THE PEOPLE wanted to escape those global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS and the use of religion to kill UK and European citizens whether Western Europe or Eastern Europe----so America is the LAND OF THE FREE and we do not EXPORT WARS/CIVIL UNREST/EMPIRE-BUILDING --that was and is OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% CATHOLIC AND JEWISH MERCHANTS OF VENICE working for OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. These global economic structures were OUTLAWED in early US for just that goal. It was only in late 1800s----early 1900s that global banking 1% and KINGS AND QUEENS were allowed to gain more and more control of our US GOVERNMENT.
This article tells a US HISTORY that is MYTH-MAKING---PROPAGANDA----and REAL left social progressive educators have written and shouted against this MYTH-MAKING for a century. MacMillan from OXFORD UNIVERSITY---that OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS' IVY LEAGUE is spinning myth as our United States of America is having its sovereignty DISMANTLED in MOVING FORWARD.
US history was never taught this way in REAL US public K-universities educating people to be CITIZENS AND LEADERS----it only appears in global banking 1% corporate schools.
Here is the source of this article-----when we say our US public schools are being taken to GLOBAL COMMONER CORE----this is it.....US teachers have always known when school texts and resources have been filled with MYTH-MAKING----as in TEXAS SCHOOL BOOKS----we taught REAL INFORMATION educating our children to look broadly for information----this is what now fills our US schools---and it is FAKE HISTORY----we called that REVISIONIST HISTORY
'Who We Are
At Macmillan Education we help learners around the world achieve more. We support students, teachers and institutions through a lifetime of learning by providing them with world-class content in the most relevant, engaging and flexible formats.
With learners for life
Macmillan Education is a global publisher with a local presence. You'll find us operating in over 120 countries worldwide, but our global vision does not take away from our regional focus. Working locally allows us to get close to the people who matter - the students, teachers, institutions and educational authorities who use our products and with whom we've developed real and lasting relationships. Today, Macmillan Education is a name synonymous with high-quality publishing around the world. From pre-primary through to adult learners and business professionals, we provide for teachers and students at every stage of the learning journey'.
America started as ISOLATIONIST and flipped from ISOLATION TO ENGAGEMENT according to whether US 99% WE THE PEOPLE had power or OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS global banking 5% freemason/Greeks had power. ISOLATIONISTS wanted the US to be a DOMESTIC ECONOMY using revenue to build and serve our COMMUNITIES-----
Why the U.S. Has Spent 200 Years Flip-Flopping Between Isolationism and Engagement
By Margaret MacMillan // March 16, 2018
President Donald Trump during an address on foreign policy, 2016. (Credit: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Why the U.S. Has Spent 200 Years Flip-Flopping Between Isolationism and Engagement
History Reads is a weekly series featuring work from Team History, a group of experts and influencers, exploring history’s most fascinating questions.
What does the United States want to be to the world? And what would the world like? A welcoming beacon of democracy? A partner in trade and security? A wary, but distant ally? Or a fortress that has pulled up its drawbridge?
For America’s allies and foes alike, the messaging of the last week has been unequivocally the latter: President Trump announced punishing steel and aluminum tariffs. He traveled to the California-Mexico border to view a border-wall prototype. And he abruptly replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with the more hawkish Mike Pompeo.
Cue the drawbridge.
This isn’t the first time the United States has taken such a stern line. When Donald Trump talks about “putting America first” he echoes a deeply ingrained attitude in American foreign policy dating back to the Revolution: that the United States should look to itself and be wary of entanglements with the world beyond. Such isolationism has been a recurring force in shaping American foreign relations.
Yet there is another, quite different, and equally long-standing view: that the United States, with its enormous privileges and wealth, has an obligation to set the rest of the world straight. Sometimes that means being an example, “the shining city on the hill” as an early governor of Massachusetts put it. It can also mean using American economic, political and military power to promote democratic ideals and make the world a better place.
We tend to talk of nations as though they are individuals with defined characteristics and views on the world. It is a convenient shorthand. Nations, of course, comprise many different groups with different ideas that evolve and change over time. From the moment of its creation out of the 13 colonies, the United States has swung between wanting to keep the rest of the world at bay and itching to set it straight, between economic self-sufficiency and engagement in trade and investment, or between welcoming the world’s immigrants—those huddled masses referenced on the Statue of Liberty’s inscription—and keeping them and their dangerous foreign ways out.
