Quote:

---

History tells us what may happen next with Brexit & Trump

My point is that this is a cycle. It happens again and again, but as most people only have a 50–100 year historical perspective they don’t see that it’s happening again. As the events that led to the First World War unfolded, there were a few brilliant minds who started to warn that something big was wrong, that the web of treaties across Europe could lead to a war, but they were dismissed as hysterical, mad, or fools, as is always the way, and as people who worry about Putin, Brexit, and Trump are dismissed now.

Then after the War to end all Wars, we went and had another one. Again, for a historian it was quite predictable. Lead people to feel they have lost control of their country and destiny, people look for scapegoats, a charismatic leader captures the popular mood, and singles out that scapegoat. He talks in rhetoric that has no detail, and drums up anger and hatred. Soon the masses start to move as one, without any logic driving their actions, and the whole becomes unstoppable.

That was Hitler, but it was also Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, Mugabe, and so many more. Mugabe is a very good case in point. He whipped up national anger and hatred towards the land owning white minority (who happened to know how to run farms), and seized their land to redistribute to the people, in a great populist move which in the end unravelled the economy and farming industry and left the people in possession of land, but starving. See also the famines created by the Soviet Union, and the one caused by the Chinese Communists last century in which 20–40 million people died. It seems inconceivable that people could create a situation in which tens of millions of people die without reason, but we do it again and again.

But at the time people don’t realise they’re embarking on a route that will lead to a destruction period. They think they’re right, they’re cheered on by jeering angry mobs, their critics are mocked. This cycle, the one we saw for example from the Treaty of Versaille, to the rise of Hitler, to the Second World War, appears to be happening again. But as with before, most people cannot see it because:

1. They are only looking at the present, not the past or future

2. They are only looking immediately around them, not at how events connect globally

3. Most people don’t read, think, challenge, or hear opposing views

Trump is doing this in America. Those of us with some oversight from history can see it happening. Read this brilliant, long essay in the New York magazine to understand how Plato described all this, and it is happening just as he predicted. Trump says he will Make America Great Again, when in fact America is currently great, according to pretty well any statistics. He is using passion, anger, and rhetoric in the same way all his predecessors did?—?a charismatic narcissist who feeds on the crowd to become ever stronger, creating a cult around himself. You can blame society, politicians, the media, for America getting to the point that it’s ready for Trump, but the bigger historical picture is that history generally plays out the same way each time someone like him becomes the boss.

On a wider stage, zoom out some more, Russia is a dictatorship with a charismatic leader using fear and passion to establish a cult around himself. Turkey is now there too. Hungary, Poland, Slovakia are heading that way, and across Europe more Trumps and Putins are waiting in the wings, in fact funded by Putin, waiting for the popular tide to turn their way.

We should be asking ourselves what our Archduke Ferdinand moment will be. How will an apparently small event trigger another period of massive destruction. We see Brexit, Trump, Putin in isolation. The world does not work that way?—?all things are connected and affecting each other. I have pro-Brexit friends who say ‘oh, you’re going to blame that on Brexit too??’ But they don’t realise that actually, yes, historians will trace neat lines from apparently unrelated events back to major political and social shifts like Brexit.

Brexit?—?a group of angry people winning a fight?—?easily inspires other groups of angry people to start a similar fight, empowered with the idea that they may win. That alone can trigger chain reactions. A nuclear explosion is not caused by one atom splitting, but by the impact of the first atom that splits causing multiple other atoms near it to split, and they in turn causing multiple atoms to split. The exponential increase in atoms splitting, and their combined energy is the bomb. That is how World War One started and, ironically how World War Two ended.

An example of how Brexit could lead to a nuclear war could be this:

Brexit in the UK causes Italy or France to have a similar referendum. Le Pen wins an election in France. Europe now has a fractured EU. The EU, for all its many awful faults, has prevented a war in Europe for longer than ever before. The EU is also a major force in suppressing Putin’s military ambitions. European sanctions on Russia really hit the economy, and helped temper Russia’s attacks on Ukraine (there is a reason bad guys always want a weaker European Union). Trump wins in the US. Trump becomes isolationist, which weakens NATO. He has already said he would not automatically honour NATO commitments in the face of a Russian attack on the Baltics.

With a fractured EU, and weakened NATO, Putin, facing an ongoing economic and social crisis in Russia, needs another foreign distraction around which to rally his people. He funds far right anti-EU activists in Latvia, who then create a reason for an uprising of the Russian Latvians in the East of the country (the EU border with Russia). Russia sends ‘peace keeping forces’ and ‘aid lorries’ into Latvia, as it did in Georgia, and in Ukraine. He annexes Eastern Latvia as he did Eastern Ukraine (Crimea has the same population as Latvia, by the way).

