Knowing what's going on in the world

Sunni and Shia fighting together against ISIS in Iraq tells me you are so very wrong.

How does that show i'm wrong?

It fits in perfectly with what i'm saying: that the US and its allies are funding, training and supporting ISIS because it is their excuse to have greater military involvement in the area again

Your thinking seems very confused

You must support radical Islam.

Because i say that the US and its allies fund and support ISIS i am a supporter of radical islam?

Honestly man i can't even begin to untangle your logic...it's just so messed up

Back on the ignore list for you so I can try to enjoy this forum.

Yes you go back to ignore-land but if by 'enjoying' the forum you mean spreading lies about ISIS then don't be suprised when i then unravel those lies

Try reading Kissinger's new book for a better perspective of what is really happening.

I know what kissinger thinks...he is one of the CFR globalist conspiractors that i'm always talking about.....if you've been listening to him then i understand your messed up perspective

Kissinger? Really? You like him? Kissinger the war criminal:

[video=youtube;QEpfVEaLAmA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpfVEaLAmA[/video]

The world bombs ISIS and what does Assad do? He bombs the rebels in the East.

The 'world' is not bombing ISIS! That is one of the most ignorant statments i have heard anyone say on this forum. Have you ever looked at a map of the world?

Are you aware of how many countries there are in the world and what the population distributions of the world are?

Are you aware that the only people bombing as part of the US coalition are the US and a handful of her allies who have a direct involvement in the conflict for example the gulf monarch states and Israel?

In terms of the numbers of countries in the world and in terms of the population numbers of the world that coalition isn't the 'world' it is more like a pimple on the ass of the world...in short its a joke

The 9 Biggest Myths About ISIS Debunked

The Huffington Post | By Andrew Hart



Posted: 09/30/2014 10:06 am EDT Updated: 10/01/2014 8:59 am EDT


British Muslims send a clear message to #IS #ISIS sectarian murderers -- #notinmyname pic.twitter.com/i84K9jDQ1h
— Murtaza Ali Shah (@MurtazaGeoNews) September 17, 2014


MYTH 4: ISIS HAS NO OBJECTIVE
Despite ISIS' craven tactics and irrational aims, the group is not acting without motives and strategies. Its goal is to establish a caliphate -- an Islamic state obedient to its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
It has worked to this end by waging jihad in a fashion that captivates attention, exploits fears, woos disaffected communities, takes advantage of weaknesses in the region, spreads its message, enlists new recruits, and adds wealth and resources. If ISIS is mad, it is mad like a fox.
ISIS reveals the map of its intended state. So far, it includes, #Iraq, #Syria, #Jordan, #Israel, and #Kuwait. pic.twitter.com/Hx9NvXNIA4
— Ali H. Soufan (@Ali_H_Soufan) June 12, 2014


MYTH 5: ISIS IS POISED TO INFILTRATE THE U.S. VIA MEXICO
Politicians, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), and media reports have claimed recently that the U.S.-Mexico border could, and potentially already has, been used as a U.S. entry point for ISIS forces. However, the allegations aren’t holding up. Franks’ claim that ISIS is presently in Mexico is highly unlikely, according to fact-checker Politifact. Top security officials said the U.S. has no evidence ISIS agents are crossing the U.S. border with Mexico, and there was no indication that it intends to do so. The Mexican government called the idea "absurd."
MYTH 6: ISIS IS INVINCIBLE
Despite ISIS victories in Iraq and Syria, and the ineptitude of the Iraqi military to stop its advance, analysts argue it is not unstoppable.
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a scholar and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argued that ISIS' "strategy is a mess," because it has has surrounded itself with enemies. Gartenstein-Ross and William McCants, a scholar of militant Islamism, both have noted that in declaring the Islamic State caliphate, ISIS has hinged its credibility on an unsustainable idea.
Vox's Zach Beauchamp wrote that there are geographic and demographic limits that will keep ISIS from becoming an unstoppable force.
In addition, the group's brutal tactics could alienate allies and potential conscripts, and may prevent it from wider public support.
Daily Beast reporter Jacob Siegel said he sees signs of tension within the ranks of ISIS that could lead to the group's self-destruction.
And the U.S. and other opponents of ISIS believe the group can be contained to its former manifestation as a "rural insurgency," a strategy outlined by Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
o-ISLAMIC-STATE-VERIFIED-570.jpg

Image posted on a militant website in June 2014, appears to show ISIS militants with captured Iraqi soldiers after taking over a base in Tikrit, Iraq. (AP Photo via militant website, File)
MYTH 7: ISIS IS JUST A REGIONAL PROBLEM
Wouldn't this be convenient if true? Obama has stressed that if ISIS were to establish a permanent foothold in the Middle East, American interests would be at risk.
First, ISIS has stated it aspires to extend its caliphate beyond Syria and Iraq.
In addition, there are hundreds of American troops in Iraq, and U.S.-linked oil companies are based in the northern Iraq region of Kurdistan.
A Middle East in the grips of ISIS may also become an incubator for attacks directed at targets outside of the region, noted Michael Singh of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Through its command of social media and propaganda, ISIS has sought to inspire and recruit beyond the borders of Iraq and Syria. Analysts estimate there are thousands of Westerners among ISIS' ranks, including Americans. U.S. officials said they fear ISIS may launch attacks in the U.S. and other Western nations as it broadens targets. There also is concern that ISIS’ Western recruits may return to the U.S., an Obama administration official acknowledged.
Finally, ISIS has beheaded two American journalists, a British aid worker, Lebanese soldiers, and others in Iraq and Syria. ISIS is believed to be holding more Westerners and journalists hostage. A separate extremist group in Algeria beheaded a French hostage last week over France’s participation in the campaign against ISIS.

