Anarchism is a synonym for Democracy. You can tell a lot about a person from how they react to that statement.
Personally, I quite like meetings. I didn't use to, and then I lived/studied/worked in a nearly fully-democratic system (In a Skandi country), and you get used to the daily meetings and discussions. Eventually, you realise how much is lost because the anglo world doesn't care to distribute power.
"Neville Chamberlain, for example, was incapable of believing that he couldn’t swing the dictators around to see his point of view. Tim Bouverie’s very readable book, Appeasing Hitler [1], makes this absolutely clear."
I'm sure the book makes a good case. Personally, I long ago noted that the British Establishment had a vested interest in Germany doing an "Unprovoked, full scale" invasion of the USSR, and that the actual outcome of the "appeasement" was that the excellent Czech defences were handing to Germany without a fight over them, opening the doorway for German "expansion" to the East.
That there is considerable evidence that Mr Hitler visited the UK for several months, and was directly linked to the Tavistock group (Early 'Intel'/MKultra etc), adds icing to the cake.
In short, the UK Establishment were helping the Nazis, had no problem with the Nazi program (The Nazis did nothing the British hadn't done before, often on a larger scale), and all that "appeasement" BS is to muddy the waters.
You can say this about the Yanks - at least they publish their machinations. You won't find any politician opening their mouth and admitting the expansion of NATO into Ukraine was intended to cause Russia to invade - but RAND nicely laid it all out beforehand for those who are a tiny bit cynical and questioning.
The UK is renowned as the most secretive state on Earth, makes DPRK look like an open society.
If the Nazis had defeated the Soviets, all well and good. What caused the panic and invasion of Normandy was that the Soviets had started to win.
It's a dirty fucking world up in that stratosphere of 'decision-makers', and someone like Corbyn would pop those bubbles of psychopathy like soap bubbles in a hail storm.
Lets hope he gets another chance, and this time not being undermined by "his" party's bureaucracy. Now it's Your Party, and already doing quite nicely.
Thanks for this writing. I reviewed my YouTube video 'Gesamtkunstwerk, total impact, and Elon Musk' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IOV09bsiC8) and found that I slowly got to the point with regard to Elon Musk's boredom at about 5:32. I think, despite my sluggish descriptives, my video's overall concept is very relevant to your article because it contextualises culture, their genesis, and the inherent motivations of powerful people.
Your article admits to a certain struggle with surveying politicians (or, more generally, the powerful) and I think the idea of schematic, aka "model-based", understanding is essential. It is through this ENTIRE lens that we can qualify what humans actually are and what their prime motivations are. I'm really betting on the following: averting boredom; sex; material possession; security; and status. (Status + sex = virility.)
What most powerful adults (mostly men) do NOT really pursue, but is much more prevalent among young persons, is EXPERIENCES. This is no small point. What I got from the Peter Principle is that the hierarchy of power is actually really dull to people who are much more focused on enjoying life and achieving in ways that fit them, and the most powerful arent recreational and thereby serve only to render their roles rather ineffective.
Anyway, the keyword BLUEPRINT is the magic word with humans because whilst there are many adults who are ineffective and, let's admit it, disappointed with their own lives (including Elon Musk), there are also some strains of people, especially youngsters, who live for creating and recreating rich cultural experiences and depth. I opine that if we are cynical about the typical and seemingly inevitable disappointments of the performance of powerful humans, perhaps we arent looking deeply enough at what could serve all humans well, and use all the energy that each of us have, channelling them into experiential and wholistic ways. I adamantly believe that wholesome cultural experience CAN harmonise human society where so many other things have failed.
The thing about the human societal model and pre-existing blueprints is that we CAN tweak and readjust the model with respect to our blueprints of people who would serve society well.
Anarchism is a synonym for Democracy. You can tell a lot about a person from how they react to that statement.
Personally, I quite like meetings. I didn't use to, and then I lived/studied/worked in a nearly fully-democratic system (In a Skandi country), and you get used to the daily meetings and discussions. Eventually, you realise how much is lost because the anglo world doesn't care to distribute power.
"Neville Chamberlain, for example, was incapable of believing that he couldn’t swing the dictators around to see his point of view. Tim Bouverie’s very readable book, Appeasing Hitler [1], makes this absolutely clear."
I'm sure the book makes a good case. Personally, I long ago noted that the British Establishment had a vested interest in Germany doing an "Unprovoked, full scale" invasion of the USSR, and that the actual outcome of the "appeasement" was that the excellent Czech defences were handing to Germany without a fight over them, opening the doorway for German "expansion" to the East.
That there is considerable evidence that Mr Hitler visited the UK for several months, and was directly linked to the Tavistock group (Early 'Intel'/MKultra etc), adds icing to the cake.
In short, the UK Establishment were helping the Nazis, had no problem with the Nazi program (The Nazis did nothing the British hadn't done before, often on a larger scale), and all that "appeasement" BS is to muddy the waters.
You can say this about the Yanks - at least they publish their machinations. You won't find any politician opening their mouth and admitting the expansion of NATO into Ukraine was intended to cause Russia to invade - but RAND nicely laid it all out beforehand for those who are a tiny bit cynical and questioning.
The UK is renowned as the most secretive state on Earth, makes DPRK look like an open society.
If the Nazis had defeated the Soviets, all well and good. What caused the panic and invasion of Normandy was that the Soviets had started to win.
It's a dirty fucking world up in that stratosphere of 'decision-makers', and someone like Corbyn would pop those bubbles of psychopathy like soap bubbles in a hail storm.
Lets hope he gets another chance, and this time not being undermined by "his" party's bureaucracy. Now it's Your Party, and already doing quite nicely.
more on that in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_to_the_World
Sounds like a companion piece to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6JhF-Ztzrw
[The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire | Crown and Corruption | The Offshore Dominance]
Thanks for this writing. I reviewed my YouTube video 'Gesamtkunstwerk, total impact, and Elon Musk' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IOV09bsiC8) and found that I slowly got to the point with regard to Elon Musk's boredom at about 5:32. I think, despite my sluggish descriptives, my video's overall concept is very relevant to your article because it contextualises culture, their genesis, and the inherent motivations of powerful people.
Your article admits to a certain struggle with surveying politicians (or, more generally, the powerful) and I think the idea of schematic, aka "model-based", understanding is essential. It is through this ENTIRE lens that we can qualify what humans actually are and what their prime motivations are. I'm really betting on the following: averting boredom; sex; material possession; security; and status. (Status + sex = virility.)
What most powerful adults (mostly men) do NOT really pursue, but is much more prevalent among young persons, is EXPERIENCES. This is no small point. What I got from the Peter Principle is that the hierarchy of power is actually really dull to people who are much more focused on enjoying life and achieving in ways that fit them, and the most powerful arent recreational and thereby serve only to render their roles rather ineffective.
Anyway, the keyword BLUEPRINT is the magic word with humans because whilst there are many adults who are ineffective and, let's admit it, disappointed with their own lives (including Elon Musk), there are also some strains of people, especially youngsters, who live for creating and recreating rich cultural experiences and depth. I opine that if we are cynical about the typical and seemingly inevitable disappointments of the performance of powerful humans, perhaps we arent looking deeply enough at what could serve all humans well, and use all the energy that each of us have, channelling them into experiential and wholistic ways. I adamantly believe that wholesome cultural experience CAN harmonise human society where so many other things have failed.
The thing about the human societal model and pre-existing blueprints is that we CAN tweak and readjust the model with respect to our blueprints of people who would serve society well.
Sigh.