Splendid Isolation

Politicians on the left and the right are slamming the idea of isolationism. More troops, more men on the ground, more of YOUR money going to war. So, I ask, is isolationism really such a bad idea? I believe you can be an isolationist and still lead the world. But, what do you think?



If you want to check out more of #OffTheGrid, you can check out some of my latest interviews and clips on Ora TV

It would be nice to spend money on our nation instead of policing the world. Other countries seem to hate the US for what they do so I say lets stop doing everything and let the cards fall where they may. There really isn't much our country NEEDs from other countries in the world. We can bring our troops, jobs and aid back home and work on our own nation.

How in the heck can you be an isolationist AND lead the world? Doesn't make sense.

originally posted by: queenofswords
How in the heck can you be an isolationist AND lead the world? Doesn't make sense.

Yeah, really...the definition of isolationism as a foreign policy is to keep your assets, or the majority there of, in your homeland. It goes on to say that in order to act in the best interest of the homeland, it's best practice to keep the affairs of other countries at a distance.

So yes...I have to agree with queenofswords here, 100%, how can you be a world leader and an isolationist?

a reply to: JesseVentura

Isolationism may be an idea whose time has come - or is rapidly approaching.

Once thought reprehensible, supremacist, exclusionary - time and global economic and political dynamics has accelerated consideration of this as a "solution" to the inevitable instinct for survival.

The bigger question now is not if or when such a choice must be made, but rather if enough of a collective of minds will assemble to support the necessary adjustments that will be required to pull it off.

Let's check back in in another decade or so...

a reply to: JesseVentura

I would say that it is essential,the skills and raw materials which are needed to keep a country viable have to be onshore. If they are not like at the moment, one supply chain issue can bring the lot down. A simple thing like having a local food supply should have been priority number one.

The danger in globalism is losing the ability to be self-sufficient and becoming reliant on shaky supply chains that can be easily interrupted for a purported "pandemic" (gov't speak for everyone be afraid!). It was founders doctrine in the early days of the Republic and remained so until the Spanish American war in 1898. In less than 20 years we had the Federal Reserve, income tax and a world war. They were not unrelated at all. The financial powers mostly based in England wanted Germany permanently crippled with assistance from France who was still smarting from the Franco-Prussian war. It was the culmination of colonial expansionism and Germany being late to the game but their inventive and mechanical ingenuity along with work ethic threatened the English dominated trade thus World War 1 was a planned event.
All globalism since has been an extension of this same system of financial dominance still controlled by the same families and round table groups active for the last 2 centuries.

I've said if anything ever happened to my wife everything will be sold and I'll buy a off road self sufficient van and disappear.

Trouble with isolationism is that often by intervening you can stop a problem getting worse, kind of like what the British government did in Malaya in the 50s.
Trouble is, do it wrong and you can blow it all up like America did in Vietnam in the 60s.

As the OP has not visited ATS in many years,
Thread Closed.