Undated image shows a fighter of the Islamic State group waving their flag from inside a captured government fighter jet following the battle for the Tabqa air base, in Raqqa, Syria. (AP Photo/ Raqqa Media Center of the Islamic State group)
MYTH 8: THE RISE OF ISIS IS OBAMA'S FAULT
The "blame Obama" argument focuses on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011, and the American president’s hesitancy to intervene in the Syrian civil war.
Critics argue that if the U.S. had kept a larger military presence in Iraq, ISIS would not have been able to rebound after incurring heavy losses in 2006.
The argument that President Barack Obama blew it by not supporting moderate rebel forces in Syria earlier in the civil war was recently fueled by Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and likely 2016 presidential candidate, in an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. Clinton told Goldberg, "The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad -- there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle -- the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled."
Yet the rise of ISIS is a product of many factors. Focusing only on the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq or Obama's hesitancy to intervene in Syria fails to acknowledge other important developments that affected ISIS and the world's failure to contain it, including:
-- The government of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gave the U.S. little choice on leaving American troops in Iraq.
-- Despite its size and strength, the Iraqi military's fight against ISIS was plagued by missteps.
-- ISIS took advantage of bitter tensions between Iraq's Shia and Sunni Muslims.
-- Maliki's government in Iraq kicked the country's Sunnis to the curb. ISIS seized on the Sunnis' great discontent, and took up a sectarian war against the Shia.
-- ISIS efforts to win public support included creating community programs, charming local children, distributing propaganda, and providing relief for suffering communities.
-- Some experts are skeptical that deeper U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war would have prevented the rise of ISIS. They say the nature of the battles in Syria and the ragtag composition of the rebel forces likely would have limited the extent that U.S. assistance would have made a dent in the growth of ISIS.



Undated image posted in August 2014 by a Syrian opposition group shows ISIS fighters waving the group's flag from a damaged display of a government fighter jet following the battle for the Tabqa air base, in Raqqa, Syria. (AP Photo/ Raqqa Media Center of the Islamic State group)
MYTH 9: SEN. JOHN MCCAIN MET WITH ISIS
"@CountryStandard: Senator John McCain held secret meetings with ISIS in Syria pic.twitter.com/eZVUWOsZxZ”"
Goh.
— unknown soldier (@cmfuentez) August 30, 2014


Another wild claim bouncing around the Internet links ISIS and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a vocal proponent of escalating the U.S. response to the militants. It started with a photo McCain posted online of a meeting with Free Syrian Army fighters during a 2013 trip to Syria. The photo was later inaccurately framed as showing McCain meeting ISIS militants and posted on social media and conspiracy theory blogs. From there, speculation grew, suggesting McCain had a role in ISIS’ creation, and had a relationship with ISIS leader al-Baghdadi, with photoshopped images of McCain pinning a medal on the chest of the ISIS leader as evidence. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) propelled the McCain-ISIS conspiracy in an interview with The Daily Beast, saying, "Here’s the problem. He [Sen. John McCain] did meet with ISIS, and had his picture taken, and didn’t know it was happening at the time."
The theory has been thoroughly discredited. According to The Washington Post's fact-checker, "there is zero evidence that any of the men that McCain met with in Syria are linked to the Islamic State." The rebels who were portrayed as ISIS fighters were, in fact, members of the Free Syrian Army, who oppose both ISIS and Syrian President Assad. Also on The Huffington Post


Close

Crisis In Iraq

Thats just lies from a CFR controlled newspaper

Here is some news from a source not controleld by the CFR:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/10/02/380798/isil-rooted-in-usisraeli-intelligence/

As President Rouhani of Iran addressed the UN a week ago, the world had changed.

