REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Brexit and Donald Trump: Lessons from History

POSTED BY: MAGONSDAUGHTER
UPDATED: Monday, May 27, 2019 09:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3488
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, July 25, 2016 7:25 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER




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?



The full essay is worth a look
https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history-tells-us-what-will-happen-next-with-brexit-trump-a3fefd154714#.r1p4glslu

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2016 8:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


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.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2016 9:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Quote:

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


Who is "us"?

And what could "we" possibly get out of starting a war with Russia?

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2016 10:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


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.


--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2016 11:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


So why are the neocons trying so hard to start a war with Russia?

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2016 11:55 PM

THGRRI


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.


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



I don't respect you so I won't put effort into debating issues with you. You are someone who spreads doom and gloom about the free nations of the world while defending the deranged. Yano, like those who target and bomb hospitals.

I know who we are and I am not surprised at all that you don't have a clue comrade.
____________________________________________


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 12:02 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


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.




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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 12:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2



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



Actually, I think the USA has more to benefit from disunity in Europe, or better yet, pitting the EU against Russia. The USA seems to have a habit of throwing its allies and partners under the bus. American neocons would seem to rather have Russia and the EU take each other out so they can emerge triumphant once again.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 12:20 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I don't think the US is currently that cohesive.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 2:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Quote:

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



But the neocons are.

There is disunity between the Obama WH and State Department/CIA and between parts of the Pentagon and State/ CIA.

But the State Department is driving the crazy-bus right now. Libya is widely considered to be "Hillary's war" (Hillary was our head of State Department, I guess Foreign Minister is the closest title). And Syria seems to be State Department's war as well: The State Department is just as full of neocons itching for war in Syria http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/syria-assad-obama-a
irstrikes-diplomats-memo.html
as the Pentagon intelligence is wanting to avoid war http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-sa
y-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html
Ambassador Stevens, also a Hillary appointee, was killed while the CIA/ State Department were running guns from the (destroyed) nation of Libya to their next target, Syria. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-
line


In addition, recall Victoria "fuck the EU" Nuland? She worked for Hillary's State Department when she precipitated that disaster that is Ukraine. Nuland is married to Kagan an (in)famous necon who is also itching for war. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/robert-kagan-thinks-amer
icas-problem-too-little-war


And that attitude of "fuck the EU" doesn't extend JUST to Ukraine, it extends to all Europeans on every conceivable issue, from war with Russia to Syrian refugees.

The USA government doesn't consist of a group of faceless bureaucrats performing technical tasks, overseen by a bunch of well-meaning politicians who are there to do their voter's bidding. It's not all bland and somewhat ineffectual uniformity. There are strong interest groups backed by literally billions of dollars within the government. They don't always see eye to eye, but generally the group with the most money wins.


--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 10:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Even critics understate how catastrophically bad the Hillary Clinton-led NATO bombing of Libya was
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/even_critics_understate_how_catastroph
ically_bad_the_hillary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was
/


Hillary’s war: How conviction replaced skepticism in Libya intervention
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillarys-war-ho
w-conviction-replaced-skepticism-in-libya-intervention/2011/10/28/gIQAhGS7WM_story.html


Libya Was Hillary's War. Here's The Proof.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/3398/libya-was-hillarys-war-heres-proof-
joshua-yasmeh


Rand Paul: ‘Hillary’s war’ in Libya contributed to rise of Islamic State
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/11/rand-paul-cites-hillar
ys-war-rise-islamic-state
/

Libya is “Hillary’s War” – Released emails Show Depth of Hillary Clinton Ownership…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/13/libya-is-hillarys-war-
released-emails-show-depth-of-hillary-clinton-ownership
/

And of course, Hillary celebrating her success in Libya





Yep, Libya is widely known as Hillary's war. Why? Because Hillary was the one who pushed for it nonstop. Even OBAMA regrets Libya!

So, GSTRING, you were wrong on this and, of course, on your other points. I'm too busy right now to hand you your ass on a platter, but You REALLY might want to take your head out of it once in a while. Yanno, just do a QUICK search on a topic before your spew nonsense.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2016 7:28 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



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?




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2016 9:40 PM

THGRRI


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?



Ok 1kiki just to explain it so even you may understand. The Secretary of State cannot send troops or order jets to bomb a country. That is up to congress and the President. She may have advised we go but she still does not have the authority to make that call.

Do you understand?

____________________________________________


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2016 10:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Can you read? Then read the article.




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 31, 2016 3:22 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


The question was - why was US involvement in Libya attributed to Hillary instead of Barack. Did you not understand the question?




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 31, 2016 3:44 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

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




I am responding to what you suggest. Which is that Hillary is the one responsible for our assisting our allies in Libya. She is not. As I said, she may have suggested we do it but she cannot make the call to go.

