By now, I think most people are somewhat aware of this guy. Former United Kingdom Independence Party leader, member of European Parliament, and prominent Brexit campaigner. If you didn't follow him through Brexit then you might have seen him as a Trump campaigner and the first British politician Trump met in person after he became president-elect. Farage's influence in the global shakedowns in 2016 should not be underestimated. Currently, he's fighting for the implementation of Brexit in the UK, and touring Europe to assist Euro-sceptic groups with their own movements to get their countries out of the EU. He's in close contact with Steve Bannon and President-elect Trump, personally. He was recently in America and gave a good length speech about Brexit and Trump which gives a pretty accurate description of the current status quo in Western politics:
I don't really understand the guy, or these movements. Sure, I understand being motivated by fear of the future. Sure, I understand that it is much easier to tear things down and apart than it is to collaborate and build things. And sure, I understand that simplifying a complicated world is more comforting than trying to reason with many sophisticated and scary global issues at the same time. But what's the end game? Is the idea to break apart the EU, make all nations more isolated, more independent? And, by the evidence, increasingly led by strong men who with authoritarian tendencies? If so... we've run that experiment a couple of times and it didn't end that well, for anybody aside from a few arms manufacturers. Seriously Dei, you who frequent in these sorts of political ideologies, including people with strong white identity politics, what is the long-term goal? Do you think we can achieve a set of countries that look like Leave it to Beaver? (But with a few over the pond having accents or even speaking French)? Do you acknowledge there are global issues that merit or even require collaboration? If so, are those best handled by an increasingly independent set of nations (or nation-states)? I don't mean to be disparaging. I just want to understand you folks better.
Excellent post. I don't understand the fear of 'globalism' from some folks or what their purpose is by avoiding what should be inevitable. If we (As in humans) are going to advance as a civilization then it seems a necessary step. If we want to continue to isolate ourselves from one another then it seems like just moving backwards. I think looking at the big picture then one would have to concede that globalism is a necessity, the opposite is to continue fighting among ourselves.
As a star trek fan I welcome everyone eventually coming together when we have virtually unlimited resources and a transport system to traverse the planet in seconds. Unlike antihumanist b-bob who wants to limit human potential through forced sterilizations and top down enforced population control, I think we are well on our way. The time is not now.
QUOTE="B-Bob, post: 10786855, member: 6273"]I don't really understand the guy, or these movements. Sure, I understand being motivated by fear of the future. Sure, I understand that it is much easier to tear things down and apart than it is to collaborate and build things. And sure, I understand that simplifying a complicated world is more comforting than trying to reason with many sophisticated and scary global issues at the same time. But what's the end game? Is the idea to break apart the EU, make all nations more isolated, more independent? And, by the evidence, increasingly led by strong men who with authoritarian tendencies? If so... we've run that experiment a couple of times and it didn't end that well, for anybody aside from a few arms manufacturers. Seriously Dei, you who frequent in these sorts of political ideologies, including people with strong white identity politics, what is the long-term goal? Do you think we can achieve a set of countries that look like Leave it to Beaver? (But with a few over the pond having accents or even speaking French)? Do you acknowledge there are global issues that merit or even require collaboration? If so, are those best handled by an increasingly independent set of nations (or nation-states)? I don't mean to be disparaging. I just want to understand you folks better.[/QUOTE] There are no perfect answers to any of this unfortunately. You are right and wrong to a degree as is Dei. All I can say is go Rockets and Astros. Texans, McNair, and Rick Smith suck but go Texans too I guess.
He talks about all that in the video. Did you actually watch it or are you just throwing strawmen one after the other? A crook how exactly?
Nations should be independent. If they are reasonable they won't be isolated, that's nonsense. It works pretty well in the USA and Canada. I don't understand globalism
Savaged. A follow-up would be why he vanished post-Brexit vote and let everyone else pick up the pieces during that power vacuum. Smells like a hollow contrarian who didn't really want the status quo to fall but made a fomfotable living out of that persona.
He only 'vanished' to the people who follow fake news, which claimed he did. Same fake news that said matter of factly that Trump had no chance of winning the GOP let alone the presidency. He was the very first person to make a post brexit speech and went right back to work. Then he went and blasted the European parliment to their face Post-Brexit
From which he is receiving a double pension. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...to-benefit-from-EU-second-pension-scheme.html
I'm sorry but you must have missed this “It is not a system that I defend but it is the system,” he told The Telegraph. “The payments should be reduced. The circumstances have changed and the payments should be cut but I don’t think they will be.” I don't agree with the system but I'm not going to hate the player, I'm going to hate the game. It's the same reason why I don't have a problem with Trumps income tax. He is using the crap system, while vocally saying that it is crap that they can get away with so much legally.
Plenty of other parliamentarians chose not to take the second pension. It's not like the system forces it on him. I don't even care that much, and I have already said that I find him somewhat likeable (while odd), but yes, it is hypocritical.
