In his final speech to the United Nations General Assembly, US President Barak Obama “hailed progress on the world stage while warning against the perilous forces that seek to dismantle peace and prosperity” – reported Willa Frej reporter for The Huffington Post.

Obama warned against ‘Aggressive Nationalism’ And ‘Crude Populism’.  “We can choose to press forward with a better model of integration, or we can retreat into a world sharply divided and in conflict,” he said.  That statement, and a number of others Obama made before the U.N. ― grouping “aggressive nationalism” and “crude populism” into the same category as religious fundamentalism ― could be interpreted as swipes at U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Read further here:
These days one comes across such terms in the mainline press quite often, i.e., ‘aggressive nationalism’ and ‘crude populism’.
The internet tells me the meaning of ‘populism is: 
 “At its root, populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite. The word populism comes from the Latin word for "people," populus.”
 - -
Could it not be that the regular people are not happy with what their political insiders and/or wealthy elite are doing to them and are rebelling?
As for ‘nationalism’, whether ‘aggressive’ or not…
noun: nationalism  patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts, "an early consciousness of nationalism and pride"
synonyms:  patriotism, patriotic sentiment, allegiance/loyalty to one's country, loyalism, nationality…
C. H. Douglas in an address “at the Central Hall, Liverpool, on October 30th, 1936, “The Tragedy of Human Effort,” noted that biologist Dr. Tudor Jones, stated that there is no evidence whatever to suggest that the human being of the present day is in any essential cleverer or more able than the human being of six or seven hundred years ago.
Douglas continued:  “I am particularly interested in this, because I have recently had access to some charters and other similar documents affecting the affairs of Scotland from the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries, which seem to me to possess an understanding of the realities of statesmanship at least as great as is evidenced at the present time. I am confident that the principles which ought to govern the management of the affairs of this world have been available for many centuries, and have been obscured to such an extent that the community's intelligence upon such matters is probably less now that it was a thousand years ago.”
“For this reason” he continued, “I trust you will bear with me if I endeavour to put to you my own understanding, in modern language, of these ideas.

Principles of Association
The first proposition which requires to be brought out into the cold light of the day, and to be kept there remorselessly, at the present time in particular, is that nations are, at bottom, merely associations for the good of those composing them. Please note that I say "at bottom."
Association is at once the direct cause of our progress and of our threatened destruction. The general principles which govern association for the common good are as capable of exact statement as the principles of bridge building, and departure from them is just as disastrous.
The modern theory, if it can be called modern, of the totalitarian state, for instance, to the effect that the state is everything and the individual nothing, is a departure from those principles, and is a revamping of the theory of the later Roman Empire, which theory, together with the financial methods by which it was maintained, led to Rome's down fall, not by the conquest of stronger Empires, but by its own internal dissensions.
It is a theory involving complete inversion of fact, and is, incidentally, fundamentally anti-Christian, in that it exalts the mechanism of government into an end rather than a means, and leads to the assumption that individuals exist for the purpose of allowing officials to exercise power over them.

It is in the perversion and exaltation of means into ends in themselves that we shall find the root of our tragedy. Once it is conceded that sovereignty resides anywhere but in the collection of individuals we call the public, the way of dictatorship is certain…”
Read full paper here…

An interesting discussion is taking place between a number of social crediters and an American newcomer to the concepts of C. H. Douglas.  At this point in time the discussion centres on Marxism and Social Credit. In the early 1950s Canadian John Farthing wrote on Marx’s concepts and explained what he saw as the differences, not only between Marx’s concepts of organised societies but also American concepts as expressed in the American Constitution and the important differences of both to the British concepts of Constitutionalism, organic societies and history.

C.H. Douglas saw that a Constitution is either an organism or an organisation and at the time of writing, 1947, used the Russian USSR Constitution as a comparison. “The Russian Constitution – attributed to the Fabian Society and Mr. Sydney Webb – is an organisation…”
Ref:  Realistic Constitutionalism
Canadian economist John Farthing in “Freedom Wears a Crown,” 1957, took the matter further and used Karl Marx’s ideas, plus the American Declaration of Independence and the British concepts of a society as worked through the Canadian Constitution.
He wrote: 