US President Obama had opened a door, one ignored by activists and the armies of professional naysayers of the propaganda organs.
The current situation, pure and unadulterated chaos, has created threats and opportunities, a time for leaders to lead, thinkers to think and the stupid to go home and run their heads into the wall.
If ISIL is an enemy, one Veterans Today asserts has its roots in US, Israeli and Saudi intelligence, a message reflected by President Rouhani, what America says now, what it suggests, has to be tempered by the inescapable reality that ISIL/ISIS is a chimera or as this author has described it, a “witches brew.”
Constructive engagement with ISIL/ISIS seems, thus far, to be impossible.
What we must also confess is that there is little quality intelligence about them.
I met with Sunni leaders in Iraq in January, discussing the threats posed, postulating what I expected, which has come to pass with uncanny accuracy.
There is a reality of ISIL/ISIS that surpasses its roots, Saudi and Qatar cash, Turkish misdeeds, Israeli plots and American right wing extremism.
Similarly, those in Iraq who, in January 2014, sought to both use and control ISIL/ISIS as leverage against what they perceived as an unbalanced Shiite controlled Baghdad regime, are key to understanding what is happening now.
If there is a massive upsurge in power in ISIL/ISIS, it is from Iraq, the disaffected Sunni’s the Baathists, the old Republican Guard, top quality military “thrown to the wind” out of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld blindness and insanity.
ISIL/ISIS needs to be addressed but there is a nasty reality recent history has taught us.
They are unlikely to listen until leverage is applied. Toward that end, the US has been remiss in use of air power, the “shock and awe” that has killed so many, so many innocents certainly, on behalf of causes any sane person recognizes as pure evil.
Can America murder for good as well?
With ISIL/ISIS at war against civilian populations, the Kurds of Syria and Iraq in particular, whether you believe press reports or not and “not” is always best, they have set the rules.
Until the US moves toward, initially, 500 sorties per day, moving toward 1,500, with FAC (forward air controller) teams and coverage by 200 plus drones “on station 24/7,” there will be no engagement.
ISIS/ISIL is, by far, not the only “wrong” in the region.
Current behavior by primarily Israel and Turkey requires a strong investigation that may well lead to sanctions against both of them.
Neither have the leverage they once had nor are their locations of the strategic importance they once were.
The Cold War, those there are signs it may be reemerging, will go on without them without Egypt, just fine.
There has to be a nation by nation reassessment, starting with Libya.
Libya has to be secured, initially under the authority of the UN Security Council but including all active players in the region.
By that I mean that regional security should include Russia, always a popular and controversial assertion, but Iran and Syria as well.
Excluding key players is insane.
What has happened in Libya is being ignored by the press and is an embarrassing inconvenience for too many.
Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia had massive air forces and much at risk.
A political solution in Libya, with partial Egyptian sponsorship and taking into account that several powerful corporations and banking groups have been “stirring the pot” in Libya will have to be addressed, perhaps with “prejudice.”
The Assad government in Syria has to be secured but under altered circumstances.
What legitimate opposition existed has been pushed aside by the flashy terror groups mysteriously drowning in cash and the promise of the Islamic version of “sex, drugs and rock and roll,” the non-public selling point for ISIS/ISIL.
As with Boko Haram, ISIS/ISIL takes brilliant advantage of religious dogma and conservatism, crafting its appeal based on promise of “temporary marriage.”
With generations of young men with little hope of a healthy married family life, the alternative of sexual misadventure under the cloak of loosely interpreted scriptural “voodoo” may well empty half of Europe’s Islamic population.
Syria is now the strategic lynch pin for American power in the Middle East, a nation the US has worked to destroy, a nation closely aligned with Putin’s Russia.
Nevertheless, stabilizing the Assad government, enabling realistic and sweeping reforms long needed and re-conquering territory under “unreliable” governance is vital.
Toward that end, US policy has to continue to “turn” toward reality, totally abandoning any idea of recruiting “anti-Jihadist Jihadists.”
As Dr. Franklin Lamb pointed out recently in an article in Veterans Today, any US recruit is likely to take his training and weapon and join ISIL at any point and, in fact, almost the entirety of ISIL/ISIS cadres were US trained.
Without the ability to fly over Syria from US carriers or even operate combat aircraft from Syrian bases, the US is greatly hampered in air operations.
There are only two armies in the Middle East, within practical reach of tactical aircraft that can be trusted to secure bases for air operations against ISIS/ISIL.
One is Syria. The other is Iran.
Iran is developing its own aerospace industry but should well have been offered the F 16C from the US in numbers simply out of American self-interest.
Iran has developed a massive self-defense force, a powerful missile capability and a strong and capable military leadership and has done so within purely defensive guidelines.
What this has created, something recognized by the US as early as 1953, when the CIA choose to turn Iran into a US colony, is a requirement in the Middle East for Iran to have a strong stabilizing role.
This requires a quick settlement of nuclear issues and a recognition on behalf of those of moderate sanity that the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has, since around 2003, been dominated by Israeli intelligence.
The Agency’s work is vital and, as long as we allow it to go on as it does today, staffed with spies and half-trained amateurs, we are not going to be able to move forward.
The old staff of the IAEA and supporting groups are still around, top nuclear weapons designers, who are capable of guaranteeing Iranian compliance and who, if pushed hard enough, will agree to “look the other way” over Israel’s flagrant violations of nuclear non-proliferation issues and the threat they pose to world security.
Conclusion
I see no solution at this time other than the US relocating at least two air wings and 5 aircraft carriers for operations against ISIS/ISIL along with at least 500 drones.
The result of these actions will lead to the deaths of hundreds of civilians.
In each case, Libya, Syria and Iraq, efforts to redress the needs and desires of those who chose ISIL/ISIS must be recognized.
As President Goodluck Jonathan had recently pointed out in regard to Boko Haram, “these are our children we will be killing.”
What is recognized, however, is that a war is afoot, blame can be shared widely, but along with “shock and awe,” there must also be redress of grievances.
Relations with Iran have to be normalized and Iran has to be convinced to assume a stabilizing role within her position as leader of the Non-Aligned Movement.
The covert war on Iran has made all of this possible to the extent that the hand of America’s extremist neocon-Zionists is more than visible here, the Ukraine, across Africa and elsewhere.
You will find them in Libya as well, behind the scenes at every turn.
It is for President Obama, Secretaries Kerry and Hagel and General Dempsey to stand against the McCain, Romney, Cruz, Netanyahu, Rothschild cabal and stop what anyone can clearly see, the embers of a world war fanning into very real flames.
GD/HSN


salami20130103162235440.jpg

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest. More Press TV articles by Gordon Duff
 
Last edited:
Here's the book I could not remember the name of:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/books/review/henry-kissingers-world-order.html?_r=0






























Sunday Book Review |​NYT Now

As the World Turns

Henry Kissinger’s ‘World Order’

By JOHN MICKLETHWAITSEPT. 11, 2014
Inside


Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story


Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

If you want to understand the point of Henry Kissinger, play this mind game: Imagine that the nonagenarian had run American foreign policy since Sept. 11, 2001, instead of two groups that had spent much of the previous quarter-century condemning him. First came the democracy-touting neoconservatives, who saw his realpolitik as appeasement, and now liberal Democrats, who insist nation-building must begin at home — and therefore hate foreign entanglements, let alone grand strategies.
Continue reading the main story Related Coverage



Might a little realism have been useful in Iraq, rather than the “stuff happens” amateurism of the Bush years? Would a statesman who read Winston Churchill on Afghanistan (“except at harvest time . . . the Pathan [Pashtun] tribes are always engaged in private or public war”) have committed America to establishing a “gender sensitive . . . and fully representative” government in Kabul? Would Kissinger have issued a red-line warning to Syria and then allowed Assad to go unpunished when he used chemical weapons? Or let a power vacuum gradually develop on Vladimir Putin’s borders? Or looked on as the South China Sea became a cockpit of regional rivalries?
Photo
0914-bks-MICKLETHWAIT-master180.jpg