Further, I see you neglect to inform in your bashing Hillary that France played the lead role here not the United States. We owed it to them after 911 to support them here. But you are not bright enough to understand any of this I'm sure.

And as G asks, are you referencing the same NY Times that said Russia invaded Ukraine? Comrade :)





____________________________________________


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 31, 2016 4:30 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"I am responding to what you suggest."

I suggest you read the article, which documents the what, where, who, how, when, and why of Hillary's responsibility for US action in Libya.




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 25, 2016 8:03 PM

QUANDOM


Amazing, impressive that Firefly is still a preferred point of departure for discussion of foundational political issues. It speaks well to Whedon's creative vision. I think it is useful to start even further back, though. After the successful war against Persia, the Greeks wanted to make sure they always had a fleet large enough to oppose them. The richest and most mercantile state, Arhens, proposed funding a common treasury, on one their islands called Delos, to store the money that all participating city-states would contribute. At the time, nothing seemed to make more sense. Even defeated, Persia was a danger. And so, under Athenian leadership, the Delia League was formed. But gradually, Athens converted what had been a voluntary association for mutual benefit to an empire. This triggered a response known as the Pennsylvanian War, which in the course of thirty years devastated Greece and killed nenarly one third of its population.

The Alliance might have started out the same way. Space is big and dangerous. Just because no hostile life had yet been encountered in teh 'Verse did not mean it was there. So, rather than being at war with each other, the wealthier planets united. Having united intially for common advantage, Alliance determined that the best interests of the 'Verse required all of it be invigilated - including those not interested. The resulting war was devastating.

The EU began as an extension of the COmmon Market, which had worked rather well. With the end of the Cold War, there seemed to be a benefit to centralizing economic, social, and military policy. To those who first supported it, the EU looked like the Common Market only more so. But it went wrong. The EU began to conceive of itself not a a co-ordinating function between sovereign states, but a hyperpower to rule them all. Its beauracy, unelected and unaccountable to member nations, came to regard itself as a suprapower, superior to its members. Worse, it seemed willing, even desirouos, of extending its reach by admitting new members who were now part of the traditional West, notably the Islamic state of Turkey.

The final straw has been the invasion of Muslaim Arabs, a people openly hostile to the essential principles of Western European civilization - rule or law, secularism, civil liberties, free though and free speech. Brexit is the first step back to Independence. The Dutch nero Geert Wilders will lead his country into the next secession from the EU. Perhaps the EU can be turned back to its original charter of improving co-operation between independent states. But till that time, the sovereing peoples of Europe should and will reclaim their independence from what is essentially an Alliance of France and Germany's new Carolingian empire. Trummp undestands and supports this independence. For that reason alone, we must wish him well.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2016 12:21 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


And the US should take a lesson from it and apply it to their 'free trade' agreements, which act as supra-national laws and abrogate the national laws of each country.




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2016 12:11 PM

THGRRI


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.




NATO went from 12 countries to

First of all what book, secondly wow. You are trying to rewrite history. NATO is the result of Nazis trying to establish for themselves world domination. And as a way of heading off future world wars in Europe. Your problem comrade is that Russia was not invited to join. Why, because they kept a strangle hold on the countries they supposedly liberated from the Germans.

Lets talk about a want to be empire ( Russia ), carving up countries and annexing it neighbors into it's sphere of authoritarian influence. The purpose being to preserve itself and establish a communist zone centralized in Russia. With countries that now by the way, are falling all over themselves trying to leave that communist authoritarian zone and join NATO.

NATO has expanded from 12 countries to 29 and counting.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is established by 12 Western nations: the United States, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Iceland, Canada, and Portugal.

The Nato countries today are: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 27, 2019 9:16 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


Nationalist LePen is up, Greens strong and a new Brexit party!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Mon, July 4, 2022 18:02 - 10874 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, July 4, 2022 17:38 - 1007 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, July 4, 2022 16:26 - 357 posts
Observing The 10th Interdependence Day
Mon, July 4, 2022 15:40 - 2 posts
Autism, Possible Cause or Correlation
Mon, July 4, 2022 15:34 - 5 posts
The American Prospect: Will America Be a Democracy Next July 4th?
Mon, July 4, 2022 15:02 - 3 posts
Chicago is Bankrupting! Chicago-metropolitan area Illinois $679 billion Economy is now Bankrupt!!
Mon, July 4, 2022 14:34 - 9 posts
For the record.
Mon, July 4, 2022 13:37 - 182 posts
The Wrong Direction...
Mon, July 4, 2022 10:58 - 1 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Mon, July 4, 2022 10:35 - 6307 posts
What Is The Government's Sales Pitch For The Vax, Post-Trump?
Mon, July 4, 2022 10:19 - 24 posts
January 6th Commission investigating coup attempt
Mon, July 4, 2022 10:16 - 666 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL