Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "PragerU" channel.

  1. 489
  2. 220
  3. 169
  4. 99
  5. 94
  6. 47
  7. 47
  8. 44
  9. 43
  10. 41
  11. 39
  12. 32
  13. 30
  14. 28
  15. 27
  16. 27
  17. 24
  18. 24
  19. 22
  20. 18
  21. 18
  22. 17
  23. 16
  24. 16
  25. 14
  26. 13
  27. 12
  28. 12
  29. 11
  30. 10
  31. 10
  32. 10
  33. 9
  34. 9
  35. 9
  36. 9
  37. 8
  38. 8
  39. 8
  40. 8
  41. 7
  42. 7
  43. 7
  44. 6
  45. 6
  46. 6
  47. 6
  48. 6
  49. 6
  50. 6
  51. 6
  52. 6
  53. 6
  54. 5
  55. 5
  56. 5
  57. 5
  58. 5
  59. 5
  60. 5
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 4
  73. 4
  74. 4
  75. 4
  76. 4
  77. 4
  78. 4
  79. 4
  80. 4
  81. 4
  82. 4
  83. 4
  84. 4
  85. 4
  86. 4
  87. 4
  88. 4
  89. 4
  90. 4
  91. 4
  92. 4
  93. 4
  94. 4
  95. 4
  96. 4
  97. 4
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 3
  113. 3
  114. 3
  115. 3
  116. 3
  117. 3
  118. 3
  119. 3
  120. 3
  121. 3
  122. 3
  123. 3
  124. 3
  125. 3
  126. 3
  127. 3
  128. 3
  129. 3
  130. 3
  131. 3
  132. 3
  133. 3
  134. 3
  135. 3
  136. 3
  137. 3
  138. 3
  139. 3
  140. 3
  141. 3
  142. 3
  143. 3
  144. 3
  145. 3
  146. 3
  147. 3
  148. 3
  149. 3
  150. 3
  151. 3
  152. The "paygrade brigade" rules with the lightest hand. The statement to "govern with the lightest possible hand" (H.W. Crocker) as "indirect rule", is divide and rule/conquer. "Lightest possible governing" when it is profitable (one tier), and "benign neglect" if it is potentially favorable (another tier). The intention of "divide and rule" is not to facilitate unrests or wars, but in order to skim off the highest possible yield, with the lowest possible own imput. Those who "rule" with "light hands" amplify differences, or innocently state there is nothing they can do to try and even out diffences, thereby setting up those in the "cabooses" of the trains against each other, or employ such lower paygrades as "stokers" for the locomotives... The actions are revealed by the events, not words. "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett Buffett and his class "divide" the people into "paygrade classes" (trust funds) and "the rest"... He is not only not using "words", he is also not explaining concepts by ignoring the elephant in the room. They don't state HOW they implement it. Of course, it isn't his fault, he is just "surfing". The creation of pyramical structures, within other pyramidical structures, all striving to go up up up up in a giant pyramical structure with an "eye" at the very top to ensure it stays pyramical in shape for all time, as the little pyramids below elbow, push and spit (so-called "meritocracy"). For an exchange between the "paygrade brigade" pushing for war, and a "voice of reason" (Scott Ritter) in the "caboose", search for "Bid. en Mocks Mar. ine Who Exp. osed Government Mis. take" on You Tube. Then look at the eyes as the tutoring takes place, and turn the sound off, and see how a nation drifts to a war which would kill and maim millions, displace millions more, and funnel trillions into the coffers of those exact same "paygrade brigades". It is obviously an uneven playing field: the checks and balances, have turned into "cheques and balance sheets" a long time ago. Or simply search for George "money beats peace...errr...err...sometimes" Bush... Note how such elites will gladly tell us what is happening, from a "favorite perspective" (also "favoratism"), but that they never tell us HOW they do it. Some in this "paygrade brigade" say they want peace, while some in this "paygrade brigade" will push for war at the same time, and those who push for war, will point at those who wish for peaceful solutions, to tell you what great people they are... Notice always that it doesn't really matter what any advocate says, because everything that is said will set people up against each other, in the biggest pyramid of them all: the divide and rule/conquer world, where the rules they preach don't count... Their only concern is how to "rule" your thoughts.
    3
  153. 3
  154. 3
  155. 3
  156. Yes, there is only "history". As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives". One perspective should not rank higher than another. Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable". The reality? As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural. Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many. With a pot of ink and a table. Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that. Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way... Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out... So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses... But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable. I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe? Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased. Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die. A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
    3
  157. 3
  158. 3
  159. 3
  160. 3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 3
  165. 3
  166. 3
  167. 3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172. 3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. Kaddywompous​​ Thanks for your comment. Of course, Americans have to decide on their own social system, by way of mutual agreement...same as everywhere else in the world. The reason I commented, is to dispel the notion that 'socialism is evil' using the 'socialism = communism' mind trick. To make a long story short, socialism isn't communism, but rather a deep seated feeling based on the family model. Of course, it is not ideal, like I wrote in my OP. Your fears are unfounded. For one, you might underestimate the depth of human ingenuity. The answer to demographics will not be immigration, but technology and capital. Robotics and technology will make up for a lack of younger people, and advances in productivity (based on technology and robotics) will cancel out income. You'll have less of a workforce in total, but the overwhelming majority will work in much higher paid fields, cancelling out the masses of badly paid workers. To avoid social tensions, a well balanced social system is the only way forward. And defense? 750,000,000 people in a unity (Europe) sharing equal values and ideals have nothing to worry about. Western leaders (and the US would be wise to integrate) have learned that it makes far more sense to divide the load of 'ruling the world' on as many shoulders as possible, and that there is no need for self-proclaimed 'policemen' with an arrogant attitude of 'calling the shots' :-) So go ahead and scale down the US military...if the power and money hungry military industrial complex allows you to... Who cares? Again, that is something US citizens have to find a common consensus. Whether they'd rather fund the insatiable military (and their 'end of the world' propaganda scenarios) forever, or rather invest in a well functioning social system, with affordable heathcare, education....etc., etc. I, for myself, am looking forward to trading in my car for a robot when I retire in 20 years :-) 
    2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242.  @thereaction18  Nobody says "the separation of church and state is in the Constitution", but that doesn't mean it's not one of the cornerstones of modern western societies. From wiki, cos I hate typing :-) "Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of theEstablishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to aJanuary 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote, Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[ That simply means that every religious person can exercise their religion as they damn well please. Doesn't matter if you are a Scientologist, a Baptist, or that guy believing that "God is an alien". Nobody can stop anybody from believing and exercising whatever the hell they want. But, what you personally believe, should not influence the beliefs of anybody else. Remember the history. These men wanted to learn from the past, and Europe's 1,000-year bloody history of religious infighting, and simply wanted to avoid that the new country they were establishing, would carry on seamlessly in North America. No religion/church gets special political privilege. One's beliefs or non-beliefs are a private matter.
    2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259.  @Delogros  Only...well, uhm...GB didn't defeat fascism. That was mainly Stalin, while Winnie "more than measure" Churchill lost the British Empire.... After WW1, British and French leaders went to Versailles under the rather childish illusion that the SU and Germany (both not invited) would stay weak forever and ever and ever.... They ignored the big picture... And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all... The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent. For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world... According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests. Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.) After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). France broken, angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings... Germany = we were bombing alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. Nothing left to play "balancing games" with... That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south... https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. And down went the British Empire too... Sad. "Justifiable", "who started it", etc., etc. are of course all bs premises for any debate concerning war. What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire...
    2
  260. 2
  261. Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books". Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire... And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs) Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world". There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia." So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so? It does not matter. There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term 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. All they needed was a temporary friend. 1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail... EPISODE 1: "...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends". What could possibly go wrong? EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), 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 the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets. No markets = no trade = no Empire. Now, fill in the blanks yourself. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about... There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games. All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries. Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
    2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294.  @sugariedreams2707  Why get so worked up about hypotheses which might never need occur? [a law being enforced] Do you understand cause and effect, and the fact that such unnecessary laws need never be, if everybody is just nice, doesn't discriminate, or judge others? My personal "pursuit of happiness" is to be kind to others, and thereby contribute to a peaceful society. Whether the "delusions" of others fit my own personal convictions, is irrelevant. I'll be kind, no matter how "delusional" I personally think somebody is... Therefore I'll call a judge "Your Honor" even though it isn't "an honor" to meet him, or a policeman "Sir", even though he was never knighted and therefore isn't a "Sir". I'm not going to ask them to qualify their delusions (from my pov). I guess you're ok with a guy calling his gf "doll" if she likes it...even if she isn't one, or at least I hope not...lol Your teacher "mam", a guy in a black coat "Reverent Jones", and so on....and so on...I don't need a scientific basis (from his standpoint) in order to just be nice to him... You see, personally, I believe that everybody who believes he was created out of mud by a hitherto unseen nothing, is deluded. Despite that, I'll call the leaders of such "believers" reverent, Rabbi, or whatever they wish. I don't need a scientific basis, which they couldn't give anyway. Because the number of "delusions" from any ones standpoint is certainly infinite. I don't care about the personal convictions of another human being. Nothing can stop me from being nice (unless a physical attack, of course). Or would you refuse any these above mentioned their requests, if they ask you?