Henry Kissinger Credit Jürgen Frank If you think America is doing just fine, then skip ahead to the poetry reviews. If, however, you worry about a globe spinning out of control, then “World Order” is for you. It brings together history, geography, modern politics and no small amount of passion. Yes, passion, for this is a cri de coeur from a famous skeptic, a warning to future generations from an old man steeped in the past. It comes with faults: It is contorted by the author’s concerns about his legacy and by a needless craving not to upset the Lilliputian leaders he still seeks to influence. It also goes over some of the same ground as previous works. But it is a book that every member of Congress should be locked in a room with — and forced to read before taking the oath of office.
The premise is that we live in a world of disorder: “While ‘the international community’ is invoked perhaps more insistently now than in any other era, it presents no clear or agreed set of goals, methods or limits. . . . Chaos threatens side by side with unprecedented interdependence.” Hence the need to build an order — one able to balance the competing desires of nations, both the established Western powers that wrote the existing international “rules” (principally the United States), and the emerging ones that do not accept them, principally China, but also Russia and the Islamic world.
This will be hard because there never has been a true world order. Instead, different civilizations have come up with their own versions. The Islamic and Chinese ones were almost entirely self-*centered: If you were not within the umma of believers or blessed with the emperor’s masterly rule, you were an infidel or a barbarian. Balance did not come into it. America’s version, though more recent and more nuanced, is also somewhat self-centered — a moral order where everything will be fine once the world comes to its senses and thinks like America (which annoyingly it never quite does). So the best starting point remains Europe’s “Westphalian” balance of power.
Continue reading the main story
For centuries pluralism was both Europe’s strength and its weakness. After the fall of Rome in 476, no power ruled the whole continent. Europe’s modus vivendi was competition: Your enemy’s enemy was your friend. Thus Roman Catholic France allied itself with Protestant German and Dutch princes and even the Ottomans to prevent the Catholic Holy Roman Empire from achieving supremacy. Out of all this maneuvering came the brutal Thirty Years’ War, with faction fighting faction across borders, rather like the modern Middle East. Eventually, in 1648, a gathering of 235 envoys in separate towns around Westphalia worked out three different treaties.
The basic bargain was cuius regio, eius religio. A ruler could set the religion in his country, but it enshrined the nation-state as the building block of the European order: Each king was called “majesty” and treated equally. It opened up an age of diplomacy (before then only the Venetians had what we would call ambassadors). Equilibrium did not always last: Inevitably, there were rising powers to contain, as well as irrational surges like the French Revolution’s desire to bring equality to all. After Waterloo, the dominant British provided the balance by tilting to one side or another.
This is Kissinger’s home territory — and he tells the story well. His heroes inevitably are realpolitikers, like Cardinal Richelieu, France’s chief minister from 1624 to 1642, who heretically sided with the Protestants, explaining that “man is immortal, his salvation is hereafter. The state has no immortality, its salvation is now or never”; Austria’s Klemens von Metternich, the architect of the Congress of Vienna; and Britain’s pragmatic Lord Palmerston (“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies”). Read Kissinger’s description of Talleyrand, and by the end the aristocratic French diplomat has assumed a guttural German accent and thick glasses:
“He started his career as Bishop of Autun, left the Church to support the Revolution, abandoned the Revolution to serve as Napoleon’s foreign minister, abandoned Napoleon to negotiate the restoration of the French monarch and appeared in Vienna as Louis XVIII’s foreign minister. Many called Talleyrand an opportunist. Talleyrand would have argued that his goals were stability within France and peace in Europe and that he had taken whatever opportunities were available to achieve these goals. He had surely striven for positions to study the various elements of power and legitimacy at close hand without being unduly constrained by any of them. Only a formidable personality could have projected himself into the center of so many great and conflicting events.”
So Europe has given us the most plausible historical model, but it is no longer the sculptor. It shed its power during two world wars, half-embraced the idea of a post-Westphalian union and is now too obsessed in the European Union’s internal construction. It will be of little use on the world stage until it has resolved that debate, and as Kissinger notes in one of his more withering asides, unifications in Europe have only been achieved with a forceful uniter, like Piedmont in Italy or Prussia in Germany.
Continue reading the main story
Kissinger also canters eloquently through Russia. Vladimir Putin’s nationalism makes more sense once you understand the historical chip on his shoulder and his country’s centuries-long, remorseless expansion: Russia added an average of 100,000 square kilometers a year to its territory from 1552 to 1917.
Continue reading the main story
Still, the book stalls a bit with Islam. Religion used to be one of Kissinger’s blind spots: The word does not appear in the index of “Diplomacy.” Now Kissinger seems to have swung too far the other way. Islam’s failure to differentiate between mosque and state suddenly explains virtually everything (though not, presumably, the success of the largest Muslim-*dominated state, Indonesia). Iran is perfidy personified. By contrast, Israel is a victim, “a Westphalian state” in a sea of unreason. He does not mention its unhelpful settlement-building or examine the Jewish state’s own extremists (the man who killed the peacemaking Yitzhak Rabin is a “radical Israeli student”). It all feels like a rather belated olive branch to the Israeli right and its supporters in America’s Congress.
The book recovers speed with Asia. Kissinger compares Britain’s effect on India to Napoleon’s on Germany: In both cases multiple states that had seen themselves only as a geographic entity discovered a national one. There is some repetition here with his last book on China, but he moves quickly through the Middle Kingdom’s self-absorbed history, where foreign policy was largely a matter of collecting tribute through the emperor’s Ministry of Rituals and where soldiery was little valued (“Good iron is not used for nails. Good men do not become soldiers”). In 1893, even as Western forces were overrunning the country, the Qing dynasty diverted military funds to restore a marble boat in the Imperial Palace.
Gradually, though, the full extent of the problem becomes clear — and its American dimension. Within Asia, two potential balances of power are emerging, both involving China — one in South Asia, the other in East Asia. But neither at present has a balancer, a country capable of shifting its weight to the weaker side as Britain did in Europe. As for China itself, although it makes some use of international rules, it “has not forgotten that it was originally forced to engage with the existing international order in a manner utterly at odds with its historical image of itself.” In 15 cases of history where a rising and established power interacted, 10 ended in war. Supposedly America is China’s partner, but “partnership cannot be achieved by proclamation.”
Is modern America capable of leading the world out of this? Kissinger never answers this question directly, but the chapters on his own country read like a carefully worded warning to a treasured but blinkered friend. America comes to the task with two deep character faults. The first, bound up with its geography, is a perception that foreign policy is “an optional activity.” As late as 1890, its army was only the 14th largest in the world, smaller than Bulgaria’s. This is a superpower that has withdrawn ignominiously from three of the last five wars it chose to fight — in Vietnam, Iraq (the younger Bush version), Afghanistan. The second is that the same ideals that have built a great country often made it lousy at diplomacy, especially “the conviction that its domestic principles were self-evidently universal and their application at all times salutary” — the naïveté of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations and the neoconservatives’ forays in the Islamic world.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
At its best, America is unstoppable. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, both understood the need for his country to be involved and managed to fashion its idealism to a pragmatic end. In the Cold War, America’s moral order worked: There was a clear adversary that could eventually just be outmuscled, there were compliant allies and there were set rules of engagement. But the current disorder is more complex: chaos in the Middle East, the spread of nuclear weapons, the emergence of cyberspace as an unregulated military arena and the reordering of Asia. The challenge is “not simply a multipolarity of power but a world of increasingly contradictory realities,” Kissinger writes. “It must not be assumed that, left unattended, these trends will at some point reconcile automatically to a world of balance and cooperation — or even any order at all.”
Meanwhile, statesmanship, the craft of “attending” to these problems, is getting harder. Kissinger rightly mocks the cyber-*utopian idea that greater connectiveness and transparency will make the world safer, as nations learn about one another: “Conflicts within and between societies have occurred since the dawn of civilization. The causes of these conflicts have not been limited to an absence of information or an insufficient ability to share it.” To the contrary, the immediacy of everything is a test. Every incident is flashed round the world, everything becomes part of domestic politics, political careers are molded in public. Boldness, leadership and stealth are all more difficult.
How do America’s current leaders shape up? Here the book is both irritatingly coy and implicitly devastating. There is no direct criticism of the Obama administration and even a slightly comic paragraph expressing Kissinger’s deep personal admiration for George W. Bush — in the midst of a section on the cluelessness of his foreign policy. But under the equivocation and the courtiership, the message is clear, even angry: The world is drifting, unattended, and America, an indispensable part of any new order, has yet to answer even basic questions, like “What do we seek to prevent?” and “What do we seek to achieve?” Its politicians and people are unprepared for the century ahead. Reading this book would be a useful first step forward.
WORLD ORDER