“America’s journey through international politics has been a triumph of faith over experience,” said Henry Kissinger, who served as the Secretary of State under President Richard Nixon. “Torn between nostalgia for a pristine past and yearning for a perfect future, American thought has oscillated between isolationism and commitment.”
Location is Destiny
Not all countries have had the luxury of choosing. If you are Poland, surrounded by potentially hostile powers, or Canada or Mexico, with a superpower on your border, there are geopolitical realities that prevent you from isolating yourself from the rest of the world.
Geography has played a large part in fostering American isolationism. From the perspective of America’s heartland, the rest of the world can seem very far away. Ever since the 19th century, when the United States pushed its borders out to the Pacific and down into Mexico, the country has been buffered from the outside world by its sheer landmass. Canada, originally a set of small weak colonies, and Mexico, torn with internal dissent, have never been threats.
Geography smiled further on the United States. Its rich resources and ever-increasing internal market have historically limited its economic dependence on the rest of the world. Even after 1945, when the U.S. emerged as the world’s most powerful economy, most of its trade and investment was within its own borders. And when you add to that two vast oceans on either side, America, unlike most other countries in the world, has had little to fear from foreign invaders for much of its history. (That has not prevented sudden panics from seizing Americans.)
It was only in the 1940s that airpower and mechanized navies allowed then-enemies Japan and Germany to bring war to America’s shores. In the Cold War after 1945, the prospect of nuclear weapons delivered by long-range bombers or rockets finally brought an acute sense of vulnerability to Americans.
VIDEO: Franklin D. Roosevelt Makes Statement of Neutrality Following Great Britain’s declaration of war with Germany on September 3, 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivers a nationwide broadcast later that day to affirm America’s neutrality.
Bogeymen at the Door
History, too, played its part in shaping U.S. attitudes. On the isolationist side of the scales, the very act of rebellion by the 13 colonies was a turning away from the old, corrupt European powers. “We have it in our power,” wrote Thomas Paine, “to begin the world over again.” For many of his contemporaries, that meant staying aloof from other nations in order to preserve American exceptionalism. In his famous Farewell Address, President George Washington warned against what he called “entanglements” and against permanent foreign alliances: “Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relationship. Our detached and distant situation invited and enables us to pursue a different course.”
From the American Revolution onward, the intellectual ancestors of today’s American Firsters tended to view Europe, particularly Britain, as a threat. In the early days of the Republic, the Redcoats fought to quell its rebellious colony. In the Napoleonic Wars the British invaded the American mainland and burned the White House. During the Civil War and again in the 1890s there was talk of war between the United States and Britain.
Americans also feared “dangerous” ideas that might subvert its values and, worse, win over citizens’ hearts and minds. In the 19th century, when Roman Catholicism was the enemy, a Texas newspaper warned in 1855, “It is a notorious fact that the Monarchs of Europe and the Pope of Rome are at this very moment plotting our destruction and threatening the extinction of our political, civil, and religious institutions.”
A century later, as the Cold War raged, you could substitute Communists for Catholics: The fear was much the same, and helped to fuel isolationism.
1901 political cartoon that depicts Uncle Sam as a large rooster, while European nations are represented by birds in a coop marked ‘Monroe doctrine.’ (Credit: Fotosearch/Getty Images).Outward Momentum
Yet the United States has never been able to insulate itself completely against the rest of the world—and there were many Americans who did not want to do that. Among the founding fathers, even George Washington admitted that his country might occasionally need temporary military alliances. Thomas Jefferson was likewise wary of “entanglements,” but believed in the value of trade to link nations peacefully: “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.” Alexander Hamilton went a step further: The United States needed to be strong economically to ensure its safety and well-being, and that might mean making deals with other powers.
American leaders were also obliged to pay some attention to their own neighborhood—if only to keep others out. The famous Monroe Doctrine, issued in 1823, was initially designed to warn Russia off expanding its colonies in the Pacific Northwest, but over the years it became a general warning to all outside powers to stop meddling in America’s backyard. When President Theodore Roosevelt issued his corollary in 1904, it became the justification for a series of military interventions in and around the Caribbean to protect American interests. In 1914, the opening of the Panama Canal served to intensify American interest in the whole region just south of its borders.
Other forces impelled the U.S. out into world. The same spirit that took the pioneers westwards took Americans around the globe. Sailing ships criss-crossed the Atlantic and ventured to the Far East looking for trade and profits. American missionaries, motivated to better the world, spread out in the 19th century to the Middle East, Africa, China and India. And when they returned, they preached that the United States had a moral obligation to engage with the rest of the world.
