Trump

[Machiavelli]

Anarchists and revolutionaries may see this as a means to an end: smash the current system and the people will end up taking control, but this kind of historical determinism has proved to be the achilles heel in Marx's analysis. It is not inevitable that capitalist democracy will be replaced by something better. There is every chance that it will be replaced with something much much worse.

You're nearly there. [MENTION=38333]Swansman[/MENTION] self-describes as a paleo-anarchist. One part of that is fine, the other is one of the worst ideas of recent years, and aligns said poster with those around the orange one.

 

[Stato]

It's not remotely absurd to characterise the US (or even the UK) as oligarchical. Oligarchy is the rule of the rich, and we're living at a moment when the divide between the rich and poor has never been starker than at any other time in history.

Although I'd agree with the thrust of your argument, oligarchy is not the rule of the rich, it just means a small group of people holding power. Of course it follows that those holding power are likely to be wealthy, but rule of the rich is plutocracy, which is a type of oligarchy, as are things like technocracy, theocracy and aristocracy which may be accompanied by, but don't, by definition, assume wealth.

 

[Machiavelli]

Although I'd agree with the thrust of your argument, oligarchy is not the rule of the rich, it just means a small group of people holding power. Of course it follows that those holding power are likely to be wealthy, but rule of the rich is plutocracy, which is a type of oligarchy, as are things like technocracy, theocracy and aristocracy which may be accompanied by, but don't, by definition, assume wealth.

I normally agree with your posts. I'm also of the view that words ultimately don't have referents that the positivists claim. But you're just wrong on this. Look at the history of political thought, and there's widespread agreement that oligarchy is the rule of the rich. Plutocracy is just a more recent term designating the same thing.

I could bore you at length on technocracy, theocracy and aristocracy too, but let's save ourselves and everyone else on here from that.

 

[Swansman]

Every country in the World is the same as you describe. Money corrupts Governments everywhere and Governments corrupt Money - It's just the levels of corruption that differ. Your own country has it too but I get the feeling that the levels of corruption in the Scandic Nations is a lot less than anywhere else. I quite admire how those nations look after the less privileged in Society. They aren't perfect but they are close to the best that you are gonna get.

The US is the most hypocritical of the lot but there is a lot of decency in the US too - They are just too f#cked up with their failure to address their Barbaric History - Conversely, Russia pursues their reckless history a little too much.

Of course, its the same thing in most if not every country. The Swedish oligarchy murdered the Swedish prime minister in 1986. The reason Sweden and by all means other Scandinavian nations is that we a long time ago had two opposing oligarch families that had to compete for work force by raising wages and living standards. When one of these families killed the patriarch of the other family, they couldnt just erase what had been built up because that could result in people getting very angry. So instead they've been doing it bit by bit since the day it was obvious they were never going to have any competition when it comes to ruling this country.

 

[Swansman]

The corruptive influence of international capital is not the same thing as an oligarchy. and if you honestly believe that anybody in this infinitely complicated modern world is operating a 'grand plan' that is runnning things then you are massively over simplifying immensely complex networks of motivations, power, influence, relationships and unintended consequences in a hope that it can be simplified enough for one human being to understand it.

This is a very human instinct, but one to be avoided as it provides a worldview that dismisses or has false explanation for anything that it doesn't understand or that its model can't explain. It feels reassuring, but it isn't real. Reality is currently experienced uniquely by 7.8 billion different people and is too complicated for even the cleverest of us to understand even a tiny fraction of, let alone control. Pretending that this is not the case may make people seem clever to themselves, but it makes them seem silly to most others.

Somebody in this complicated world is operating a grand plan, and it is definitely not over-simplifying it. What is very simple however is to believe that the world is what we're told it is. It is also not a "false explanation" for something I dont understand, because I truly believe I do whereas you are the one claiming "it is too complicated to understand or control". My beliefs of the structure of this world is shared with some of the greatest thinkers who ever walked this planet.

Huxley and Orwell did not predict the future as a fully controlled and totalitarian world because they were oversimplifying things or not understanding the world - quite the opposite. They understood what I've understood, they've read what I've read, they've connected the dots like I've connected the dots. And there's plenty more - there's scores of us - although obviously there are more who shares your perspective, otherwise there would be no reason for me (or Huxley/Orwell for that matter) to believe that the future looks the way we believe it will; its not possible without the majority of the world thinking "no one and nothing is behind this - it is all coincidence and chaos".