By Henry Kissinger
420 pp. Penguin Press. $36.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about most but I am almost entirely consumed by my need to create a just world. I am just not sure how realistic it is to try and educate others when the people in control just do not care or are content with their position in society. To make matter worse the disadvantaged and impoverished have been forced into accepting their fate or are too incompetent/complacent to do anything. The reason why capitalism is so natural to many is most likely because it appeals to humans basic needs. It is the economic version of evolution. Survival of the fittest based on specific traits that our society values (lucky you if you have those traits). It is fairly simple to convince most to just care about themselves. But to what ends? Just as evolution is governed by reproducing for the sake of reproducing, so too is capitalism (money for the sake of creating more money.) This is a by product of our animal nature and I don't see a way to separate that in most people. To convince them of the value of cooperation and caring about others in a world consumed by consumerism and selfishness. To become more than just an animal that is self aware.

I will agree with @muir when it comes to Hamas and ISIS being a creation of the West. I am still fairly young(early 20's) and have lived through quite a bit. From war, poverty(I still am to a degree), and even getting over many of the personal difficulties of being told I was useless and what to think by my family and the world. Eventually I began to value knowledge and sunk myself into a my own world(autodidact), learning about why people act the way they do, philosophy, the natural sciences, mathematics, et cetera. Anything that could answer the questions I had. Scouring the vast amount of information was in many ways liberating and exciting. But eventually I started to see commonalities between all of the fields involving our species(social psychology, biology, neuroscience, philosophy, and religion). Humans are very fragile and most can be controlled by fear. In my opinion it is the reason everything is the way it is. Are you afraid of being controlled? Control others. Are you afraid of death? Religion is your answer. Everything from the minute to the complex is shaped by our fears and weaknesses. Hamas and ISIS are just examples of that(very extreme examples). People that feel rejected by the world because of their experiences, and position in life, as well as a need to become part of something bigger than themselves. Many of the people in those countries have had those travesties happen to them (as @muir mentioned) and feel no there is no way to escape. The people in power feed and prey on that weakness in order to reach their own ends/needs.

I want to believe it is possible to change all this. To help shape a world of justice, beauty, empathy, and community between all people of all backgrounds. A world where no one has to live through what I had to. I fear that most people don't care about those things. It is usually liberal this or republican that... Nationalism as a tool to divide others. Anything that makes you feel better or appeals to your anxiety. Who cares if there is suffering around the world? As long as it doesn't affect your life it doesn't matter. It is absolutely ridiculous... And I am tired of it all to be honest...

Is there value in being informed? I'm not sure. I guess there is, if you think you can change anything. For me personally it has been demoralizing being unable to make the change I want.
 
I don't know about most but I am almost entirely consumed by my need to create a just world. I am just not sure how realistic it is to try and educate others when the people in control just do not care or are content with their position in society. To make matter worse the disadvantaged and impoverished have been forced into accepting their fate or are too incompetent/complacent to do anything. The reason why capitalism is so natural to many is most likely because it appeals to humans basic needs. It is the economic version of evolution. Survival of the fittest based on specific traits that our society values (lucky you if you have those traits). It is fairly simple to convince most to just care about themselves. But to what ends? Just as evolution is governed by reproducing for the sake of reproducing, so too is capitalism (money for the sake of creating more money.) This is a by product of our animal nature and I don't see a way to separate that in most people. To convince them of the value of cooperation and caring about others in a world consumed by consumerism and selfishness. To become more than just an animal that is self aware.

I will agree with @muir when it comes to Hamas and ISIS being a creation of the West. I am still fairly young(early 20's) and have lived through quite a bit. From war, poverty(I still am to a degree), and even getting over many of the personal difficulties of being told I was useless and what to think by my family and the world. Eventually I began to value knowledge and sunk myself into a my own world(autodidact), learning about why people act the way they do, philosophy, the natural sciences, mathematics, et cetera. Anything that could answer the questions I had. Scouring the vast amount of information was in many ways liberating and exciting. But eventually I started to see commonalities between all of the fields involving our species(social psychology, biology, neuroscience, philosophy, and religion). Humans are very fragile and most can be controlled by fear. In my opinion it is the reason everything is the way it is. Are you afraid of being controlled? Control others. Are you afraid of death? Religion is your answer. Everything from the minute to the complex is shaped by our fears and weaknesses. Hamas and ISIS are just examples of that(very extreme examples). People that feel rejected by the world because of their experiences, and position in life, as well as a need to become part of something bigger than themselves. Many of the people in those countries have had those travesties happen to them (as @muir mentioned) and feel no there is no way to escape. The people in power feed and prey on that weakness in order to reach their own ends/needs.

I want to believe it is possible to change all this. To help shape a world of justice, beauty, empathy, and community between all people of all backgrounds. A world where no one has to live through what I had to. I fear that most people don't care about those things. It is usually liberal this or republican that... Nationalism as a tool to divide others. Anything that makes you feel better or appeals to your anxiety. Who cares if there is suffering around the world? As long as it doesn't affect your life it doesn't matter. It is absolutely ridiculous... And I am tired of it all to be honest...