Government, according to the Declaration of Independence, has only one function; that of maintaining the individual in his natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I do not at the moment question the suggestion that the true aim of life consists in the pursuit of happiness.  My concern is rather to point out the essentially individualistic character of such a conception of government and to contrast that conception with the idea expressed in the British North America Act where it speaks of the federal government having to do with all matters pertaining to the peace, order and good government of the Canadian people.
This latter phrase can be seen to correspond in form to the famous phrase in the Declaration of Independence, but the purely individualistic terms of the American Declaration have with us been translated into terms essentially social.
The life of each is referred to the maintenance of civil peace, or is to be preserved by the maintenance of civil peace, and the liberty of each is ensured within a further order of life made up of essentially free individuals; and where the American phrase then drops all further reference to government to leave each with his liberty to pursue his happiness as he will, the Canadian phrase goes on to suggest the possibility of governmental action ensuring a free and peaceful order of life.
The mere liberty of the individual is not taken as the final and absolute end of the governmental story; nor is the further story told only in terms of happiness; it has rather to do with good government, whatever those words may involve.  It does not suggest, or in any way imply that government is to compel people to be good beyond the minimum requirements of the criminal code; but it does implicitly recognize that whereas a good social order is rooted in the essential freedom of each person, the individual is not a completely independent unit in such an order, nor is it even the sole and supreme aim of government to treat him as if he were.
The social good is not regarded as the simple result of merely adding together the differing amounts of happiness acquired by a mass of individuals each pursuing the greatest amount of happiness for himself in a basic independence of his fellows. It is rather, if implicitly, recognised that a government is able to make its own distinctive contribution to the good life of its people by ensuring the maintenance of general social conditions conducive rather than detrimental to the realization of that life.
Thus in the traditional Canadian or British view society is not a number of basically independent individuals. It is rather a community of persons bound together by a common spirit of loyalty in an essentially unitary society. The role of government is not conceived in terms only of a law to ensure the natural liberty or basic independence of each citizen.
Herein lies the essential difference between the British ideal of personal freedom and the American ideal of individual liberty. In contrast to the static perfectionism which underlies the American, both the British and the Marxian ideals of society, being essentially historical, do not suppose that a perfect fabric of politics and social life has already been achieved. They are fully aware of historical change and cognizant, too, of social development, of dialectic. It is here, however, that the positions cease to be similar; for although both are assuming that a time will come when the compulsive power of law will no longer be a necessary constituent in the social life of man, the intervening paths to that good are not only different but of opposite character.
The Marxian looks forward to the culmination of the historical process in a society of perfect Communism, or one in which the state will have withered away as the compulsive power of law is no longer required. It is the primary point of the Marxian dialectic to insist that such a goal can only be realized by first dealing through a spirit of hatred, destruction, revolution and dictatorship.
The western world contends that Communism is simply a widespread movement of social discontent or one in which that discontent is so extreme that it seeks to overthrow the entire capitalist system. This, of course, is quite true, but it misses the essential point and significance of the Marxian movement. For Marxism is not merely a more extreme form of socialist discontent with capitalism. The essential point in Marx’s position is that he claimed to present a socialism that involved a scientific critique of the capitalist system. In other words it was no mere affirmation that the capitalist system ought to be replaced by something other; it was a demonstration that such a change must of necessity happen…
Marx’s primary claim was that he had put the entire anti-capitalist position on a properly scientific basis, having to do with demonstrable social necessities. When we seek the further significance of this contention it will be found in what, on such a view, becomes the basis of the Marxian position. Presented as a scientific critique, Marx stated the theory of the capitalist system as found in the economic theories of David Ricardo. There our present economic order was explained in terms of a simple machine in which all was determined by certain fixed laws. In other words a scientific system in which all was explained in exactly the same way that Newton had already explained the solar system. It was a system in which the never-changing laws of nature were supreme and absolute…
According to Adam Smith and Ricardo the all-determining laws that governed the operations of this simple economic machine of necessity ensured not only an efficient regulation of production but also an essentially just distribution of wealth. It was all like an enormous slot machine from which the returns were always demonstrably just. But Marx, by appealing to precisely the same law which Ricardo had established, proceeded to demonstrate that so far as the wage-earning class is  concerned such laws of necessity result not in a just, but in an unjust return. The scientific slot machine was one that turned out injustice and not justice.
What in such circumstances is a lover of social justice to do? There was for Marx only one possible answer and it is here that we come to the essential point of the entire position. If injustice is the result of the inexorable laws of a quite inexorable machine, there can be no possibility of justice save by destroying the machine.
Since law as enforced by the bourgeois-democratic State was designed to uphold the same basic independence of individual action which underlay the unjust laws of the economic system, the entire democratic State must be destroyed if justice is ever to prevail.
The two most significant points of this position are as follows: first, the point expressed by Lenin when he said, ‘There can be no revolutionary movement, without a revolutionary theory’, which is to say that large numbers of men will not destroy their existing fabric of life unless they can first be convinced by an inescapable argument that this is the only way in which the ends of justice can be realized. The second point is that Marx was able to arrive at such a conclusion - and was also able to claim scientific justification for it - not by reference to the capitalist system itself, but to the explanation of that system as contained in the accepted science of economics.
In other words Marx assumed complete identity between our present economic order and the simple machine of the Ricardian economic science. If that identification is valid, then it follows of necessity that if there is any injustice to be found in the present order—and if that order is a machine in which all is determined by inexorable law— then the only possible way of correcting injustice is to destroy the machine.
Thus the revolutionary fury of the Marxian movement is at bottom directed, not against the capitalist system of itself, but against the bourgeois mechanistic mode of thought. The essence of the Marxian position consists entirely in saying that man can never advance to a properly just and harmonious order until the system of life based on Ricardo’s law has been overthrown and the Ricardian system of thought completely eradicated. It is the task of the revolution to do the first and the task of the dictatorship to do the second…”

The above was written over sixty years - wouldn’t you say the western world’s capitalist system has been well and truly dismantled, reassembled in mainly Communist China and is now furiously churning out Chinese communist goods and sending them back to us?  Let’s hope it is only household goods being directed our way!

The Controversy over the Safe Schools Program – Fi...