Vortex
Member
Trump being self-incriminatingly honest about his not-so-peaceful foregn policies:
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/10/25/we-want-to-keep-the-oil/
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/10/25/we-want-to-keep-the-oil/
I just found out even Tulsi Gabbard was or is a member of the CFR. It's all just a show you see, we only have the illusion of freedom and democracy.
Michael, I would be curious. How did you view this event working in reality? (I am not a Trump fan - so not defending him... just a stand alone point here)And no, T didn't stop a planned attacked because he became aware the Iranian casualty count would be too high. That's not how these things work and, in any case, the fact he claimed he did this almost assures that he did not.
What practical alternative do you offer?As an anarchist, I do not believe in "electoral representative democracy"
As an anarchist, I do not believe in "electoral representative democracy" (read: more-or-less covert oligarchy). Yet I support Tulsi Gabbard, despite knowing about her Council of Foreign Relations membership... in a sense.
For me, it is her campaign, rather than her victory, that is important. Victory is something she will never taste - she won't be allowed to, by the power elite and the institutional system that it rules. Even if some unprecedented miracle would happen and she would somehow win the race, it wouldn't change much - a single dedicated and principled person cannot make the whole entrenched system work against itself, even if this person is a POTUS. The totality of the elites and the institutions will be against her, and she will be torn apart and eaten alive by them. The system simply cannot be reformed from within; it can only be overthrown from without. (And, with the possibility of the full-blown civil war being ever close to actualisation, dragged out of the Abyss of Yet-Unrealised Potentials and into the Currently Manifested World by the concordance of wills of all people willing the large-scale discordance, such overthrow is becoming quite feasible.)
Yet her campaign, openly and brazenly directed against the establishment and exposing it, can and does add yet more fuel to fire of protest against it, and increase the possibility of turning this yet-relatively-passive protest into an active resistance.
As for Tulsi herself - well, I do not think she consciously desire the overthrow of the whole power-elite-ruled institutional system. Yet neither I think about her as the institutional system's puppet and power elite's co-conspirator. I think of her as the conscientious, yet also a bit naive, renegade from her own (ruling) class, one who is disgusted by her own social environment yet also clings to belief that it can be positiely reformed without a full-blown revolution.
However, even if I misplaced my hopes about her goodness and sincerity and she is a puppet and / or participant in some dirty game, the positive effect of her campaign is real nevertheless. It is yet another nail in the institutional system's and power elite's coffin.
I’m guessing anarchy?What practical alternative do you offer?
It was a serious question. (And perhaps your response was serious and just over my head. I won't profess to understand a serious social system based on anarchy; I could just be ignorant here.)I’m guessing anarchy?
I am not aware of any consensus view from academia nor the financial sectors on what you suggest. There appears to be a lot of evidence supporting the notion of smaller economies "piggybacking" on the currencies of major trading partners; that such a structure is more beneficial than printing their own money.To change the corrupt system you have to cut the head of the snake, all countries need to be able to print their own currencies and do away with the concept of private central banks.
I also don't see how the change you suggest would create a systemic system free of "criminals at the highest levels". If history teaches us anything, bad actors in positions of power seems commonplace.These are the criminals at the highest levels above that of politicians, they are not of any particular country but operate internationally.
What is the 'modern democratic republic' in your view? it sounds like an amalgamation of current (falsely-oppositioned) Democrats vs Republicans. And anyone not naive enough to believe that system corrupt might well advocate a real alternative such as Anarchism to disrupt the deeply-entrenched and apparently immoveable political position we seem to be in; and which is not a democracy, as in 'government by the people'. So 'cutting off the head of the snake' may well be necessary first.I doubt there is any such system of government/community that insulates itself from such abusers. That's why, while far from perfect, I see the modern democratic republic as the best system yet. Feels like its something to be improved upon versus cast onto the trash heap of prior failed systems. Deep state and all.