Is there value in being informed? I'm not sure. I guess there is, if you think you can change anything. For me personally it has been demoralizing.
 
once when i was doing some group therapy while i was a psychiatric inpatient being treated for depression a therapist told us we should avoid watching or reading the news because it is horrifying and we cant do anything about it so we end up feeling hopeless and helpless. ive thought about this a lot. this is absolutely not the truth for everyone but it is the truth for me personally. any chance i could personally have for making a difference in the world is not related to effects i could derive from news sources. these sources provide a particular type of information that is not the only or the best way of knowing about the world, just one of many possible ways.

another thing ive noticed is that consuming significant quantities of news media or other alternative current affairs commentary and reportage does not necessarily ensure that a person is in touch with the world. on the contrary, many avid consumers of this type of information have viewpoints that are contracted or weighted or otherwise distorted to the point of obvious delusion, with the additional conviction that having consumed more has naturally resulted in knowing more.
 
I think people shoulod avoid the mainstream news like the plague...it is depressing but offers no analysis of WHY things are happening

problems are a part of life but problems that are not understood are stressful

Far healthier for people to follow the alternative media because then they will understand why certain problems are occuring; once a person understands the social, economic or political landscape they are better placed to think how to then enagage with the world

When i worked in psychiatric wards they were full of glossy magazines. They were pilled up everywhere

These magazines show a plastic fake world of air brushed people valuing such empty and souless pursuits as consumerism and its offshoots like fashion that are destroying not only the soul of our society but also its economy, not to mention the environment

No wonder there is so much depression in the world when so many people are detached from reality and living in a plastic souless fantasy land in their head that sets them in pursuit of unachievable targets of vanity and ego-centrism which has now been raised to the status of a religion in modern western society

All this stuff starts a materialist arms race known as 'keeping up with the jones's' which leaves many in the west feeling insecure and unfulfilled and yet unable to understand why they feel that way

Sanity will only return to our society when people return to reality and start facing the very real problems that are facing us as individuals and as a society
 
Last edited:
Here's the book I could not remember the name of:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/books/review/henry-kissingers-world-order.html?_r=0



























Sunday Book Review |​NYT Now

As the World Turns

Henry Kissinger’s ‘World Order’

By JOHN MICKLETHWAITSEPT. 11, 2014
Inside


Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story


Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

If you want to understand the point of Henry Kissinger, play this mind game: Imagine that the nonagenarian had run American foreign policy since Sept. 11, 2001, instead of two groups that had spent much of the previous quarter-century condemning him. First came the democracy-touting neoconservatives, who saw his realpolitik as appeasement, and now liberal Democrats, who insist nation-building must begin at home — and therefore hate foreign entanglements, let alone grand strategies.
Continue reading the main story Related Coverage



Might a little realism have been useful in Iraq, rather than the “stuff happens” amateurism of the Bush years? Would a statesman who read Winston Churchill on Afghanistan (“except at harvest time . . . the Pathan [Pashtun] tribes are always engaged in private or public war”) have committed America to establishing a “gender sensitive . . . and fully representative” government in Kabul? Would Kissinger have issued a red-line warning to Syria and then allowed Assad to go unpunished when he used chemical weapons? Or let a power vacuum gradually develop on Vladimir Putin’s borders? Or looked on as the South China Sea became a cockpit of regional rivalries?
Photo
0914-bks-MICKLETHWAIT-master180.jpg