    2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. Reality with re. to the "good whites" who "abolished slavery". Slavery was abolished, because there was more to be gained by abolishing it, than by perpetuating it. In a changing world where more and more people were becoming literate (mid 19th century), and newspapers and knowledge spread widely, it was simply a good "finger pointing"-tool. The states which had abolished it, and paid the slave owners handsomely as an incentive, could now "finger point" at "bad states/people" in a giant propaganda match. With a few exceptions, nobody "abolished slavery" because they woke up one morning feeling sorry for "poor slaves" lanquishing in misery. In GB, the families who gained millions over millions of Pounds in return for "abolishing slavery" in a massive "trickle up"-scheme, at the expense of taxpayers, were paid in advance. The last "installment" of this gaint "wealth distribution"-scheme from the bottom up (the armies of taxpayers) to the top (ruling class), was only paid back in 2015. LOL...BAMBOOZLED... Sorry "taxpayer class". You lose. Again, and again, and again, and again... The families who received their "reinbursement" for "lost property" (human beings) upfront 200 years ago, still block any and all freedom of information acts, to keep hidden who they are. YOU are not soposed to find out "WHO GAINED BIGTIME" 200 hundred years ago, but YOU must bleat out the "whites are good people, cos we ended slavery"-narrative... It was done for gain for the own "empire", at the expense of some other "empire".
    2
  346. 2
  347.  @felixjoshua7679  What I mean is that for around a hundred years, the Ottoman Empire tried to resist foreign attacks on their soil. The British Empire and France invaded Egypt, then Italy attacked Libya, and in the Balkans the age of nationalism led to the ethnicities here rising up (see 1st and 2nd Balkan Wars). All of this meant that over a period of 100 years, the Ottoman Empire shrank more and more, and since the rising mechanization of wars from the late-19th/early-20th gave European powers such a competitive advantage, that further resistance would have been futile. After the Balkan Wars, the Ottoman Rulers (Pashas) last attempt was to create an alliance with a European power, to safeguard what was left at the time from further foreign meddling (mainly the danger posed by Russia, aiming for control of the Dardanelles). This geostrategic move (a grand alliance Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople) would have indeed protected the remaining parts of the Ottoman Empire. Russia and France were against this. GB was mixed, but mostly indifferent to such an alliance. If you look at a map, you'll notice that "little Serbia" was in the way of such an alliance. Belgrade controlled the Danube, and rail connections not secure s long as the entire Balkans was not under the control such an alliance. The assassination of the Archduke was a welcome pretext to get rid of Serbia. After WW1, Turkey was all alone, at odds with Italy and Greece, and with no potential alliance partners (Berlin/Vienna/Budapest was seriously weakened). That option was gone. What I meant with "collusion" is that the measures you mentioned was the attempt to make Turkey more favorable to western people. For the people of Turkey, it was a good thing. Sort of like Saudi Arabia is today also loosening its strict rules and Sharia Law, because the leaders know that most westerners would never ally with a country which didn't uphold western social standards and laws.
    2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369.  @marksuave25  OK, then we are in agreement. It costs us billions each year, which is divided on all contributors. The combined damage by insurance fraud is staggering, and everybody who engages in it isn't a "hero". To address your second comment: We must change the way we look at this. This is a conversation I had with an uncle of mine a while back (paraphrased, because I don't remember the exact words... Uncle: "Remember that damage to my roof due to aging? I declared that as storm damage after last week's storm and got a 3000 dollars....haha haha....they didn't even check, because there were so many claims flooding them." Me: "Would you also steal 50 cents from me, if I didn't look?" Uncle [shocked]: " No of course not, why do you ask?" Me: "Well, you just did. Every time somebody somewhere does that, premiums go up. Somebody ends up paying." Uncle: "....but, but...it's my money, I paid for 30 years and never got anything out of it..." And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. Yes, millions of people see nothing wrong with their little scheme, and even proudly brag about it amongst friends and relatives. Until most people see this as nothing else but "theft", the attitudes won't change and the premiums will go up. If a friend's brags to you about "doing in that greedy insurance company" and "getting some back" of all he has paid, maybe remind him that "insurance" shouldn't be confused with a "savings account" from which one can make a withdrawal after paying in for a few years.
    2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. Reality with re. to the "good whites" who "abolished slavery". Slavery was abolished, because there was more to be gained by abolishing it, than by perpetuating it. In a changing world where more and more people were becoming literate (mid 19th century), and newspapers and knowledge spread widely, it was simply a good "finger pointing"-tool. The states which had abolished it, and paid the slave owners handsomely as an incentive, could now "finger point" at "bad states/people" in a giant propaganda match. With a few exceptions, nobody "abolished slavery" because they woke up one morning feeling sorry for "poor slaves" lanquishing in misery. In GB, the families who gained millions over millions of Pounds in return for "abolishing slavery" in a massive "trickle up"-scheme, at the expense of taxpayers, were paid in advance. The last "installment" of this gaint "wealth distribution"-scheme from the bottom up (the armies of taxpayers) to the top (ruling class), was only paid back in 2015. LOL...BAMBOOZLED... Sorry "taxpayer class". You lose. Again, and again, and again, and again... The families who received their "reinbursement" for "lost property" (human beings) upfront 200 years ago, still block any and all freedom of information acts, to keep hidden who they are. YOU are not soposed to find out "WHO GAINED BIGTIME" 200 hundred years ago, but YOU must bleat out the "whites are good people, cos we ended slavery"-narrative... It was done for gain for the own "empire", at the expense of some other "empire".
    2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. His "service to king and country" came with a price tag: The end of his beloved Empire... Looooooong before WW2, an elitist club of insider London lords he served, had set off to set Europe up for failure... And they repeated it TWICE. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances. The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf... In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power. In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win. That is how the lords "played". Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists. After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule. Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States). Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else... Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule. Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule... Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule. Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule... Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent. These are the "tools" of "divide and rule". Never a "price tag" for own actions and inactions... Right? WRONG Bwits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..." Right? WRONG To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere... "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals.... Right? WRONG After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint. What could possibly go wrong? "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets. No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire". US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt. They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE. Right? WRONG... A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: *"Empires" don't have "friends". 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". Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"... And after the war ended? They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL Of course not. Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner... So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC. That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting. Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next. Hop, hop, hop...into extinction. Sad...
    2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. Churchill was a TERRIBLE strategists. Luckily there were a few saner people around to reign him in. 1940 = Operation Winfried led to Nazi invasion of Norway (1941/42 troops stationed here invaded the SU and aircraft based here sank hundreds of Allied ships bound for Murmansk) 1941 = withdrawal of troops from N. Afr. to Greece (which had already defeated the Italians), meant costly N.Afr. campaigns right up to 1943. The Italians would have already folded in 1941, and Tripoli taken, not for the decision to divert troops to Greece. 1941 = sent 2 battleships into an airspace under Japanese control (Prince of Wales/Repulse) 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the ENTIRE British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was RAW MATERIALS which limited German industrial production). 1943 = The ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that ONLY soldiers and tanks created FACTS. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tuban plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)... Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War. I could carry on for a few more hours, but my fingers are tiring ...
    2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. random 1​​ Since when is the form of government a guideline to invade or declare war? Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian dictatorship than oppresses its own people....and a great western buddy.... Your view that moral values should play a role in determining the reason de etre of entities is entirely correct...but it isn't...since our elites HAVE no moral values. They mingle and make deals with the scum of this earth, or even empower, instate or support them if it serves their business interests.... What I've been doing with my example of Japan is to hold a mirror in your face, by using the same criteria you use to justify an act, and juxtaposing it with other similar historical events. It exposes bias, same as I did in the previous posts with Shlomo. No, I don't believe that Pearl Harbor was justified, because of the US meddling in the affairs of Vichy France and Japan. Nor do I believe that the US meddling in Asia in support of a colonial power (France, oppressing and exploiting local peoples) was justified.... Nor do I believe than the invasion of Sues was justified. Same thing. Classical cases of two wrongs not making a right. Sovereign states are sovereign states, and they call the shots....same as you would want me to accept for the acts carried out by the new state of Israel.... As far as the Suez Crises was concerned, luckily the 'Big Brother' USA saw it the same way I did, a called the naughty lap dogs (USA, France and to a lesser extent Israel) to heel...naughty, naughty boys :-) And democracy is not the none plus ultra when determining the legitimacy of entities. First and foremost comes self-determination, and moral values as set by philosophers. Ignore these, and your democracy becomes a hollow shell....a scam...
    1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. random 1​​​​​​​​​ You should stop brainwashing yourself that everybody wants to "destroy Israel". We are still discussing the historical wrongs,so why are you constantly trying to shift the discussion to the current? The wrongs were committed by the mass immigration of European migrants and refugees, swamping a region already inhabited by people. If you can't admit that that was entirely wrong to start off with, then that's your prerogative. In you wish to discuss the present, just bear in mind that world opinion is changing, and I'm urging the state of Israel to adapt to changing world opinion. You are not going to get away with the same "schemes" (oozing your way octopus like onto other people's lands) you got away with 70 or 80 years ago. Today, the internet and 24-hour news will report on every atrocity and illegal activity real time and to massive number of people....not like 70 years ago, when it took weeks or even months to reach a limited number of politically interested people. When the UN was formed, it consisted of Christian nations, and deeply religious leaders pulled the strings. Whites and Christians ruled the world (colonialism), and the overwhelming belief was that the Bible was the law, was the the norm, and not an exception.... Look at the world and recognize the shift in power and influence. Other ideologies, religions, and atheists now 'share' the world, and are gaining more and more influence... Christians and their views no longer 'rule the world'. Colonialist thinking is over. Recognize it and adapt. Ignore it....and go under....
