THE problem with America's political scene--> Once upon a time, the DNC and RNC held similar core values: they were constitutionalists and capitalists that touted individual freedom over big government. NO longer. Now the DNC (and Establishment Republicans) are big government globalists/aristocrats who are legalizing criminal behavior that civilization has shunned for its destructive force on the country and society. As for Trump, he may have some similar foreign policies with Kamala (or those who control Kamala), but he's still a Kennedy Democrat who's attempting to keep our Constitutional Republic system in tact. To say he's no different is untrue, which is why the Establishment has tried to eliminate him in a number of ways (don't be surprised at a two-for-one attempt on Trump/Kennedy). Eager to see your reasoning behind this claim. Your characterization of America as a fiefdom (which it once was) is spot on. So much for being "progressive."
The US was founded on myths and has had oligarchic rule for most of its existence. The US success after WWII was in displacing the other former European empires via a "new approach" neo-colonialism, democracy, coke, and rock n'roll. Now as with the other empires the accumulation of debt based money and endless arbitrage for financial profit has resulted in the combined west becoming a dilapidated ghetto of diminishing abilities existing within a mindset of past glory as templates for future action. It's looking as if the US is attempting to rope together its satellites into a garrison state erecting a virtual wall to the BRICS+ sovereign states. The result I fear is that these garrisons will experience a declining standard of living and devolve into outright fascist dictatorships - it seems that evidence is already accumulating.
It’s actually a bell wether, the sheep that leads the flock. Also don’t knock academic prose. It’s often very good, but it’s also often dense, because it’s dealing with complex ideas.
I was a Fulbright Fellow (Harvard PhD program) so I am can write "academic" if I want --but "density" has more to do with polemic argument than clarity and the explication of complex ideas. Academics are trained to write "linear logic", which has its advantages. But it is just one kind of logic. This is particular "special reports" is "dense" and it covers a lot of academic territory (yes, I read that stuff!) LOLsxzxzz-+
Sorry, Ichi interrupted my reply....sxzxzz-+ Anyway, to clarify..... While I had a Fulbright, it did not mean that I was smarter than anyone else...just that I COULD write 'academic' prose! I like you comment that "it's the sheep that leads the flock". And certainly academic writing can be dense. So, in this special report, I had to read a lot of Todd and Piketty and analyses of them, as well as Wallerstein and Arrighi's books - and, of course, Adam Smith who is very definitely NOT an academic writer. Arrighi, in particular is very dense. Another issue in academic writing is the pretence made in the social sciences that they "sciences", which they are not. Falsifiability generally does not apply. Empirical evidence usually ignored. Anyway, thank you for your interesting post which got me thinking.
All cats are also cute. Even the ones that aren't.
Especially....LOL
I ask mine if they’re aliens and they just stare at each other.
Ich thinks I am the Alien.
THE problem with America's political scene--> Once upon a time, the DNC and RNC held similar core values: they were constitutionalists and capitalists that touted individual freedom over big government. NO longer. Now the DNC (and Establishment Republicans) are big government globalists/aristocrats who are legalizing criminal behavior that civilization has shunned for its destructive force on the country and society. As for Trump, he may have some similar foreign policies with Kamala (or those who control Kamala), but he's still a Kennedy Democrat who's attempting to keep our Constitutional Republic system in tact. To say he's no different is untrue, which is why the Establishment has tried to eliminate him in a number of ways (don't be surprised at a two-for-one attempt on Trump/Kennedy). Eager to see your reasoning behind this claim. Your characterization of America as a fiefdom (which it once was) is spot on. So much for being "progressive."
The US was founded on myths and has had oligarchic rule for most of its existence. The US success after WWII was in displacing the other former European empires via a "new approach" neo-colonialism, democracy, coke, and rock n'roll. Now as with the other empires the accumulation of debt based money and endless arbitrage for financial profit has resulted in the combined west becoming a dilapidated ghetto of diminishing abilities existing within a mindset of past glory as templates for future action. It's looking as if the US is attempting to rope together its satellites into a garrison state erecting a virtual wall to the BRICS+ sovereign states. The result I fear is that these garrisons will experience a declining standard of living and devolve into outright fascist dictatorships - it seems that evidence is already accumulating.
It’s actually a bell wether, the sheep that leads the flock. Also don’t knock academic prose. It’s often very good, but it’s also often dense, because it’s dealing with complex ideas.
I was a Fulbright Fellow (Harvard PhD program) so I am can write "academic" if I want --but "density" has more to do with polemic argument than clarity and the explication of complex ideas. Academics are trained to write "linear logic", which has its advantages. But it is just one kind of logic. This is particular "special reports" is "dense" and it covers a lot of academic territory (yes, I read that stuff!) LOLsxzxzz-+
Sorry, Ichi interrupted my reply....sxzxzz-+ Anyway, to clarify..... While I had a Fulbright, it did not mean that I was smarter than anyone else...just that I COULD write 'academic' prose! I like you comment that "it's the sheep that leads the flock". And certainly academic writing can be dense. So, in this special report, I had to read a lot of Todd and Piketty and analyses of them, as well as Wallerstein and Arrighi's books - and, of course, Adam Smith who is very definitely NOT an academic writer. Arrighi, in particular is very dense. Another issue in academic writing is the pretence made in the social sciences that they "sciences", which they are not. Falsifiability generally does not apply. Empirical evidence usually ignored. Anyway, thank you for your interesting post which got me thinking.