Henry Kissinger Credit Jürgen Frank If you think America is doing just fine, then skip ahead to the poetry reviews. If, however, you worry about a globe spinning out of control, then “World Order” is for you. It brings together history, geography, modern politics and no small amount of passion. Yes, passion, for this is a cri de coeur from a famous skeptic, a warning to future generations from an old man steeped in the past. It comes with faults: It is contorted by the author’s concerns about his legacy and by a needless craving not to upset the Lilliputian leaders he still seeks to influence. It also goes over some of the same ground as previous works. But it is a book that every member of Congress should be locked in a room with — and forced to read before taking the oath of office.
The premise is that we live in a world of disorder: “While ‘the international community’ is invoked perhaps more insistently now than in any other era, it presents no clear or agreed set of goals, methods or limits. . . . Chaos threatens side by side with unprecedented interdependence.” Hence the need to build an order — one able to balance the competing desires of nations, both the established Western powers that wrote the existing international “rules” (principally the United States), and the emerging ones that do not accept them, principally China, but also Russia and the Islamic world.
This will be hard because there never has been a true world order. Instead, different civilizations have come up with their own versions. The Islamic and Chinese ones were almost entirely self-*centered: If you were not within the umma of believers or blessed with the emperor’s masterly rule, you were an infidel or a barbarian. Balance did not come into it. America’s version, though more recent and more nuanced, is also somewhat self-centered — a moral order where everything will be fine once the world comes to its senses and thinks like America (which annoyingly it never quite does). So the best starting point remains Europe’s “Westphalian” balance of power.
Continue reading the main story
For centuries pluralism was both Europe’s strength and its weakness. After the fall of Rome in 476, no power ruled the whole continent. Europe’s modus vivendi was competition: Your enemy’s enemy was your friend. Thus Roman Catholic France allied itself with Protestant German and Dutch princes and even the Ottomans to prevent the Catholic Holy Roman Empire from achieving supremacy. Out of all this maneuvering came the brutal Thirty Years’ War, with faction fighting faction across borders, rather like the modern Middle East. Eventually, in 1648, a gathering of 235 envoys in separate towns around Westphalia worked out three different treaties.
The basic bargain was cuius regio, eius religio. A ruler could set the religion in his country, but it enshrined the nation-state as the building block of the European order: Each king was called “majesty” and treated equally. It opened up an age of diplomacy (before then only the Venetians had what we would call ambassadors). Equilibrium did not always last: Inevitably, there were rising powers to contain, as well as irrational surges like the French Revolution’s desire to bring equality to all. After Waterloo, the dominant British provided the balance by tilting to one side or another.
This is Kissinger’s home territory — and he tells the story well. His heroes inevitably are realpolitikers, like Cardinal Richelieu, France’s chief minister from 1624 to 1642, who heretically sided with the Protestants, explaining that “man is immortal, his salvation is hereafter. The state has no immortality, its salvation is now or never”; Austria’s Klemens von Metternich, the architect of the Congress of Vienna; and Britain’s pragmatic Lord Palmerston (“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies”). Read Kissinger’s description of Talleyrand, and by the end the aristocratic French diplomat has assumed a guttural German accent and thick glasses:
“He started his career as Bishop of Autun, left the Church to support the Revolution, abandoned the Revolution to serve as Napoleon’s foreign minister, abandoned Napoleon to negotiate the restoration of the French monarch and appeared in Vienna as Louis XVIII’s foreign minister. Many called Talleyrand an opportunist. Talleyrand would have argued that his goals were stability within France and peace in Europe and that he had taken whatever opportunities were available to achieve these goals. He had surely striven for positions to study the various elements of power and legitimacy at close hand without being unduly constrained by any of them. Only a formidable personality could have projected himself into the center of so many great and conflicting events.”
So Europe has given us the most plausible historical model, but it is no longer the sculptor. It shed its power during two world wars, half-embraced the idea of a post-Westphalian union and is now too obsessed in the European Union’s internal construction. It will be of little use on the world stage until it has resolved that debate, and as Kissinger notes in one of his more withering asides, unifications in Europe have only been achieved with a forceful uniter, like Piedmont in Italy or Prussia in Germany.
Continue reading the main story
Kissinger also canters eloquently through Russia. Vladimir Putin’s nationalism makes more sense once you understand the historical chip on his shoulder and his country’s centuries-long, remorseless expansion: Russia added an average of 100,000 square kilometers a year to its territory from 1552 to 1917.
Continue reading the main story
Still, the book stalls a bit with Islam. Religion used to be one of Kissinger’s blind spots: The word does not appear in the index of “Diplomacy.” Now Kissinger seems to have swung too far the other way. Islam’s failure to differentiate between mosque and state suddenly explains virtually everything (though not, presumably, the success of the largest Muslim-*dominated state, Indonesia). Iran is perfidy personified. By contrast, Israel is a victim, “a Westphalian state” in a sea of unreason. He does not mention its unhelpful settlement-building or examine the Jewish state’s own extremists (the man who killed the peacemaking Yitzhak Rabin is a “radical Israeli student”). It all feels like a rather belated olive branch to the Israeli right and its supporters in America’s Congress.
The book recovers speed with Asia. Kissinger compares Britain’s effect on India to Napoleon’s on Germany: In both cases multiple states that had seen themselves only as a geographic entity discovered a national one. There is some repetition here with his last book on China, but he moves quickly through the Middle Kingdom’s self-absorbed history, where foreign policy was largely a matter of collecting tribute through the emperor’s Ministry of Rituals and where soldiery was little valued (“Good iron is not used for nails. Good men do not become soldiers”). In 1893, even as Western forces were overrunning the country, the Qing dynasty diverted military funds to restore a marble boat in the Imperial Palace.
Gradually, though, the full extent of the problem becomes clear — and its American dimension. Within Asia, two potential balances of power are emerging, both involving China — one in South Asia, the other in East Asia. But neither at present has a balancer, a country capable of shifting its weight to the weaker side as Britain did in Europe. As for China itself, although it makes some use of international rules, it “has not forgotten that it was originally forced to engage with the existing international order in a manner utterly at odds with its historical image of itself.” In 15 cases of history where a rising and established power interacted, 10 ended in war. Supposedly America is China’s partner, but “partnership cannot be achieved by proclamation.”
Is modern America capable of leading the world out of this? Kissinger never answers this question directly, but the chapters on his own country read like a carefully worded warning to a treasured but blinkered friend. America comes to the task with two deep character faults. The first, bound up with its geography, is a perception that foreign policy is “an optional activity.” As late as 1890, its army was only the 14th largest in the world, smaller than Bulgaria’s. This is a superpower that has withdrawn ignominiously from three of the last five wars it chose to fight — in Vietnam, Iraq (the younger Bush version), Afghanistan. The second is that the same ideals that have built a great country often made it lousy at diplomacy, especially “the conviction that its domestic principles were self-evidently universal and their application at all times salutary” — the naïveté of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations and the neoconservatives’ forays in the Islamic world.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
At its best, America is unstoppable. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, both understood the need for his country to be involved and managed to fashion its idealism to a pragmatic end. In the Cold War, America’s moral order worked: There was a clear adversary that could eventually just be outmuscled, there were compliant allies and there were set rules of engagement. But the current disorder is more complex: chaos in the Middle East, the spread of nuclear weapons, the emergence of cyberspace as an unregulated military arena and the reordering of Asia. The challenge is “not simply a multipolarity of power but a world of increasingly contradictory realities,” Kissinger writes. “It must not be assumed that, left unattended, these trends will at some point reconcile automatically to a world of balance and cooperation — or even any order at all.”
Meanwhile, statesmanship, the craft of “attending” to these problems, is getting harder. Kissinger rightly mocks the cyber-*utopian idea that greater connectiveness and transparency will make the world safer, as nations learn about one another: “Conflicts within and between societies have occurred since the dawn of civilization. The causes of these conflicts have not been limited to an absence of information or an insufficient ability to share it.” To the contrary, the immediacy of everything is a test. Every incident is flashed round the world, everything becomes part of domestic politics, political careers are molded in public. Boldness, leadership and stealth are all more difficult.
How do America’s current leaders shape up? Here the book is both irritatingly coy and implicitly devastating. There is no direct criticism of the Obama administration and even a slightly comic paragraph expressing Kissinger’s deep personal admiration for George W. Bush — in the midst of a section on the cluelessness of his foreign policy. But under the equivocation and the courtiership, the message is clear, even angry: The world is drifting, unattended, and America, an indispensable part of any new order, has yet to answer even basic questions, like “What do we seek to prevent?” and “What do we seek to achieve?” Its politicians and people are unprepared for the century ahead. Reading this book would be a useful first step forward.
WORLD ORDER


By Henry Kissinger
420 pp. Penguin Press. $36.

Kissinger and his ilk HAVE been running the US since 911

They (the CFR and rockefeller clique) also carried out 911

They are mass murderers and that is how history will remember them
 
Last edited:
I don't know about most but I am almost entirely consumed by my need to create a just world. I am just not sure how realistic it is to try and educate others when the people in control just do not care or are content with their position in society. To make matter worse the disadvantaged and impoverished have been forced into accepting their fate or are too incompetent/complacent to do anything. The reason why capitalism is so natural to many is most likely because it appeals to humans basic needs. It is the economic version of evolution. Survival of the fittest based on specific traits that our society values (lucky you if you have those traits). It is fairly simple to convince most to just care about themselves. But to what ends? Just as evolution is governed by reproducing for the sake of reproducing, so too is capitalism (money for the sake of creating more money.) This is a by product of our animal nature and I don't see a way to separate that in most people. To convince them of the value of cooperation and caring about others in a world consumed by consumerism and selfishness. To become more than just an animal that is self aware.