Does it make me look silly like you're saying? Definitely in the eyes of most people, but it is mutual.

 

[Stato]

I normally agree with your posts. I'm also of the view that words ultimately don't have referents that the positivists claim. But you're just wrong on this. Look at the history of political thought, and there's widespread agreement that oligarchy is the rule of the rich. Plutocracy is just a more recent term designating the same thing.

I could bore you at length on technocracy, theocracy and aristocracy too, but let's save ourselves and everyone else on here from that.

As you say, whether we agree about exact definitions, they amount to the same thing. I shouldn't have been so petty as to disagree with your use of the word, but then you know... this is NSC.

 

[beorhthelm]

Officially there is a seperation of powers in both Russia and the US. In reality, Putin and the Russian oligarchs have nearly full power, while the American oligarchs and their puppets from the two parties have nearly full power in the US.

There is no such thing as "free press" in the US... well, there might be if you go underground, but any source with any type of influence is owned by the oligarchy. "Owned by oligarchs" and "free" are two incompatible concepts.

No American president is a threat to democracy because in reality they have no power and only carry out whatever decision is made above them. If the US oligarchy wants to "threaten the checks and balances", which isnt necessary as they are not affected by it but still possible as abandoning the whole democracy charade would make things smoother, then yes they may use Donald Trump to carry that out, as he is one of theirs, just like Joe Biden and any previous president.

If any president goes berzerk and tries to walk his own path, the oligarchy will get rid of him one way or another. Perhaps kill him, like they did with John F Kennedy, perhaps turn their media assets against him, perhaps make sure behind closed doors that if you dont do as we tell you, we're killing you or making sure the whole world think you are some goat-****ing pervo or we'll drown your daugther. Not personally, obviously, but through the executive branch of the oligarchy - the CIA.

"Democracy", even in the purely fictional, false facade way it exists today, has no future. The reason modern "democracy" was created was not in order to give power to the people, but to gradually remove the power of the aristocracy and hand it to the oligarchy. It is just a phase in a grand plan to create a totalitarian world. It will be removed in due time, and while I agree the replacement will be no better in most senses, we're going to applaud the day it happens.

you're using "oligarchy " as a fashionable term without understanding the difference from other terms. not sure if you mean corporatocracy, deep state, or both. Russia isnt really oligarchy, everything read in past few months tells me the Oligarchs have been a waning influence since the mid 00's and rely on providing favour for Putin to keep their status, rather than having any power. US is quite along way off, though there maybe more corporate influence on policy, the power to make and enact legislation is with the elected representitives at state and federal government level.

 

[Swansman]

you're using "oligarchy " as a fashionable term without understanding the difference from other terms. not sure if you mean corporatocracy, deep state, or both. Russia isnt really oligarchy, everything read in past few months tells me the Oligarchs have been a waning influence since the mid 00's and rely on providing favour for Putin to keep their status, rather than having any power. US is quite along way off, though there maybe more corporate influence on policy, the power to make and enact legislation is with the elected representitives at state and federal government level.

Its not a fashionable term which I - despite it being defined in multiple ways - understand perfectly well.

Whether Russia is an oligarchy or not is difficult to know for certain from the outside as there's probably not heaps of non-biased literature translated to English on th subject, but it is possible to assume it is difficult to rule a country like Russia for 20 years without the approval of oligarchs and without them having a say on how things should be done. The US on the other hand is definitely run by its oligarchs and this has been the case for more than a hundred years.

 

[birthofanorange]

Somebody in this complicated world is operating a grand plan, and it is definitely not over-simplifying it. What is very simple however is to believe that the world is what we're told it is. It is also not a "false explanation" for something I dont understand, because I truly believe I do whereas you are the one claiming "it is too complicated to understand or control". My beliefs of the structure of this world is shared with some of the greatest thinkers who ever walked this planet.

Huxley and Orwell did not predict the future as a fully controlled and totalitarian world because they were oversimplifying things or not understanding the world - quite the opposite. They understood what I've understood, they've read what I've read, they've connected the dots like I've connected the dots. And there's plenty more - there's scores of us - although obviously there are more who shares your perspective, otherwise there would be no reason for me (or Huxley/Orwell for that matter) to believe that the future looks the way we believe it will; its not possible without the majority of the world thinking "no one and nothing is behind this - it is all coincidence and chaos".