In the late 19th century the United States increasingly projected its growing power beyond its shores. The 1898 annexation of the Hawaiian Islands merely formally recognized what had long been American domination. The Spanish-American War the same year confirmed American dominance of the Caribbean, giving it control of Puerto Rico and, temporarily, Cuba. Even more importantly, possession of the Philippines moved the sphere of interest of the United States far out into the Pacific. Theodore Roosevelt’s policy to build a two-ocean navy confirmed that the old-style isolationism of the founders had not survived the modern, increasingly globalized world.
1919 editorial cartoon depicting US President Woodrow Wilson as he pulls a reluctant young boy (whose hat reads ‘USA’) towards the ‘Temple of Peace,’ or the League of Nations. (Credit: Stock Montage/Getty Images)
Drawn into Global Engagement
It took a world war, between 1914 and 1918, to draw the United States into a deeper and more sustained relationship with the wider world. President Woodrow Wilson, who had hoped to keep out of the war started in Europe, was by 1917 convinced that Germany was a menace to the future of world peace. In line with its longstanding traditions, the United States entered the war as an associate—not an ally—and Wilson insisted that its goal was to build a better world, “safe for democracy.” Like Jefferson, he saw the United States as a model for humankind; but unlike Jefferson, he believed the U.S. had to engage in the war and in the peace to come to create a new world order. The vehicle he hoped would bring nations together to make common cause for peace and prosperity was the League of Nations.
It wasn’t to be. Although many Americans, perhaps a majority, supported the League, Wilson couldn’t get the support he needed in the Senate, so the United States itself did not join. The subsequent decades of the 1920s and 1930s are often seen as the triumph of American isolationism. A powerful lobby headed by distinguished figures such as Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford promoted America First. Congress raised tariffs to keep foreign goods out, limited immigration and, in the 1930s, passed a series of neutrality acts to ensure that the U.S. sat out future wars.
Again, however, that was only part of the picture. American diplomats worked closely with the League of Nations. The United States used its considerable influence to settle some of the outstanding issues left over from World War I, and Washington took the lead in negotiating naval limitations in the Pacific. As the world moved toward war again in the late 1930s, the United States under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gradually tilted its financial and military support toward the democracies. In December 1941 Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s subsequent declaration of war brought the United States into the greatest and most sustained engagement with the rest of the world in its history.
When that great conflict ended, Americans again faced the choice between more or less engagement with the world. President Roosevelt and many Americans, both Democrat and Republican, hoped to prevent a new wave of isolationism by ensuring that America joined the new United Nations. In any case the decision in favor of involvement in world affairs was effectively made for them by the aggressive moves of the Soviet Union in Europe and the Middle East. The Cold War saw decades of American military, political and economic involvement around the world in what was truly a global struggle. The oscillation Henry Kissinger talked about was always there, of course, and Americans had widely different ideas about where, why and how much they should be involved. For many, faraway wars like those in Korea and Vietnam were hard to justify.
With the end of the Cold War at the start of the 1990s, the debate took on new meaning. Could the United States now safely withdraw from its alliances, friendships or partnerships? Or, as Iraq or Afghanistan might suggest, could it best defend itself by fighting battles far from the United States itself? And did Americans still have a moral duty to try and help the rest of the world, by spreading democracy? The context changes, but the debate about America’s role in the world continues to rage.
We will take this week to discuss these different PUBLIC POLICY PHRASES----one scientific---one NEW WORLD ORDER economic----to understand MOVING FORWARD Clinton/Bush/Obama---NOW TRUMP all those same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS freemason/Greek players.
As this article states----today's 99% WE THE PEOPLE do not have to worry about this real scientific phenomena -----only global banking 5% players and their media will create MYTH-MAKING instead of REAL information.
What the REAL public policy issue is over EARTH'S magnetic field is this------building magnetic high-speed rail that NOBODY NEEDS and most US 99% of citizens don't want----to build much of SMART CITIES---requires tons and tons and tons of MAGNETIC ROCK so the SHIP OF FOOLS global banking 1% and their 5% players will drill down to EARTH's core to MINE MAGNETIC ROCK from our EARTH'S CORE to build products NO ONE NEEDS.
'If the poles really did do a switcheroo, Earthlings would notice, though scientists aren't worried about a planetwide doomsday'.
Now, will these extractions of Earth's center core magnetic rock change our EARTH's magnetic field? YES. It is the man-made depletion of magnetic rock we need to STOP FROM MOVING FORWARD.
