I am quite sure that you are not. But should we be happy or sad about that?
"Hopeful" would be a better fit.
As Brecht suggested, obviously the solution, if the people are to blame, is to dissolve the people and elect a new one.
Now that's just scary.
Just because the majority of people are apathetic should not give the handful the right to "dissolve the people". And what is even more scary is that the very ones we are struggling against have begun to act on this. It does not make it right - it is blatantly evil.
An interesting view, I'll have to sink in a bit more on this.
But all of the alternative proposals I hear are for establishment of new parties. What if the desideratum is not a new party but a new polity??
Yes, exactly - with discretion, methodically, from within. "In the face" opposition has a history of being trampled in short order.
Use their own tactic to our advantage. There are those that are already in place and with the right kind of "positive leverage" could begin to turn things around and expose detrimental activities via - believe it or not - the most feared weapon - main stream media.
In other countries people tend to think that the problem is the domination of their politics by the United States.
And in the West the people (
that is, the small percentage that actually turn their channel from football or hockey) tend not to have a clue how the European Union can even function. Basically most see Europe as having been totally sold out to the Global governance scheme in step with the UN and IMF and collectivist ideology.
But I agree that a non-imperialist form of American nationalism would be compatible with the completion of the European integration project. And that nationalism could express itself through the political forms I describe in the "Free Citizens' Assembly" text.
I don't know. Kinda reminds me of the barbed wire, fenced "free speech" areas that are given to G8 and G20 protesters.
Well, if that quote is genuine, he had to say that, didn't he, to get the support of the Politburo. But he was wrong. That may have been his purpose, but he did not achieve it.
Of course he had to say it. We should come to expect this deceit from "respectable" politics. I have my own theories as to why the USSR disbanded. I think it had more to do with our international jet setters cutting backroom deals which probably included some discussion over neo governance and the inclusion of old school communism thrown into the mix. What brought it to the table still remains questionable - economics, Ronnie's Star Wars and scalar weapons, the whole country woke up with a vodka hangover and said lets start over?
You can dress a pig in a pink skirt with high heals, but it is still a pig.
And the result of YOUR interpretation of the situation is that you did not act to get rid of the Soviet nuclear arsenal at the time that would have been possible, with Yeltsin. Here in Greece a handful of us tried to act, but there were too few of us.
Yes, you are correct. I was using that time to dig my bomb shelter and purchasing firearms and ammunition that are now on a ban list that was courtesy of not my elected officials, but by backdoor treaties signed in Europe by Foreign Affairs and NGO policy steering.
"Waking people up" to me seems more like a matter of education than of politics. Politics starts with taking people as they are.
Then you agree that it should happen in that order? Waken first, then educated as to how things went wrong in the first place which in turn would allow them the freedom to decide their own fit in regards to politics.
If the order of this flow chart doesn't make sense then you have to be of a socialist mindset.
But hey, I won't hold it against you as long as you are not linked to the ones saturating our environment with toxins via chemtrails or support Agenda 21. Taken as is.