    1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. random 1​​​​​​​​ Where did I claim that Israel was illegitimate? That is entirely NOT my point. 'Israel', as a concept, has my full sympathy. I fact, I have written this before. I'm am questioning the validity (method) of HOW it was done. Nothing else. For a discussion like this, one needs to understand the slight nuances of words. For example, the differences in what a statement like 'to recognise the right' ( as opposed to the common misconception that it means the same as 'to grant a state'). First off, the world (neither GB, nor the UN) did NOT 'grant' or more commonly understood as 'gave' the Jews ANY country, or special privileges. I've read the thread again, and I realised that your comments are becoming more and more accurate, because you are actually using more precise words. Maybe you can read again, and see what I mean. The only thing the world recognized was a right to a Jewish state. Nothing about how to implement it. It could ONLY make non-binding suggestions (Partitioning Plan). Bear in mind that the State if Israel was called out by a minority of immigrants and refugees, on lands they were objectively (provable) a minority. Even the 'bought the land' argument does not stand scrutiny. So, that makes your comment on 'subjective reality' very valid. In 1947, the sum of 'subjective opinions' expressed by the majority (non-Jews), outweighed the sum of 'subjective opinions' of the minority (Jews). That principle is called self-determination, and is EXACTLY what the Arabs opposed and protested at that time. There were more of them, and nobody listened to their grievances. They were a majority, but they had little outside support. As 'neutral organisation' (mostly colonialist, Christian countries) the UN suggestion was biased....guess who their suggestion favored? (56% of the remaining land, to 30% of the people) You seem like a smart guy. I suggest you check out the term 'cognitive biases'. It is all about how we are mislead by our brain to consider irrational thinking as rational. I suppose it is a 'put yourself in their shoes' situation. So, as a Arab back then, you would have seen it as something like this: ... a few immigrants and refugees (even a few who associated with terrorists) called out the land of the Biblical Jews, without stating which land they were claiming, under the control of Judaism. You know the declaration of independence. How often does it contain the word Arab? (expressing Arab interests) Apart from a minor mention in the small print, the declaration was entirely about very conservative Jewish leaders proclaiming how they were going to impose their way of doing things on others. What did they expect in return?
    1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. random 1​​​​​​​​ "Can you please explain to me why the foundation of israel wasn't moral?" Just scroll up. I've made dozens of references to it. If you don't grasp this yet, then you will never grasp it. Do you think it is moral for immigrants and refugees to claim land based on what their holy book says? "The public opinion doesn't effect my beliefs." Majorities opinions don't matter? Then you are bound to make mistakes again.... "And i have no idea what the Judeo-Christian traditional way of thinking is..." The words of the Bible, as the source of a personal claim. "...I personally try to avoid the attachment of certain views and beliefs to certain groups based on their ethnic origins," That is also my personal philosophy. "...i personally think its idiotic to assume that just because people come from the same group they'll have the same opinion, i think this idea of "traditional beliefs" is racist." That is entirely correct. That is also why one-third of the UN decided AGAINST the partition plan in 1947, not every single Jew thought the declaration of independence was a good idea, why there was the long debate about the formulation "Rock of...", why some Arabs were not seriously opposed to the creation of Israel, etc., etc. People are people....with own minds. Ask a 100 people what they think (including me), and you will get 100 different opinions.... That is why we should NEVER underestimate the value of the term 'self-determination' of the people. Ignore the people's right to chose, and there will eternally be serious problems in the world....
    1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. *****​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ OK, thanks for clarifying. In fact, I somewhat agree with your points A to C, because it makes sense from a neutral position. Just to sus out your position.... In other words, seeing that you are a neutral observer, and a fan of preemptively striking down potential danger, you would probably historically take the side of Austria-Hungary and Germany in WW1, seeing that Serbia sponsored...hint, hint....'international terrorism' ('The Black Hand'), and that France supported Russia in their strive for the Dardanelles and to attack Berlin (Russian offensive Plan 19 aka "the steamroller"). Of course, you'd be completely in line with the British point of view, who did NOT declare war on Germany based on their...ahem...'alliance' to Russia and France (Entente). Of course, the British leadership knew for a fact that the Russian and French (with their Plan XVII to invade Germany) were the REAL engineers of the continental European war which started with a (note) Austria-Hungarian declaration of war on a rogue state supporting international terrorism in 1914. Serbia, of course, was NOT allied to to either Russia or France, making any Russian or French move purely voluntary.... Of course, SMART people ask themselves why GB didn't declare war on Germany and A-H the MINUTE Germany declared war on Russia and France (based on the fact that they were....cough, cough...'allies')....hmmmm. Good, that you can see beyond the smoke...and see the fire...
    1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. FletchforFreedom​​​​ Well, for all your eloquent typing, you can't deny that there is a link between poverty and income. Google 'poverty in the USA', and see what comes up. Some of the sites are official government statistics. This video IS about the minimum wage, and the types of jobs which require it. My comments are not about any other sectors. That some employers will only pay what they think they can get away with, is also a fact. It is the fact that the minimum wage makes it illegal, that force employers to pay at least that. Pointing out that there are some employers who voluntary pay more to get better workers is not valid, unless you also name the field these higher wages are achieved in. I'm sure it's not the proverbial 'burger flipper'.... There is a necessity for laws and regulations to protect workers from deprivation — based on the principle of the worst case scenario, not the best case scenario. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, of employers who see it as a moral duty to pay a fair wage, but it remains a basic fact that there are also people out there who are not nice :-) It is for these exceptions to the rule that laws and regulations are necessary. Again, nobody needs laws for the best case scenario, but the worst case scenario. Another fact is that the US can't compete with low wage countries like China or regions like Central America, meaning that certain jobs will be lost to these countries or regions forever. The people who used to do these jobs are still there though, and there is no alternative they can turn to. So, what's left? A simple fact, is that there are not enough jobs for unskilled labor, but these unskilled laborers are there. They just happened to have been born, so what are you going to do about it? Simply cutting minimum wage is not going to create a job for them. How will that happen? They simply lack the necessary mental capacity for jobs which need higher degrees of intelligence or skill. Even if they did have the skills, they would simply increase the number of applicants for the better jobs in other sectors. Can you actually name a sector in the US that is desperately looking for labor, but can't fill open positions? I don't think one exists, and even if it did, the typical laborer who needs a minimum wage law to protect him from exploitation, is probably not skilled or intelligent enough to do it.
    1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. *****​​​​​​​​​​​​​ I have to disagree in parts. I also agree in parts. The problem with religion is that it offers a way out of moral dilemmas. An example. If soldiers kill children, for example by carpet bombing or nuking, EVEN if it turns out to be of questionable effect, how often do we see deeply religious people making excuses, by looking for a suitable passage in their holy books? How often does one see 'reap what you sow', as explanation for some of the most horrible crimes in history? I wouldn't want a constitution based on religious principles, which is also good why we have secular government. As long as moral values are subject to dogma, I can't follow that logic. With the founding fathers, the USA was simply lucky to have had leaders NOT influenced by dogma, even though that didn't benefit Native Americans and blacks much at the time...but that is a different debate :-) Religion doesn't make a person better, if that person's character is already deeply infected by negative human characteristics (yes, pointed out in the Bible, and ALL the holy books all over the world). It can certainly make a good person better, but it will hardly ever make a bad person good... As gun advocates say...it's not the guns, it's the people. So I say...it's not the religion, it's what people DO with it. Are you saying that Bhutan is such a bad place? Note, there is no Christianity here, which could be interpreted as the basis of this peaceful country, and the people who live there.... My rhetorical example of Bhutan proves that people achieve similar societies, if they adhere to similar moral principles.
    1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. Flam1ngicecream​​​​​​​​ Those who favor war always go for the pretext that is most likely to create a strong emotional response. People who feel threatened, or feel as if they had been attacked first, are susceptible to being mislead by a mixture of facts, truths, and lies. The 'WMD storey' is an example of this. Other prominent examples are ' The Gulf of Tonkin Incident' (a false flag to justify Vietnam), and the 'Gleiwitz Incident' (false flag by Nazi Germany as justification to invade Poland). People who feel attacked or threatened, make perfect soldiers.... Iraq had chemical weapons of course, but these were no danger to neighbors or the rest of the planet. The elaborate 'evidence' of mobile chemical factories on trucks, or of hidden nuclear labs, were all lies though, as later admitted by paid informants. The available facts were 'spun' (spin doctors) out of all proportions because those who planned for war knew that they needed more than simply chemical weapons to rouse public support. Other 'truths' were simply downright lies, for example that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 (as believed by around 3/4 of Americans after an elaborate media campaign). Those responsible for the mess that is now the ME, also know they will get away with it, and enjoy the rest of their lives in luxury, some of this luxury pay-offs from the war. Everything you witness on the news today, from ISIS, to terror in Paris, sexual attacks in Cologne, the endless streams of refugees into Europe,....all started with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the botched up peace. Now that the shit has hit the fan, the 2 countries most responsible ( USA and GB), want to lean back and say 'we don't want all those refugees'. How perverted is that? Those responsible know that the USA and GB has been kind to its warmongers and war criminals. A largely apologetic and complacent society, living according to the rules of indifference and ignorance (aka 'I dunno and I don't care').