Why You (Probably) Shouldn't Worry About Earth's Magnetic Poles Flipping
By Jeanna Bryner, Live Science Managing Editor | February 1, 2018 10:17am ET
This animation shows movement of the magnetic north pole over the past 50 years.
Credit: National Centers for Environmental Information
Earth's magnetic poles, whatever they're doing, are not going to spark chaos and kill us all — a scenario making the rounds online right now.
According to the Australian news site news.com.au, a magnetic flip would not only cause massive blackouts, "even flushing the toilet could become impossible."
As reported by Undark, Daniel Baker, the director of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, is suggesting a reversal would render parts of the planet uninhabitable (though Baker is not directly quoted saying this).
Here's what's really happening and why there's no need to take cover in a doomsday bunker. [Doomsday: 9 Real Ways Earth Could End]
Oceans of molten iron are swirling deep inside the planet around the outer core. That sloshing sets up a giant bar magnet through Earth — though not a real concrete magnet, of course. This giant magnet sits at an angle of about 11 degrees from the axis around which Earth spins, according to Windows of the Universe. These poles are not in the same place as our geographic North and South poles.
And remember that swirling iron? It's constantly moving around. The result? Blobs of that iron get flipped in the opposite direction from iron atoms around them; scientists say they become "reverse-aligned." When there are enough reverse-aligned iron atoms, that giant bar magnet flips, and magnetic north becomes magnetic south.
But this bar magnet is no Olympic gymnast: The flipping isn't a quick turn but rather a gradual one, and can take between 1,000 and 10,000 years. "It's not a sudden flip, but a slow process, during which the field strength becomes weak, very probably the field becomes more complex and might show more than two poles for a while, and then builds up in strength and [aligns] in the opposite direction," Monika Korte, the scientific director of the Niemegk Geomagnetic Observatory at GFZ Potsdam in Germany, previously told Live Science.
Magnetic north and south poles have swapped places hundreds of times in Earth's history, about every several hundred thousand years or so, scientists have found. The last one happened about 780,000 years ago. [7 Ways the Earth Changes in the Blink of an Eye]
In fact, there are signs of reversal right now. The magnetic field has been weakening at a faster clip, about 10 times faster than in the past, according to data from magnetometers on board the Swarm satellites (three satellites moving in tandem). This may or may not suggest the movement of the magnetic poles, scientists said.
"What currently has geophysicists like us abuzz is the realization that the strength of Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing for the last 160 years at an alarming rate," John Tarduno and Vincent Hare, of the University of Rochester, wrote in a The Conversation article last year.
"This collapse is centered in a huge expanse of the Southern Hemisphere, extending from Zimbabwe to Chile, known as the South Atlantic Anomaly. The magnetic field strength is so weak there that it's a hazard for satellites that orbit above the region — the field no longer protects them from radiation which interferes with satellite electronics."
If the poles really did do a switcheroo, Earthlings would notice, though scientists aren't worried about a planetwide doomsday.
Just before a reversal, the extreme weakening of our magnetic field, the shield that protects us from charged particles constantly blasting the atmosphere, could cause trouble. Live Science previously reported these charged solar particles could punch holes in Earth's atmosphere akin to the ozone hole above Antarctica. Whether those holes would have any true impact is debatable, scientists have said.
The increased radiation, however, could mess with the navigation of satellites and aircraft as well as electrical power grids. "Were this to happen today, the increase in charged particles reaching the Earth would result in increased risks for satellites, aviation and ground-based electrical infrastructure," University of Leeds geophysicists Phil Livermore and Jon Mound wrote in an article for The Conversation.
And those alleged links between magnetic pole reversals and lights out for Earth and all its creatures … well, those are more fantasy than in real life.
Believe it or not------all these public policy in world history are part of today's MOVING FORWARD in US---Western and Eastern Europe. All are tied to what we discussed were PRE-CHRISTIAN CATO/NERO/SENECA moving from pagan religion to corrupting what was our 99% early citizens' Christian religious movements. CONSTANTINE was simply one of those GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS and his decision to move from ROME TO what was then CONSTANTINOPLE ---then ISTANBUL TURKEY -----was a FLIPPING OF EARTH'S AXIS economically----killing the Western Roman Empire and moving global trade to NEAR/FAR-EAST ----Asia and Eastern Europe.
