That’s great, Zinnat. Congratulations.
Actually the EU as it turns out was partially set up and used intensively by the US to curb European powers. Europe never was as weak as it is since the EU exists. It has no decision making capacity as a continent and the individual nations lost that capacity too. Best to blow up the union and have some tradewars take the place of stupid compliance to this barely even golden cow.
England saw what was coming.
Thanks.
Me and my wife have gone through a lot of difficult times in last 20 years or so, but that is paying now, as we have contributed two skilled and successful citizens back to the society, who also have the right mindset, at least now.
Our job is almost done, except arranging their marriages.
With love,
Sanjay
My take is, that the union is pretty well on it’s way, the problems are not yet ironed out, big picture. Correct me if You would, but the watershed was around the turn of the century, the last one that is and in the last millenium, when people actually would
not dare say something as obnoxious as there will no longer be history after the year 2000.
The big change, was 1900, abd between 1900 and
2000, there were 2 world wars, the end of so called
colonialism, the dependence on oil, birth of Israel as a nation, and many smaller wars, usualy fought for domination of disputed areas of interest and land.
That’s a lot. But also 1982 , the waning of Marxist-
Leninism, and the upcoming capitalistic one world idea.
Marxism domineered for apprpximately from 1945 to
1982, on a large part of the world, that is less then
40 years. Not even 2 generations. Total laissez faire economy held now for more then 30 years. So we are almost to the point where those people born before at least a generation, have almost forgotten history, as lived under communism, for as long as communism hed presence.
This is important, because prior to and after the
communistic system, (which can be visualized as sandwiched between two types of major world governance :imperial and economic capital ),the main focus of world power was the conflict between that
(communism) and (fascism). Both were ideologically
reduced forms of power entities, with the ideal of fascism at odds with the equally ideological ,but CAPITAL based power sharing system of governance.
The ideal communist power sharing was based on social principles (supposedly) of equal distribution,
while fascism was a retro ideal form of it, where the
imperium on top was sustained, in an ideal form of distribution of values, - vesting old patterns and their
inherited worth. This was the basic conflict, and in order to predict, whether these unbalances were, are
or will be equalized,one has to be able to make a
best case probable scenario-on the historically determinant parts of the equation.
The German enlightenment of the Protestant ethic set
the stage, for the sustaining vectors of power sharing all the way from the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, of which Austro-Hungary was, prior to WW2, the pre-emnent seat. The German hegemony
embraced the Austrian/Serbian struggle, triggered by the assasination of the Archduke, the basis of the
pivotal struggle. It’s not co-incidental that Hitler was
Austrian.
So these three power motifs were present before,
and sought re-definition of th meaning of capitalism
between the fascist ideal and the Anglo-American
version. So there was a lot of overlap of value, besides the nominal politically colored
pronouncements.
The question is, and remains, in light of what has
gone down, the last generation, (prior 1982) in terms
of how these politically fixed ‘isms’ have retained their political, social and economic value.
Given, that the terrorists in the Middle East, may feel
that they are the world’s movers and shakers, the
fact is, they are but grains of sand on that spectrum, and more objects of manipulation and political projection. Their worth is strictly based on dollars
per gallon, and the moment the wells run dry, their
value will sink as well. The middle East is stricly a kind of computerized chess game, for the major players to diffuse their differences.
If so, it’s probably ubfoeceeable that either the Euro,
or the Dollar, will predominate, since this is an area
of common interest. I do not buy the idea that there is much more dissent than agreement.
The same goes for Chinese interests in the Japanese
sphere, or American interest in the Chinese sphere.
The ideal world of national interest is slowly shifting to internationalism, and the big holders of economic
influence have international equality to worry about.
For these reasons there will not be a major upheaval
in the world, but the question of a European struggle
in-it’s self, is equally doubtful, IF the union, the Eurozone, and the immigration-social integration go
on without a hitch. Minor skirmishes may occur, but military, police, and political dominance will defeat any such trivialities, whether it’s OK or not for Muslim women to wear typical clothing and head gear.
For all practical purposes the ideological struggle has
been basically been resolved, and the social-
psychological ones usually toe that line.
On top of that, conflict resolution is expressible by
new tech, giving impetus to people’s feeling that they
are part of something bigger than they are, not puppets of strictly defined and narrowly viewd , alienated sub cultures. Their inferiority is resolved
per nationalistic and internationalistic exchanges,
therefore, another key is turned in favor of a gradual resolution of these types of sub-struggles.
For people who have memories of the last century, a
view such as this is inconceivable, since all they saw
was war, with periods of unnaturally posed peace, with equally tenous treaties, broken as often as re-drawn.
