Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "ABC News"
channel.
-
563
-
167
-
70
-
35
-
35
-
History repeats itself in eternal cycles.
Bismarck's "something silly in the Balkans" has morphed into "something silly in the Ukraine".
Of course, Bismarck's quote is in reference to the age-old "contested sphere of influence", and big power ambitions.
At the time it was the Balkans.
Today it is the Black Sea/Ukraine, or simply "shifted east Balkans"-Bismarkian logic.
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
Of course the Ottoman Empire was not Europe's only "sick man" at the time.
The Ottoman Empire was weak, and therefore a favorite on "the European good guys" with their "shopping lists"-mentality.
Of course, the "always on the right side of history"-good guys have one main goal: "carving up" weakness.
That goal is eternal, always searching for weakness.
Of course in the late 19th-century, the Ottomans weren't the only failing empire, desperately trying to hold together their own past accomplishments (previously gained by a mixture of blood and diplomacy).
There were two others.
Of course Spain was the first weak empire on the American Internationalist's own "no more Monroe Doctrine restrictions"-shopping list of suitable weak empires.
The American Century needed divided "weany libruls" to succeed in their quest.
Easily explained empire 101...
Europe's other "sick man" was Austria-Hungary, and Berlin adamantly refused to throw her to the wolves.
Bad bad Berlin ...the "good guys" had an appetite and came with a vengeance.
Dissed girlfriend Russia of course intented to encircle Austria-Hungary, using the "poor people"-argument (aka "Pan Slavism").
And in the respect of "losing favored status" in the good guys' with their eternal games of divide and rule (favoratism):
Russia today.
Not such fun getting encroached upon, as Russia once did to "sick man" Austria-Hungary, and having own security issues ignored by the eternal good guys, right?
Not so great having historical spheres of influence carved up by "ICEBREAKER NATO" paving the way to new profitable EU/PNAC markets, eh?
Shouting "poor me" in "the game" of default good guys/default bad guys, when own interests to dominate and rule over others, using human lives as "tools" not working out anymore?
Why don't your leaders roll out the old "protector of all slavs"-trope again, hmmmm?
Suddenly "Russian power" as a "tool" don't suite the "good guys" anymore, and the own Moscow interests ("security issues": remember that term for a while) get thrown out the back door.
Not so much fun anymore when you are "in the shoes" of others, right?
What happened to those eternal dreams of access to the Med for your navy and the own projection of power (Mahan)? Today Russia doesn't even fully control the Black Sea anymore, and St Petersburg/Moscow geostategic goals/aims have been thrown back over the last 30 years, step by step, back 200 years to the 18th century when it all started.
Not such fun if one isn't on the "default good guy list" anymore...
Today, Moscow's dream of "top down influence in Turkey" (Erdogan/Turkish state access to the Med, janking Turkey out of NATO) is being countered by western economical warfare on the Turkish state. Watch on while the next bloody "bottom up" orange revolution is being set up by "the good guys" with the cash, creating the next "poor people"-argument for the primed/conditioned masses back home in front of their TVs...impervious in regards to "what happened". They just want the feelgood story, so too bad...
Back to "good ol' days" when Imperialist Russia was still "best fwiends":
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
Anyway.
What happened to these "party times" when the good guys told you you could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement".
Not so nice, eh?
(Google "hypocrisy")
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
Biblical history (and 2,000-year old observations re. human nature), unfolding again, right in front of our eyes.
27
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here is the situation, from a neutral analysis:
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: a few grams of weed...
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, patrolled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Backpacker8381 100% agreed.
It is also a fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
As soon as there is some signs of more unity, the various well-funded "think tanks" and "lobby groups" (aka "strategic studies"...ahem..."centers") remind the people how "evil" the "others" still are, what they did a hundred years ago, how they "wanted to kill your grand-dadda", whatever...
My advice: beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master" (Benedict de Spinoza).
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Europe is a joke (no offense, I live in Europe).
"Euroweanies" will forever bow down and allow themselves to be used as tools.
1
-
1
-
@Backpacker8381 Yes. Ironically, about exactly 100 years ago Russia did exactly the same to Austria-Hungary.
After a coup in Belgrade they "turned" the local Serb government, which then threatened Austria-Hungary with a two front war.
For Russia, these were the "good ol' days" when they were still "best fwiends" with France and GB:
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
What happened to these "party times" when Russians were the good guys who could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement"...
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
One could say Russia complaining about "NATO encroachment" is a kind of belated "karma"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billbillson5082 Help is on the way.
It might take few days.
From the WH
"President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Approves Texas Emergency Declaration
FEBRUARY 14, 2021 • STATEMENTS AND RELEASES
Today, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. declared that an emergency exists in the State of Texas and ordered federal assistance to supplement state and local response efforts due to the emergency conditions resulting from a severe winter storm beginning on February 11, 2021, and continuing.
The President’s action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in all 254 Texas counties.
Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Emergency protective measures for mass care and sheltering and direct federal assistance will be provided at 75 percent federal funding."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here is the situation, from a neutral analysis:
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: a few grams of weed...
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, patrolled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's always never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever thought about what such a policy meant?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be written off...
It means these slimy deceitful Albions expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
To hell with them.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy..."
Me: ROFL
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary lines drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? It looks very interesting. Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets they have. Want some..."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up. Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alexthesauceboss You are confusing "correlation" with "causation".
Here's your correlation...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html#map
[if you don't trust the NY Times, look for another map with major corona hubs]
Now, overlay the biggest US airports. New York, Atlanta, Miami, L.A., San Francisco, etc. and BINGO.
That Utah is more rural, has little to do with the current situation.
Lockdown, or else I'll come back to this very conversation in 3 weeks, and ask you how things are going...
Sleep tight....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From wiki:
"In War Is a Racket, Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists, whose operations were subsidized by public funding, were able to generate substantial profits, making money from mass human suffering.
The work is divided into five chapters:
War is a racketWho makes the profits?Who pays the bills?How to smash this racket!To hell with war!
It contains this summary:
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Butler confesses that during his decades of service in the United States Marine Corps:
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
A new generation of racketeers are "standing down/standing by".
They are smiling in anticipation of rich profits...
1
-
1
-
Here is the situation, from a neutral analysis:
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: a few grams of weed...
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, patrolled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1