16 Jun 2016 16:55:15 I'm not one for this but with the remain losing, an mp gets shot in the streets by a guy purportedly shouting Britain first. Does that qualify as a false flag or just another lunatic?
13 Jun 2016 11:48:24 There's a rumour the guy claimed allegiance. IS soon as they heard that have claimed it. But the guy was probably no more a fully paid up member as me or franky. Likely a sympathiser acting on his own. IS are losing ground in Iraq and Syria and need a propaganda boost. By claiming this, the biggest mass shooting in America they get publicity and maybe a few more idiots for cannon fodder.
08 Jun 2016 16:54:55 Well don't start a war, commit various brutalities although and lose. A psychopath like Stalin and his henchmen were going to meet atrocity with atrocity. If the Nazis had won what do you think they'd have done with the Russians.
07 Jun 2016 17:05:36 Dont worry about it I have done that before.
I think a lot of the problem is religion. For example most of the opposition to abortion, same sex marriage etc is the conservative religious right.
Close to where I live is a large Asian community. Who all seem to get on with non Asians but can't get on with each other. The Sikhs and the Hindus don't like the Muslims. The Muslims don't like the Hindus. Its a right palaver remembering which shop keeper is what religion. Although if you like spicy food try and memorise which temples have festivals on there is usually someone with free samples and its a good way to get talking. I find the Sikhs very hospitable.
I'll give you some examples from the soviet union too. If you were from a non Russian minority then were looked down upon. Especially the central Asians, Kazakhs etc, the Caucasus's especially Chechens. The Georgians and Ukrainians in particular were singled out for russification. And then the Jews.
I knew people, wonderfully talented, skilled, competent, efficient professionals who could only rise so far because they were from a non Russian minority.
07 Jun 2016 16:56:39 Its understandable. These guys are trying to break the programming of people. To do that you don't go straight for the big lie first ball. You start with the smaller things and slowly change the position around so one day at a certain point they wake up and see the big lie.
Its a classic technique. Jumping in both feet first on a controversial topic will lose people. Starting off on something smaller, more relevant, draws people in.
Its similar to dog whistling in politics. Or the textbook way if recruiting assets who are disillusioned with things. Softly and slowly hook the ones who might be receptive and show them a different view. Let them take the steps beyond but if you've done it right you've got them.
Remember your competing for peoples hearts and minds and look at what your up against. Small steps.
07 Jun 2016 10:53:39 The French economy has been a borderline basket case for decades. The only thing keeping it going was the common agricultural policy.
06 Jun 2016 00:16:37 Tricky. Putin knows that if the shield goes in unopposed then it makes him look weak. But he's not going to start a war of aggression over it unless backed into a corner.
The next move regards this could be something unexpected.
Regards the general principle of a European takeover. Its never been something of interest. Sure the czars wanted a warm water port and hegemony over the Slavic areas. Sure Stalin reacquired the baltics as a buffer zone then expanded it upto the Oder. let's face it he could have gone further.
No there's no interest in pushing on to the north sea/ channel. The aims have always been about Russian security. A buffer zone between ourselves and Germany and a sphere of influence over the eastern Europeans.
The problem is the eastern European Slavs don't want to be part of a greater Europe despite Putins desires. so it does create something of a problem. With nato in the doorstep the buffer zone looks thin.
However if the EU collapses then its a different ball game.
03 Jun 2016 12:12:04 Socialism though is inherently flawed. The main reason being ad you say it relies on organisation. In order to run things the system ends up creating a bureaucratic management system which creates two issues. Firstly the bureaucrats realise that they control the system and knowledge and power corrupts. Its creates a system where the bureaucrats separate from the masses and creates resource monopolization. Secondly bureaucrats in order to justify their own existence interfere in all layers of the system which eventually causes the system to break down.
Marx was a fool as he thought everything in life could be boiled down to money and resources. He knew nothing of human nature. Its like how Freud was obsessed with sex and only pursued one approach. Its a flawed model. Subsequent tinkering hasn't improved the model only worsened it. Which is why I asked which flavour. Marxism. Leninism. Stalinism. Trotskyism. Maoism. Blairism.
Great idea in theory but totally fails in practical application.
02 Jun 2016 12:33:54 Dont get me wrong i'd rather see a strong Russia than a weak Russia. And after the collapse of the 90's under the buffoon things were a mess. But if the price is the erosion of freedom is it worth it.
01 Jun 2016 21:17:43 Corbyn should have stuck to his convictions. Now he looks like another establishment puppet. Does that help his "healthy" mandate? Instead he's just playing the game most usual politicians play.
It'll be interesting to see what changes he makes though.
29 May 2016 13:14:00 I won't shed any tears for Ken. I've had dealings with him in the past when working in London at the embassy. He isn't a nice person at all.