Our world apart is held only by a string that no amount of science can identify a stabilising force. It is formed by various factors of forces including aspects of 'economic relations', 'tribal capitalists', 'the people' and 'their kinship relations'.
If the string is in the blood, then it has to be the vein transporting life to ethnic and economic relations of a people.
From local to global, their aspects are interconnected to produce a complex phenomenon we call home. Yes, in My Social Relations, reality is a social existence.
So here's trying to make sense of the mess of our world apart by quantifying subjective material aspects into social objective being. In other words, trying to put our world back together again; making it home once more.
First, 'economic relations' is everything from work to consumer and profit along with their struggles; 'tribal capitalists' are those dictating the terms of economic progress usually to benefit their own kind; 'the people' represent the democratic voice of consensus reason of social issues, only that this group has now dropped the objective representation of all people and replaced it with 'women, gay and lesbians only while men remain the enemy' and 'kingship relations' refer to ethnic inheritance.
Ethnic relations are generally referred to the West, the Europeans, Asians etc, and indigenous minorities. So what is the string that binds this complex phenomenon together amidst its social uncertainties of the subjective world requires an X-ray analysis.
Before then in a little while ago, 9/11 took place and Bush met Blair; before you know it, the War of Iraq took place. Now Brexit, Trump, Netanyahu, Australia and Russia seem to develop a common consensus on the right wing of the spectrum. I think we all know their common enemy!
Figure this: if economic and ethnic relations are determining factors in the livelihood of a people, do you think Clinton and her populist gay and lesbian's front can come to the rescue?
Tonight, the representation of the same group mentioned absolutely nothing about men except as the enemy. Now a linear populist representation that targets men as the enemy is not an objective movement. Under the so-called people's movement, men are starved to oblivion. And a populist movement without real men would not advance anywhere far.
Anyway, following from the Brexit movement, it's easy to think that a country even as rich as US or UK is strong enough to stand alone against the wave of modern economic relations. Tribal capitalists took advantage of resources to assert their dictatorship upon the people. They imposed influential force upon the population of consumers but in a sensitive environment only the right wing followers are appeased. But without the diverse consumer population that is now warming up ethnic inheritance; it is much easier said than done.
The greenback like any other currency is certain to fluctuate on investment when offset by foreign economic relations. However without added value and foreign status, monetary rates would lose grounds. That is offset by losing a share of the foreign market.
Thus if most of US production is bought and sold within own population, the monetary value not only loses grounds, but also becomes static. And the red zone impact upon the already rebellious population is sure to give rise to extreme social consequences.
In all possibilities, US going at it alone the same time UK exited the EU has all the makings of a possible alliance. And considering both countries opted for a unilateral approach in isolation has credentials for that natural alliance. At the same time, Australia has also shown interests in the movement to join US and Israel.
And these Western countries are there for own best interests as Trump has announced. But what kind of hard nose trade is exchanged under self-interest demands is certainly not for the third world standards. So the outcome expects to extend the already widening channel between the West and the third world and in more local terms, between the rich and poor.
Unless the third world engages in arm capabilities to provide a market for arm trading looks a profitable economic development. And of course where there's smoke there's fire. Is a war necessary for an alternative market?
As our world apart in transition sets in motion, natural developments are anticipated. With US pulling out of the TPPA leaves an opening for China and Germany to lead.
The terms and conditions of the TPPA were subjects of local protests concerning sovereignty and democracy. It is believed that the TPPA surrenders local sovereignty and democracy to global corporations. And the third world would have no chance of keeping up with relations therefore cannot afford to maintain their local cultures.
And this is the crucial point of determination. China has already established trade relations with the third world. A leadership role in the TPPA shall secure its foreign status added value. But the question is whether the third world is better off trading with the hard nose Westerns or under the terms of the TPPA.
Now, it is clear from Trump and Netanyahu that the West is only there to take what they want. The TPPA on the other hand provides a market for the third world to participate in. Therefore, rather than receiving nothing from the hard nose Wests, it might be better to give and take in the safety of a market.
Yet perhaps the deciding factor rests with local ethnic sentiments as the third factor of determination. After all, it is tribal rule that influenced both Trump and Brexit to favour own kind, a response to the type of production that is in demand rests in elsewhere.
And that leaves china and Germany the pure brands of economic and ethnic relations to lead the civilised world over the Wests in opposition to Arms trade.