    1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoritism... Point the finger, everywhere else... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of] America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues. It is how divide and rule is implemented. Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other. The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
    1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. One side, is setting the stage for war. "Somebody" is in the way, but I won't mention names :-) Somebody needs a justification and a "WMD"- reason to invade... Somebody is desperately trying to point the finger elsewhere, hoping dumb people won't notice.... Let's look at a historical parallel: All throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there was this dangerous ideology which threatened us all… http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Wahhabism,-terrorism-and-the-'confessions'-of-a-Saudi-prince-43465.html And then Dachau and other slave camps. What kind of people would enslave their neighbors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia And, oh...you know that „burning books“- thingy… http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall09/jawad_n/traditionalmedia.html And racism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Saudi_Arabia Purges and taking out rivals was a sure indication that Hitler was getting rid of the internal opposition to his agenda. Obviously, everybody knows where that goes... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-crackdown-corruption-or-critics/ Of course, even during the Olympics, he was just presenting his best side, cheating us with a few cheap tricks. Obviously, these „cheap propaganda tricks“ were only created to fool the international world. So obvious, right? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-driving.html He went about, intimidating little neighboring states…. https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-threatens-block-qatar-s-land-sea-borders-541971.html The Spanish Civil War and the Legion Condor was simply „honing skills“. Obviously just training to attack somebody else. Why didn‘t anybody stop him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_intervention_in_Yemen And that increase in arms was a dead giveaway. Honestly! Let‘s invade now, before they get even stronger… https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/20/donald-trump-signs-tremendous-deal-with-saudi-arabia/ And remember what happened when the world started to criticise the aggression? Yes, he left the League of Nations, because it was bad. Of course, the ENTIRE world was wrong, not the own actions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations And when he makes "new friends" with Stalin, he's only looking for a free back. Obviously, he'll come back for Stalin later. Didn't they read Mein Kampf? https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-saudi-arabia-relations/ Oh, and did I mention war? https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/07/the-first-saudi-iranian-war-will-be-an-even-fight/ Quattar and Al Jazeera is in the way.... They don't follow orders... They might report the truth....
    1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886.  @gibransaliba  Because there are some who wish to "rule the world". Google The American Century, or the new version of that: PNAC, The Project for the New American Century. This is real, not contested information (in other words, not the typical "conspiracy theory"). The proponents of PNAC advocate for it openly. It is a continuation of the 1) Manifest Destiny (expansion West), which morphed into the... 2) Monroe Doctrine (The rule over both Americas) 3) the "war of choice" WW1 (expansion into the Pacific) 4) WW2 which was about "contested" China (afterwards becoming the "alpha male" of the Western democracies, NATO, etc.) 5) Cold War (becoming the world's only remaining superpower). Which way are the borders moving? WW2 was fought because China was "contested" between the west (support of Nationalism/Chiang Kai Sheck), Japan (Manchuria/SunnYat Sen) and the SU (Communism/support of Mao). World War III isn't an option, so the only way to expand us by proxy. Today, the ME is a proxy war sh*thole of violence and war, same as China was during the 1930s, 1940s, up to around 1950 (the commies won that battle). Today, the ME is contested, and the frontlines are the USA (alpha male), Israel and Saudi Arabia on one side, with a few minors. This will most likely end up with Russia, Iran, Turkey, China (maybe even India/Pakistan if they can sort out Kashmir) on the other side, and a new cold war. Just like China became an object of desire for outside powers in early-1930's, today the ME is fought over by outside powers.
    1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. One side, is setting the stage for war. "Somebody" is in the way, but I won't mention names :-) Somebody needs a justification and a "WMD"- reason to invade... Somebody is desperately trying to point the finger elsewhere, hoping dumb people won't notice.... Let's look at a historical parallel: All throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there was this dangerous ideology which threatened us all… http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Wahhabism,-terrorism-and-the-'confessions'-of-a-Saudi-prince-43465.html And then Dachau and other slave camps. What kind of people would enslave their neighbors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia And, oh...you know that „burning books“- thingy… http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall09/jawad_n/traditionalmedia.html And racism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Saudi_Arabia Purges and taking out rivals was a sure indication that Hitler was getting rid of the internal opposition to his agenda. Obviously, everybody knows where that goes... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-crackdown-corruption-or-critics/ Of course, even during the Olympics, he was just presenting his best side, cheating us with a few cheap tricks. Obviously, these „cheap propaganda tricks“ were only created to fool the international world. So obvious, right? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-driving.html He went about, intimidating little neighboring states…. https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-threatens-block-qatar-s-land-sea-borders-541971.html The Spanish Civil War and the Legion Condor was simply „honing skills“. Obviously just training to attack somebody else. Why didn‘t anybody stop him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_intervention_in_Yemen And that increase in arms was a dead giveaway. Honestly! Let‘s invade now, before they get even stronger… https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/20/donald-trump-signs-tremendous-deal-with-saudi-arabia/ And remember what happened when the world started to criticise the aggression? Yes, he left the League of Nations, because it was bad. Of course, the ENTIRE world was wrong, not the own actions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations And when he makes "new friends" with Stalin, he's only looking for a free back. Obviously, he'll come back for Stalin later. Didn't they read Mein Kampf? https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-saudi-arabia-relations/ Oh, and did I mention war? https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/07/the-first-saudi-iranian-war-will-be-an-even-fight/ Quattar and Al Jazeera is in the way.... They don't follow orders... They might report the truth....
    1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. The USA/collective Western plot is always the same. The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent. Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting? Different Empires. Different era. Same games... ------------------------------------- The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers... Divide-and-rule. Oldest trick in the book... Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours. Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER. Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side". In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet. And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism. Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games. THE LINK OF THE WORLD. The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide. Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
    1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013.  @dianem6951  No, I have probably not been to your village, but a did live and work in the USA for a bit more than a year. I could have stayed, got a job offer (yacht maintenance and repair) but declined after a loooooong reflection. Nope. Europe for me was simply the better offer and standard of living. Nothing "mediocre" for me here. I've worked less, enjoyed better health care, more benefits, and achieved more working in Europe (Netherlands/Germany/Spain) than I could ever have achieved in the USA. I could afford early retirement, with moderate assets (at the time around 500 000 dollars) without losing benefits such as a pension scheme and decent health care (not possible in the USA, without sacrificing something, or belonging to the lucky few who've amassed millions). As the previous commenter stated, Europe is great if you're as "mediocre" as me :-) Yup, a happy to be "mediocre", because I and most of my fellow citizens have more free time, better health care, and lots of....cough, cough..."free stuff" (lol...just pulling your leg). Yes, proud to be "mediocre", because the slightly higher taxes I pay here, actually guarantees the next guy the same good lifestyle as I have, and if he/she doesn't quite make it as 10-15% of Europeans actually don't, they at least STILL have decent health care, and lots of free stuff and free education for their kids. Yup. I seriously mean it. I don't give a sh*t if there are a few freeloaders and I don't have sleepless nights about people standing in lines for "freebies and handouts". That seems to be the American nightmare...people cutting off their noses to spite their faces comes to mind. The pathetic urge to deny something to somebody else, means potentially denying it to yourself.... I live in a system with a safety net, which guarantees that I won't lose everything I've worked for due to unforeseen circumstances (say, an illness), and that comes with a price tag.
    1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048.  @augustuscaesar8287  Then first of all I wish you good luck. Yes, I'm sure there's a lot of laziness going around. In some cases, easy access to money breeds laziness. But a lot of what you explain could also be undiagnosed psychological problems. Depressions could easily "look like" a person is "lazy". There is probably no universal remedy for poverty, but if I can make one suggestion of something I consider a big problem, it is the fact the types of foods you've described, are exactly the types of food which are cheap, fill the belly, and quick/easy to prepare. In a nutshell, they get bought by the poor, because they are mostly cheaper than healthy natural foodstuff. They will also typically be easy to find everywhere. Simply marking the packaging as IMO pointless. It's like telling an alcoholic that booze is unhealthy, or a drug addict that "drugs kill"...like as they don't know already. I know you probably don't like regulations, but IMO the only way to counter this trend is to artificially inflate the price of packaged processed food (say, by a much higher VAT), and in return not tax healthier fresh foods, or things like rice, fruit, etc. IMO, people who cause high costs to a system, should also contribute more towards it. If you spend your young life eating unhealthy, then the system gains from that (pay more VAT), and if the person gets older and costs Medicare/Medicaid higher expenses, then that's already figured in (Generational Contract style). A few folks with "good genes" lose out, but I guess one simply can't get too specific. Just a thought. Again, good luck with your political career, and please keep an open ear to the worries of your constituents. Rgds
    1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066.  @markarmage3776  It is no more an "emotional rant" to "promote LGBTQ nonsense", than it is an "emotional rant" to promote "religious nonsense"... All the same thing. Personal convictions But here is the thing. Which side accepts the "religious nonsense" as a personal conviction that should not be infringed? Here what you don't get. Your celebrate your pursuit of life, liberty and hapiness through your religion as yours. If you wish to have a wedding ceremony between a man and a woman in your church. Fine. Nobody is going to try and stop you. You may already legally stop an LGBTQ couple to do that. Is that not enough for you? A "marriage" before "the state" has a different legal status (inheritance, taxes to be paid, etc.) Your religion is not "the state". Your personal convictions cannot determine what the state allows. That is up to the founding documents of the USA, which made all citizens equal, irrelevant of whether you or I see it differently subjectively. The "state" belongs to everybody. So yes, I suppose it will depend on representation to determine whether all human beings are really the same, or whether only some deserve the special privilege not to be discriminated against in any way. Nobody can "refuse to bake you a cake" for a Christian after looking at a cross around their neck. Nobody can discriminate against Jews or any race anymore. Nobody can look at your personal convictions, and throw you out of a job or a house. But, while you might not personally discriminate against the LGBTQ society, you wish to make it ...cough, cough..."not ilegal" to discriminate against them (the same way that it was once historically not ilegal to discriminate against blacks).