A divided Europe, with the leaders of France, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and others now pro-Russia, anti-EU, and funded by Putin, overrule calls for sanctions or a military response. NATO is slow to respond: Trump does not want America to be involved, and a large part of Europe is indifferent or blocking any action. Russia, seeing no real resistance to their actions, move further into Latvia, and then into Eastern Estonia and Lithuania. The Baltic States declare war on Russia and start to retaliate, as they have now been invaded so have no choice. Half of Europe sides with them, a few countries remain neutral, and a few side with Russia. Where does Turkey stand on this? How does ISIS respond to a new war in Europe? Who uses a nuclear weapon first?

---

Quote:

---

Because going to war with Russia gains us.... nothing? Maybe the most preposterous thing you've posted, and you've posted some doozies.

---

Quote:

---

This planet needs to become one

---

Quote:

---

WHY does "This planet need[s] to become one"?
Should everyone speak one language, or will there be many?
Should everyone use the same currency, or will there be many? Will everyone use the same bank, or will there be many, or none?
Should everyone believe in the same ethics and morals, or will there be different views of society and people?
Should everyone believe in the same religion, or will there be multiple religions, or none?
Will everyone have gun rights, like in the USA, or will guns be universally taken away?
Will there be national boundaries, or none? Should everyone belong to the same world government, will it be a direct democracy, a representative democracy, a technocracy, or some other form? Or do you foresee a federation of governments, kind of like the UN but better?
If there is a universal legal code, who enforces it? Will there be a world-wide army, kind of like a "universal police force" acting on rogue nations-states, or do you envision this "police force" acting on individuals, or no "universal police force" at all?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno, this is about as lame as THUGR thumping for globalization ...

Quote:

---

This planet needs to become one

---

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60658

But he couldn't answer

Quote:

---

WHY does "This planet need[s] to become one"?
Should everyone speak one language, or will there be many?
Should everyone use the same currency, or will there be many? Will everyone use the same bank, or will there be many, or none?
Should everyone believe in the same ethics and morals, or will there be different views of society and people?
Should everyone believe in the same religion, or will there be multiple religions, or none?
Will everyone have gun rights, like in the USA, or will guns be universally taken away?
Will there be national boundaries, or none? Should everyone belong to the same world government, will it be a direct democracy, a representative democracy, a technocracy, or some other form? Or do you foresee a federation of governments, kind of like the UN but better?
If there is a universal legal code, who enforces it? Will there be a world-wide army, kind of like a "universal police force" acting on rogue nations-states, or do you envision this "police force" acting on individuals, or no "universal police force" at all?

---

Seems like you can't figure out who "we" are, and what we might gain from waging war on Russia.


--------------

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Curiously, I'm reading an extremely well-researched book which takes place before, during and after WWI, Lawrence in Arabia. What I'm getting out of it, so far, is that it was the web of ALLIANCES which pulled nation after nation into war, and that the colonial Empires and their carving up of the world into spheres of influence set the stage.

So, NATO would be the most direct comparison to the alliances of that day, and that empire of today is the USA, trying to pull everyone into war with Russia.

---

Quote:

---

Curiously, I'm reading an extremely well-researched book which takes place before, during and after WWI, Lawrence in Arabia. What I'm getting out of it, so far, is that it was the web of ALLIANCES which pulled nation after nation into war, and that the colonial Empires and their carving up of the world into spheres of influence set the stage.

So, NATO would be the most direct comparison to the alliances of that day, and that empire of today is the USA, trying to pull everyone into war with Russia. - SIGNY

I always think it's useful to see who would benefit the most from any conflict and assume they are pulling some strings somewhere to fuel it. This author seems to point to Russia having the most to gain from disunity in Europe.

I see the US moving increasingly into a state of isolation from the rest of the world, both from its own intent and from the POV of allies. I know that for the first time in my memory, our government is trying to put some distance between us, and the idea of following US into future armed conflicts is less likely, thank god.- MAGONS

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't think the US is currently that cohesive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Originally posted by G:
"Libya is widely considered to be "Hillary's war" - by you and your husband and you (sic) band of friends maybe.

And the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.ht
ml


My god, GSTOOGE. Don't you ever get tired of being a laughingstock?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Can you read? Then read the article.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Curiously, I'm reading an extremely well-researched book which takes place before, during and after WWI, Lawrence in Arabia. What I'm getting out of it, so far, is that it was the web of ALLIANCES which pulled nation after nation into war, and that the colonial Empires and their carving up of the world into spheres of influence set the stage.

So, NATO would be the most direct comparison to the alliances of that day, and that empire of today is the USA, trying to pull everyone into war with Russia.

---