I simply presented his words in a more elementary fashion that was easier to read and decipher so that more people could catch on to what Dugin is saying.
I want for people to use their intelligence and goodwill to solve our environmental and economic problems and I don't want Dugin's fascist movement to accomplish it's goal of reducing the human population of liberal globalist so that the conservative can rule without having to cooperate.
And finally I hope to expose the Trump-Putin-Dugin-Alt Right connections and what they are up to before he is officially confirmed into office with the Electoral College on December 18th.
The heat from this discussion seems to be emanating from the friction between two expectation biases. A multipolar world is IMHO a much more likely outcome if we are indeed at the edge of Senaca’s cliff. The migration, the cultural offense vs resistance and the leaders each of the factions choose are all symptoms of the underlying problem with peak energy, technology and wealth disparities.
From a BBC article on the rising dollar, I picked out this gem:
"European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi has said the eurozone's still shaky recovery remains heavily reliant on the bank's ultra-loose monetary policy.
"We cannot be sanguine over the economic outlook," he said in a speech at a banking conference in Frankfurt today.
Among the factors still threatening the eurozone's growth prospects are geopolitical risks, low inflation and an over-dependence on the ECB's easy money policies, he said.
Nonetheless, the bank is "committed to preserving the very substantial degree of monetary accommodation" currently in play - a sign perhaps that it will extend its €80bn a-month bond-buying programme when the governing council next meets on 8 December.
So, let me get this straight...an obstacle to European economic growth is reliance on central bank easy-money policies, so the solution to bringing growth is to continue the central bank's easy-money policy?
I must be reading that wrong or missing a detail, because to me that makes little sense to me.
…and then what? HRC? Disregard the lawsuits and technicalities, it's just not doable. Unless Civil War V2.0 is your idea of a rollicking good 2017.
I don't give much of a damn who your centralized rulers are (libs, conservos, communists, fascists, technocratic moderates), I want out from underneath them all. I pretty much hang my hat on the desire for decentralization. Happily, in a lower-energy world, that will be the outcome. We can choose it, or (more likely) it will be forced upon us, because as a species we tend to plan poorly for these sorts of long-term arrangements/outcomes.
So the magic trick is, IMO, to survive the transition and to shepherd as many of my family and chosen tribe (in Hawaii they have the word "ohana") through same. Hopefully we get to something resembling the other side of the change with some resources and knowledge and social cohesion.
All this shrieking about "He's bad" and "She's worse!" is exhausting, and IMO irrelevant. Like the people bellowing about the electoral college is obsolete and we should retire it and then we'll get fair elections for sure! Never mind Citizens United means money actually guides the outcome, such as it is. "Reforming" the electoral college is like buying new tires for a car with a ruined transmission.
The billionaires are laughing (and probably planted the whole electoral college debate in social media in the first place).
Get as far out from underneath as you can, y'all. And I'm (mostly) not talking geography.
First a quote from Piero San Giorgio’s book, ‘Survive the Economic Collapse’: “few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.” Einstein, Albert (1953)
SagerXX is seeing all this politics discussion from the ‘essential PP narrative’. Chris often interviews those speaking from a different narrative. We cannot expect them to be persuaded about the core of The Crash Course, but we usually do a good job of sorting out the differences. I, and I expect many on this site, can and do jump narratives so to speak in our dealings with others.
Our challenge is to also discern these jumps of narrative when posting our thoughts and responses. We wouldn’t be on this site if there wasn’t a common interest in Chris’ and Adam’s perspectives, but we still have an interesting variety of rifs on the theme. For me, this election and our discussion of it has been a wake up call to get both feet in the same boat or I will end up in the water.
WWIII may be delayed, but there are plenty of other things to focus on to get my house in order.
The UK already has a great deal of leeway and power in regards to domestic surveillance by their intelligence and police services. Look up the UK's existing RIPA act (which I believe this new bill is replacing or updating), and look at the "Reasons for Use" column in the "Directed Surveillance" row,
In the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder, in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, in the interests of public safety, for the purpose of protecting public health and for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department.
and also the "Intrusive Surveillance" row,
In the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime and in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
Look how general and widespread those provisions and powers are... it is simply stunning (I wonder how would we Americans feel if the IRS could initiate FBI surveillance on the basis of incorrectly filed or delinquent taxes?). If there's even a hint of reasonable suspicion about someone, I'd say there's nothing stopping the relevant agencies in the UK from legally spying on said person. IMO, the only reason to push this bill through is pave the way towards legally implementing massive-scale data collection on the populace at large. Or to make legal any such collection they are hypothetically already be doing. Your friend with the security services and their cohorts may have good intentions for wanting this, but this is like asking for a flamethrower to use for lighting candles. And eventually the wrong people will inherit that flamethrower (assuming that the "wrong people" are not already in power...).