I will agree with @muir when it comes to Hamas and ISIS being a creation of the West. I am still fairly young(early 20's) and have lived through quite a bit. From war, poverty(I still am to a degree), and even getting over many of the personal difficulties of being told I was useless and what to think by my family and the world. Eventually I began to value knowledge and sunk myself into a my own world(autodidact), learning about why people act the way they do, philosophy, the natural sciences, mathematics, et cetera. Anything that could answer the questions I had. Scouring the vast amount of information was in many ways liberating and exciting. But eventually I started to see commonalities between all of the fields involving our species(social psychology, biology, neuroscience, philosophy, and religion). Humans are very fragile and most can be controlled by fear. In my opinion it is the reason everything is the way it is. Are you afraid of being controlled? Control others. Are you afraid of death? Religion is your answer. Everything from the minute to the complex is shaped by our fears and weaknesses. Hamas and ISIS are just examples of that(very extreme examples). People that feel rejected by the world because of their experiences, and position in life, as well as a need to become part of something bigger than themselves. Many of the people in those countries have had those travesties happen to them (as @muir mentioned) and feel no there is no way to escape. The people in power feed and prey on that weakness in order to reach their own ends/needs.

I want to believe it is possible to change all this. To help shape a world of justice, beauty, empathy, and community between all people of all backgrounds. A world where no one has to live through what I had to. I fear that most people don't care about those things. It is usually liberal this or republican that... Nationalism as a tool to divide others. Anything that makes you feel better or appeals to your anxiety. Who cares if there is suffering around the world? As long as it doesn't affect your life it doesn't matter. It is absolutely ridiculous... And I am tired of it all to be honest...

Is there value in being informed? I'm not sure. I guess there is, if you think you can change anything. For me personally it has been demoralizing being unable to make the change I want.

The only way this is going to work is for society to change its behaviours...it has always been this way

This requires people to understand why they should be doing things

At the moment though many people are not thinking for themselves...they are handing over all responsibility to thinking about the world to others

The problem is that those others are total crooks who are looting society of its wealth and welllbeing

An individual can play their part by understanding whats going on and then living by their principles

This requires VOTING WITH THE FEET....which is to say walking towards and supporting good and beneficial things and rejecting and not supporting things we know are harming our society and world

It's THAT simple.....individuals and society as a whole need to walk away from the poisonous stuff and walk to the good stuff but to know which is which they have to know whats going on because there are snake oils salesmen out there selling stuff that is bad for them while pretending its good
 
Last edited:
Who among you keeps up with world events and how has the knowledge of knowing what is going on in the world helped you make decisions in your day to day? Like, do you ever think "man there's a war in Iraq, I better get some milk today." Or " another wedding party blown to bits, I better stay away from the county fair." What is really the point of being informed? I feel like if I wasn't in the military in my youth then world events would be of little consequence to me.

I wonder about this too because I know that I am interested in these things because since before my teens I've been interested in politics and modern political ideologies in the course of events.

Although I have to say that a lot of what happens globally and locally does not actually correspond to my own interests and knowledge of politics or modern political ideologies, I mean perhaps marxism, conservatism, liberalism etc. provide analytical tools but nothing corresponds to the singular visions or explanatory style of any of those perspectives. The main alternatives to them are even more nonsensical (although occasionally imaginative or diverting).

There was a time I took to reading Claire Wolfe and other authors like her and they took the whole green politics idea of think global and act local and the conservative convictions about liberal opinion bias in the media to new heights. Seriously, the suggestion was kind of that you ignore all media, news etc. which was not of a very strictly local variety, as in the town limits, neighbours farms, a circle of friends.

This kind of interests me because in many ways its much more practical than contemplating world events with a grimace but there's a lot of other reasons why it doesnt recommend itself. For instance, its always been easier to love humanity, markets, whatever in the abstract than the particular.
 
I wonder about this too because I know that I am interested in these things because since before my teens I've been interested in politics and modern political ideologies in the course of events.

Although I have to say that a lot of what happens globally and locally does not actually correspond to my own interests and knowledge of politics or modern political ideologies, I mean perhaps marxism, conservatism, liberalism etc. provide analytical tools but nothing corresponds to the singular visions or explanatory style of any of those perspectives. The main alternatives to them are even more nonsensical (although occasionally imaginative or diverting).

There was a time I took to reading Claire Wolfe and other authors like her and they took the whole green politics idea of think global and act local and the conservative convictions about liberal opinion bias in the media to new heights. Seriously, the suggestion was kind of that you ignore all media, news etc. which was not of a very strictly local variety, as in the town limits, neighbours farms, a circle of friends.

This kind of interests me because in many ways its much more practical than contemplating world events with a grimace but there's a lot of other reasons why it doesnt recommend itself. For instance, its always been easier to love humanity, markets, whatever in the abstract than the particular.

I totally support LOCALISM and DEGROWTH as movements

I've looked into the off grid world a bit and what i hear is that regardless of how well a person manages to isolate themselves from wider society, the outside world has a habit of intruding

For example one of the people who runs the fantastic www.geoengineeringwatch.org website warning people about the various covert weather modification schemes going on became interested in the field of geoengineering because he was one of the leading solar experts in the US with a house entriely powered by solar energy; but he found that after the spraying in the skies his power was dipping

So when the skies above us are sprayed there really is no amount of closing ourselves off from problems. It also affects the soil and the water

So a person could live in a rural idyll, living off grid and buying only from local farmers and other suppliers and shut themselves off from world affairs and then wonder what all the criss cross trails are that are appearing in their skies above their heads

They may wonder at the affect the trails then have on the trees, the animals, their crops and their own health

The problem now is that there are problems that are affecting us all that will requrie a collective response and no amount of isolation will buffer a person from some of these problems...if only they could!

There is only one course now.....for the public to spread the world globally in order to build the required response
 
Last edited:
Back
Top