THIS WAS A FLIPPING OF EARTH'S AXIS economically killing our ROMAN WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
If you attended a public school K-university that did not educate as to how all these public policy terms work together to be TODAY'S MOVING FORWARD MASTER PLAN ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE---then you did not attend a PUBLIC SCHOOL----you attended a CORPORATE SCHOOL allowed to be called 'PUBLIC'
This is why today what we are shouting are global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS----include ARABIC/ASIAN/ EUROPEAN KINGS AND QUEENS---and not simply our US ENGLISH KINGS AND QUEENS as some in our US colonial states wax romantic over.
OH, JOLLY GOOD ----GOD SAVE THE QUEEN------which queen is that you want to save? I hope you have the right hemisphere.
Byzantium, History, Spotlight
The immortal emperor: what happened to Constantine XI Palaeologus?
Date: 29 May 2014
Author: Sean Munger
For any Byzantinist, today is one of the most important historical anniversaries there is. Five hundred and sixty-one years ago today, on May 29, 1453, the Byzantine capital Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks. This article isn’t a retrospective on that event; I did that last year. But it’s also the anniversary of the death of Constantine XI Paleologus, the last Emperor of Byzantium, who is believed to have died in battle fighting the Turks who overran the city shortly after dawn on that fateful day. His body was never found, or if it was, it didn’t find its way into the history books. Whenever a ruler dies in uncertain circumstances–especially in an event cloaked in historical and religious significance like the fall of Constantinople–there are bound to be conflicting stories and rumors about what happened to him or her, and that’s exactly the case with Constantine.
Constantine IX is a strangely shadowy figure in history. Not that much is known about him, which is why the best biography of him, The Immortal Emperor by Donald M. Nicol, is only 128 pages long, excluding notes. Constantine had a sad and tumultuous life. He came to the Byzantine throne in January 1449 with one singular purpose: to stave off the almost inevitable conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, and thus keep the shriveled nub of the Byzantine Empire alive, as long as possible. He probably knew he would be the last Christian emperor to rule from Constantinople. There’s a grim fatalism that surrounds all accounts of his life, and especially his last few days during the siege in the spring of 1453.
The last confirmed sighting of Constantine was near the Gate of St. Romanus, where a huge battle was going on just after the Ottoman troops had surged into the city through another smaller gate called the Kerkoporta (the Circus Gate). Constantine reportedly leaped right into the fray, brandishing his sword, fighting side by side with common soldiers. The odds were hopeless. The Byzantine defenders were grossly outnumbered and had already endured 55 days of withering siege before the final Turkish assault. Thus, Constantine sought to die fighting. But what exactly happened to him and his corpse is the subject of dispute.
This 15th century woodcut is one of the most popular images of Constantine XI, but it is not known if he really looked like this. Note that he bears no resemblance to the Russian-made icon at the top of this article.
According to Nicol, here are the various reports, rumors and theories about what happened to the last Emperor of Byzantium, together with my thoughts on each possibility:
- As the fighting grew worse, Constantine’s courage failed. He asked one of his own men to kill him so he wouldn’t be captured alive, but before this could be done the Turks broke into the city and trampled him. (Leonardo of Chios). My verdict: not likely. Constantine was no coward and certainly wouldn’t want the last Byzantine emperor to be remembered as such.
- After being killed at the St. Romanus Gate, his corpse was found, beheaded and his head presented to Sultan Mehmet II as a prize. (Cardinal Isidore, a survivor of the siege). My verdict: unlikely; Turkish sources don’t corroborate it, and if Mehmet had taken Constantine’s head he would have made sure everybody knew it.
- Constantine bugged out during the fighting and tried to escape the falling city by boat. While in search of a vessel, he happened upon a group of Turkish troops who beheaded him. (Tursun Beg, a Turkish officer). My verdict: virtually impossible. The battle by the Romanus gate was incredibly fierce; how could he have escaped? Moreover, why? Constantine had already implored his own men to fight to the death; he would have taken his own advice.
- Constantine was killed somehow during the fighting, and his corpse beheaded after his death. Three heads, including his and Cardinal Isidore’s, were brought to the Sultan who spoke of it being an emblem of glory. (Heinrich de Soemern, a German-born Papal official). My verdict: almost certainly false. We know Isidore survived and escaped Constantinople.
- Constantine and several nobles of his court did manage to escape by boat, and was still alive in 1454. (Abraham of Ankara, an Armenian poet). My verdict: virtually impossible. Why wasn’t he seen anywhere after the fall?
This statue of the last Byzantine Emperor stands in Athens–but again, its face is imagined, as no authentic pictures of Constantine survived.
