Government - #101 - #19 - What’s “better”mean to “them”!

We can make life “better” for them!!
Nobody should have to undergo their hardships!!

But what do “they” want?
Will our type of “better” actually be “better” for them?

Is it even possible for “them” to establish “our” type of institutions?
Is it just possible that “our” institutions developed in an entirely different environment from “them”?
Is it just possible that “our” civilization was lucky and was just blessed with certain basic material and climactic conditions which are not worldwide?
Could it be, that because of these certain conditions, we established certain institutions, or, did the conditions caused this establishment?
Could it be, that because of these special conditions, ways of living, thinking, and existing became established?

What is our purpose in trying to establish “our” type of institution and culture in places which are not similar to our environment and to our “blessings”?
Are the blessings of business, money, taxes, financial institutions, politics, education, etc. really a “blessing” that everyone wants?
Are we prepared to reorganize and finance the environment of others first, so we can recommend “our” own solutions? Do we want everyone to be the same? …. Is this even possible?

In a place where water is scarce and land is hardly arable, do we encourage larger populations knowing that there is already a shortage of natural human sustenance?
Is this a place where education, welfare, politics and government should be introduced? Is this a case of “survival” rather than “growth”?
Is it just possible that there are many places where mere “survival” is more important than “growth”?
Is it just possible that certain customs have grown up in certain areas that have been found more lasting , less complicated, than what we have to offer?

Doesn’t it really all come down to the protection of “our” survival, “our National interest”?
Unless we are willing to make the environments of all areas the same, we had better just “share” the knowledge of our systems rather than actively pursue the “use” of our systems.

The tried customs of other cultural and geographic areas are better left alone. Unless our “National security” is threatened, we should merely “share” our knowledge with any that wish to know rather than pursue an active role in “giving” or “establishing” our way of life.
If our “National security” is threatened we have no choice but to protect ourselves in any way available to ourselves. If we perceive a danger, we must preempt rather than wait for the “gun to start smoking”!

BUT BEWARE…. We had better be correct in our understanding of a threat! We elect the people who make these judgments. For those who disagree, they acknowledge that they do not wish to join our Nation in its judgments, in its security and in its National interest. These people have announced their desire to NOT to become part of the U.S.A. This is NOT a mere matter of disagreement. This IS a matter of citizenship, being a part of a Nation!