    1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. Future predictions There are always quite a few comments on videos about Churchill of him „getting it right“ about Hitler. The narrative goes something like this: Churchill was right all along, because he was smart. „Weany libruls“ ruined the world with their „hop-ie chang-ie“ attitude. How could everybody else have been so stupid, and not see it coming? So how difficult is it to predict the future? Let‘s find out... All throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there was this dangerous ideology which threatened us all… http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Wahhabism,-terrorism-and-the-'confessions'-of-a-Saudi-prince-43465.html And then Dachau and other slave camps. What kind of people would enslave their neighbors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia And, oh...you know that „burning books“- thingy… http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall09/jawad_n/traditionalmedia.html And racism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Saudi_Arabia Purges and taking out rivals was a sure indication that Hitler was getting rid of the internal opposition to his agenda. Obviously, everybody knows where that goes... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-crackdown-corruption-or-critics/ Of course, even during the Olympics, he was just presenting his best side, cheating us with a few cheap tricks. Obviously, these „cheap tricks“ were only created to fool the international world. So obvious, right?https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-driving.html He went about, intimidating little neighboring states…. https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-threatens-block-qatar-s-land-sea-borders-541971.html The Spanisch Civil War and the Legion Condor was simply „honing skills“. Obviously just training to attack somebody else. Why didn‘t anybody stop him? Were they plain dumb? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_intervention_in_Yemen And that increase in arms was a dead giveaway. Honestly! Let‘s invade now, before Hitler gets even stronger… https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/20/donald-trump-signs-tremendous-deal-with-saudi-arabia/ And remember what happened when the world started to criticise the aggression? Yes, he left the League of Nations, because it was bad. Of course, the ENTIRE world was wrong, not the aggression. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations And when he makes "new friends" with Stalin, he's only looking for a free back. Obviously, he'll come back for Stalin later. Didn't they read Mein Kampf? https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-saudi-arabia-relations/ Oh, and did I mention war? https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/07/the-first-saudi-iranian-war-will-be-an-even-fight/ How could everybody have been so stupid? Didn‘t they see it coming? So what was the real intention behind that „you chose dishonor, and you shall have war“- speech? Of course, when making a future prediction, there can only be two outcomes. You can be right. You can be wrong. So what would have happened if Churchill had simply been wrong because of some freak twist of destiny there was no war? Easy answer...nothing. So what happened when it did turn out he was right? Correct. Pats on the back, fans sneering at rivals, recognition, political power, influence, and all of that. Obviously, Churchill stood everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
    1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089.  @Delogros  There is only "history". As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives". One perspective should not rank higher than another. Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" or "revisionist", and therefore "less valuable". The reality? As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural. Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many. With a pot of ink and a table. Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that. Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way... Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out... So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses... But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable. I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe? Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased. Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die. A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
    1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109.  @rm-gh1co  OK. Those who wish to replace the 2nd Amendment are obviously wrong. We have no arguments there. It is about justifiable regulation (for example strict background checks) For the most part, objections against a right to bear any kind of arm refers to necessary means to protect oneself against potentially (plausibility) possible harm from either crooks/criminals (1) or government (2). As for nr 1, a person would need to create scenarios which can actually happen, and the likelihood of being prepared for it. I know about the "gang of crooks home invasion" scenario, which is extremely rare. In fact, I'm not aware of a single "home invasion" scenario which cannot be more safely and quicker be countered by a simple panic room Enter, close door, press panic button. Even a "Kevin home alone" could have done that :-) Fact is for 90% of urbanites, this is a far better alternative than AR-15s, UZIs, and rapid firing shotguns... [of course it's a different scenario for rural areas] Here's the problems you must address in a counter argument: - which % of people are willing to spend 4-5 hours a week training - which % of average folks have the ability to effectively use arms (note, 50% are kids) - what about the 8 to 10 hours the typical "defenders" (adults) of a house are working - will you be as "ready" as the attacker (round clambering, sitting in waiting, expecting an attack 24/7 and 365 days a week, for 50 years without a break....) Like I said, for most people a panic room is safer (kids in the house) and easier (even a 5-year old can use it). I assume you live in a rural area. As for 2, or "evil government". Here I think laws and education go a longer way than pure firepower. (Bear in mind, that at Ruby Ridge the "evil government" FBI was defeated in court, but "won" on the battlefield, because of firepower. In other words, they killed because they could, and were evil, but it was a court and not another gun which put them back in line). An "evil government" will always win on the battlefield, because of new technology. Again, you must find a counter argument to the following problems - evil government will have helicopter gunship and drones - evil government would dominate the media (propaganda tool) - evil government will have better trained operators - evil government will have better technology (embedded soldiers, robots, soon there will be radar which can see through walls) The truth is that if you resist, 90% of your fellow citizens will watch it on TV, after being told that you are a terrorist. Fabricated evidence will be presented, so that 90% (incl. the gun owners you are counting on to help you out) will see you as the criminal, irrelevant of the truth. Unfortunately, that is the reality. The only way around that is well educated (not only well-armed) and smart citizenship, police, military, etc. which is more likely to see through lies and deceit of the few. The equation 300 000 000 private guns against "evil government" is wrong, because in reality 200 000 000 of those guns don't know (ignorant), don't care (indifferent) or are too lazy (complacency). Without savvy, a big chunk of the other 100 000 000 will actually join evil government to smoke you out, because you are "the crook/commie/ child murderer", or whatever they dish up on TV...
    1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. Not only Churchill, but an entire network of "old boys" stiff-upper-lipped Empire into ruin... Because there's always a big picture... And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all... The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent. https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power [britannica & balance-of-power] For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world. Note: nobody in Europe ever applied for this "job". It was simply imposed on the continental powers, decided behind closed doors by a few London lords without negotiations or accords with those so "divided"... According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests. Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.). After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings... Germany = alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. Nothing left to play "balancing games" with... Sorreee. That's just how it goes if the eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town... From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime... Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West". And down went the British Empire too...
    1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. Yes, there is only "history". As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives". One perspective should not rank higher than another. Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable". The reality? As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural. Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many. With a pot of ink and a table. Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that. Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way... Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out... So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses... But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable. I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe? Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased. Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die. A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
    1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. LOL. No. He was a TERRIBLE strategists. Luckily there were a few saner people around to reign him in. 1940 = Operation Winfried led to Nazi invasion of Norway (1941/42 troops stationed here invaded the SU and aircraft based here sank hundreds of Allied ships bound for Murmansk) 1941 = withdrawal of troops from N. Afr. to Greece (which had already defeated the Italians), meant costly N.Afr. campaigns right up to 1943. The Italians would have already folded in 1941, and Tripoli taken, not for the decision to divert troops to Greece. 1941 = sent 2 battleships into an airspace under Japanese control (Prince of Wales/Repulse) 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the ENTIRE British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was RAW MATERIALS which limited German industrial production). 1943 = The ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that ONLY soldiers and tanks created FACTS. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tuban plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)... Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War. I could carry on for a few more hours, but my fingers are tiring ...
    1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books". Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power... By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. It was a policy. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs) Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world". There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia." So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." EPISODE I: From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term 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. All they needed was a temporary friend. 1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail... EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), 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, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets. No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire. Now, fill in the blanks. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games. All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
    1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406.  @solologanuk  Yes, there is only "history". As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives". One perspective should not rank higher than another. Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable". The reality? As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural. Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many. With a pot of ink and a table. Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that. Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way... Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out... So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses... But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable. I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe? Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased. Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die. A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people...