There are, of course, legends that Constantine did not die at all. Some mystical accounts whispered among the Greeks in the decades and centuries after the fall hold that Constantine is “sleeping,” in some sort of suspended animation in a secret chamber near the Golden Gate of the Theodosian Walls, a gate that was bricked up long before the fall. The legends go that if Byzantium rises again, Constantine XI will “wake up” and come out of his prison to rule again. It should be noted that these legends became especially prevalent in the 1820s when Greece was fighting for its independence from the Ottoman Empire, and thus the legend of the “sleeping” Constantine XI was a poetic piece of romantic Greek nationalism. I don’t think anybody seriously believed it was true.
Nevertheless, the fascinating and largely unknown man of Constantine XI, who had one of the most epic deaths in all of medieval history, remains an attractive figure in late Byzantine history. Whether the interest in him is purely historical, or else religious or nationalistic, Constantine XI can in at least some sense be called the immortal emperor, for his legend and history are not quite dead.
One would have to be an academic on religious philosophy or a CATHOLIC 99% of citizens---even many REAL CATHOLICS may not understand all of what is the expansion and morphing of OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS' version of CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHY. We will discuss in detail the parts of these religious philosophies related to today's MOVING FORWARD. We are not professional religious scholars. So, if MOVING FORWARD is FLIPPING THE EARTH'S AXIS to Eastern Catholic KINGS AND QUEENS----why not BYZANTIUM -----rather than RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY -----which simply means why is the world economy centering in Eastern Europe and Asia and not the NEAR/FAR EAST. What we know NEW WORLD ORDER from last centuries WOODROW WILSON/FDR---to today's MOVING FORWARD CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----all had these same goals---of killing Western civilization and moving to EASTERN HEMISPHERE. FLIPPING THE EARTH'S AXIS.
Remember, these KINGS AND QUEENS are NOT religious---this has nothing to do with REAL 99% of Catholic citizens------as true of 99% of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, Protestant citizens wanting to be really religious. These are RELIGIOUS STRUCTURES to assure GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS control over all societal structures. The need to KILL WESTERN CIVILIZATION is tied to these thousand years of continuous fighting by our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE for more rights, more access to economic freedom---that messy MAGNA CARTA---that messy AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT---that messy COMMON LAW and court precedence giving several hundred years of RIGHTS TO CITIZENS ----that is why MOVING FORWARD is killing Western civilization and taking it to EASTERN HEMISPHERE.
August 19, 2016
What is the difference between Eastern Catholic Churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches?
This is a question that is often confusing to Catholics who have grown up in the Roman Catholic Church. You may wish to share with them this response:
After the Eastern Schism in 1054, eastern churches no longer in union with Rome came to be known as Eastern Orthodox or simply “Orthodox Churches.” Eastern Churches that remained in union with Rome are called Eastern Catholic Churches, or often the “Eastern Church.” An easy way to remember is this: “If the name of the Eastern Church as “Orthodox” in its title, it is not in union with Rome.
Eastern Churches accept the pope as the leader of the Church. Eastern Churches are fully Catholic. While all the Eastern Churches accept the authority of the pope, they also have a great deal of autonomy in Church life. They are governed by a separate code, called the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. This code helps to preserve some traditions that differ from the Roman Catholic Church, including the ordination of married men to the priesthood. Eastern Churches worship with their own style liturgy. The Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syrian (or Chaldean), West Syrian, and Maronite liturgical rites and certain other liturgical rites of local churches and religious orders have been recognized as authentic liturgical expressions within the Catholic Church. The three largest Eastern Churches are the Byzantine Ukranian Greek Catholic Church, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, and the Maronite Catholic Church.
Today instead of media and myth-making around a NEW WORLD American colonist fighting for freedom from OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS to create a sovereign United States of America-------that PAUL REVERE'S RIDE shouting to every MIDDLESEX village and farm-----today's town criers are shouting THERE WILL BE NO STOPPING MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ----that EARTH'S AXIS IS GOING TO FLIP------just SURRENDER DOROTHY!. Those town criers are the opposite of our early fight for freedom from those same OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS.
Know what? Our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE are far stronger both as citizens, as communities, as a nation even under the thumb of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and those dastardly 5% freemason/Greek black, white, and brown players---then we ever were as colonists during the RIDE OF PAUL REVERE. Please do not believe the hype over how weak 350 million US citizens and our 99% of new immigrant citizens are-----against what are a global banking 1% SHIP OF FOOLS.
The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere
Published on Feb 11, 2011
Dramatic reading of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's classic poem, "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" by cdavid cottrill.