Does it make me look silly like you're saying? Definitely in the eyes of most people, but it is mutual.

I have to say, I far preferred your Bruce Willis posts.

 

[Machiavelli]

As you say, whether we agree about exact definitions, they amount to the same thing. I shouldn't have been so petty as to disagree with your use of the word, but then you know... this is NSC.

Go ahead and disagree, debate has its own merit. But I won't allow you to take ownership of pettiness, which is one of the few things I excel at.

On agreement, I really do endorse your earlier post about complexity and the world/humans.

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

Its not a fashionable term which I - despite it being defined in multiple ways - understand perfectly well.

Whether Russia is an oligarchy or not is difficult to know for certain from the outside as there's probably not heaps of non-biased literature translated to English on th subject, but it is possible to assume it is difficult to rule a country like Russia for 20 years without the approval of oligarchs and without them having a say on how things should be done. The US on the other hand is definitely run by its oligarchs and this has been the case for more than a hundred years.

The US is run by a permanent political class. A revolving door of neo-liberal snobs. Families who know one another, send children to the same private schools, colleges and then onto Wall St, State Dept or Intelligence Services. Inside the DC beltway is where decisions are made. Presidents come and go, but the political class control the country. The media are the publicists that abet the narratives from the state. I'm sure this model is similar the world over, but Americans kid themselves on a daily basis, when they make statements about the great democracy.

 

[Badger Boy]

The US is run by a permanent political class. A revolving door of neo-liberal snobs. Families who know one another, send children to the same private schools, colleges and then onto Wall St, State Dept or Intelligence Services. Inside the DC beltway is where decisions are made. Presidents come and go, but the political class control the country. The media are the publicists that abet the narratives from the state. I'm sure this model is similar the world over, but Americans kid themselves on a daily basis, when they make statements about the great democracy.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama came from nowhere, no?

 

[beorhthelm]

Its not a fashionable term which I - despite it being defined in multiple ways - understand perfectly well.

Whether Russia is an oligarchy or not is difficult to know for certain from the outside as there's probably not heaps of non-biased literature translated to English on th subject, but it is possible to assume it is difficult to rule a country like Russia for 20 years without the approval of oligarchs and without them having a say on how things should be done. The US on the other hand is definitely run by its oligarchs and this has been the case for more than a hundred years.

so who are these very long lived oligarchs in US?

oligarch power in Russia waned when Putin decided he didnt like them taking all the benefits of corruption. put one of them on trial to make the rest fall in line. they (or rather their businesses) then start paying lot of taxes, and they start spending more and more time out of Russia.

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama came from nowhere, no?

That's genius. Where did they go to school? Have you ever spent time looking a Barack Obama's life? Where he lived, who he admired, his family ties?

As stated, Presidents come and go. The "outsiders" are the permitted face of power. They are the billboards and then discarded. Play nicely or you'll be disgraced.

 

[Stato]

Somebody in this complicated world is operating a grand plan, and it is definitely not over-simplifying it. What is very simple however is to believe that the world is what we're told it is. It is also not a "false explanation" for something I dont understand, because I truly believe I do whereas you are the one claiming "it is too complicated to understand or control". My beliefs of the structure of this world is shared with some of the greatest thinkers who ever walked this planet.

Huxley and Orwell did not predict the future as a fully controlled and totalitarian world because they were oversimplifying things or not understanding the world - quite the opposite. They understood what I've understood, they've read what I've read, they've connected the dots like I've connected the dots. And there's plenty more - there's scores of us - although obviously there are more who shares your perspective, otherwise there would be no reason for me (or Huxley/Orwell for that matter) to believe that the future looks the way we believe it will; its not possible without the majority of the world thinking "no one and nothing is behind this - it is all coincidence and chaos".

Does it make me look silly like you're saying? Definitely in the eyes of most people, but it is mutual.

I did Brave New World at school and Huxley may have been a great thinker, but he was a very dull writer. Can't remember much of it. I tried 'The Doors of Perception' but it was equally flabby and I unfairly, held it responsible for the dullard Jim Morrison and his awful band.

1984 is much better written and it is the single most depressing work of fiction that I have ever read. However, it is a work of fiction. It has valid warnings of the consequences of acceptance of totalitarianism, but it was written before the current levels of dominance of international capital over the nation state.