I see peace, as a potential and attainable goal for the
coming generations, with monumental gains in both personal and social progess
Now, i have to admit, that i don’t necessarily believe the above, but the neutralist that i am, based on data i have been able to get myhands on, it can be argued by the other side, and very briefly undermined, as far as the fragility of this whole new world idea may be pointed to. Greece s a good example of a soft underbelly, also the systemic inflationary weakness of a non-fascistic perhaps non workable handle on limits of capital holdings. I feel when capital holdings exceed a trillion units person of major currencies, things may happen to markets, which they may not be able to control or support. The Great Depression, or, The recent Great Recession would, in such a scenario, could not even compare tomth severity of the comsequences, and this could set the stage of cescading events with horrific ends.
So between these two extremes, i probably would lean toward gradual, computerized indexed, data sharing, whereby likelyhood of major trouble could be detected and corrected.
However, never say never.
Not England but the City of London. The City of London. Do you know what that means?
Now, excuse me for intejecting, but i could not resist.
In addition, absence of reply toward intended within a reasonable time, may invite an answer en-passant, meaning an interjected idea, may not exclude a similar one to the one intended.
The caveat is, the intended writer may not loose
anything bu the interjection.
So here it goes. the City of London knew what was
coming, because…they had a hand in it. Clever
plot, and if this is what is implied, the next question may be: Why? (or is this off base and again unintended and unwarranted?)
Or, may the implication may be far more literal, (and simple)in that only London knew the missles were comng, since it was they who got bombed.?
The City of London is independent. It has nothing to do with London, England, the UK, and os on.
But how did the City of London see things, as England didn’t? Or did they? some junction is missing here, and may be beneficially clarified. It seems so, as a missing link, as if, it’s assumed that England or the City of London, saw something coming is less important than the differentiation between London the city and England.
Maybe this insight is trite and unnecessary, and yet it may be good to detail here, not necessarily for the sake of agument.
If unnecessary, lack of comment will mean an agreement with such reasoning.
Not a clue.
[tab]
[/tab]
Orbie, you could also ask: “how did the City of London see things, as the EU or the US didn’t?”.
Again:
[tab]
[/tab]
Again:
[tab][/tab]
You’r implying, Arminius, that the city of London, by seeingthings differently knew something, that London and England didn’t. And i am going siply from not presupposing anything else. Just a deduction from Your correspondence. Is there more, that i can look up somewhere, whre the fact of this exclusivity by the City of London, pretains , and how it pretains to
a different view of the what was coming?
You’r implying, Arminius, that the city of London, by seeingthings differently knew something, that London and England didn’t. And i am going siply from not presupposing anything else. Just a deduction from Your correspondence. Is there more, that i can look up somewhere, whre the fact of this exclusivity by the City of London, pretains , and how it pretains to
a different view of the what was coming?
Sorry double posted.
Arminius, all i could get on this, is, that Operation Sea-Lion’s intended target WAS the City of London.
I presume, it’s objective was to de-moralize the people living there, and being the Capital, major re-precussions would have surely followed, If -, and this
is tenious, the Luftwaffe had not been so severly devided, due to Goering’s fear of Hitler, then perhaps it could have gone done differently. But this
is still a very dubious If the air command did not do
much damage to Britain’s heavy industyn whatever, and Churchill was very good at speches, just like Hitler, with his rousing speeches, thereby canceling
the intended effect of a campaign of fear.
Yesterday, I came through this, which again confirms my opinion about how Europeans think about Americans.
quora.com/Why-do-many-Europe … rc-A-Donis
For the record, whatever this gentleman has said above, is not my opinion. I am just quoting him to explain how an average or at least some Europeans think about US.
With love,
Sanjay
But, I will certainly agree with this person about the understanding and the use of the English language by Americans.
During my interactions at ILP and some other similar sites, I think that most Americans tend to use very intruded and confused English, though they think they are doing it perfectly.
I am not an expert of English either, but I never feel any problem in understanding what is being said by others, except when I come across to American English at fourms.
With love,
Sanjay
But to defend them by way of some latitude, Americans are throroughly wholesome, and modern at the same time. They invented jazz, and the American in Paris may turn ugly American, but there is a sad detachment about them from the world stage, they inscibe themselves within their own psyche, and go out of their way to reaffirm their own sense of social reality , as a function of ther ‘being in the world’ They can boast of theor territory as extending from sea to shining sea, and of ushering revolution into a unsupportable regal world. Their lack of depth, is commesurate with modernism, their art reflects it, and there is a freshness, a naivety that is at once signifies the perfrct idiom of the self made man, while at the same time, constructing a pathos within the kernel of their edifices. This includes the psychic ones, and here, the meaning is justifyably one, with the idea of prefab, and pre-planned obsolescence. To justify it, they point to the tremendous lack of cost effectiveness in keeping up the appearance of edifices, long ago devalued, and prostituted by vulgar tourism.