I don't consider Trump to be a racist, but some of the rhetoric from the other side has to be considered racist. For example, what is it but racist to sneer at "White middle class men". It is also sexist, and ageist as well. It is extraordinary how readily the Left have taken to using explicitly racist language. Sneers of this type are routinely used - amazing.But David, it is the same prejudice under different names - Apartheid, Hitler's Nazism, the National Front, Trump's racial condemnations, not to mention various acts of racial 'cleansing' and tribal annihilation around the world. Wherever it raises it's ugly head, it is based on the same hateful policy. 'Anti-racial-differences' in skin-colour, beliefs, practices, even down to ridiculing people's different clothes and facial structure. Our culture is riddled with it, but as individuals we are only 'potentials', we do not need to go down this path. Trump is a leader, a very powerful one, so he should not be speaking in this way, he is responsible for leading others. He should be at the least neutral.
Well I think that the Neocons don't have anything to blackmail him with, but he has had to duck and weave a bit. A good example is those two attacks of Syria that didn't actually kill anyone (or virtually nobody - I am not quite sure).Any president's position is risky if they don't adhere to and implement the Dark State's intent. See: the assassination of JFK. What president has lasted long if they don't do as they are told? Open your eyes, Trump is the current 'front'.
I would agree that they have been in recent years, but I am sure Trump's aim is to change that. The place would be more dangerous if Iran actually got a nuclear bomb, and I think Trump wants to do everything possible to stop them peacefully. We should all hope he succeeds.Yes, a threat. And yet the US military has the gall to call themselves 'Peace-keepers'. They are actually war-inciters, and the biggest 'packers' on the planet.
It is also a clear sign of challenge. It is what brings on retaliation, in the form of small but crushing acts of hate in response to America's big ones.
But we must remember who the biggest bully is, it is America, it is America, it is America.
Yes, they are all at it and I am sick of it. It is distracting and deliberate false-contention. So I am reluctant to go down the tit for tat road.Sneers of this type are routinely used
Threats of blackmail is another effective political tool, invented in America in the early 20th century I have heard, when (Wayne) 'Wheelerism' used slur tactics to promote his bill (the Volstead Act) prohibiting alcohol, with all the disasters of that outcome. But he thereby set a precedent for 'dirty tactics' that seems still to be favoured today.Well I think that the Neocons don't have anything to blackmail him with, but he has had to duck and weave a bit. A good example is those two attacks of Syria that didn't actually kill anyone (or virtually nobody - I am not quite sure).
Yes, it is a nuisance when 'the other side' get similarly dangerous weapons and we hope to goodness..but really, that's all we can apparently do.The place would be more dangerous if Iran actually got a nuclear bomb, and I think Trump wants to do everything possible to stop them peacefully. We should all hope he succeeds.
There are other ways to avoid bloodshed than driving in with a military force and that was the original intention behind the United Nations(?) but that too appears to be open for political manipulation by the superpowers, i.e. biggest (phallic) gun-toters (maybe that's what's behind it? more obsessive patriarchal overemphasis on penile-worship) - yes, there's always an exception, that's the problem, it's never-ending...until (we hope) it isn't.Well you may call it what you like, but the aim is to try to avoid bloodshed. I think it is Trump's reluctance to use force - except against ISIS - that infuriates the NeoCons most.
Well if by 'all' you mean both sides in politics, I disagree - almost all the racist slurs come from the Left.Yes, they are all at it and I am sick of it. It is distracting and deliberate false-contention. So I am reluctant to go down the tit for tat road.
I am quite sure you don't, and obviously neither to I, but that is why you should be voting for Trump in a years time.ps I don't like or subscribe to the NeoCons.
I can't and I wouldn't. So we will have to disagree, but I do think you show a remarkable lack of healthy skepticism in this matter Davidthat is why you should be voting for Trump in a years time.
How do we go about establishing what it is you believe to be a superior system? How does this new system insulate itself against corruption?Meanwhile political 'alternatives' are touted in a belief that there is 'something better'. But it is always offered as another overall option, not the true de-centralised disestablishmentarianism that will free us to create a political society based on the needs of, first the Earth, and then all people.
Good questions, although i asked you first..How do we go about establishing what it is you believe to be a superior system? How does this new system insulate itself against corruption?