We are probably in agreement over the pernicious effect that this dominance has on the lives of people. However, I am saying that those who benefit from it in terms of power and resources simply take individual actions that seek to protect their dominance. Of course some times these actions are collective because they are of mutual benefit to those involved - I can accept Marx's argument that classes act in their own interests. I can't accept that there is an organised cabal of shaodwy figures set on a specific end result. This is obvious garbage that has seeped out of the anti-semetic rantings of the fascist right. There is not a 'them'. We are all of us 'them'. None of us want to sacrifice the bits of the system that are of benefit to us, however much we want to criticise others for not wanting to do it either. It would be convenient if the cabal were a reality because then we could catch the baddies, have the big Hollywood ending and live happily ever after.

The situation is more complex and far bleaker than those imagined by Orwell and Huxley. There is no happy ever after, not because of Fordism, or Big Brother, but because we have too many people with multifarious objectives and motivations, fighting over too few resources. Those who have the largest share can of course use the agency this gives them to do things that further increases their share. They don't get together and agree a grand plan, because the only plan is self interest and different self interests do not always align. It doesn't matter who the powerful currently are, because history has shown that there are an endless number of us who would take their place and continue their actions if presented with the opportunity. Believing that injustice is a conspiracy of elites provides a convenient villain and lets us all off the hook. In truth, over time we have developed economic and political systems in our own image with the human imperative of protecting what is ours. These systems, by their nature, serve those who have and exploit those who don't.

I feel that the conspiracy view that this was and is intentional has a lot in common with the deist view of the world. Its an origin myth that removes personal responsibility and makes believers feel that they are in on a special secret denied to the rest of the herd. In truth everything wasn't designed by a higher power but has evolved throughout human history through the actions of countless individuals. Making any significant change for the better is glacially slow, laborious and hard because those with the power to make the change have the most to lose and the least to gain by doing so. However, belief in complexity is not a vote winner. Telling people that if everyone keeps working at a glacial pace on our massive list of arguments and differences, many things will definitely still go wrong, but things just might be a tiny bit better for our decendants in a couple of millenia, is not a powerful political platform to stand on. Far more comforting for both you and those you are trying to persuade if you can convince yourself and them that you are one of the few clever enough to have all the answers, even if the questions haven't even yet been established.

 

[Badger Boy]

That's genius. Where did they go to school? Have you ever spent time looking a Barack Obama's life? Where he lived, who he admired, his family ties?

As stated, Presidents come and go. The "outsiders" are the permitted face of power. They are the billboards and then discarded. Play nicely or you'll be disgraced.

Intelligent people went to the best available schools.

Where did Trump go to school?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Make America great again, time to ditch the rotting corpse


Regards
DF

 

[Swansman]

I did Brave New World at school and Huxley may have been a great thinker, but he was a very dull writer. Can't remember much of it. I tried 'The Doors of Perception' but it was equally flabby and I unfairly, held it responsible for the dullard Jim Morrison and his awful band.

1984 is much better written and it is the single most depressing work of fiction that I have ever read. However, it is a work of fiction. It has valid warnings of the consequences of acceptance of totalitarianism, but it was written before the current levels of dominance of international capital over the nation state.

We are probably in agreement over the pernicious effect that this dominance has on the lives of people. However, I am saying that those who benefit from it in terms of power and resources simply take individual actions that seek to protect their dominance. Of course some times these actions are collective because they are of mutual benefit to those involved - I can accept Marx's argument that classes act in their own interests. I can't accept that there is an organised cabal of shaodwy figures set on a specific end result. This is obvious garbage that has seeped out of the anti-semetic rantings of the fascist right. There is not a 'them'. We are all of us 'them'. None of us want to sacrifice the bits of the system that are of benefit to us, however much we want to criticise others for not wanting to do it either. It would be convenient if the cabal were a reality because then we could catch the baddies, have the big Hollywood ending and live happily ever after.

The situation is more complex and far bleaker than those imagined by Orwell and Huxley. There is no happy ever after, not because of Fordism, or Big Brother, but because we have too many people with multifarious objectives and motivations, fighting over too few resources. Those who have the largest share can of course use the agency this gives them to do things that further increases their share. They don't get together and agree a grand plan, because the only plan is self interest and different self interests do not always align. It doesn't matter who the powerful currently are, because history has shown that there are an endless number of us who would take their place and continue their actions if presented with the opportunity. Believing that injustice is a conspiracy of elites provides a convenient villain and lets us all off the hook. In truth, over time we have developed economic and political systems in our own image with the human imperative of protecting what is ours. These systems, by their nature, serve those who have and exploit those who don't.