    1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. "Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1. The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms... "Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war." From  Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare NICHOLAS LAMBERT Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different. The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary. Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed. Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs. Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth. Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire. Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify. Apparently, not "righteous enough". Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century... Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana... The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC... So first off, good riddance... You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
    1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561.  @karunyaasribashyam1465  Yes, there is only "history". As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives". One perspective should not rank higher than another. Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable". The reality? As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural. Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many. With a pot of ink and a table. Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that. Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way... Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out... So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses... But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable. I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe? Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased. Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die. A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
    1
  1562. Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is because it is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy. All states, also the western style "liberal democracies" and "good states" have set up deep-impacting non-elected agencies, which are outside of the control of any voters, and therefore the collective wisdom and moral values of humanity. The resulting system is that of pyramidically shaped systems of gain, contained within other pyramidical systems of gain, in which ultimate gain and power is funneled to the very top. These pyramidically shaped (structured) systems of gain called "capitalism" and "politics" have the stated goal of pushing and removing opposition, largely and correctly known as being a "dirty game" (euphemism) and are designed by nature to attract fellow human beings with psychopathic tendencies (***see below footnotes). A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths. Reality: "Liberal democracies" and "capitalist gain models" attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a "psycho" even if their lives depended on it. Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems, or have become directly entrapped by the "gain models" (pyramids) lead by such bad actors. An example of this would be the case of Oliver North, whose psychopathic dealings were rewarded by "the system" with a highly paid management position (NRA). It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such "management styles" impossible (effect a "stopper" against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behaviour is only given a "slap on the wrist", and therefore continues in "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on "intent of gain", like capitalism, have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a "1% psycho saturation rate". There is no reason to believe other models of "intent of gain" (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos. All empires as collectives of individuals have by nature, psychopathic and bullying tendencies. Note that the "Hollywood image" of the "psycho" and "the bully" is faaaaar removed from reality. The unfortunate reality is that most psychopaths/bullies remain undetected, and undetectable, because they manipulate entire groups of "non-psychos/non-bullies" into following them as beneficiaries, who then start entire campaigns of coverups and deception themselves. These psychopathic traits are generally considered to be common traits, and are defined: stated where these individual traits overlap with governments: - have split personalities (the political reality of "doves" and "hawks" coexisting in one "brain") - they are narcissistic (constantly pointing the finger "outwards" in attempts at deflecting from own actions and goals) - they have "brains" (governments) which control, or misconstruct data - scheme for own gain (policies, doctrines, and the likes of that) - use manipulative strategies as tools in order to mislead billions of people These bad actors and deceivers are allowed "to play", to lie and deceive, telling their inhabitants things like "all we want is peace", whereas in reality there are elements pushing for eternal war which benefits the systems they represent. Further traits, which can be scaled up or down to all levels of human cooperation, but not limited to (from wiki): "Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments (edit: the urge to avoid unity with others), disdain of close attachments (edit: steer away from mutually beneficial treaties), use of cruelty to gain empowerment (edit: torture, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, etc. and then making excuses for the perpetrators), exploitative tendencies (edit: i.e. ethnic cleansing, etc.), defiance of authority (like disdain for higher bodies of common humanity, like UN rulings), and destructive excitement seeking (edit: saying things like "dodging bullets is exciting", whilst on expeditions intending to steal self-governance from others)." (end of quote) Therefore, logically, all one needs to do is find out what these manipulators (as a collective hive mind operating in pyramically shaped systems of gain) are trying to manipulate the majorities into cheering for. Footnotes/key words for further research: * 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths * Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy * The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
    1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570.  @JoaoSoares-rs6ec  Have you heard about the "Chinese Century of Humiliation"? (1837 - 1948) If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner. What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc. Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain. There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time. Every nation or state has its own "Never again!" European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches. Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..." Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves. Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things. Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today. MORE than sufficient evidence for this, in the below comments section. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
    1
  1571.  @JoaoSoares-rs6ec  You mean you are a "history buff" and you've never heard of divide-and-rule? The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. Too stupid to avoid disunity. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. Oh, wait...we didn't see it... We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", and "as seen on TV." Different Empires. Different eras. Same games. The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy". The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys". We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized... PIC: Political Industrial Complex FIC: Financial Industrial Complex NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex MIC: Military Industrial Complex CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin" on reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting. The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
    1
  1572. THE GEOPOSITIONAL ADVANTAGE OF POWER vs. MACHIAVELLI The GEOPOSITIONAL advantage. Explaining the concept of "an advantage" is simple. Only those who deny reality will never understand, or pretend not to understand, making them liars (by omitting). The "mommy's basement hero" or similar "keyboard warrior" is the archetype of an individual arguing from a GEOPOSIONAL advantage. The own "standpoint" can be richly, proudly, hectoringly, carnivorously (loosely quoting Jefferson) defended from a unique position of being unaffected by the potential EFFECTS of the own standpoint being vociferously voiced and proclaimed. In other words, as many proverbial expressions state the advocate will never face, or expect never to face, any consequences of the own vociferously claimed "truth". In fact, the repeatedly proclaimed "truths" only means arguing others into a standoff or conflict. The intention of the latter is to then quickly run off into the own safety zone, and from there (eating popcorn) "watch others fight". The worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The liar. The weak mind. A simple question exposes them: Why aren't you there, in the "trenches," defending your OWN standpoint? Then listen/read carefully. This species is evolutionary wired not only to become susceptible to manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, but also to become the creators of manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths. The worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The liar. The weak mind. Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove... These types foster division from the background. Step 1: Deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories." Then... 1) Divide-and-gain. If not. 2) Divide-and-control. If not. 3) Divide-and-rule. If not. 4) Divide-and-conquer. If not. 5) Divide-and-destroy. ...then, when everybody else is "down" and "out", start again with point 1) The Albion. The Albion 2.0. MACHIAVELLIAN PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS Of course, this argument cannot be turned around, since the principled standpoint, as opposed to the unprincipled standpoint of the "basement hero", is NOT to get into such positions in the first place. The standoffs as advocated BY these "basement heroes", are the escalation patterns which are recurrent throughout history. One sure-fire way to avoid conflict, is one of the oldest wisdoms/strategies of all: to do onto others, as one wishes to be done onto (not ONLY a moral standpoint, but ALSO a strategy of power to avoid escalation). Of course, per Machiavelli, it is not only a wisdom, but also a strategy of power. Often quoted by imperialists/militarists with agendas as being "Machiavellian" is that "It is better to be feared than loved" which is however a distortion version of the Machiavellian strategy. The same way they lie and distort everything, in order to bend it to their own world views. Unfortunately, even Machiavelli's writing have become distorted into meaning "It's cool to be an a-hole and brag about it." What Machiavelli actually advised in Chapter XVII was that it is best to be both loved and feared (compromise and deterrence, by being fair, see FOOTNOTE). Only when that ideal of "to be loved" is not possible, then to make others "fear" is the way forward. As always, the distorters, the deceivers, the liars (by omitting half the strategy) will always pretend to expose "truths," whereas what they are doing is actually distorting it. That is why the world needs a global, multi-tiered, legally-based balance of power. FOOTNOTE Per Machiavelli: Strategy of "fairness". Do you wish to be encircled, and be encroached upon, and be controlled from outside? Then don't do it to others. Because "fair" is (per Machiavelli) ALSO a strategy of power, and such principles as "putting yourself in the shoes" or "walking a mile in their shoes" are ways to determine a fair principle. The unprincipled have no principles, therefore avoid wasting time on them. Balance them out...
    1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. The "paygrade brigade" rules with the lightest hand. The statement to "govern with the lightest possible hand" (H.W. Crocker) as "indirect rule", is divide and rule/conquer. "Lightest possible governing" when it is profitable (one tier), and "benign neglect" if it is potentially favorable (another tier). The intention of "divide and rule" is not to facilitate unrests or wars, but in order to skim off the highest possible yield, with the lowest possible own imput. Those who "rule" with "light hands" amplify differences, or innocently state there is nothing they can do to try and even out diffences, thereby setting up those in the "cabooses" of the trains against each other, or employ such lower paygrades as "stokers" for the locomotives... The actions are revealed by the events, not words. "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett Buffett and his class "divide" the people into "paygrade classes" (trust funds) and "the rest"... He is not only not using "words", he is also not explaining concepts by ignoring the elephant in the room. They don't state HOW they implement it. Of course, it isn't his fault, he is just "surfing". The creation of pyramical structures, within other pyramidical structures, all striving to go up up up up in a giant pyramical structure with an "eye" at the very top to ensure it stays pyramical in shape for all time, as the little pyramids below elbow, push and spit (so-called "meritocracy"). For an exchange between the "paygrade brigade" pushing for war, and a "voice of reason" (Scott Ritter) in the "caboose", search for "Bid. en Mocks Mar. ine Who Exp. osed Government Mis. take" on You Tube. Then look at the eyes as the tutoring takes place, and turn the sound off, and see how a nation drifts to a war which would kill and maim millions, displace millions more, and funnel trillions into the coffers of those exact same "paygrade brigades". It is obviously an uneven playing field: the checks and balances, have turned into "cheques and balance sheets" a long time ago. Or simply search for George "money beats peace...errr...err...sometimes" Bush... Note how such elites will gladly tell us what is happening, from a "favorite perspective" (also "favoratism"), but that they never tell us HOW they do it. Some in this "paygrade brigade" say they want peace, while some in this "paygrade brigade" will push for war at the same time, and those who push for war, will point at those who wish for peaceful solutions, to tell you what great people they are... Notice always that it doesn't really matter what any advocate says, because everything that is said will set people up against each other, in the biggest pyramid of them all: the divide and rule/conquer world, where the rules they preach don't count... Their only concern is how to "rule" your thoughts.
    1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730.  @wmthewyld  Whoever said she didn't have a right to her own opinion, or even to state it? (1st Amendment). Of course she does. Furthermore, nobody says "the separation of church and state is in the Constitution", but that doesn't mean it's not one of the cornerstones of modern western societies. From wiki, cos I hate typing :-) "Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of theEstablishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to aJanuary 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote, Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[ That simply means that every religious person can exercise their religion as they damn well please. Doesn't matter if you are a Scientologist, a Baptist, or that guy believing that "God is an alien". Nobody can stop anybody from believing and exercising whatever the hell they want. But, what you personally believe, should not be imposed on the beliefs of anybody else. No religion/church gets special political privilege. One's beliefs or non-beliefs are a private matter. She linked a political decision (simulated of course) to her religion.
    1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. One side, is setting the stage for war. "Somebody" is in the way, but I won't mention names :-) Somebody needs a justification and a "WMD"- reason to invade... Somebody is desperately trying to point the finger elsewhere, hoping dumb people won't notice.... Let's look at a historical parallel: All throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there was this dangerous ideology which threatened us all… http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Wahhabism,-terrorism-and-the-'confessions'-of-a-Saudi-prince-43465.html And then Dachau and other slave camps. What kind of people would enslave their neighbors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia And, oh...you know that „burning books“- thingy… http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall09/jawad_n/traditionalmedia.html And racism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Saudi_Arabia Purges and taking out rivals was a sure indication that Hitler was getting rid of the internal opposition to his agenda. Obviously, everybody knows where that goes... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-crackdown-corruption-or-critics/ Of course, even during the Olympics, he was just presenting his best side, cheating us with a few cheap tricks. Obviously, these „cheap propaganda tricks“ were only created to fool the international world. So obvious, right? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-driving.html He went about, intimidating little neighboring states…. https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-threatens-block-qatar-s-land-sea-borders-541971.html The Spanish Civil War and the Legion Condor was simply „honing skills“. Obviously just training to attack somebody else. Why didn‘t anybody stop him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_intervention_in_Yemen And that increase in arms was a dead giveaway. Honestly! Let‘s invade now, before they get even stronger… https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/20/donald-trump-signs-tremendous-deal-with-saudi-arabia/ And remember what happened when the world started to criticise the aggression? Yes, he left the League of Nations, because it was bad. Of course, the ENTIRE world was wrong, not the own actions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations And when he makes "new friends" with Stalin, he's only looking for a free back. Obviously, he'll come back for Stalin later. Didn't they read Mein Kampf? https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-saudi-arabia-relations/ Oh, and did I mention war? https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/07/the-first-saudi-iranian-war-will-be-an-even-fight/ Quattar and Al Jazeera is in the way.... They don't follow orders... They might report the truth....
