People in the west are turning to new media because they too have seen the disasters of endless, immoral, illegal, costly and pointless wars. They have seen the fact that globalism is about making life for corporations easier, not about making life for individuals more connected and just. They have seen the fact that their governments which call themselves the most forthright and honest in the world, are actually doing the same kinds of corrupt deals that they accuse governments in distant lands of doing.
The policies of perpetual war, surrendering one’s country to globalism, and reliance on double standards to hide corruption at home, are all things that official Russian policy has pointed out and rebuked.
It is therefore only natural for many in the West to look at Russia’s record and say, ‘They mostly got it right where the West almost entirely got it wrong’. Like Russians after the 1990s, people in the west too want to ‘question more’. The only difference is where Russia’s new, young political classes had no outward hostility to new media, in the West the opposite is true.
Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm and immediatly turn on you.
Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalists an…
Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does. Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote, it's actually method. The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy. In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people. That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.
For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see http://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/06…
Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.
I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters. However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link. Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.