I feel that the conspiracy view that this was and is intentional has a lot in common with the deist view of the world. Its an origin myth that removes personal responsibility and makes believers feel that they are in on a special secret denied to the rest of the herd. In truth everything wasn't designed by a higher power but has evolved throughout human history through the actions of countless individuals. Making any significant change for the better is glacially slow, laborious and hard because those with the power to make the change have the most to lose and the least to gain by doing so. However, belief in complexity is not a vote winner. Telling people that if everyone keeps working at a glacial pace on our massive list of arguments and differences, many things will definitely still go wrong, but things just might be a tiny bit better for our decendants in a couple of millenia, is not a powerful political platform to stand on. Far more comforting for both you and those you are trying to persuade if you can convince yourself and them that you are one of the few clever enough to have all the answers, even if the questions haven't even yet been established.

To reduce 1984 to "a work of fiction" when it is very clear that the man was trying to tell something is an antiintellectuel stance if there ever was one. It was certainly intended as a prediction and/or warning. As he said in his final interview:

"In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. The sex instinct will be eradicated. We shall abolish the orgasm. There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the Party. But always there will be the intoxication of power. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who’s helpless."

Aldous Huxley was also writing "fiction" and yes, I'm sure it was quite dull if you can't read between the lines. His view of the future was perhaps even more accurate as he thought we'd willingly wander into totalitarianism and distract ourselves from the cruelity of a shallow and predictable world through entertainment and drugs. And here we are in the 21st century, with political engagement being on an all-time low and people wasting their lives watching zombies and vampires on Netflix while eating antidepressants as if it was candy.

I strongly disagree that international capital did not dominate the national state at that time. As George Seldes in his (very non-fictional) books such as 1000 Americans: The Real Rulers of the U.S.A or Antony C Sutton in his Wall Street trilogy - Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and FDR, and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler - backed up by hard, difficult to dispute facts, the world was run by big business all along and over and over again we see the same surnames involved in international events, something that is continuing to this day and age.

I know you cant accept that there is a shadowy cabal intending to create and run a totalitarian world. You're not meant to accept it. What they're doing doesnt work if you and the majority accept it as a possibility, because if people believed it we would try to defend ourselves against it, and at some points in history this project was vulnerable and could have been overthrown. We're not going to "catch the baddies" because we dont believe in them. There are ways of brainwashing entire populations to believe in this or that, it is a science, formulas that work because we understand how human behaviour and the human brain works. You mention Hollywood; it is a great example of how to brainwash people. When you watch a movie, ideas are born and buried. The generalist concepts such as "bad and good" gets attached to our brains, while specific scenarios are removed under the pretense "it happens in a movie, quite a lot of movies in fact, so it could never happen in reality".

Fighting and fighting. In your head, they are fighting. There's bits and pieces of this world to be subverted. Powerful people with resources who are not in on the scheme, regions and nations where people are not heading in the "right" direction. They all need to be obliterated one way or another, and the most common way of doing it is to bomb them into fear and have them begging for a change of direction. Tada, the puppets of our conspirators show up and offer the solution, and transform a society in its core while also taking control over it and its leadership.

There is absolutely nothing convenient about the convenient villain that most of us conspiracy theorist are fully aware is and will remain untouched. We dont have your luxuary of thinking "if only Vladimir Putin (or Hussein or whoever it may be at the moment) dies it will all be fine again...". We dont have that comforting luxuary. You are right that it lets us off the hook however, as we know that the idea is that we should all be hopping on to the train wherever it is heading, and we're not eager to do that. Not horny to join the army and kill whoever the "villain" is, not keen to install CCTVs, not applauding any "free trade" partnerships, not eager to pick a horse in the two horse race that is most national elections.

Your last paragraph contains some things I believe is true. I certainly do believe that my years and years of studying the gearwheels makes me understand the secrets of this world that those who spent years watching Master Chef or playing World of Warcraft or going to work for that matter all missed out on.