    1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776.  @hvern0n  LOL. No. He was a TERRIBLE strategists. Luckily there were a few saner people around to reign him in. 1940 = Operation Winfried led to Nazi invasion of Norway (1941/42 troops stationed here invaded the SU and aircraft based here sank hundreds of Allied ships bound for Murmansk) 1941 = withdrawal of troops from N. Afr. to Greece (which had already defeated the Italians), meant costly N.Afr. campaigns right up to 1943. The Italians would have already folded in 1941, and Tripoli taken, not for the decision to divert troops to Greece. 1941 = sent 2 battleships into an airspace under Japanese control (Prince of Wales/Repulse) 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the ENTIRE British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was RAW MATERIALS which limited German industrial production). 1943 = The ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that ONLY soldiers and tanks created FACTS. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tuban plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)... Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War. I could carry on for a few more hours, but my fingers are tiring ...
    1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. The question is not "What are the differences?" Ask yourself, "What unites them?" Answer: THEY. ARE. ALL. "-ISMS". Ideologically indoctrinated politicians who lie and the warriors they incite to fight to spread their ideologies are the root cause of all evil in the world. One doesn't even have to infer much, since they will tell you straight in your face. According to the dictionary, an ideology is an organized set of political or economic ideas... for example, "democracy" and "capitalism," both of which are ideologies. If one tries to list all the ideologically inspired lies and deceptions by politicians who have started/bandwagoned wars to (quote) "make the world safe for democracy" the list will be long and the victims uncountable, because the ideologues don't even bother to count them. Except of course when it's "the other side". Then they list them exactly, and continuously create Hollywood movies and TV documentaries about the "other sides", and there are many. Millions of deaths and total ruin emanating from London and Washington DC to spread their ideologies and empires, and that's just the wars since 1945. Not to mention those before that. It is futile to educate the masses who are going into the trenches about the harmful effects of war. People already know it, but they are powerless against the forces that are leading entire regions into war. These top politicians, who sit in their sinecures in peacetime and have bunkers in wartime, have no intention of bearing the consequences of their decisions. Carl Jung on psychoanalytic dicta: "If you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences and infer the motivation," and similarly, Jordan Peterson: "If you can't understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences." The so-called USA/collective West is inundated with ideologues. Their masses of "finger-pointers" are ideologically indoctrinated to think they have never done anything (systemically) wrong, and can do no wrong. A "finger pointer" is literally either too dumb, or so pre-occupied with "finger pointing" that they cannot acknowledge own (systemic) flaws, and therefore must asume everybody else is also a "finger pointer" (psychological projection). Thereby, they supply the very reasoning WHY you must balance them out (systemically) in order to "ensure the own manifest rights" are protected (Polybius). Balancing is "weight" against "weight". "Power" against "power". "Force" against "force." The hordes of totally indoctrinated "empire fans" actively or passively gish-galloping in support of their systemic enterprises and show enamoured support, and thereby actually provide the evidence for WHY only a multipolar world determined by laws, is the only way to achieve widespread peace. These people DO NOT CARE about anybody but themselves, or the own preferred man-made systems, which is why they must be balanced out. The systems they have enabled, inscribed, stated as law, or constituted, have little to do with being fair, which is why one must meet force with force. The system favouring ideological expansion and imperialism means the "sane halves" within the system of democracy/republicanism (note: just another "-ism"), are powerless to stop the beast...
    1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817.  @bobs_toys  Sorry :-) But China abandoned communism and changed to socialism. China abandoned communism (in other words the COMPLETE exclusion of private property and production) and changed to socialism (note, that socialism does not EXCLUDE private property or enterprise. It just controls it). If you wish, call socialism "communism light". China is a "socialist state". Capitalism is something completely different. In the US, government does not "control" the "means of production". China DOES. How much do you actually know about China? In China, you cannot do anything without the omnipotent "party". It's like an octopus, and it's EVERYWHERE. Have you looked into the Chinese internet by any chance? LOL, no of course not. You can't, because the Party CONTROLS that. Everything. China IS a socialist state. It has simply cherry-picked a "best of capitalism" list (for example "internet companies"), and then FIERCELY controls it. Again. Look at the definition of "socialism". The definition of "capitalism" is that ONLY the MARKET decides (not an omnipotent "party"). In China, it isn't "the market" which decides if you can open, say, an internet company. It is "the Party" (note here, I'm not talking about smalltime private businesses like the hot-dog stand around the corner). Ask Google :-) What happened to google in China? Look at a definition of capitalism. Government sets some rules and regulation (aka red tape), but basically it's up to private organisations and businesses (also individuals) to go out there and start their ideas. Do you have a large business? Who controls this business on a daily basis? You or Washington?
    1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894.  @wmthewyld  I've posted half a dozen links to you (note, two weeks ago...scroll up) with an objective description of what took place, and why. If you don't read, that's your problem. Stay ignorant. From dailycal.com "More than 300 people attended Wednesday night’s regular ASUC Senate meeting, during which many protested ASUC Senator Isabella Chow’s anti-LGBTQ+ statements, with some calling for her resignation. Before the meeting began, people gathered on Lower Sproul, carrying a banner that read, “Senator Chow Resign Now.” Student Action, the party that Chow ran with, recently cut ties with her over the anti-LGBTQ+ comments she made during the Oct. 31 meeting. Three senate resolutions were also introduced at Wednesday’s meeting, including two aimed at increasing the populations of marginalized student groups on campus. The Queer Alliance and Resource Center, or QARC, organized the protest after Chow made anti-LGBTQ+ comments and abstained from supporting a resolution against the Trump administration’s proposed Title IX changes regarding gender at the Oct. 31 meeting. QARC also created a petition calling for Chow’s resignation. Chow said she could not support these two resolutions because she believes that God created man and woman, that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and that certain lifestyles “conflict with what is good, right and true.” More than 100 protesters spoke during public comment. Many referenced religion and Christianity, quoting scripture and sharing personal experiences as Christian members of the LGBTQ+ community. Several speakers read anonymous statements from community members, while others highlighted the prevalence of violence against the community. Several speakers invoked Chow’s own words, describing themselves and their identities as “good, right and true.” “Reconciling the LGBT identity with religion is not a Christian issue — it’s a bigot’s issue,” said campus freshman Kaelyn Schlegel during public comment. “If you truly believe what you claim to, that is one thing, but don’t hide behind Christianity because that would mean twisting the beauty of the Christian religion and making it something it is not.” During the nearly three hours of public comment, Chow stayed in her seat and watched those commenting" [end of article]
    1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942.  @Ryvaken  According to international data of "intentional homicide (all causes) per 100 000" the USA is 4-5 times more dangerous than countries in Western Europe. https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings The idea that many guns keep the streets safe, is false. Unless you have other data. Could you post a link to your source? Id like to check into that. "Gun free zones" actually dont gave the intention to stop mass-shootings. That is the "straw man argument" of the NRA. The intention behind gun free zones is to aid authorities in zeroing in on the killer, without being confused by the "good guys with guns" all drawing their weapons. That is in actually how things were done in the Wild West frontier towns. Sheriffs demanded that arrivals hand in guns, and if this was refused, ill intent was clear, and the Sheriff and his deputies could take him/them out. Evidence for the effectiveness is actually the Gilmore garlic festival shooting, during which the police/guards could zero in on the gunman in seconds, and kill him. If there had been unknown "good guys with guns" all drawing their weapons, there would have been confusion. Imagine the situation if you were there. Youre a good guy with a gun, another guy is drawing his gun to take out the shooter....is this guy another "good guy", or a 2nd shooter? You won't know. The other "good guys" wouldnt know if you are a good guy or 2nd shooter either. The cops won't know = confusion and valuable seconds are lost.
    1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. Because there is only "history". As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives". One perspective should not rank higher than another. Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable". The reality? As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural. Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many. With a pot of ink and a table. Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that. Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way... Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out... So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses... But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable. I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe? Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased. Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die. A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
    1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. "Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1. The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms... "Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war." From  Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare NICHOLAS LAMBERT Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different. The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary. Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed. Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs. Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth. Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire. Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify. Apparently, not "righteous enough". Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century... Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana... The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC... So first off, good riddance... You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
    1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. Kirmie Yes and no. Remember that every American has the unalienable right to life, liberty and happiness, and may gather in groups freely, and nobody can stop them from doing so. Chow should simply have voted or abstained, just like everybody else did. But that isn't what happened. Everybody else who voted that day simply voted, and restrained from giving long accounts of why they chose to vote a certain way. Nobody cares about her personal life choices, and don't want to be constantly preached to about her personal choices, and that her personal way of life is the only "good, right, and true" (sic.) way... [maybe Google her entire statement, which is a full page long] Let's turn this around to show what I mean. Imagine if this was an LGBTQ person telling Chow that she should abide with the LGBTQ way of life (personal choice) and tell her that only the LGBTQ way of life is "good, right, and true"? You see, they didn't that. They respect her choices, and don't preach to her, constantly reminding her that her belief (an invisible man in the sky) is silly in their opinion... There is a time for everything, and she is free to express her opinions in debates, blogs, churches, forums, speeches, and many other places where and when expressing her opinions are welcome as a private individual... BUT when she is voting on a matter which impacts the lives of thousands of others, a person aspiring to politics should refrain from linking personal convictions, to political decisions, as the founding fathers had hoped could be achieved... In conclusion, she should not have made the statement, and simply abstained from voting without comment.
    1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. True. Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works. Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books". Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"... London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"... EPISODE 1: "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends". What could possibly go wrong? EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] 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. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets. Now, fill in the blanks yourself. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
    1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154.  @TheBigEasyConservative  My link to the future of batteries (sodium-ion) is not the remedy for the entire problem of of rising energy needs in the future. Obviously, the storage of energy is only one aspect of an entire spectrum of green energy. Yes, everything we do impacts our planet. Some just impact our planet less than extracting, processing, and burning fossil fuels (including the indirect results of the battle for the sources of these in the form of wars and political meddling). A cheap tank of gas comes with the price tag of trillion dollar wars. You are paying for it indirectly. If we do it right, and spread the energy transition over as much of the globe as possible, without the concentration on a few areas, the indirect cause of so much meddling and war will diminish. You are already paying for yesterday's and today's wars in the form of bloated national debt. Yes, energy needs will rise, despite the fact that individual devices and and buildings become more energy efficient. Burning a million year old rotten plants is obviously a deadend, so why waste further resources on it? You haven't answered that. No amount of whataboutism can counter the fact that fossil fuels are not endless. At some point, we must make the transition, and the sooner the better. The effort wasted on further development of an energy source without a future, is not available for the development of energy sources which do have a future. That is also a fact. How you argue is irrelevant anyway, because other countries (mainly China and in Europe) do not share your view, and when the time comes will be better set up to deal with the transition. I only mentioned sodium ion batteries to counter your mistaken belief that lithium batteries will destroy the planet.
    1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235.  @solologanuk  Yes, there is only "history". As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives". One perspective should not rank higher than another. Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable". The reality? As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural. Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many. With a pot of ink and a table. Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that. Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way... Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out... So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses... But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable. I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe? Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased. Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die. A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
    1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. The reason you hate today, is because the Empire you adore set up your garndparents homeland to fail. "Furthermore, British officials worked to emphasise the differences in the Indian army, in an attempt to prevent a unification of Indians against British rule along the lines of race, nationality, religion, or caste (p49) ...British officials introduced laws over the following years to keep the army divided along caste and religious lines...Firstly, they increased the number of European troops that made up the army, which decreased the level of Indian unity found in the older Indian army (p50) ... As Lord Ellenborough, a British politician who served as Governor-General of British India from 1842-1844 stated: 'The fewer elements of combination there are in the native army the better, and therefore the more nationalities and castes and religions, the more secure we shall be.'(p 53) ... As another British official, Lord Elphinstone, wrote: 'Divide et Impera was the old Roman motto, and it should be ours'(p 54)." Stewart, N. (1951). Divide and Rule: British Policy in Indian History. Science & Society, 15(1), (pp.49-57) "In their reorganization of the army after the rebellion had been suppressed, British officials implemented the tactic of divide and rule in an attempt to prevent any future mutinies" Morrock, R. (1973). Heritage of Strife: The Effects of Colonialist "Divide and Rule" Strategy upon the Colonized Peoples. Science & Society, 37(2), (pp.129-151) "In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner..." Wikipedia The "instruments" which effected the outcome, were the lords in positions of power to implement the divide and rule strategy. They attempted to steer local entities against each other by emphasising what made people different, in order to avoid the humanity which unites people, based on what most people have in common. By amplifying differences, rather than trying to smoothen these over, is one of the core techniques in the divide and rule/conquer strategy. Scale that up to any desired tier. All it needs is emotions, and you can steer entire continents.
    1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent. Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting? Different Empires. Different era. Same games... ------------------------------------- The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers... Divide-and-rule. Oldest trick in the book... Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours. Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER. Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side". In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet. And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism. Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games. THE LINK OF THE WORLD. The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide. Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
    1
  2327. 1
  2328. One side, is setting the stage for war. "Somebody" is in the way, but I won't mention names :-) Somebody needs a justification and a "WMD"- reason to invade... Somebody is desperately trying to point the finger elsewhere, hoping dumb people won't notice.... Let's look at a historical parallel: All throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there was this dangerous ideology which threatened us all… http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Wahhabism,-terrorism-and-the-'confessions'-of-a-Saudi-prince-43465.html And then Dachau and other slave camps. What kind of people would enslave their neighbors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia And, oh...you know that „burning books“- thingy… http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall09/jawad_n/traditionalmedia.html And racism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Saudi_Arabia Purges and taking out rivals was a sure indication that Hitler was getting rid of the internal opposition to his agenda. Obviously, everybody knows where that goes... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-crackdown-corruption-or-critics/ Of course, even during the Olympics, he was just presenting his best side, cheating us with a few cheap tricks. Obviously, these „cheap propaganda tricks“ were only created to fool the international world. So obvious, right? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-driving.html He went about, intimidating little neighboring states…. https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-threatens-block-qatar-s-land-sea-borders-541971.html The Spanish Civil War and the Legion Condor was simply „honing skills“. Obviously just training to attack somebody else. Why didn‘t anybody stop him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_intervention_in_Yemen And that increase in arms was a dead giveaway. Honestly! Let‘s invade now, before they get even stronger… https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/20/donald-trump-signs-tremendous-deal-with-saudi-arabia/ And remember what happened when the world started to criticise the aggression? Yes, he left the League of Nations, because it was bad. Of course, the ENTIRE world was wrong, not the own actions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations And when he makes "new friends" with Stalin, he's only looking for a free back. Obviously, he'll come back for Stalin later. Didn't they read Mein Kampf? https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-saudi-arabia-relations/ Oh, and did I mention war? https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/07/the-first-saudi-iranian-war-will-be-an-even-fight/ Quattar and Al Jazeera is in the way.... They don't follow orders... They might report the truth....
    1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. Globalism/imperialism created all of its own enemies. Everything the USA /collective West is fighting/combatting these days, they created themselves in the past. ------------------------ The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games. ------------------------------------- The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours. Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it is the only strategy which can be invisibly employed in times of war, and in times of peace. Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies... Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?] And that is what they did. And that is what you are fighting for. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
    1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. THE GEOPOSITIONAL ADVANTAGE OF POWER vs. MACHIAVELLI The GEOPOSITIONAL advantage. Explaining the concept of "an advantage" is simple. Only those who deny reality will never understand, or pretend not to understand, making them liars (by omitting). The "mommy's basement hero" or similar "keyboard warrior" is the archetype of an individual arguing from a GEOPOSIONAL advantage. The own "standpoint" can be richly, proudly, hectoringly, carnivorously (loosely quoting Jefferson) defended from a unique position of being unaffected by the potential EFFECTS of the own standpoint being vociferously voiced and proclaimed. In other words, as many proverbial expressions state the advocate will never face, or expect never to face, any consequences of the own vociferously claimed "truth". In fact, the repeatedly proclaimed "truths" only means arguing others into a standoff or conflict. The intention of the latter is to then quickly run off into the own safety zone, and from there (eating popcorn) "watch others fight". The worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The liar. The weak mind. A simple question exposes them: Why aren't you there, in the "trenches," defending your OWN standpoint? Then listen/read carefully. This species is evolutionary wired not only to become susceptible to manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, but also to become the creators of manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths. The worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The liar. The weak mind. Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove... These types foster division from the background. Step 1: Deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories." Then... 1) Divide-and-gain. If not. 2) Divide-and-control. If not. 3) Divide-and-rule. If not. 4) Divide-and-conquer. If not. 5) Divide-and-destroy. ...then, when everybody else is "down" and "out", start again with point 1) The Albion. The Albion 2.0. MACHIAVELLIAN PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS Of course, this argument cannot be turned around, since the principled standpoint, as opposed to the unprincipled standpoint of the "basement hero", is NOT to get into such positions in the first place. The standoffs as advocated BY these "basement heroes", are the escalation patterns which are recurrent throughout history. One sure-fire way to avoid conflict, is one of the oldest wisdoms/strategies of all: to do onto others, as one wishes to be done onto (not ONLY a moral standpoint, but ALSO a strategy of power to avoid escalation). Of course, per Machiavelli, it is not only a wisdom, but also a strategy of power. Often quoted by imperialists/militarists with agendas as being "Machiavellian" is that "It is better to be feared than loved" which is however a distortion version of the Machiavellian strategy. The same way they lie and distort everything, in order to bend it to their own world views. Unfortunately, even Machiavelli's writing have become distorted into meaning "It's cool to be an a-hole and brag about it." What Machiavelli actually advised in Chapter XVII was that it is best to be both loved and feared (compromise and deterrence, by being fair, see FOOTNOTE). Only when that ideal of "to be loved" is not possible, then to make others "fear" is the way forward. As always, the distorters, the deceivers, the liars (by omitting half the strategy) will always pretend to expose "truths," whereas what they are doing is actually distorting it. That is why the world needs a global, multi-tiered, legally-based balance of power. FOOTNOTE Per Machiavelli: Strategy of "fairness". Do you wish to be encircled, and be encroached upon, and be controlled from outside? Then don't do it to others. Because "fair" is (per Machiavelli) ALSO a strategy of power, and such principles as "putting yourself in the shoes" or "walking a mile in their shoes" are ways to determine a fair principle. The unprincipled have no principles, therefore avoid wasting time on them. Balance them out...
    1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. LOL. No, that is certainly debatable. He was a TERRIBLE strategists. Luckily there were a few saner people around to reign him in. 1940 = Operation Winfried led to Nazi invasion of Norway (1941/42 troops stationed here invaded the SU and aircraft based here sank hundreds of Allied ships bound for Murmansk) 1941 = withdrawal of troops from N. Afr. to Greece (which had already defeated the Italians), meant costly N.Afr. campaigns right up to 1943. The Italians would have already folded in 1941, and Tripoli taken, not for the decision to divert troops to Greece. 1941 = sent 2 battleships into an airspace under Japanese control (Prince of Wales/Repulse) 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the ENTIRE British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was RAW MATERIALS which limited German industrial production). 1943 = The ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that ONLY soldiers and tanks created FACTS. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tuban plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)... Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War. I could carry on for a few more hours, but my fingers are tiring ...
    1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1