I do not have all of the answers or all of the questions, but I do have plenty. Ask me a "who, what and way" for any cataclysmic event or major change and I can give you the reasons. The real reasons, not the ones you hear in the loudspeakers. Obviously I'm not going to convince people about this, I have no intention to. I dont let anyone I love near my rabbit hole and in discussions like these... happy to share my view, possibly plant a few doubts or at least show that it isn't like it is presented the media, you dont have to be drinking your own urine while heiling to flat world maps in order to be a conspiracy theorist. Not all of us are bat shit crazy. But do I think I could convince someon? Nah, as little as you can convince me.

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

Ivy League - University of Pennsylvania - Wharton School

 

[birthofanorange]

To reduce 1984 to "a work of fiction" when it is very clear that the man was trying to tell something is an antiintellectuel stance if there ever was one. It was certainly intended as a prediction and/or warning. As he said in his final interview:

"In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. The sex instinct will be eradicated. We shall abolish the orgasm. There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the Party. But always there will be the intoxication of power. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who’s helpless."

Aldous Huxley was also writing "fiction" and yes, I'm sure it was quite dull if you can't read between the lines. His view of the future was perhaps even more accurate as he thought we'd willingly wander into totalitarianism and distract ourselves from the cruelity of a shallow and predictable world through entertainment and drugs. And here we are in the 21st century, with political engagement being on an all-time low and people wasting their lives watching zombies and vampires on Netflix while eating antidepressants as if it was candy.

I strongly disagree that international capital did not dominate the national state at that time. As George Seldes in his (very non-fictional) books such as 1000 Americans: The Real Rulers of the U.S.A or Antony C Sutton in his Wall Street trilogy - Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and FDR, and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler - backed up by hard, difficult to dispute facts, the world was run by big business all along and over and over again we see the same surnames involved in international events, something that is continuing to this day and age.

I know you cant accept that there is a shadowy cabal intending to create and run a totalitarian world. You're not meant to accept it. What they're doing doesnt work if you and the majority accept it as a possibility, because if people believed it we would try to defend ourselves against it, and at some points in history this project was vulnerable and could have been overthrown. We're not going to "catch the baddies" because we dont believe in them. There are ways of brainwashing entire populations to believe in this or that, it is a science, formulas that work because we understand how human behaviour and the human brain works. You mention Hollywood; it is a great example of how to brainwash people. When you watch a movie, ideas are born and buried. The generalist concepts such as "bad and good" gets attached to our brains, while specific scenarios are removed under the pretense "it happens in a movie, quite a lot of movies in fact, so it could never happen in reality".

Fighting and fighting. In your head, they are fighting. There's bits and pieces of this world to be subverted. Powerful people with resources who are not in on the scheme, regions and nations where people are not heading in the "right" direction. They all need to be obliterated one way or another, and the most common way of doing it is to bomb them into fear and have them begging for a change of direction. Tada, the puppets of our conspirators show up and offer the solution, and transform a society in its core while also taking control over it and its leadership.

There is absolutely nothing convenient about the convenient villain that most of us conspiracy theorist are fully aware is and will remain untouched. We dont have your luxuary of thinking "if only Vladimir Putin (or Hussein or whoever it may be at the moment) dies it will all be fine again...". We dont have that comforting luxuary. You are right that it lets us off the hook however, as we know that the idea is that we should all be hopping on to the train wherever it is heading, and we're not eager to do that. Not horny to join the army and kill whoever the "villain" is, not keen to install CCTVs, not applauding any "free trade" partnerships, not eager to pick a horse in the two horse race that is most national elections.

Your last paragraph contains some things I believe is true. I certainly do believe that my years and years of studying the gearwheels makes me understand the secrets of this world that those who spent years watching Master Chef or playing World of Warcraft or going to work for that matter all missed out on.

I do not have all of the answers or all of the questions, but I do have plenty. Ask me a "who, what and way" for any cataclysmic event or major change and I can give you the reasons. The real reasons, not the ones you hear in the loudspeakers. Obviously I'm not going to convince people about this, I have no intention to. I dont let anyone I love near my rabbit hole and in discussions like these... happy to share my view, possibly plant a few doubts or at least show that it isn't like it is presented the media, you dont have to be drinking your own urine while heiling to flat world maps in order to be a conspiracy theorist. Not all of us are bat shit crazy. But do I think I could convince someon? Nah, as little as you can convince me.

Jeez....seems Portslade had a damn lucky escape, after all.